environmental geotechnical specialists l report a c hni … · 2016. 5. 18. · environmental...

EnvironmentalGeotechnical

Specialists

GEOT

ECHN

ICAL

ENVI

RONM

ENTA

LRogers Geotechnical Services Ltd

Telephone 0843 50 666 87 Fax 0843 51 599 30

Email [email protected]

www.rogersgeotech.co.uk

Offices 1 & 2, Barncliffe Business Park, Near Bank, Shelley,Huddersfield, West Yorkshire HD8 8LU.

REPORT

www.citation.co.uk

R

www.citation.co.uk

J3440/16/E Rowndtree WayMousehold Lane

May 2016Norwich

C. E. Mason Norfolk, NR7 8SQ

J. R. Farnsworth C. E. Mason

hxwil

Additional Information

hxwil

20160557

REPORT ON A GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION

AT

DETACHED INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE UNIT, ROUNDTREE WAY, OFF MOUSEHOLD LANE, NORWICH, NORFOLK, NR7 8SQ

FOR

JANUS ARCHITECTURE

Report No J3440/16/E May 2016

CONTENTS

Page 1. SYNOPSIS 1 2. INTRODUCTION 1 3. LIMITATIONS 2 4. DESK STUDY 2 5. FIELDWORKS 2 5.1 Machine excavated trial pits 2 5.2 Soakaway tests 3

5.3 TRL Dynamic probes 3 5.4 Vertical Rotary Cores 3

6. GEOLOGY 3 7. STRATA CONDITIONS 4 8. INSITU TESTING 4 8.1 Soakaway tests 4 8.2 TRL Dynamic Probes 5 9. LABORATORY TESTING - GEOTECHNICAL 5 10. LABORATORY TESTING – ENVIRONMENTAL 5 11. DISCUSSION OF GROUND CONDITIONS – GEOTECHNICAL 6 11.1 Soakaways 6 11.2 Hardstanding 6 11.3 Effect of Sulphates 6 12. DISCUSSION OF GROUND CONDITIONS - ENVIRONMENTAL 7 12.1 Discussion of Test Results 7 12.2 Waste acceptance criteria 7 12.3 Site Specific Risk Assessment 8 12.4 General Approach to construction 9

13. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK 10 14. REFERENCES 11

APPENDIX 1 – SITE PLAN APPENDIX 2 – TRIAL PIT LOGS

APPENDIX 3 – SOAKAWAY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX 4 – TRL DYNAMIC PROBES

APPENDIX 5 – LABORATORY TESTING – GEOTECHNICAL

APPENDIX 6 -- LABORATORY TESTING – ENVIRONMENTAL

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd J3440/16/E Phone 0843 50 666 87

1

REPORT ON A GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION

AT

DETACHED INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE UNIT, ROUNDTREE WAY, OFF MOUSEHOLD LANE, NORWICH, NORFOLK, NR7 8SQ

FOR

JANUS ARCHITECTURE

Report No J3440/16/E May 2016

1. SYNOPSIS

This investigation has demonstrated that below a thin capping of asphalt and made ground,deposits of glacial till generally comprising gravelly sand were encountered to the base of the trial pits ranging in depth between 1.80m and 3.0m. TRL dynamic probes were undertaken below the base of the asphalt and revealed the presence variable but competent surface soils. As a result, it is considered that any hardstanding at the site could be constructed employing traditional pavement design. Furthermore, soakage rates obtained during the investigation were found to be good. In addition, on the basis of chemical testing, it is not considered that the site is contaminated.

2. INTRODUCTION

It is understood that the site is proposed to be developed for use as a bus depot by the demolition of the existing industrial building and resurfacing of the site.

Accordingly, a site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with the information provided by the desk study and as instructed by the client. This work was required in order to determine the nature of the underlying soils, to assess their engineering properties. Additionally, contamination testing of the made ground has been undertaken to enable an assessment of the levels of contamination at this site.

This report presents the data obtained and discusses the ground conditions in relation to the proposed development.


2

3. LIMITATIONS

The recommendations made and opinions expressed in this report are based on the ground conditions revealed by the site works, together with an assessment of the site and of the laboratory test results. Whilst opinions may be expressed relating to sub-soil conditions in parts of the site not investigated, for example between hole positions, these are for guidance only and no liability can be accepted for their accuracy.

This report has been prepared in accordance with our understanding of current best practice. However, new information or legislation, or changes to best practice may necessitate revision of the report after the date of issue.

4. DESK STUDY

A Phase 1 Desk Study has been undertaken by Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd and the results were presented as report number J3440/16/EDS in March 2016. That study has been used extensively during the current intrusive investigation.

5. FIELDWORKS

The fieldworks were undertaken between the 13th and 14th of April 2016 and the fieldworks included the following:

Five machine excavated trial pits. One soakaway infiltration test. Eight TRL dynamic probes. One vertical rotary core of the existing warehouse floor slab.

The investigatory locations are shown on the site plan which is presented in Appendix 1 of this report.

5.1 Machine Excavated Trial Pits

A total of five trialpits were excavated in order to reveal the nature of the near surface soils using a tracked JCB 360o 3CX. The soils were logged on site in general accordance with BS5930: 1999, as amended in 2010, and full descriptions are given on the trialpit records which are presented in Appendix 2. At regular intervals throughout the excavation of the pits, samples were taken for chemical and geotechnical testing. The test specimens were retained in the appropriate air tight containers within cool boxes for onward transition to the chemical laboratory.

Once excavations were completed, the trialpits were carefully re-instated with the arisings. Whilst every care was taken during the infilling process, including compacting of the infill at regular intervals with the back acting arm of the excavator, it should be appreciated that some mounding of the surface may have resulted. Moreover, the infilled soils may be subjected to settlement over time, such that a depression in the surface may also occur. Therefore, the locations of any pits undertaken in this investigation should be conveyed to


3

the current site user, as the mounds or depressions associated with the pits may present a risk to current site operations e.g. livestock or agricultural plant equipment. Furthermore, it must be realised that the infilled pits represent an area of disturbance within the site soils, thus the soils at the pit locations may vary characteristically compared to the undisturbed ground. As such, foundations placed in this disturbed material may not perform as anticipated. On instruction from the client- there was seen to be no need to reinstate the surface with tarmac as the site carpark is to be replaced as part of the development.

5.2 Soakaway Tests

Soakaway tests were conducted within location TP3. At the elected test depth, the pit was trimmed and squared as much as practicable. Water was then pumped into the pit and the level monitored at timed intervals relative to a reference bar at ground level. These tests were conducted and calculated in general accordance with the method given by BRE Digest 365 and the results are presented in Appendix 3.

5.3 TRL Dynamic Probes

Eight TRL Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests were conducted at various locations across the site. The penetrometer consists of an 8kg mass falling through 575mm onto an anvil, which drives a 20mm diameter 60° cone into the ground. The depth the cone is driven per blow is recorded. The results of the dynamic penetration tests are presented as Appendix 4 and include graphs of penetration blows and CBR values versus depth. The percentage CBR value has been obtained from the correlation provided in TRRL Road Note 8 which is given below:

Log10(CBR) = 2.48 – 1.057Log10(mm/blow)

5.4 Vertical Rotary Cores

Within the existing building, a vertically mounted core barrel was employed to drill through the floor. A concrete core of 150mm diameter was recovered. Once the floor was penetrated, TRL6 was undertaken within the resulting void.

6. GEOLOGY

The published geological data for the site has been examined and the following table presents the anticipated geology.

Table 1: Geological Data for the Site Strata Type Strata Name1 Previous

Name2 Description2

Superficial Geology

Sheringham Cliffs Formation Cromer Till

Consists of a thick glacial sequence that contains several distinctive lithofacies. The basal member is the Mundesley Sand Member, which consists of stratified fine-grained sands; this is overlain by the laminated silts and clays. Overlying these are matrix-supported diamictons, which in turn, are overlain by thin units of clay and sand. These deposits are truncated by a highly consolidated matrix-supported diamicton, and finally by the Runton Cliffs Sand and Gravel Member.

1 Sources: British Geological Survey (NERC) Map Sheets 161; Norwich; Solid and Drift Edition, Geology of Britain Viewer [online resource from www.bgs.ac.uk]2 Sources: British Geological Survey (NERC) Lexicon of Named Rock Units [online resource from www.bgs.ac.uk]


4

Solid Geology

Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation -

Composed of hard to very hard nodular chalks and hardgrounds (which resist scratching by finger-nail) with interbedded soft to medium hard chalks (some grainy) and marls; some griotte chalks. The softer chalks become more abundant towards the top. Nodular chalks are typically lumpy and iron-stained (usually marking sponges). Brash is rough and flaggy or rubbly, and tends to be dirty. First regular seams of nodular flint, some large, commence near the base and continue throughout.

7. STRATA CONDITIONS

During the investigation the geological succession has been shown to include the following:

Table 2: Generalised strata profile Depth

(m below ground level, to underside of layer)

Strata type Positions layer was revealed in

Groundwater strikes(m below ground level)

0.02 ASPHALT TP2 – TP5 None.

0.8 – 0.15 MADE GROUND (Sub base of ash and clinker) TP2 – TP5 None.

+1.8 – + 3.0 Gravelly SAND All None.

‘+’ Denotes that the strata extended below the termination depth of the investigated positions, thus the extent of the deposit is only proven to the depths indicated.

Additionally, a concrete core of 150mm in length and 150mm in diameter was recovered. Concreted sub base material was present at the base of the recovered core. The position of this core is recorded on the site plan located in Appendix 1.

No groundwater strikes were encountered during this investigation. However, it should be appreciated that groundwater levels are subject to seasonal variation or changes on local drainage conditions.

8. INSITU TESTING

8.1 Soakaway Tests

On reaching the elected soakaway test depth, a soakaway test was undertaken in the base of borehole TP3. The test was run three times in full accordance with the method given by BRE Digest 365. The results obtained from the soakaway tests are presented in Appendix 3 and are summarised below:

Table 3: Soakaway Test Results Location Soakage

Area Dimensions

(average)

Test Depth

Soil Description Infiltration Rate Drainage Characteristics

Base of pit Side of pit(below casing)

(m) (m) (m/sec)

TP3 1.40 x 0.30 1.80 Gravelly SAND As base

2.0 x10-5 Good

1.6 x10-5 Good

8.1 x10-6 Marginal/good

8.2 TRL DYNAMIC PROBE


5

TRL dynamic probes were undertaken at below the base of the asphalt and revealed the presence variable surface soils, ranging between 3% and 45% CBR within the top 0.30m. The probes then showed a general increase in strength, with CBR’s ranging between 15% and 70% depths between 0.35m and 0.38m.

It should be noted that TRL2 recorded CBR’s of up to 7% to depths of 0.79m. This demonstrates thats soft areas of ground may be encountered during the development.

9. LABORATORY TESTING - GEOTECHNICAL

The following programme of laboratory testing has been undertaken on samples obtained during this investigation:

Soluble sulphate content BS 1377: 1990: Pt3: 5 pH value BS 1377: 1990: Pt3: 9 Particle size distribution (Dry sieve) BS 1377: 1990: Pt2: 9.3 Permeability (K.H. Head, Manual of soil laboratory testing, Vol 2.) California Bearing Ratio Tests (Part 4: 1990: 7)

Table 4: Summary of geotechnical test resultsTest type Number

of testsRange of results Comments

Partical Size Distribution (Dry)

5 Gravel 29% – 79%Sand 21% – 70%

Silt 0% – 5%

Predominantly very gravelly SAND. Sample TP2 at 0.15m recorded as a very sandy GRAVEL

Uniformity coefficient: 3 to 51Curvature Coefficient: 0.12 to 2.8

Material is well graded.Falling head permeability

1 1.52 x 10-5 Good drainage conditions. Consistent with results obtained from in-situ soakaway tests. Re-compacted usingthe standard 2.5kg rammer at natural water content.

California Bearing Ratio Tests

1 2% to 8.3% Performed on material from TP2 at 0.15 to 0.70m depth. Dynamically re-compacted in the laboratory at natural water content using the 2.5kg rammer.2kg surcharge weight used

Sulphate Content and pH Values

3 SO4 <0.010 to 0.052 mg/lpH 6.5 to 8.5

Neutral pH values.

10. LABORATORY TESTING - ENVIRONMENTAL

A suite of testing was conducted on samples from across the site and the following regime was undertaken.

Metals – Cd, CrVI, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, V and Zn. Semi and Non-Metals - As, Se, Free CN- and Phenols. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). Others – pH, organic content and total/soluble SO4

2-. Asbestos


6

In addition to above, one WAC test was conducted on one representative sample. This testing was undertaken by Chemtest Ltd and the results of all of the chemical testing are presented in Appendix 6 of this report.

11. DISCUSSION OF GROUND CONDITIONS – GEOTECHNICAL

It is understood that the site is proposed to be developed by the demolition of the existing industrial building and resurfacing the site for use as a bus depot. At the time of writing this report the precise construction details have not been finalised, thus the discussion below is of a generalised nature.

11.1 Soakaways

The material found to underlain the site comprises very gravelly sand. Soakage rates obtained during the investigation were found to be good, therefore, consideration may be given to the use of soakaways for drainage at the site. However it should be appreciated that some siltation is possible within the soakaway, thereby reducing the permeability over time. It is therefore recommended that this is taken into account in the soakaway design, however, it may be appreciated that the calculations given in BRE 365 take into account of such fouling.

11.2 Hardstanding

It is considered that any hardstanding at the site could be constructed employing traditional pavement design. On this basis a design CBR value for the granular sub-grade directly below the hard standing of 10% could be employed3.

However, it is recommended that proof rolling be undertaken to establish the suitability of the soils, to expose any soft or weak ground and to ensure the sub-grade is well compacted prior to construction. In areas of soft or weak ground, a thickening of the pavement sub-base may be employed to improve the strength of the structure. Alternatively, weak material could be locally removed and replaced with compacted granular soil.

11.3 Effect of Sulphates

In view of the nature of the underlying soils it is considered that the design sulphate class be assessed with reference to Table C14, which is provided in BRE Special Digest 1, Concrete in aggressive ground: Part C. On the basis of this table and considering the soluble sulphate contents recorded, it can be shown that well compacted buried concrete should be designed in accordance with Class DS-1 requirements. Assuming static groundwater, the table also indicates that the aggressive chemical environment for concrete (ACEC) classification is AC-1s.

In order to evaluate the design chemical (DC) class for the buried concrete at this site reference should be made to Table D15, which can be found in Part D, Specifying concrete

3 Table 11.1, Reproduction of TRRL Report LR1132 (1984), Smith (2006), Smith’s Elements of Soil Mechanics, 8th ed.4 Table C1, Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification for Greenfield locations.5 Table D1, Selection of the DC Class and the number of APMs for concrete elements where the hydraulic gradient due to groundwater is 5 or less: for general in-situ use of concrete.


7

for general cast-in-situ use, of BRE Special Digest 1. From this table it may be shown that for an intended working life of at least 50 years the concrete design class DC-1 is required.

12. DISCUSSION OF GROUND CONDITIONS - ENVIRONMENTAL

12.1 Discussion of Test Results

It is understood that the site is proposed to be developed by the demolition of the existing industrial building and resurfacing the site for use as a bus depot. Therefore, the site may be classified as being commercial.

The results of the chemical testing undertaken on soil samples obtained during this investigation have been compared to the ATRISK soil screening values (SSVs) as compiled by WS Atkins plc. These values have been derived in such a way as to adhere to the principles within the revised CLEA model and include the most current release of the SGVs. A list of subscribers is provided within the website6 and these include many local authorities.

A comparison of the results of the testing, together with the data given above, can be found within Appendix 6. These results indicate the following:

Table 5: Summary of contaminated areas.Location Contaminants found to be exceeding SSVs

(commercial)TP1 None.

TP3 None.

TP5 None.

Concentrations of cadmium, chromiumVI, mercury, selenium, cyanide, phenols and petroleum hydrocarbons (aliphatic C5 to C35 and aromatic C5 to C35) were below the detection limits for the tests. Detectable levels of all other contaminants were recorded, but these fell below the associated Atrisk Soil Screening Values. Furthermore, no asbestos was detected in any of the samples screened.

On the basis of all the information provided above, it is considered that site is not contaminated with respect to its intended end use.

12.2 Waste Acceptance Criteria

The WAC have been set as maximum limit values which must not be exceeded and should not be viewed as minimum treatment specifications for landfill. The following table has been extracted from the Environment Agency7, and adapted to compare against the chemical test results.

6 http://www.atrisksoil.co.uk/pages/general/subscribers.asp 7 Guidance on sampling and testing of wastes to meet landfill waste acceptance procedures, Version 1, April 2005.


8

Table 6: Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria for Granular Wastes.

Parameter Concentration (mg/kg)*

Limit Values for Landfill Sites Class of LandfillMaximum Inert Stable Hazardous

Total Organic Carbon % 2.1 3 5 6 Inert

Loss on Ignition % 3.6 10 Inert BTEX 6 6 Inert PCBs <0.1 1 Inert PAHs <2.0 100 Inert

pH 6.2 >6 Inert Acid Neutralisation

Capacity <0.0020 To be evaluated

To be evaluated Inert

TPH (C10 – C40) <10 500 Inert

Limit values (mg/kg) for compliance leaching test using BS EN 12457 – 3 at L/S 10As <0.050 0.5 2 25 Inert Ba <0.50 20 100 300 Inert Cd <0.010 0.04 1 5 Inert Cr <0.050 0.5 10 70 Inert Cu <0.050 2 50 100 Inert Hg <0.0050 0.01 0.2 2 Inert Mo <0.050 0.5 10 30 Inert Ni <0.050 0.4 10 40 Inert Pb 0.19 0.5 10 50 InertSb <0.010 0.06 0.7 5 InertSe <0.010 0.1 0.5 7 Inert Zn <0.50 4 50 200 Inert Cl 37 800 15 000 25 000 Inert F <1.0 10 150 500 Inert

SO4 21 1000 20 000 50 000 Inert Total Dissolved Solids

(TDS) 590 4000 60000 100 000 Inert

Phenol index <0.50 1 Inert Dissolved Organic

Carbon at own pH or pH 7.5-8.0

96 500 800 1000 Inert

The above information indicates that the representative sample tested can be classified as suitable for inert landfill.

12.3 Site Specific Risk Assessment

The presence of contamination hazards and the risks associated with them should be assessed in accordance with industry practice and the ‘suitable for use’ approach. This has been conducted with reference to The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and The Environment Agency8 advice on the assessment of risks arising from the presence of contamination in soils and using the source-pathway-receptor approach.9 This method dictates that there must be a risk of contaminant produced at a ‘source’ in sufficient concentration to cause harm and there must be a ‘pathway’ for the contaminant to reach an identifiable ‘receptor’ for the linkage to be proved and a contamination hazard to be considered present. Not all substances are contaminants and not all contaminants are considered to be a risk. Indeed DEFRA and The Environment Agency state that ‘a contaminant is a substance which has the potential to cause harm, while a risk itself is

8 R&D Publication CLR 8, ‘Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Land Contamination: An overview of the Development of Soil Guideline Values and Related Research’. 9 The pollution linkage approach was developed by ‘Circular 2/2000 Contaminated Land: Implementation of Part II of The Environmental Protection Act 1990’ which provides meanings for the terms contained in The Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part IIA, the primary legislation for addressing the issues of contaminated land.


9

considered to exist if such a substance is present in sufficient concentration to cause harm and a pathway exists for a receptor to be exposed to the substance.’10

In this case there is no contamination source, thus there is no risk of harm to the site operatives, end user or neighbours. Therefore, a risk assessment and remediation strategy is not required in this instance. It should be appreciated, however, that careful inspection of the subgrade should be made during the groundworks. Should areas of contamination be detected then further testing may become necessary

12.4 General Approach to Construction.

It should also be appreciated that any fill material, either site-won or imported, to be employed at the site should be subjected to the following assessment to determine its suitability.

Fill materials should be initially screened, by a suitably qualified engineer, for the following.

It is a suitable growing medium where is to be employed as such, including compliance with BS3883 (2007)

It is free from obvious contamination i.e. visual or olfactory evidence It has not come from areas where Japanese Knotweed or other invasive or injurious

plants are suspected to be growing It is not a statutory nuisance, such as being odorous It is free from unsuitable material i.e. whole bricks, brick ties, timber or glass.

It should also be appreciated that any fill should be subjected to validation testing to assess its suitability. The following table has been taken from YAHPAC11 documentation and may be used as a guide. Depending on the origin and nature of the material, not all fill will require the sampling frequency and testing indicated, although this should be in agreement with any regulatory bodies (such as the Local Authority).

Table 7: Validation sampling and testingFill Type Frequency Minimum Determinands

Virgin Quarried Material

1 or 2 depending on the type of

stone (to confirm the inert nature of the material)

Standard metals/metalloids(As, Cd, Cr, CrVI, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn)

Crushed Hardcore, Stone, Brick

Minimum 1 per 1000m³

Standard metals/metalloids as above plus PAH (16 USEPA) and Asbestos

Greenfield/Manufactured Soils

The greater of a minimum of 3 or

1 per 250m³

Standard metals/metalloids as above plus PAH (16 USEPA) and Asbestos

Brownfield/Screened Soils

The greater of a minimum of 6 or

1 per 100m³

Standard metals/metalloids as above plus PAH (16 USEPA), TPH (CWG banded) and AsbestosAny additional analysis dependant on the history of the donor site.

The screening values for the above regime should also be agreed with any regulatory bodies; however, the following is recommended in the first instance.

10 See ‘Circular 2/2000 Contaminated Land: Implementation of Part II of The Environmental Protection Act 1990’, appendix A. 11 Sampling & Testing Matrix of Yorkshire and Humberside Pollution Advisory Council, 2013, YAHPAC Technical Guidance for Developers, Landowners and Consultants – Verification Requirements for Cover Systems v2.1, Appendix 1a.


10

Table 8: Fill screening values Contaminant Screening Value

(Commercial)(mg/kg)

Reference

As 640 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matterCd 230 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matterCrVI 330 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matterCu 109000 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matterHg 26 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matterNi 1800 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matterPb 6490 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matterV 7530 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matterZn 917000 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter

TPH CWG See contamination analysis sheet AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matterPAH 16 USEPA See contamination analysis sheet AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter

Testing should comply with UKAS and MCERTS, where applicable, and undertaken by an accredited laboratory.

Where the material has been derived from a commercial company, certificates or other industry quality protocol compliance i.e. WRAP should be obtained. However, it will be necessary to ensure that this documentation specifically related to the material being imported, it is no more than two months old and complies with the screening and frequency requirements given above.

Suitable fill materials should be either placed immediate or sufficiently quarantined to prevent cross-contamination. If it is necessary, the quarantined material should be placed on appropriate sheeting and covered to prevent it becoming mixed with contaminated soils or dust, or penetrated by mobile contaminants.

13. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK

This report should be forwarded to the relevant authorities as soon as practicable to ensure they have sufficient time to review and discuss any issues.

Discussions with ground work contractors in relation to the requirement for testing of materials to be disposed off-site (Waste Acceptance Criteria) and the suitability of imported materials.

Discussions with service providers regard the materials suitable for pipework etc. Detailed design of the pavement/hardstanding. Design of soakaway drainage.

Clearly Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd would be happy to offer advice with respect to the above and assist where necessary.


11

14. REFERENCES

British Geological Survey (NERC) (2016), BGS, Keyworth. Geology of Britain Viewer: (http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyviewer_google/googleviewer.html)Lexicon of Named Rock Units: (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/)

British Standards Institution (1990) BS1377: British standard methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes, B.S.I., London.

British Standards Institution (1999) BS5930: Code of practice for site investigations, incorporating amendment no.1 (2007) and no.2 (2010), B.S.I., London.

Building Research Establishment (BRE) Special Digest 1 (2005), Third Edition: Concrete in aggressive ground.

Part C: Assessing the aggressive chemical environment.Part D: Specifying concrete for general cast-in-situ use.

Building Research Establishment. 1999. Radon: Guidance on protective measures for new dwellings.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency (2009) DEFRA Science Report – Final SC050021/SR2, Human Health toxicological assessment of contaminants in soil. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency (2009) DEFRA Science Report – SC050021/SR3, Updated technical background to the CLEA model. Environment Agency, Bristol.

For and on behalf of Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd,

C. E. Mason BSc J. Farnsworth BEng, FGSGraduate Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer


12

APPENDIX 1

SITE PLAN

Title: Investigation Location Plan

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd J3440/16/E

Job No:Site Name:Roundree Way, Norwich

Plan not to scale and investigation positions approximated from site operative's notes.

Pleae note buildings are no longer present- both areas of site are all car par

TP1

TP2

TP3/ Soakaway

TP4

TP5

TRL1

TRL2

TRL3

TRL4

TRL6/ CoreSlab

TRL7 TRL8 TRL5


13

APPENDIX 2

TRIAL PIT LOGS


14

APPENDIX 3

SOAKAWAY TEST RESULTS

Trial Pit No: TP3 Test No: 1 Date: 14/04/2016Length (m): 1.400 Datum Height: 0.00 m aglWidth (m): 0.30 Granular infill:Depth (m): 1.80 Porosity of infill: 1 (assumed)

0 0.9801 1.0072 1.1054 1.1188 1.25015 1.35030 1.47040 1.50450 1.54560 1.57570 1.59090 1.617

Start water depth for analysis (mbgl): 0.9875% effective depth (mbgl): 1.19 Elapsed time (mins): 6.250% effective depth (mbgl): 1.3925% effective depth (mbgl): 1.60 Elapsed time (mins): 77.4Base of soakage zone (mbgl): 1.80

Volume outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth (m³): 0.172Mean surface area of outflow (m2): 1.81(side area at 50% effective depth + base area)Time for outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth (mins): 71.2

Remarks

Client:Site:

Water Depth(m below datum)

J3440/16/EJob No:

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd

Janus ArchitectureRoundtree Way Norwich

Soakaway Test

Readings taken for 70 minutes. Soil infiltration rate obtained by linear extrapolation of the dataset. Weather: sunny.

2.2E-5Soil infiltration rate (m/s):

Results processed following BRE 365 (2007).

None

Elapsed time(minutes)



0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.800 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dep

th (m

)

Elapsed time (minutes)


0 0.780 120 1.5901 0.8102 0.8704 0.9408 1.12015 1.16030 1.23540 1.30060 1.36070 1.41080 1.45090 1.490100 1.520110 1.555



Remarks

Client:Site: J3440/16/E

Job No:



Soakaway Test

Readings taken for 120 minutes. Weather: sunny.



None





0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.800 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Dep

th (m

)



0 0.820 110 1.2191 0.850 120 1.2372 0.865 250 1.5654 0.8958 0.94515 0.98530 1.01540 1.04550 1.08760 1.11770 1.14080 1.15890 1.180100 1.204



Remarks

Client:Site: J3440/16/E

Job No:



Soakaway Test

Readings taken for 120 minutes. Soil infiltration rate obtained by linear extrapolation of the dataset. Weather: sunny.



None





0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.800 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dep

th (m

)



15

APPENDIX 4

TRL DYNAMIC PROBE RESULTS

328

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd Offices 1&2, Barncliffe Business Park, Near Bank, Shelley, Huddersfield HD8 8LU

Job No: Location:

J3440/16/E TRL 1

Site: Client:

Roundtree Way Janus Architecture

Tested by:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993013.04.16 DH

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

10101010

www.rogersgeotech.co.uk Test Date:

(mm)

1152190280

10

7080

5555

1010

100

1

1115 447

506622693

55

101520

110

35405060

338350366

90

25

72

5860

22111833416062

10771116

790835903940983

1031

12345

734767

30

407665

CBR

(%)

35

2622

16

7810 1178 11010 1210 88

10

17010

120130140150

2016 19020 1320 115

9512401270 197

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

Blow Count

Total Blows

IMPACT (TRL) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer SL970, TRL Road Note 8, 60o cone.

Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

(mm)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

Cumulative Number of Blows

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)

198


Job No: Location:

J3440/16/E TRL 2

Site: Client:


Tested by:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993013.04.16 DH

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

1111


(mm)

1182110165

10

1516

111111

18

1

1111 535

612680722

11

678

28

11121314

253364455

17

9

24

1213

33667

109

10231131

817845918953982

1004

12345

760793

10

379

CBR

(%)

4742

3

5410 1219 7610 1251 88

10

7810

38485868

103

11012771301 120

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

Blow Count

Total Blows


Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

(mm)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150

Dept

h (m

bgl

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)

(mm)


Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

Blow Count

Total Blows

441910

26

20

137157177197

26

26

5520 1665 5520 1785 45

10

CBR

(%)

265555

880960

37

557034

12345

14701515

116012101260130013801425

62

6262

6241316341355

127

47576777

340350360

107

27

370412520720

110

67

17

1

1111

10

8797

101010101010

117

10101010


(mm)

1565320330

Tested by:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993013.04.16 DH

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

335


Job No: Location:

J3440/16/E TRL 3

Site: Client:


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150

Dept

h (m

bgl

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)

(mm)


Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

Blow Count

Total Blows

220

8015101550 70

10210 1721 7410 1777 49

230

10 1590 70

10 1823 60240250

10 1683

70 1901623 85

10 1655 8810 200

210

18010

140150160170

10302

83

11510 1430 9510 1475 62

10

CBR

(%)

349570

498564

40

252212

12345

13421375

628663770890

11031260

85

1633

783025554414280

130

50607080

352353357

110

30

374392397447

55

101520

1

1115

10

90100

101010101010

120

10101010


(mm)

1400337345

Tested by:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993013.04.16 DH

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

348


Job No: Location:

J3440/16/E TRL 4

Site: Client:


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150

Dept

h (m

bgl

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)

310


Job No: Location:

J3440/16/E TRL 5

Site: Client:


Tested by:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993013.04.16 DH

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

10101010


(mm)

1497302308

10

90100

101010101010

120

1

1115 365

392433548

55

101520

130

50607080

322325333

110

30

65

2959

5133239

231388

14171460

112711591188123612791370

12345

820935

40

985865

CBR

(%)

451452295

42

7610 1550 5210 1590 70

10

18010

140150160170

1034 190

1798 6510 1845 5910 200

210

10 1755 50

10 1885 70220

4916461700 51

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

Blow Count

Total Blows


Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

(mm)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150

Dept

h (m

bgl

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)

375


Job No: Location:

J3440/16/E TRL 6

Site: Client:


Tested by:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993013.04.16 DH

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

5555


(mm)

1474317358

5

5560

555555

70

1

1115 550

595662670

55

101520

75

35404550

390422450

65

25

24

14522

3019

1847

122320

13701424

100410681130119613001310

12345

840947

30

212012

CBR

(%)

615178

13

265 1520 295 1573 25

5

1005

80859095

59 105

1768 235 1105 1712 26

3016171662 30

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

Blow Count

Total Blows


Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

(mm)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150

Dept

h (m

bgl

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)

375


Job No: Location:

J3440/16/E TRL 7

Site: Client:


Tested by:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993013.04.16 DH

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

1010


(mm)

352367

90100

101010101010

1

1115 444

510588610

55

101520

50607080

384390397

30

2017

13110305811

10001234149416761786

12345

864952

40

101424

CBR

(%)

17343045

2839

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

Blow Count

Total Blows


Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

(mm)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150

Dept

h (m

bgl

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)

333


Job No: Location:

J3440/16/E TRL 8

Site: Client:


Tested by:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993013.04.16 DH

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

5555


(mm)

1203327328

5

5560

555555

70

1

1115 400

471527567

55

101520

75

35404550

348353357

65

25

110

2270

18233430252426

11691182

718768850911

10891149

12345

612664

30

16217

CBR

(%)

302551755

31

13810 1219 18410 1253 83

10

12510

8595

105115

1070 135

1345 10210 1352 44010 145

155

10 1317 120

15312721293 138

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

Blow Count

Total Blows


Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

(mm)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150

Dept

h (m

bgl

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)


16

APPENDIX 5

LABORATORY TESTING – GEOTECHNICAL

3.45

mmmmmmmm

RemarksPreparation and testing in accordance with BS1377 unless noted below

Sheet 5

Operator Checked ApprovedSheet printed

Fig 122/04/2016

Jude Jude Jude

0.3 14

0.15 20.063 0

1.18 730.6 56

0.425 35

3.35 79 Uniformity Coefficient 32 76 Curvature Coefficient 0.93

6.3 82 D30 0.393D10 0.237

14 90 D100 37.510 86 D60 0.7

28 9620 91 Grading Analysis

37.5 100 Fines <0.063mm 0

Gravel 24Sand 76

Sample Proportions % dry massVery coarse 0

Sieving SedimentationDry Mass of sample, g 1463

Particle Size mm % Passing Particle Size

mm % Passing

Test Method BS1377:Part 2:1990, clause 9.3 KeyLAB ID RGS_2016041913

Soil Description Yellowish brown gravelly SAND. Depth, m 0.90

Specimen Reference

Specimen Depth 0.90-2.10 m Sample Type B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONJob Ref J3440/16/E

Borehole/Pit No. TP5

Site Name Roundtree Way Sample No. 2

SILT Fine Medium Coarse

SAND Fine Medium Coarse

GRAVEL Fine Medium Coarse

CLAY COBBLES BOULDERS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

%

Particle Size mm

3.45

mmmmmmmm


Sheet 4


Fig 122/04/2016

Jude Jude Jude

0.3 24

0.15 120.063 5

1.18 680.6 49

0.425 35

3.35 74 Uniformity Coefficient 7.82 72 Curvature Coefficient 1.3

6.3 79 D30 0.366D10 0.115

14 89 D100 37.510 84 D60 0.889


37.5 100 Fines <0.063mm 5

Gravel 29Sand 66




mm % Passing


Soil Description Dark brown silty gravelly SAND with cobbles. Depth, m 0.20

Specimen Reference

Specimen Depth 0.20-0.80 m Sample Type D








0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

%

Particle Size mm

3.45

mmmmmmmm


Sheet 3


Fig 122/04/2016

Dev Jude Jude

0.3 9

0.15 20.063 1

1.18 630.6 39

0.425 19

3.35 75 Uniformity Coefficient 3.42 71 Curvature Coefficient 0.79

6.3 82 D30 0.514D10 0.312

14 92 D100 2810 87 D60 1.07


Fines <0.063mm 1

Gravel 29Sand 70




mm % Passing


Soil Description Brown gravelly SAND. Depth, m 1.05

Specimen Reference

Specimen Depth 1.05 m Sample Type B








0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

%

Particle Size mm

3.45

mmmmmmmm


Sheet 2


Fig 122/04/2016

Dev Jude Jude

0.3 7

0.15 20.063 1

1.18 360.6 23

0.425 15


6.3 47 D30 0.848D10 0.341

14 58 D100 5010 53 D60 17.2


50 10037.5 89 Fines <0.063mm 1

Gravel 59Sand 40




mm % Passing


Soil Description Orangish brown gravelly SAND. Depth, m 0.85

Specimen Reference

Specimen Depth m Sample Type B








0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

%

Particle Size mm

3.45

mmmmmmmm


Sheet 1


Fig 122/04/2016

Jude Jude Jude

0.3 3

0.15 10.063 0

1.18 170.6 11

0.425 7


6.3 35 D30 4.51D10 0.564

14 64 D100 5010 49 D60 12.7


50 10037.5 92 Fines <0.063mm 0

Gravel 79Sand 21




mm % Passing


Soil Description Orangish brown very gravelly SAND with cobbles. Depth, m 0.15

Specimen Reference

Specimen Depth 0.15-0.70 m Sample Type D








0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

%

Particle Size mm

www.rogersgeotech.co.uk Date: Sheet:

Tel : 0843 5066687 Fax : 0843 5159930 20/04/2016 3

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd Offices 1&2 Barncliffe Business Park, Near Bank, Shelley Huddersfield HD8 8LU

Job No:

J3440/16/ESite: Client:

Rowntree Way Norwich Janus Architecture

Determination of Permeability - Falling Head TestK. H. Head,Manual of soil laboratory testing, Volume 2.

borehole/ trial pit no.

sample no. sample depth

sample prep.

sample diameter

permeability description/remarks

(m) (mm) (m/sec)

Perm 1 TP4 0.8-3m R 101.00 1.52E-05 SAND and Gravel

U - Undisturbed sample

R - Recompacted sample

remarks: * Water level did not drop sufficiently in the smallest manometer tube in order to assess the rate from h3 to h2, which is typical for soils with a permabilty rate smaller than 10-9 m/s. Permeability rate established from available data (i.e. drop between h1 and h3).

notes:

sample preparation:

Specimen PreparationCondition Soaking details

Details Period of soaking days

Time to surface days

Amount of swell recorded mm

Material retained on 20mm sieve removed % Dry density after soaking Mg/m3

Initial Specimen details Bulk density Mg/m3 Surcharge applied kg

Dry density Mg/m3 kPa

Moisture content %

Results

TOP

BASE

General remarks Test specific remarks Approved Fig No.

Sheet No

Lab Sheet Reference :

California Bearing Ratio ( CBR )Job Ref J3440/16/E



Soil Description Orangish brown gravelly SAND. Depth m 0.70

CBR Test Number 1

Specimen Reference

Specimen Depth 0.15-0.70 m Sample Type B

Specimen Description Orangish brown SAND. KeyLAB ID RGS_2016041911

Test Method BS1377 : Part 4 : 1990, clause 7

Recompacted with specified standard effort using 2.5kg rammer

REMOULDED Not soaked

2

1.80 2

1.69 1

6.6

Curve correction

applied

CBR Values, % Moisture Content

2.5mm 5mm Highest Average%

2.7 2.4 2.7 5.7

8.3 4.6 8.3 6.5

2

Jude1

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e A

pplie

d k

N

Penetration mm

Force v Penetration Plots

Top data

Top values

Top correction

Base data

Base values

Base Correction


17

APPENDIX 6

LABORATORY TESTING – ENVIRONMENTAL

Client: Job Number:Site: Date:

Tox Data Report No. Reference

Min Max3 <0.1 <0.1 A4 <0.5 <0.5 A

1.1 3.8 A7 <0.1 <0.1 A8 3.5 9.7 A

6.5 17 A8.3 28 A6.1 20 A

1 1.6 6.1 A10 <0.2 <0.2 A

<0.5 <0.5 A9 <0.3 <0.3 A

ATRISK CLEA20 <0.1 <0.1 432 22700 A

<0.1 <0.1 937 106000 A<0.1 <0.1 746 72100 A<0.1 0.23 20.9 545000 A<0.1 0.2 113 72700 A<0.1 0.19 13.2 54500 A<0.1 <0.1 10.3 142 A

2 <0.1 <0.1 2.64 14300 A2 <0.1 <0.1 7.29 144 A2 <0.1 <0.1 4.12 1440 A2 <0.1 <0.1 5.46 14.4 A2 <0.1 <0.1 0.0236 14.4 A2 <0.1 <0.1 0.368 144 A2 <0.1 <0.1 0.112 1450 A

<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A*<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A<1.0 <1.0 A

6.5 8.5 -

<0.40 2.8 -<0.010 0.052 -<0.010 0.086 -

For PAHs ATRISK assumes free product is avalable whilst CLEA assumes no free product

Soluble Sulphate (mg/l) -Total Sulphate (%) -

A = WS ATKINS PLC, ATRISK SOIL SCREENING VALUES BASED ON 6% SOIL ORGANIC MATTER

Aromatic C8-C10 2700

Organic Content (%) -

Aromatic C12-C16 925Aromatic C16-C21 28400Aromatic C21-C35 28400

Aromatic C10-C12 2190

OtherspH -

Aromatic C5-C7 (Benzene) 95Aromatic C7-C8 (Toluene) 1780

Aliphatic C6-C8 769Aliphatic C8-C10 476Aliphatic C10-C12 297Aliphatic C12-C16 126

Aliphatic C21-C35 28400

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Benzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyrene

Chrysene

Dibenzo(a,h)anthraceneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Petroleum HydrocarbonsAliphatic C5-C6 1100

Aliphatic C16-C21 28400

FluoranthenePyrene

34Phenols (total) 3200

Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons NaphthaleneAcenaphthene

Selenium 13000Free Cyanide

FluoreneAnthracene

Copper 109000

Arsenic 640

Nickel 1800Lead 6490Zinc

Mercury 26

917000Vanadium 7530

Semi and Non Metals

Metals

330Cadmium 230Chromium (VI)

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd.SUMMARY OF CONTAMINATION ANALYSIS - including Atkins ATRISK SSVs

Compound Range of Values Found (mg/kg)

Commercial/Industrial Development Values

(mg/kg)

Chemtest Ltd.Depot RoadNewmarket

CB8 0ALTel: 01638 606070

Email: [email protected]

Report No.: 16-08879-1

Initial Date of Issue: 26-Apr-2016

Client Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd

Client Address: Offices 1 & 2, Barncliffe Business Near Bank Shelley Huddersfield West Yorkshire HD8 8LU

Contact(s): Charlotte Mason

Project J3440/16/E Norwich

Quotation No.: Date Received: 18-Apr-2016

Order No.: 0416-38 Date Instructed: 18-Apr-2016

No. of Samples: 1

Turnaround (Wkdays): 7 Results Due: 26-Apr-2016

Date Approved: 26-Apr-2016

Approved By:

Details: Martin Dyer, Laboratory Manager

Final Report

Page 1 of 3

Results - 2 Stage WAC

Chemtest Job No: Chemtest Sample ID: LimitsSample Ref: Stable, Non-Sample ID: reactive HazardousTop Depth(m): Inert Waste hazardous WasteBottom Depth(m): Landfill waste in non- LandfillSampling Date: hazardousDeterminand SOP Accred. Units Landfill Total Organic Carbon 2625 U % 2.1 3 5 6Loss On Ignition 2610 U % 3.6 -- -- 10Total BTEX 2760 U mg/kg < 0.010 6 -- --Total PCBs (7 Congeners) 2815 U mg/kg < 0.10 1 -- --TPH Total WAC (Mineral Oil) 2670 U mg/kg < 10 500 -- --Total (Of 17) PAH's 2700 N mg/kg < 2.0 100 -- --pH 2010 U 6.2 -- >6 --Acid Neutralisation Capacity 2015 N mol/kg < 0.0020 -- To evaluate To evaluateEluate Analysis 2:1 8:1 2:1 Cumulative

mg/l mg/l mg/kg mg/kg 10:1Arsenic 1450 U < 0.0010 0.0036 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.0057 0.014 < 0.50 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U < 0.0010 0.0038 < 0.050 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.00050 < 0.0010 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U < 0.0010 0.0018 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 0.021 < 0.010 0.19 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.0011 0.012 < 0.50 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 9.6 3.1 19 37 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U < 0.050 0.062 < 1.0 < 1.0 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 8.2 1.5 16 21 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 91 56 180 590 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.030 < 0.30 < 0.50 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 20 8.6 < 50 96 500 800 1000

Soild InformationDry mass of test portion/kg 0.175 0.327Moisture (%) 12 1.400

0.160

Leachant volume 1st extract/lLeachant volume 2nd extract/l

Eluant recovered from 1st extract/l

00.8513-Apr-2016

Limit values for compliance leaching testusing BS EN 12457-3 at L/S 10 l/kg

Leachate Test Information

Project: J3440/16/E Norwich16-08879 Landflll Waste Acceptance Criteria281623TP/SA3B

Page 2 of 3

Report Information

KeyU UKAS accreditedM MCERTS and UKAS accreditedN UnaccreditedS This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is accredited for this analysis

SN This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is not accredited for this analysisT This analysis has been subcontracted to an unaccredited laboratory

I/S Insufficient SampleU/S Unsuitable SampleN/E not evaluated

< "less than"> "greater than"

Comments or interpretations are beyond the scope of UKAS accreditationThe results relate only to the items testedUncertainty of measurement for the determinands tested are available upon request None of the results in this report have been recovery correctedAll results are expressed on a dry weight basisThe following tests were analysed on samples as received and the results subsequently corrected to a dry weight basis TPH, BTEX, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, PhenolsFor all other tests the samples were dried at < 37°C prior to analysisAll Asbestos testing is performed at our Coventry laboratory Issue numbers are sequential starting with 1 all subsequent reports are incremented by 1

Sample Deviation CodesA - Date of sampling not suppliedB - Sample age exceeds stability time (sampling to extraction)C - Sample not received in appropriate containersD - Broken Container

Sample Retention and DisposalAll soil samples will be retained for a period of 45 days from the date of receiptAll water samples will be retained for 14 days from the date of receiptCharges may apply to extended sample storage

If you require extended retention of samples, please email your requirements to: [email protected]

Page 3 of 3

Chemtest Ltd.Depot RoadNewmarket

CB8 0ALTel: 01638 606070

Email: [email protected]

Report No.: 16-08878-1

Initial Date of Issue: 22-Apr-2016

Client Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd

Client Address: Offices 1 & 2, Barncliffe Business Near Bank Shelley Huddersfield West Yorkshire HD8 8LU

Contact(s): Charlotte Mason

Project J3440/16/E Norwich

Quotation No.: Date Received: 18-Apr-2016

Order No.: 0416-38 Date Instructed: 18-Apr-2016

No. of Samples: 3

Turnaround (Wkdays): 5 Results Due: 22-Apr-2016

Date Approved: 22-Apr-2016

Approved By:

Details: Glynn Harvey, Laboratory Manager

Final Report

Page 1 of 4

environmental geotechnical specialists l report a c hni … · 2016. 5. 18. · environmental...

Documents