westridge hospital stroud gl10 3ha exploratory geo ... · deepen foundations to mitigate effects of...

WESTRIDGE HOSPITAL

STROUD

GL10 3HA

EXPLORATORY

GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL

INVESTIGATION,

RISK AND LIABILTY ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:

PJ Livesey Holdings Ltd

Beacon Road

Trafford Park

Manchester

M17 1AF

By:

LK Consult Ltd

Eton Business Park

Eton Hill Road

Greater Manchester

M26 2ZS

Tel: 0161 763 7200

Email:[email protected]

Date: May 2017

Ref: LKC 17 1065

PJ Livesey Holdings Ltd Westridge Hospital, Stroud

LK Consult Ltd May 2017 Ref: CL-602-LKC 17 1065-02 [R0] ii

Site Address Westridge Hospital, Housemarling Lane, Standish, Stonehouse, GL10 3HA

Report Title Exploratory Geo-Environmental Investigation, Liability and Risk Assessment

Job Number LKC 17 1065 Document Ref. CL-602-LKC 17 1065-02

Date Issued May 2017 Report Version R0

Prepared By Nicola Swallow Signature

Reviewed By Peter Dunn Signature

DISCLAIMER This report has been prepared by LKC who have exercised such professional skill, care and diligence as may reasonably be expected of a properly qualified and competent consultant experienced in preparing reports of a similar scope. However, to the extent that the report is based on or relies upon information contained in records, reports or other materials provided to LKC which have not been independently produced or verified, LKC gives no warranty, representation or assurance as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. This report is issued on the condition that LKC will not be held liable for any loss arising from ground conditions between sampling points (i.e. boreholes/trial pits/hand augers/surface samples) which have not been shown by the sampling points or related testing carried out during the investigation, nor for any loss arising from conditions below the maximum depth of the investigation. Opinions on such conditions, where given, are for general guidance only. This report is prepared solely for the benefit of PJ Livesey Holdings Ltd. It may not be relied upon by, or submitted to a third party for their reliance for the purposes of valuation, mortgage, insurance and regulatory approval, until all invoices have been settled in full. Those using this information in subsequent assessments or evaluations do so at their own risk.

LK Consult Ltd

Document Verification


LK Consult Ltd May 2017 Ref: CL-602-LKC 17 1065-02 [R0] iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Site Details

Site Location: Forms part of Standish Westridge Hospital off Housemarling Lane, Standish, Stonehouse, Stroud. GL10 3HA. Centred at approximate National Grid Reference 381630E 206580N.

Site Area: 20,400m2

Current Land Use: Site Hardstood ground in southern corner and rough grassland over the remainder of the site, bounded by metal fencing.

Proposed Development:

Residential including soft landscaping, roadways and car parking.

Purpose of Report: Contamination and Geotechnical Liability Assessment

Preliminary Risk Assessment

PRA Details: Undertaken by LKC (Ref: LKC 17 1065-01, dated March 2017). History: Hospital buildings, roadways and parking from 1938 until present. Geology / Hydrogeology:

No superficial records available. Bedrock Marlstone Rock limestone (Undifferentiated), Whitby mudstone (Unproductive) and Dyrham mudstone. (Secondary A).

Mining: Not within a coal reporting area. Relevant Environmental Setting:

Unnamed stream 16m North. 1no. known/registered landfill within 1Km associated with the adjacent Standish Hospital landfill and thought to contain non degradable hospital waste. The property is in an Intermediate Probability Radon Area (5 to 10% of homes are estimated to be at or above the Action Level).

Preliminary Conceptual Model: PL=Pollutant Linkage

PL1 Direct Contact (Human Health): High Risk (asbestos), Moderate Risk (metals, PAHs), Low Risk (Petroleum Hydrocarbons). PL2 Inhalation of Vapours: Low Risk (volatile contaminants). PL3 Gas: Low Risk (hazardous and ground gas), Moderate (radon). PL4 Controlled waters: Low Risk (mobile contaminants). PL5 Sulphate Attack: Moderate Risk (sulphate). PL6 Water Pipelines: Moderate Risk (organic contaminants). PL7 Phytotoxic: Low Risk (metals).

Recommendations: Site Investigation was recommended to further assess all the above pollutant linkages.

Ground Investigation Work Undertaken

Date of Investigation: 4th to 5th April 2017 Intrusive Investigation Work Undertaken:

8no. window sample boreholes (WS101-WS108).

Monitoring Wells: Installed in all boreholes. Soil Sampling: 6no. samples tested for metals, speciated PAHs, pH, sulphate, asbestos and SOM.

3no. samples tested for metals, speciated PAHs, cyanide, pH, sulphate, asbestos, phenol, TPHCWG, BTEX, and SOM. 2no. samples tested for pH and sulphate. 3no. samples tested for TPH-CWG and BTEX.

Groundwater Sampling:

3no samples tested for metals, speciated PAHs, cyanide, pH, sulphate, hardness, phenol, TPHCWG and BTEX.

Monitoring: 1no. precautionary gas monitoring visits over 3 months. Insitu and Laboratory Geotechnical Testing:

SPTs, shear vanes, PSDs, plasticity, single stage triaxial tests.

Other Work: 8no. Falling Head Tests in four locations.


LK Consult Ltd May 2017 Ref: CL-602-LKC 17 1065-02 [R0] iv

Ground Conditions and Geotechnical Assessment

General Ground conditions / Geotechnical Testing

Maximum investigation depth 5.45mbgl. Made Ground to <0.5mbgl. Variously silty, gravelly sandy CLAY to >3.4mbgl. Weathered sandstone, competent sandstone, limestone and mudstone to >5.45mbgl.

SPTs N=5-15 at 1-2m, N=5-50 at 2-3m, N=12-50 at 3-4mbgl, N=20-50 at 4-5mbgl. USS 35-110kPA at 0-1mbgl, 66-150+KPa at 1-2mbgl, 30-131KPa at 2-3mbgl. Medium to high volume change potential in silty CLAY. Low volume change potential in silts.

Allowable Bearing Pressure

100 kN/m2 at <1mbgl in the silty, gravelly CLAY.

Anticipated Foundation Type

Spread footings are recommended. Traditional strip/trench fill foundations recommended from 1mbgl. Excavate soft spots and replace with mass concrete or granular material compacted to specification.

Deepen foundations to mitigate effects of trees and shrubs in fine grained soils according to National House Building Council (NHBC) Building Standards, Chapter 4.2, Building Near Trees, A medium to high volume change potential for silty CLAY and a low volume potential has been identified in silts in WS104.

Concrete Requirements

Based on BRE Digest 20051 – DS-1 AC-1 recommended.

Services Services – consideration to the presence of services running through the site. Services may need to re-routed or removed.

Plasticity Consideration will need to be given to the shrink / swell of the clay strata if it is to be used as founding strata, particularly where trees/hedges are present. Foundations may need to be deepened. A medium to high volume change potential for silty CLAY and a low volume potential identified in silts in WS104.

Part 2A Liability Assessment Summary

LKC are of the opinion that the site would probably be identified as a ‘Category 3’ site with regard to human health and ‘Category 4’ for controlled waters based on the following criterion:

The site has not been fully investigated by the LA. The site has not been proven to be causing significant harm. There is no reason to believe the land poses a significant possibility of significant harm. There have been no recorded pollution incidents associated with the site.

Therefore, the environmental liabilities associated with this site would be relevant at this time to the planning regime rather than the Part 2A regime. The requirements for land to fall under Part 2A have not been proven.

For future reference, any form of development planned for the site will attract contaminated land conditions from the Council depending on the nature of the development, for example; new structures would be conditioned, whereas a new sign or floodlights would probably not be conditioned. New structures would then require the usual preliminary risk assessment followed up by an intrusive site investigation, formal risk assessment, remediation and finally, validation.

1 BRE (2005).”Concrete in Aggressive Ground.” Special Digest 1.


LK Consult Ltd May 2017 Ref: CL-602-LKC 17 1065-02 [R0] v

Contamination Risk Assessment The table below shows a summary of the risk assessments undertaken for each pollutant linkage, the revised conceptual model and recommendation for either remediation and / or further investigation.

Pollutant Linkage Risk Recommendations

1

Contaminants posing a risk to site users via dermal contact, ingestion and inhalation (of soil, dust, fibres and vegetables).

Low No asbestos identified. Recommendation: Further confirmatory sampling during main investigation.

Moderate

Localised elevated PAHs and arsenic identified. PAHs likely relate to tarmacadam within limited amounts of made ground.

Recommendation: Delineation around exceedance areas during main investigation during

2

Volatile contaminants posing a risk to site users via the inhalation of vapours.

Low No evidence of volatile contamination identified. Recommendation: No additional testing required unless evidence encountered.

3

Gas posing a risk to buildings and site users via the migration of gas into building causing explosion and asphyxiation.

Low

No elevated ground gas or flow has been recorded. GSV of 0.0046 (CS1).Low risk assumed at this stage.

Limited made ground and interceding clay from small offsite landfill. Recommendation: No additional monitoring required.

Moderate

Site lies within an Intermediate Probability Radon Area. Recommendation: Basic radon protection measures required.

4

Mobile contamination posing a risk to controlled waters via the migration through permeable strata.

Low No contaminants of concern above detection limits. Recommendation: Additional groundwater monitoring during main investigation to confirm low risk.

5 Sulphate posing a risk to building via direct contact (sulphate attack).

Low

Low probability based on samples collected to date. DS-1 AC-1 concrete considered suitable at this stage. Recommendation: Further confirmatory sampling recommended as part of the main investigation.

6 Organic contaminants posing a risk to water pipes.

Low

No significantly elevated contaminants which may permeate pipework. Low risk assumed at this stage.

Recommendation: Pipeline risk assessment should be completed when depth and location of pipelines are known,

Further sampling as part of main investigation.

7 Phytotoxic metals posing a risk to flora via root uptake.

Very Low No elevated concentrations of phytotoxic contaminants identified. Recommendation: Confirmatory sampling in main investigation.


LK Consult Ltd May 2017 Ref: CL-602-LKC 17 1065-02 [R0] vi

Recommendations and Remedial Strategy The table below shows the remediation and validation requirements for the site. This information should be documented in a Site Completion Report for submission to the local authority.

Phase PL Remediation Requirements Validation Requirements

Mai

n In

vest

igat

ion

(i

nc.

po

st-

dem

oli

tio

n)

1, 3, 5, 6

Post-demolition Main Investigation Trial Pitting This is recommended to confirm ground conditions below the current buildings, allow delineation of areas of concern and to satisfy sample number requirements for a main investigation. This should allow a more targeted remediation strategy to be completed. This work will also provide more geotechnical information for foundation design.

N/A (Investigation Report will be provided with an updated Remediation Strategy).

Pre

-C

on

stru

ctio

n

Geotech

Grubbing Out of In-Ground Structures It is recommended that in-ground structures such as former building foundations and controlled treatment system and associated pipework are grubbed out as part of the groundworks.

N/A (for geotechnical purposes only).

Bu

ild-P

has

e C

on

stru

ctio

n

All

Earthworks Site Inspections A watching brief (daily / weekly) should be maintained during earthworks to confirm the ground conditions and identify any unusual ground conditions. Should any unusual ground conditions be encountered, work should stop and samples be collected for chemical analysis. Depending on the outcome of the chemical analysis further remediation may be required.

Log of work undertaken including photographs. Details of any sampling undertaken and validation of any potential additional remedial work (TBC).

1,2

Any site won material re-used onsite should be in recourse to appropriate exemptions. A U1 and T5 exemption should be registered. This will allow the following: 1,000 tonnes (c. 600m3) of non-hazardous

soil 5,000 tonnes (c. 3,000m3) of natural sand

and gravels. 50,000 tonnes (c. 25,000m3) of bituminous

material to be used in roadways. 5,000 tonnes (c. 3,000m3) of crushed

concrete / stone. A Materials Management Plan (MMP) with recourse to the CL:AIRE Code of Practice may be required if volumes exceed exemption limits.

To ensure material is compliant with appropriate waste regulations. Material will need to be tested at the rate and analytical suites presented in Table 8-2. If a MMP is required this needs to be registered by a Qualified Person (QP) and there must be ‘certainty of use’ for any material re-used onsite or exported to site to ensure there is no ‘sham recovery’.

1

Upon completion of the main investigation, including the delineation of areas of concern, the location and scope of this remediation will be refined. As the made ground is relatively shallow the following options are given: Option 1 Removal of all reworked topsoil / made ground from garden and soft landscaping and raise levels (as required) with suitably chemically validated subsoil and topsoil. Option 2 If all or some of the made ground remains in place in gardens and soft landscaping areas, an environmental cover system will be required. The environmental cover system should be as follows:

If Option 1Consignment notes confirming the removal of made ground. Chemical validation of imported soils: See Table 9-2. If Option 2 Measuring depth of environmental cover system using a staff and providing photographic evidence. Photographic evidence of the granular


LK Consult Ltd May 2017 Ref: CL-602-LKC 17 1065-02 [R0] vii

Phase PL Remediation Requirements Validation Requirements

Private Gardens: 600mm thick environmental cover system comprising: Either 100mm physical break layer (MOT type 1 material, 20-30mm, minimal fines) and at least 500mm comprising clean inert fill and sufficient topsoil for a growing medium. Or geotextile membrane and at least 600mm comprising clean inert fill and sufficient topsoil for a growing medium. Front Gardens & Shared Landscaping: 300mm thick environmental cover system comprising: Either 100mm physical break layer (MOT type 1 material, 20-30mm, minimal fines) and at least 200mm comprising clean inert fill and sufficient topsoil for a growing medium. Or geotextile membrane and at least 300mm comprising clean inert fill and sufficient topsoil for a growing medium.

physical break or geotextile layer. Chemical validation of imported soils: See Table 8-2. A nominal 150mm of clean topsoil required to reduce contact with underlying undesirable material matrix. The subsoil layer can be replaced by additional topsoil. A diagram of a typical environmental cover system is shown in Appendix I

6

Potable Water Pipes It is recommended that a Water Pipeline Assessment is undertaken once the location and depth of potable water pipes are known and following the main investigation. Limited made ground encountered to date means pipeline is likely to be installed in natural strata.

Delivery Notes of Pipe Material. Photographs of the Installed Pipe.

Other Considerations

Health and Safety Considerations In working with, removing or treating any contaminating material it is important that any potential risks associated with the actual site works are mitigated by good environmental management of the site during the remedial phases. Standard health and safety precautions (as per HSE guidance2) should be adopted by all workers involved with site enabling and construction works. Unexpected Contamination The relevant contractors should be briefed that during development works at the site should any unusual ground conditions and / or visual or olfactory evidence of contamination (including asbestos containing material) be encountered at the site, LKC and the Local Authority should be informed and further assessment of the material may be required. Should asbestos be identified during groundworks, precautions should be taken to ensure the safety of the construction workers and nearby land users. It would be advisable to introduce an asbestos management strategy in line with CIRIA C7333.

The remediation recommended in the table above should be validated to ensure it has been carried out appropriately. This should be documented in a Completion/Validation Report and submitted to the local authority for completion.

2 HSE (1991). “Protection of Workers and the General Public During Development of Contaminated Land” London HMSO. 3 CIRIA (2014). “Asbestos in Soil and Made Ground: A Guide to Understanding and Managing Risks”. C733.


LK Consult Ltd May 2017 Ref: CL-602-LKC 17 1065-02 [R0] viii

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 PREVIOUS WORK 2

3 GROUND INVESTIGATION 8

4 GROUND CONDITIONS 12

5 GENERIC RISK ASSESSMENT 18

6 PART 2A LIABILITY ASSESSMENT 27

7 WASTE DISPOSAL ASSESSMENT 29

8 CONCLUSIONS 31

9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REMEDIAL STRATEGY 32

FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Site Boundary Plan

Figure 3: Proposed Development Plan

Figure 4: Exploratory Site Investigation Location Plan

Figure 5: Main Site Investigation Proposed Location Plan

APPENDICES Appendix A: Risk Matrix

Appendix B: Profile Logs

Appendix C: Certificate of Analysis – Soil & Groundwater

Appendix D: Gas Monitoring Results

Appendix E: Certificate of Analysis - Geotechnical

Appendix F: Falling Head Tests

Appendix G: Generic Assessment Criteria Values

Appendix H: Waste Assessment Certificates

Appendix I: Typical Environmental Cover System

Appendix J: Double Ration Plot


LK Consult Ltd May 2017 Ref: CL-602-LKC 17 1065-02 [R0] 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

LK Consult Ltd (LKC) has been commissioned by PJ Livesey Holdings Ltd to carry out a Phase 2 geo-environmental investigation and risk assessment for Westridge Hospital, Stroud. The investigation was undertaken in support of a future planning application to develop the site for residential use and to determine any potential significant liabilities associated with ground contamination before purchasing. The following work has previously been undertaken:

Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) report, undertaken by LKC (Ref: LKC 17 1065-01, dated March 2017).

The aims of this report are also to establish the feasibility of developing this site, to demonstrate to the Local Planning Authority that in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)4 the site may be developed for a residential end use and that appropriate site investigation and risk assessment works are in place to allow conditional approval of any future planning application. This report presents the findings of an exploratory investigation undertaken to date. A main site investigation will following the planning application and purchase of the site when access constraints are minimised.

1.2 Site Details

A summary of the site details is presented in Table 1-1. Figures 1 and 2 indicate the site location and boundary. Figure 3 indicates the proposed development.

Location Forms part of Standish Westridge Hospital off Housemarling Lane, Standish, Stonehouse, Stroud. GL10 3HA. Centred at approximate National Grid Reference 381630E 206580N .

Area 20,400m2

Topography 95 metres above ordnance datum (AOD). Site is approximately flat lying with a gentle upwards gradient to the south east.

Current Land Use

Site Hardstood ground in southern corner and rough grassland over the remainder of the site, bounded by metal fencing. Surrounding Area North: Standish Hospital East: Agricultural land South: Agricultural land West: Agricultural land

Proposed Development

Residential including soft landscaping, roadways and car parking.

Table 1-1: Summary of site details.

4 DCL (2012). “National Planning Policy Framework.” Department of Communities and Local Government. March 2012.



2 PREVIOUS WORK

2.1 Summary of Existing Information

A PRA report (Ref: CL-602-17 1065-01, dated March 2017) has previously been undertaken by LKC and is summarised in Section 2.2-2.6.

2.2 Site History

The site history is summarised in Table 2-1.

Site Features Location Map Dates

Present Comments

Footpath E 1882-2000 - N-S in SE corner. Field boundary S 1882-1950 - Running E-W in the southern third of the site.

Hospital buildings

Entire site 1938 - present

- Up to 5 buildings within study area boundary. Photographs indicate single storey buildings are likely to be patient residential blocks.

- One building no longer present by 1969. - Only two buildings remain on 2006 mapping onwards. - Former building along eastern boundary replaced by

much smaller development from 2006. - Existing building footprint an extension of previous

building indicated since 2009. Roadways & parking

Entire site 1969 - present

- Roadways and car parking indicated to various extents from 1969.

Sports court Central Present - Aerial photography shows a sports court adjacent to the

main hospital building. Surrounding

Area Features Distance/ Location

Map Dates Present

Comments

Ponds 22m N 1882 - present

- Two small and one large pond with inlets and issues.

Cutting 3m NE 1882-1954 - Small cutting shown in landscaping. - No longer present by 1969 mapping.

Standish House/Hospital

86m N 1882 - present

- Standish House built in 1830. Was converted to a Red Cross Hospital in 1914 and latterly a tuberculosis hospital. Forms part of several hospital buildings in grounds from 1923 onwards (girl’s & boy’s blocks, surgical block, theatre, plaster room, etc).

- Water supply was from a spring on Moreton Hill Farm (235m SE).

- Electrical power & heating from a boiler below the dining hall. The location of which is unknown, but aerial photography shows a chimney close to the original Standish House building to the north.

- Various extensions, separate buildings, roadways and landscaping indicated across mapping.

- Large additional hospital building shown from 13m NE from 1938.

- Embankments/ cuttings shown as part of grounds from 1696 mapping.

Well 230m E 1882-1954 Tennis court 3m NW 1969-2006 - Part of hospital grounds.

2 Cuttings 112m NW 201m N

1696 - present

- Part of hospital grounds.

Table 2-1: Summary of significant historical features.



2.3 Environmental Setting

The environmental setting is summarised in Table 2-2.

Categories Details

Geology

Artificial - None recorded on site. - Former hospital landfill 127m NW.

Superficial - No BGS records available.

Bedrock

- Majority of the site underlain by Marlstone Rock Formation (Limestone with interbedded sandstone and mudstone). Part of a succession moving east to west comprising Whitby Mudstone indicated on the eastern boundary of the site, Marlstone Limestone across the majority and Dyrham Formation along the western edge of the site.

RSK logs

- No BGS logs in the vicinity of the site. - Superficial deposits to the north identified in the RSK report

comprised made ground between 0.2-1.6mbgl. Made ground, if present, was underlain by over consolidated clay up to 4.45mbgl. Bedrock was identified as sandstone, mudstone and limestone from 1.9mbgl.

Hydro-geology

Aquifer Designation

Superficial - No data.

Bedrock - Secondary (undifferentiated aquifer) - Marlstone Rock. - Secondary A Aquifer - Dyrham Formation, - Unproductive strata - Whitby mudstone.

Source Protection Zone (SPZ)

- Site is not within an SPZ.

Groundwater Abstractions - None within 1Km.

Hydrology

Nearest Surface Water - Un-named stream 16m North between identified ponds. Water Quality Data - No water quality data. Flooding - No risk from rivers or sea. Surface Water Abstractions - None within 1Km. Discharge Consent - None within 1Km. Pollution Incidents - None within 1Km. Coal Report - Not within coal reporting area. Surface Extractions - No mineral extraction within 500m of the site. Cheshire Brine Compensation District

- Not within site area.

Ground Stability1 (on-site)

Collapsible Ground - Very low hazard. Compressible Ground - No hazard. Landslide - Low. Running Sand - No hazard. Shrinking / Swelling Clay - Low hazard. Ground Dissolution - No hazard.

Landfill sites

Known/Registered 1 within 1Km: - Former hospital landfill 127m NW

Potential - None within 1Km

Radon - The property is in an Intermediate Probability Radon Area (5

to 10% of homes are estimated to be at or above the Action Level).

Designated Sites - Site lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

(Cotswolds). - Site lies within an Environmentally Sensitive Area.

Contemporary Trade Directory - 1 within 100m: Westridge Assessment & treatment Services (Hospital).

Fuel Station Entries - None within 1Km. Table 2-2: Summary of the environmental setting.



2.4 Previous Investigations

The following reports have been reviewed as part of this PRA. Both reports cover the adjacent Standish Hospital site with some overlap into the current study area.

URS, November 2013 - Appendix 2: Ground Conditions Desk Study Standish Hospital, Shroud.

RSK, February 2017 – Former Standish Hospital, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire – Geo-environmental Site Assessment (ref 28446-01(00).

The RSK report identified the following information in the adjacent Standish Hospital investigation that may affect the study area:

Asbestos containing materials were identified in soil samples in one location. Other potentially asbestos containing materials were noted in buildings present on site.

Japanese Knotweed was identified within the study area and crossing the northern boundary.

Former hospital tip identified in the northwest corner of the Standish Hospital study area (127m NW of the Westridge area). Waste was observed to include various ‘inert’ materials such as scrap metal, bricks, ceramics, plastics, etc. The lateral and vertical extent of the waste was not determined, but was found to be >0.7m deep.

The site lies within an Intermediate Probability of Radon Area (5-10% of homes are estimated to be at or above the Action Level).

Limited gas monitoring during the RSK investigation did not identify a gas risk on site.

2.5 Site Reconnaissance

A site reconnaissance was carried out on 10th March 2017 for the Westridge site.

Relevant features identified on site are summarised below:

Hardstood ground in the southern corner and rough grassland over the remainder of the site.

The site is bounded by metal fencing. Westridge Hospital is present in the south east corner of the site. A transformer was observed in the south west corner of the site. Three car parks in the south east area of the site (tarmac, good condition). The site is heavily vegetated along the northern boundary. Mature trees were observed across the site. Drains and manhole covers were noted across the site. Made ground was observed, which contained brick, rootlets, ash and clinker to 0.2-

0.4mgl over natural sands and clay. A fenced area signed as ‘confined work space’ is located approximately central to

the site. Nine manholes are present within the fenced area. Anecdotal evidence indicates the confined space refers to sewage discharge which goes through a controlled treatment system. It is understood that sumps take secondary treated sewage and trade effluent from Westridge hospital building, via a 225mm diameter pipe and transfer it to an outflow in the surface water stream approximately 100m to the north. The tank is believed to be circa 3m wide, 8m long and 3m deep.

Evidence of historic building footprints was noted along the northern boundary. No access restrictions. No evidence of contamination, other than ashy made ground was identified.



2.6 Contamination Sources / Pathways and Receptors

A summary of contamination sources are as follows: Made ground: heavy metals (arsenic and lead), sulphates, PAHs and ACMs. If a

significant depth of organic / putrescible material is present, hazardous gas (principally carbon dioxide and methane) could also be generated on site. Indeed, an area of deeper made ground is anticipated to the north of the main hospital building where several ‘confined space’ manholes were identified. This is anticipated to be a controlled treatment system for sewerage and trade effluent from the hospital building and is not considered to present a major source of ground contamination.

Car parking / roadway: hydrocarbons, glycols and solvent contamination. Landfills / potentially infilled ground: hazardous gas (principally carbon dioxide and

methane). Lias Group (undifferentiated limestone): ground gas (primarily carbon dioxide). The site lies within an Intermediate Probability of Radon Area (5-10% of homes are

estimated to be at or above the Action Level). Industries in Surrounding Area: similar contaminants to the above (unlikely to be

more significant than the on-site contamination sources already identified).

A summary of possible pathways are as follows: Human Health - ingestion (of soil, dust, home produce), inhalation (of dust, fibres,

vapours, gas), dermal contact (of soils and dust). Controlled Waters: Surface run-off, migration of mobile contaminants through

permeable strata and preferential pathways. Gas: Migration through permeable strata and preferential pathways. Build-up in

confined spaces causing explosion and asphyxiation. Windblown dust. Direct contact. Root uptake.

A summary of possible receptors are as follows:

Human Health: future site users (including residents, visitors and site workers) and offsite land users.

Controlled Waters: Pond (with inlets and issues) 22m north and underlying Secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer.

Buildings and structures. Potable water pipes. Flora within future gardens/landscaping. Ecological: Site lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an

Environmentally Sensitive Area.

2.7 LKC Preliminary Contamination Conceptual Model

The preliminary contamination conceptual model using contaminant-pathway-receptor linkages based on guidance in CLR115 has been summarised in Table 2-3. This has been slightly modified from the findings of the original PRA. The aim of the conceptual model is to provide a preliminary assessment of the likelihood of a pollutant linkage for each potential combination of contaminant, pathway and receptor. A conceptual model can be used to make an informed decision on the

5 EA (2004). “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination.” R&D Publication CLR 11.



contamination risks associated with the site and determine what site investigation work is required. The preliminary contamination conceptual model has identified seven generic potential pollutant linkages. Each linkage is described along with an assessment of the risk based upon guidance on probabilities and consequences outlined in CIRIA C5526. In order to assess the potential risk for each pollutant linkage, an assessment of the magnitude of the potential consequence (severity) of the risk occurring and the magnitude of the probability (likelihood) of the risk occurring has been considered and classified. This is based on the guidance provided in CIRIA C552 and further details including a risk matrix is provided in Appendix A. Where LKC identified a low to very low risk, limited intrusive investigation work, a watching brief (during construction work) or no investigation work will be recommended. This will be dependent on the nature of the site and the proposed development. Where the risk falls into the moderate/low risk, LKC will undertake an assessment to establish what category the pollutant linkage will fall into (i.e. moderate or low risk will be chosen). Where LKC identifies a moderate or higher risk, intrusive work or precautionary remedial measures will be recommended. The conceptual model is based on the future use of the site (post development), in line with proposed development scheme. It should be noted that there may be risk from short term exposure from contaminated soil to site workers during development work. The Preliminary Contamination Conceptual Model deals with long term exposure to key receptors associated with the future use of the site. Acute risks can be easily mitigated by good environmental management of the site during site works. Standard health and safety precautions (as per HSE guidance7) should be adopted by all workers involved with site enabling and construction works. Therefore, this receptor is not considered in the contamination conceptual model.

2.8 Recommendations

Based upon the Preliminary Contamination Conceptual Model a site investigation was recommended to assess the potential pollutant linkages further.

6 CIRIA (2001). “Contaminated land risk assessment: A guide to good practice”. C552. 7 HSE (1991). “Protection of Workers and the General Public during Development of Contaminated Land” London HMSO.



Pollutant Linkage

Pathway Receptor Contaminant (source) Probability Consequence Risk Assessment and Recommendations

PL1

Dermal contact. Inhalation of soil, fibres and dust.

Ingestion of soils, dust, vegetables, soil attached to vegetables.

Windblown dust.

Future site users. Offsite receptors.

ACM (former buildings, potentially in made ground).

Likely Severe High Likely probability due to age of buildings and date of demolition.

Recommendation: Intrusive investigation required. Heavy metals PAHs (made ground).

Likely Medium Moderate Likely probability given the history of the site and identified ashy made ground.

Recommendation: Intrusive investigation required.

Petroleum hydrocarbons, (made ground, car parking).

Low Likelihood

Medium Moderate

/ Low Low likelihood of hydrocarbons and volatile contamination as minimal spills / leakages expected from car parking.

Low risk assumed as significant source not expected and no evidence identified during site reconnaissance.

Recommendation: Testing required if evidence of hydrocarbons and/or volatile contaminants identified.

PL2

Inhalation of vapours. Migration through permeable strata and preferential pathways.


Volatiles such as petroleum hydrocarbons (made ground, car parking).

Low Likelihood

Medium Moderate

/ Low

PL3

Inhalation of gas. Migration through permeable strata and preferential pathways.

Explosion in confined spaces.

Future site users. Buildings. Offsite land users.

Methane, carbon dioxide (landfill within 250m, field boundaries).

Unlikely Severe Moderate

/ Low

Unlikely probability due to inert nature of infill material in the offsite hospital landfill, age, distance to site and findings of the limited gas monitoring closer to landfill.

Recommendation: No monitoring required unless significant putrescible material is identified, or confirmation of a low risk.

Radon (natural geology). Low

LikelihoodSevere Moderate

Site lies within an Intermediate Probability Radon Area (5-10% of homes estimated to be at or above action level).

Recommendation: Basic radon protection measures required.

PL4

Surface Run-off. Migration through permeable strata and preferential pathways

Perched waters migration.

Groundwater (secondary undifferentiated).

Surface water (pond).

Mobile contaminants such as metals, PAHs, hydrocarbons (made ground, car parking).

Low Likelihood

Medium Moderate

/ Low

Low likelihood of hydrocarbons as minimal spills / leakages expected from car parking.

Low risk assumed as significant source not expected and no evidence identified during site reconnaissance.

Contaminants within ashy made ground likely to be relatively immobile.

Recommendation: No testing required unless evidence of potentially mobile contamination is identified.

PL5 Sulphate attack on concrete.

Building structure. Sulphate (ash identified in made ground).

Likely Mild Moderate

/ Low

Likely probability as ash was identified in made ground, which may be in contact with concrete used in future buildings.

Moderate risk assumed at this stage. Recommendation: Sampling as part of PL1.

PL6 Ingestion of tainted water supply.

Future site users. Water pipes.

Organic Contaminants such as hydrocarbons, solvents (made ground, car parking).

Low Likelihood

Medium Moderate

/ Low

Low probability as significant contamination not anticipated at pipeline depth (0.75-1.35m).

Risk is considered moderate at this stage due to unknown depth of made ground.

Recommendation: Sampling required if made ground present at pipeline installation depths.

PL7 Direct Contact (plant uptake).

Flora. Phytotoxic Contaminants (made ground).

Likely Minor Low Likely probability as contamination considered possible, which may be taken up by flora in soft landscaping / gardens.

Recommendation: Investigation work as part of PL1.

Table 2-3: Preliminary Contamination Conceptual Model.



3 GROUND INVESTIGATION

3.1 Site Investigation Design and Methodology

In order to assess the ground conditions at the site and to investigate the potential pollutant linkages identified in the preliminary contamination conceptual model an intrusive investigation was undertaken. The investigation was carried out on 4th to 5th April 2017 and comprised the following:

8no. window sample boreholes drilled to 1.85-5.45 metres below ground level (mbgl) (ref. WS101 to WS108).

WS103 had to be re-positioned due to an obstruction. The repositioned borehole is referenced WS103A. All site investigation locations are shown in Figure 3. The locations were chosen to allow a reasonable distribution across the site as well as target areas of concern while avoiding on-site constraints from buildings and car parking. Table 3-1 details the targeted and general coverage (non-targeted) site investigation locations.

Site Investigation Locations

Rationale

WS101, WS102 and WS108

General coverage.

WS103, WS104, WS106 and WS107

Targeting areas of former buildings and car parking.

WS105 Targeting area around in ground confined spaces (potentially deep made ground).

Table 3-1: Summary of sampling locations. In addition, areas where buildings are still present in the southeast of the site could not be accessed. Further investigation may be required in these areas as part of future planning. The number of site investigation location points corresponds to approximately one location per 50m square centres. This is considered to be a conservative sampling density and is in line with BS10175 8 for an ‘exploratory investigation’. Further investigation work scheduled to assess the ground conditions further and to be in line with BS10175 for a ‘main investigation’. The targeted coverage above also complies with general site coverage.

All profile logs are provided in Appendix B and are in line with BS14688-19 and BS593010.

3.2 Well Installations

All 8no. (WS101-WS108) of the boreholes were installed with monitoring wells for gas and groundwater monitoring, groundwater sampling and falling head tests. Monitoring wells were installed in accordance with BS10175 and CIRIA C66511 and generally comprised

8 British Standard (2011). “Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice.” BS10175:2011. 9 British Standards (2002) Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification and Classification of Soil. Part 1: Identification and description. BS EN ISO 14688-1:2002. 10 British Standard (2015). “Code of Practice for Ground Investigations”. BS5930:2015. 11 CIRIA (2007). “Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings.” CIRIA C665.



approximately 1m plain pipe over a length of slotted pipe surrounded by pea gravel and sealed at the top with bentonite and concrete. The response zones for the window sample boreholes were installed in made ground and underlying natural superficial deposits. Well installation details are provided in Profile Logs in Appendix B.

3.3 Sampling Protocol

3.3.1 Soil Sampling (Contamination)

Standard sampling protocol and preservation of samples was undertaken as described in the EA guidance on site investigation12. Soil was collected for onsite testing. A plastic zip bag was half filled with soil allowing a suitably sized headspace. The bag was sealed and stored for at least 20 minutes before being tested for total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) using a PhoCheck Tiger photoionisation detector (PID). Results of the PID readings are presented on the profile logs (Appendix B). The on-site monitoring was carried out in line CIRIA C66513 to aid in screening samples for volatile analysis. Soil samples of approximately 500g were recovered in amber jars, amber vials for volatile analysis and plastic tubs. All the samples were labelled and stored in cool boxes prior to being collected by courier at the end of the day for delivery to the Chemtest laboratory in Newmarket for chemical testing. If collection was not possible the same day then samples were stored in the sample storage fridge at the LK Group offices below 4˚C. Samples were tracked using appropriate Chain of Custody forms provided by Chemtest. Many of the contamination tests are UKAS or MCERTS accredited and further details are given in the Certificate of Analysis presented in Appendix C. Table 3-2 shows the soil testing undertaken.

Suites and Contaminants

No. Samples

Location & Depth

Justification

Metals / metalloids, pH, water soluble sulphate, speciated PAHs, SOM and asbestos screen.

6

WS101 0-0.3m WS102 0-0.4m

WS103A 0.5-1.0m WS104 0.4-1.0m WS105 0.4-0.6m WS107 0.5-1.0m

A basic suite with a broad selection of contaminants tested on samples across the site where no significant evidence of contamination was identified (with the exception of occasional ash and coal) and no TVOCs identified from the PID tests.

Metals / metalloids, pH, water soluble sulphate, cyanide suite, phenol, TPHCWG, BTEX, MTBE, speciated PAHs, SOM and asbestos screen.

3 WS103A 0-0.3m WS105 0.1-0.3m WS107 0-0.4m

Although no visual/olfactory evidence of contamination was identified (with the exception of some ash), precautionary detailed suite undertaken on WS103A 0-0.3m, WS105 0.1-0.3m, WS107 0-0.4m.

TPHCWG, BTEX, MTBE and SOM.

3 WS104 0.35-0.4m WS106 0.1-0.2m WS108 0-0.2m

A precautionary petroleum hydrocarbon suite was undertaken on samples from WS104 0.35-0.4m, WS106 0.1-0.2m, and WS108 0-0.2m.

Table 3-2: Summary of soil sample testing undertaken. Notes: Metal/metalloids = arsenic, cadmium, chromium, (total and hexavalent), copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, vanadium, zinc and boron; TPHCWG = carbon banded and aromatic/aliphatic split petroleum hydrocarbons; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes; MTBE=Methyl tert-butyl ether, SOM = Soil Organic Matter.

12 EA (2000). “Technical Aspects of Site Investigation. Volumes 1 & 2 Text Supplements Research and Development Technical Report.” P5-065/Tr. 13 CIRIA (2007). “Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings.” CIRIA C665.



3.3.2 Water Sampling

To establish the condition of shallow groundwater LKC undertook 3 groundwater samples. The groundwater samples were collected a minimum of 1 week after drilling had finished and following well development. Sample collection was undertaken using a disposable bailer. The borehole was purged of all standing water and the sample collected from the recharged water. The sample was collected in glass and plastic bottles and a glass vial. A water meter was used to test the pH, temperature and conductivity before sampling until equilibrium conditions were met, as per BS1017514 guidelines. All water samples were placed in glass bottles, plastic bottles and septum topped vials and stored in ice packed cool boxes. The samples were sent to Chemtest on the same day for analysis. The sampling suite is presented in Table 3-3. Sampling was carried out in accordance with BS593015 and BS5667-1116. Many of the tests are UKAS or MCERTS accredited and further details are given in the Certificate of Analysis presented in Appendix C. Table 3-3 shows the groundwater testing undertaken.

Suites andContaminants

No. Samples

Location Justification

pH, sulphate, cyanide suite, TPHCWG, BTEX, MTBE, speciated PAHs, phenol and hardness.

3 WS102 WS105 WS108

No significant contamination risk identified from the investigation and the soil results. Limited confirmatory testing for contamination considered to be the most significant risk.

Table 3-3. Summary of groundwater sampling tests undertaken. Notes: TPHCWG=carbon banded and aromatic/aliphatic split petroleum hydrocarbons; BTEX=benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes; MTBE=Methyl tert-butyl ether.

3.4 Gas Monitoring

All the installed boreholes have been subject to one precautionary gas monitoring event. Monitoring was undertaken using a Geotechnical Instruments GA2000 plus in accordance with the monitoring protocol outlined in CIRIA C66517 (flow rate measured first). The gas monitoring results to date, are reproduced in full in Appendix D.

3.5 Geotechnical Testing

3.5.1 In-situ Onsite Geotechnical Testing

In-situ geotechnical tests were performed in the boreholes to further characterise the sub-soil conditions. The following tests were undertaken:

Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed in the window sample boreholes at approximately 1m intervals, generally within the natural strata.

14 British Standard (2011). “Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice.” BS10175:2011. 15 British Standard (2015). “Code of Practice for Ground Investigations”. BS5930:2015. 16 British Standard (2009). “Water Quality – Sampling. Part 11: Guidance on Sampling of Groundwaters”. BS ISO 5667-11:2009. 17 CIRIA (2007). “Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings.” CIRIA C665.



Shear Vane tests (giving undrained shear strength) were performed in the window sample boreholes (to a maximum depth of 3mbgl) at approximately 1m intervals, within the natural clay strata.

Shear vanes tests were not always possible due to the friable or gravel rich nature of some of the clay deposits. The SPT and shear vane readings are provided within the profile logs (Appendix B).

3.5.2 Laboratory Geotechnical Testing

Soil samples were collected in tubs, bulk bags and sealed U100 tubes and sent to Professional Soil Laboratories for geotechnical testing. Representative soil samples taken during the site investigation and were selected for chemical and geotechnical testing. Many of the contamination tests are UKAS accredited and further details are given in the laboratory report presented in Appendix E. Table 3-4 shows the geotechnical testing undertaken.

Suites and Contaminants

No. Samples

Location Justification

pH and water soluble sulphate

4

WS101 0.5-1.0m WS102 2.5-3.0m WS103 2.0-3.0m WS106 1.5-2.0m

Additional samples of natural ground taken across the site to assess the pH and sulphate for geotechnical purposes.

Atterberg Limits (plasticity testing)

4

WS102 1.0-1.5m WS104 2.0-2.5m WS107 1.0-1.5m WS108 0.5-1.0m

A selection of clay samples across the site were tested for Atterberg Limits to assess their shrinkability potential associated with current and proposed trees.

Single Stage Triaxial 4

WS101 1.5-2.0m WS104 1.5-2.0m WS105 1.5-2.0m WS108 0.5-1.0m

Taken from undisturbed U38 samples. Undertaken to confirm the strength of the clay strata.

Particle Size Distribution (PSD)

1 WS105 3.0-4.0m PSD undertaken to confirm grading of granular material.

Table 3-4: Summary of geotechnical testing undertaken.

3.6 Falling Head Tests

LKC undertook falling head tests to assess the permeability of the ground. The tests were carried out in general accordance with guidance given in BS593018. The tests were carried out in monitoring wells installed within the cased window sample boreholes during drilling work. Groundwater levels were measured prior to undertaking the tests. Water was added to the well to a known depth and falling water levels were measured over time. The results are presented in Appendix F.

18 British Standard (2015). “Code of Practice for Ground Investigations”. BS5930:2015.



4 GROUND CONDITIONS

4.1 Geology

4.1.1 Generalised Sequence

The ground conditions beneath the site comprised made ground underlain by natural sandy gravelly clay. A summary section of the logs are provided in Plate 4-1, with additional comments below.

Plate 4-1: Summary of ground conditions.

Additional information on ground conditions:

The made ground (from 0-0.4mbgl), where present, generally consisted of gravelly, silty clay with brick, ash and clinker, sandstone and limestone gravel. Hardstanding was uderlain by a sub-base gravel with some tarmacadam and ash gravel. Exceptions to this were WS101 and WS103(A) where no made ground was identified.

Made ground was generally underlain by variously sandy, gravelly silty clay with sand and gravel bands/lenses in some places. Superficial deposits also comprised residually/heavily weathered sandstone in the west of the site.

Underlying bedrock varied across the site, but generally was observed to comprose sandstone in the west and limestone in the east. One locations (WS104), bedrock was found to be mudstone.

No olfactory indications of contamination were identified during the site investigation.



4.2 Groundwater

4.2.1 Groundwater Levels

Groundwater strikes were recorded during the investigation in boreholes. In addition, groundwater level monitoring within the borehole wells has been undertaken on one occasion as part of the gas monitoring. An oil-water interface probe (approximately 1cm detection limit) was used to assess the presence of free phase hydrocarbons within each borehole. Results are summarised in Table 4-1.

BH Water Strike

Depths (mbgl)

Well Response Zone (mbgl)

Monitoring Depths (mbgl) Sample Taken?

Evidence of Contam? Groundwater Base

WS101 Dry 1.0-3.0 (C, S/S) - 3.01 N N

WS102 3.0 1.0-5.0 (C, S) 4.01 4.91 Y N

WS103A Dry 0.7-2.7 (C, S/S) 2.88 2.90 N N

WS104 2.0 0.7-3.7 (C, Si, G) 1.68 3.50 N N

WS105 3.1 1.0-4.0 (C, S/S) 2.17 3.98 Y N

WS106 Dry 1.0-2.0 (C) 1.98 2.09 N N

WS107 Dry 1.0-3.0 (C) - 3.03 N N

WS108 Dry 1.0-4.0 (C) 1.24 3.26 Y N

Table 4-1: Summary of water strike depths within boreholes. Response Zones: S/S = Sandstone; Si=Silt; S=Sand; C=Clay; G=Gravel; S/S sandstone.

Groundwater appears largely to be within the underlying weathered and competent bedrock. Approximate elevations (based on estimated ground levels) infers the groundwater to be flowing in a westerly direction towards, and roughly perpendicular to, the surface water stream (circa 200m) running south, and generally coincides with surface topography. A steeper groundwater gradient can be inferred in the east of the site where borehole logs indicate less permeable bedrock (limestone and mudstone). Where more permeable sandstone was encountered in the west of the site the groundwater gradient becomes flatter.

4.2.2 Permeability Tests

The results of the falling head tests are presented in Appendix F and summarised in Table 4-2. BS5930 19 indicates that if ‘Ho’ is taken as the groundwater ‘Head’ above baseline conditions following the addition of water at the start of the permeability test and ‘H’ is the measured groundwater ‘Head’ above baseline conditions at any given time during the test then the time taken to reach a head ratio (H/Ho) of 0.37 is used to calculate the permeability of the soils. Where slow progress was observed and H/Ho of 0.37 was not reached, the permeability has not been calculated. No water was encountered at in WS101, WS106, and WS108, therefore baseline conditions were taken as the base of the monitoring wells.

19 BSI (1999). “Code of Practice for Site Investigations”.



BH Response Zone

(mbgl) and Strata Test No. Initial water

level (mbgl) Basic Time Lag

(where H/Ho=0.37) Permeability (k)

m/sec

WS101 1.0-3.39 (C, S/S) 1 Dry 17 mins 2.42 x 10-6 2 Dry 1 min 3.86 x 10-5 3 Dry 30 secs 8.83 x 10-5

WS103A 1.0-3.04 (C, S/S) 1 2.97 5 mins 8.48 x 10-6 2 Dry 5 mins 9.46 x 10-6 3 Dry 20 secs 1.61 x 10-4

WS106 1.0-2.45 (C) 1 Dry N/A (0.37 not reached) N/A WS108 1.0-4.44 (C, L/S) 1 Dry N/A (0.37 not reached) N/A

Table 4-2: Summary of falling head tests and permeability. Notes C=Cohesive (silt/clay), S/S=Sandstone, L/S = Limestone

The falling head tests encountered permeability in the order of 10-4m/sec to 10-6m/sec, where tests could be considered to have been successful. The higher permeability was recorded where more granular strata (weathered sandstone) were encountered within the response zones. These results range between aquifer and aquiclude (based on Figure 7.3 of Sarsby20) and further soakaway testing using BRE 36521 method recommended to confirm the findings. Tests undertaken within cohesive material (WS106 & WS108) can be classed as having failed, as H/Ho of 0.37 was not reached and cohesive s strata (silts, clays and limestone) should be considered an aquiclude (based on Figure 7.3 of Sarsby) are unlikely to be suitable for shallow soakaways

4.3 In-situ Testing

4.3.1 Standard Penetration Tests

In-situ standard penetration tests (SPTs) were undertaken, predominantly in the natural ground. The results are summarised in Table 4-3 and provided within the profile logs in Appendix B.

Approx. Depth (mbgl)

SPT ‘N’ Values

WS101 WS102 WS103 WS103A WS104 WS105 WS106 WS107 WS108

0-1 - - - - - - - - -

1-2 9

(C) 9

(C) 15 (C)

9 (C)

6 (C)

11 (C)

15 (C)

13 (C)

11 (C)

2-3 15

(S/S) 5

(C) 50

(S/S) 16 (C)

8 (Si)

14 (S/S)

50 (C, S/S)

19 (C)

16 (C)

3-4 50

(S/S) 12 (S)

- 50

(S/S) 15 (Si)

17 (S/S)

- 50

(C, L/S) 12 (C)

4-5 - 20 (S)

- - 50 (C)

50 (S/S)

- - 50

(C, L/S)

5-6 - 49 (S)

- - - 34

(S/S) - - -

GW Level

3.01 4.91 - 2.9 3.5 3.98 2.09 3.03 3.26

Table 4-3: Summary of SPT (N) values. Notes: S/S=Sandstone; S=Sand; C=Clay; Si=Silt; L/S=Limestone. Groundwater level based on monitoring data.

20 Sarsby (2005). “Environmental Geotechnics”. 21

BRE (2003) ‘Soakaway Design’ British Research Establishment BRE Digest 365 2003



4.3.2 Shear Vanes

Hand shear vane readings, recording undrained shear strength (USS), were taken within the clay strata. The results are summarised in Table 4-4 and provided within the profile logs in Appendix B. The clay typically became more friable with depth, friable clay was identified closer to the surface in WS104, and therefore results may be lower than the actual clay strength.

Approximate Depth (mbgl)

Average Undrained Shear Strength (kN/m2)

WS101 WS102 WS103 WS103

A WS104 WS105 WS106 WS107 WS108

0-1 56 65 94 35 15* 110 105 98 63 1-2 113 - - - 15* 66 70 150+ 150+ 2-3 88 30 - - 86 - - 80 131

GW Level 3.01 4.91 - 2.9 3.5 3.98 2.09 3.03 3.26

Table 4-4: Summary of average hand shear vane readings. Notes: Groundwater level based on strikes during investigation and monitoring data. Shear vane readings can be influenced by coarse material including coarse silt. *- Shear vane in friable clay.

4.4 Laboratory Testing

4.4.1 Single Stage Triaxial Test

Single stage triaxial testing has been undertaken on four samples of the natural clay strata. The results are presented in Appendix E and summarised in Table 4-5.

Location Depth (mbgl)

Material Description Undrained Shear strength

(kPa) WS101 1.5-2.0 Brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy CLAY. 38 WS104 1.5-2.0 Firm brown slightly sandy very silty CLAY. 42 WS105 1.5-2.0 Firm brown gravelly sandy CLAY. 49 WS107 1.5-2.0 Stiff brown slightly sandy CLAY. 115

Table 4-5: Summary of single stage triaxial results.

4.4.2 Particle Size Distribution

Particle size distribution (PSDs) tests were carried out on granular strata to confirm the material type. Full results are presented in Appendix E and summarised below in Table 4-6.


Material Percent passing through sieve

63mm 2mm 0.063mm

WS105 3-4 Medium dense to dense orange clayey SAND.

100% 93% 67%

Table 4-6: Summary of particle size distribution results. Notes: % passing: 63mm = cobble / gravel boundary; 2mm = gravel / sand boundary; 0.063mm = sand / silt boundary

4.4.3 Atterberg Limits

Representative samples of natural clay were subjected to Atterberg Limits (plasticity) and Moisture Content testing. Results are presented in Appendix E and summarised in Table 4-7. Table 4-7 also includes the modified plasticity index as detailed in Chapter 4.2-D5 of the NHBC standards (modified plasticity index = plasticity index x % less than 425μm sieve / 100%).




Moisture Content

(%)

Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Plasticity Index (%)

Class Passing

425 micron (%)

Modified Plasticity Index (%)

WS102 1.0-1.5 None plastic

WS104 2.0-2.5 30 25 25 18 CI 100 18

WS107 1.0-1.5 33 29 29 40 CH 100 40

WS108 0.5-1.0 30 28 28 39 CH 100 39

Table 4-7: Summary of plasticity index testing. The modified plasticity index is between 39% and 40% for silty clay identified in samples from WS107 and WS108. This characterises the clay as having a medium to high volume change potential. The profile log for the sample collected from WS104 indicates clayey silt. This characterises the silt as having a low volume change potential.

4.4.4 Sulphate and pH

Water soluble sulphate and pH tests were carried out on soil samples. Full results are presented in Appendix C and summarised in Table 4-8.

Strata pH Sulphate (g/l)

Made Ground 6.5-9.1 <0.01-0.19

Natural 6.9-8.7 <0.01-0.025

Table 4-8: Summary of pH and sulphate results.

4.5 Foundation Considerations

Final foundation design will need to be confirmed once loadings of proposed buildings are known and details of ground works (i.e. potential cut and fill exercises) are known. A preliminary foundation assessment is summarised in Table 4-9.

General Ground conditions / Geotechnical Testing

Maximum investigation depth 5.45mbgl. Made Ground to <0.5mbgl. Variously silty, gravelly sandy CLAY to >3.4mbgl. Weathered sandstone, competent sandstone, limestone and mudstone to >5.45mbgl.

SPTs N=5-15 at 1-2m, N=5-50 at 2-3m, N=12-50 at 3-4mbgl, N=20-50 at 4-5mbgl.

USS 35-110kPA at 0-1mbgl, 66-150+KPa at 1-2mbgl, 30-131KPa at 2-3mbgl. Medium to high volume change potential in silty CLAY. Low volume change potential in silts.

Allowable Bearing Pressure

100 kN/m2 at <1mbgl in the silty, gravelly CLAY.

Anticipated Foundation Type

Spread footings are recommended. Traditional strip/trench fill foundations recommended from 1mbgl. Excavate soft spots and replace with mass concrete or granular material compacted to specification.

Deepen foundations to mitigate effects of trees and shrubs in fine grained soils according to National House Building Council (NHBC) Building Standards, Chapter 4.2, Building Near Trees, A medium to high volume change potential for silty CLAY and a low volume potential has been identified in silts in WS104.

Concrete Requirements Based on BRE Digest 200522 – DS-1 AC-1 recommended. Services Services – consideration to the presence of services running through the site.

Services may need to re-routed or removed. Plasticity Consideration will need to be given to the shrink / swell of the clay strata if it is

to be used as founding strata, particularly where trees/hedges are present. Foundations may need to be deepened. A medium to high volume change potential for silty CLAY and a low volume potential identified in silts in WS104.

22 BRE (2005).”Concrete in Aggressive Ground.” Special Digest 1.



Table 4-9. Preliminary Foundation Assessment. SPT=Standard Penetration Test N Values; USS=Undrained Shear Strength; MPI=Modified Plasticity Index. Concrete requirements based on BRE Digest 200523.



5 GENERIC RISK ASSESSMENT

5.1 Introduction

Current good practice requires that the findings from a site investigation should be evaluated on a site specific basis, using a risk based approach. Risk assessment involves identification and evaluation of the hazards presented by the concentrations of contaminants measured followed by an evaluation of the risks which are associated with these hazards (CLR1124). Information gathered from the risk assessment has been collated in the revised contamination conceptual model in Section 5.6.

5.2 Soil Risk Assessment

5.2.1 Methodology

With regards to the soil risk assessment LKC will use the following hierarchy:

Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SLs). LQM Suitable 4 Use Levels (S4ULs). ATRISK Soil Screening Values (SSVs) and CL:AIRE Generic Assessment Criteria

(GACs). C4SLs have been published 25 , 26 .in changes to the contaminated land guidance that changed the evaluation of risk from ‘minimal’ (referred to as Health Criteria values (HCVs))27 used to generate Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) to ‘low’ (referred to as Lowest Level of Toxicological Concern (LLTCs)). The policy companion document and supporting letter by Defra, dated 3rd September 2014, states that C4SLs ‘could be used under the planning regime, as well as within Part 2A’. Based on these comments LKC considers the justifications and assumptions used to generate ‘low’ risk are suitable for the planning regime. Where no C4SLs have been generated LKC will use the LQM S4ULs 28 . Similar assumptions and land uses to C4SLs have been used. However, toxicological information has been based on ‘minimal risk’ as per previous guidelines and assumptions29,30,31,32. If contaminants are not present as C4SLs and S4ULs then LKC will use ATRISK SSVs or CL:AIRE GACs33. These follow the ‘minimal’ risk principal and more stringent exposure parameters and will be conservative.

LKC consider the main risk drivers for PAHs are benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) and naphthalene. This is due to B(a)P possibly being a carcinogen and most toxic of the PAHs34,35 and

24 EA (2004). “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination.” R&D Publication CLR 11. 25 Defra (2014). “SP1010: Development of Category 4 Screening Levels and Assessment of Land Affected by Contamination – Policy Companion Document.” 26 CL:AIRE (2013). “SP1010: Development of Category 4 Screening Levels and Assessment of Land Affected by Contamination – Final project Report.” 27 EA (2008). “Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soils.” Science Report – SC050021/SR2. 28 LQM (2014). “The LQM/CIEH S4ULs for Human Health Risk Assessment.” 29 EA (2008). “Updated Technical Background to the CLEA Model.” Science Report – SC050021/SR3. 30 EA (2008). “Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soils.” Science Report – SC050021/SR2. 31 EA (2008). “A Review of Body Weight and Height Data used within the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA).” Project SC050021/Technical Review 1. 32 EA (2009). “Compilation of Data for Priority Organic Pollutants for Derivation of Soil Guideline Values.” Science report SC050021/SR7. 33 CL:AIRE (2009). “The Soil Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment.” 34 EA (2002). “Contaminants in Soils: Collation of Toxicological Data and Intake Values for Humans. Benzo[a]pyrene.” R&D Publication TOX2. 35 USEPA (1984). “Health Effects Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). EPA 540/1-86-013.”



naphthalene the most volatile and soluble 36 . The new C4SLs indicate B(a)P as a surrogate marker for carcinogenic PAHs, if it falls within appropriate limits, since the risk from other non-carcinogenic PAHs are considered negligible37. For B(a)P to be used as a surrogate marker it should follow the profile described by the HPA (2008)38 and CL:AIRE (2013). Naphthalene will be treated separately using the LQM S4ULs. The proposed development is for residential houses with gardens, therefore the assessment criteria for residential with plant uptake has been used. All criteria have been generated using the CLEA V1.06 model39 based either on 1%, 2.5% and 6% Soil Organic matter (SOM). Results will be compared to the nearest appropriate SOM. A summary of the generic assessment criteria is provided in Appendix G. ATRISK SSVs and CL:AIRE GACs were not required for this dataset and have not been included. B(a)P as Surrogate Marker Based on the above assumption for PAHs, LKC undertook an assessment of the data for the site with regards to using B(a)P as a surrogate marker for carcinogenic PAHs as per HPA and CL:AIRE guidelines. The primary toxicological study related to Culp et.al40, which was based on coal tar mixtures (>80,000mg/kg of total PAHs) fed in food to mice over a two year carcinogenicity study. Graph 5-1 summarises the study site data with respect to how the ratios of carcinogenic PAHs relate to B(a)P, within the confidence limits provided in the HPA document.

Graph 5-1: The ratio of PAH to B(a)P in soil for all available data at the site based on 2 sample (where values were >LOD to allow the calculation of a ratio). Notes: B(a)P = Benzo(a)pyrene; D(ah)A = Dibenzo(ah)anthracene; B(a)A = Benzo(a)anthracene; B(b)F = Benzo(b)fluoranthene; B(k)F = benzo(k)fluoranthene; I(123cd)P = Indeno(123cd)pyrene; B(ghi)P = Benzo(ghi)perylene

= Ratio to B(a)P for all data = Mean ratio to B(a)P for Culp data = Mean ratio to B(a)P from all data at the site = Mean ratio to B(a)P for UK data presented by HPA = Upper and Lower limits (order of magnitude from Culp data)

36 EA (2003). “Review of the Fate and Transport of Selected Contaminants in the Soil Environment.” Draft technical report P5- 079/TR1. 37 CL:AIRE (2013). “SP1010: Development of Category 4 Screening Levels and Assessment of Land Affected by Contamination – Final project Report.” 38 HPA (2010). “HPA Contaminated Land Information Sheet: Risk Assessment Approaches for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).” Version 3. 39 EA (2008). “CLEA Software (Version 1.05) Handbook.” Science Report – SC050021/SR4. 40 Culp, S; Gaylor, D; Sheldon, W; Goldstein, L and Beland, F (1998). “ A Comparison of Tumours Induced by Coal Tar and Benzo-a-pyrene in a 2-Year Biossay.” Carcinogenesis. Vol 19, no. 1, pp. 117-124.

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

B(a)A Chrysene B(b)F B(k)F D(ah)A I(123cd)P B(ghi)P

Rat

io t

o B

(a)P



All the data points that could be used to calculate ratios fall inside the upper or lower limits. Based on this distribution of data LKC considers B(a)P can be used as a surrogate marker for carcinogenic PAHs and the C4SL criteria is suitable for this dataset.

5.2.2 Soil Results Comparison against Assessment Criteria

Elevated and pertinent results are presented in Table 5-1 below and all analysis sheets are presented in Appendix C.

Contaminant Units No. of

samples

Elevated Results

Sample Location Criteria

(1%/2.5%/6%)

Source of

Criteria

Me

tals

Arsenic mg/kg 9

68 WS102 (0-0.4m)

37 C4SL 43 WS103A (0-0.3m)

47 WS103A (0.5-1.0m)

70 WS105 (0.1-0.3m)

PA

Hs

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 9 22 WS105 (0.1-0.3m) 5 C4SL

pH pH 8 Range 7.4 to 8.6 SOM % 12 Range 0.59 to 13 Asbestos - 12 None Detected

Table 5-1: Summary of elevated and pertinent analytical results. Notes: Only results that exceeded assessment criteria have been shown and results from all depths are noted. Results have been compared to the nearest appropriate SOM.

5.2.3 Direct Contact Risk – Pollutant Linkage 1

Elevated results have been identified for arsenic in WS102, WS103A and WS105, in the centre and west of the site. Elevated PAHs were identified within WS105 in the centre of the site. An exceedance of arsenic was encountered in the natural ground within window sample WS103A. BGS Normal Background Concentrations (NBC) mapping indicates the Stroud area background arsenic concentrations are between 25-74mg/kg. Consultation with the Contaminated Land Officer indicates that concentrations are typically <40mg/kg. The marginal exceedance from natural strata at one location is not currently thought to represent an issue at this stage, but further testing of natural soils should be undertaken in order to build a more robust data set for consideration. Elevated PAHs have been identified in WS105. The profile log or WS105 identifies the made ground to contain ash, clinker and tarmacadam. The only other location on site were ash and clinker and tarmacadam has been identified is WS106, both of which are beneath tarmacadam hardstanding in the North of the site. Given the only limited thickness and spatial distribution of ash & clinker containing material, PAH contamination is not considered to be site wide and at this stage is considered to be relatively localised beneath areas of hardstanding in the north. Tarmacadam is known to comprise heavy end hydrocarbons, such as PAHs41. The matrix of tarmacadam comprises inert aggregate surrounded by bitumen, thus may not be in a form that can readily be ingested, sorbed through the skin or inhaled (dust) due to grain size. The laboratory preparation comprises crushing the sample, which would increase 41 Kim E. Grosenheider, Paul R. Bloom, Thomas R. Halbach and Marilyn R. Johnson (2006). “A Review of the Current Literature Regarding Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Asphalt Pavement.” University of Minnesota.



the surface area of any bitumen before analysis and not be in a form that would be significantly observed onsite (much finer grain if crushed). A double ratio plot was undertaken (see Appendix J). This method of appraisal compares a ratio of comparative compound pairs for 4 PAH compounds. This means that the properties of the comparative PAH compounds are similar (such as aqueous solubility, molecular weight, Kow) and have diagnostic source ratios which should retain their relative concentrations and hence their ratio remain constant. Similar work has been undertaken by a number of authors42,43,44,45,46on both soil and sediments. Forensic laboratories, such as Jones Environmental also routinely use these techniques to ascertain hydrocarbon source. The double ratio plot indicates PAHs originate from combustion products, which is indicative of the composition of the made ground (such as tarmacadam noted in WS105 and WS106). At the concentrations identified, the contaminants are considered to pose a potential risk to future site users (residents) in gardens and soft landscaped areas, where made ground may be exposed / in contact with vegetables. The principal pathways are the ingestion pathways (soil, dust and vegetables) and dermal contact. The probability of PAH and metals (arsenic) affecting site users is likely. With a medium consequence, the risk is considered to be moderate and remediation is recommended. These findings will be refined based on findings of the main investigation. No asbestos was identified in any of the samples, therefore the probability of asbestos affected site users is considered to be unlikely. With a severe consequence, the risk is moderate / low. At this stage, a low risk is assumed (as no asbestos identified) and remediation is not required, subject to the findings of the main investigation. However, as a precaution construction workers should be and vigilant for any suspected ACM during groundworks (discussed further in Section 7.2).

5.2.4 Inhalation Risk – Pollutant Linkage 2

No visual / olfactory evidence of volatile contaminants were identified during the investigation. The PID did not detect any significant levels of TVOCs. Confirmatory soil analysis did not detect any VOCs / SVOCs above detection limits. LKC therefore consider the probability of volatile contaminants affecting site users as unlikely. The consequence is expected to be medium, giving a low risk and no remediation is required with respect to pollutant linkage 2, subject to the findings of the main investigation.

42 Yunker, M. B., Macdonald, R. W., Vingarzin, R., Mitchell, R. H., Goyette, D., and Sylvestre, S. (2002). “PAH in the Fraser River basin: A critical appraisal of PAH ratios as indicators of PAH source and composition.” Organic Geochemistry 33:489-515. 43 Costa, H. J., and Sauer, T. C., Jr. (2005).” Technical Note - Forensic Approaches and Considerations in Identifying PAH Background.” Environmental Forensics, 6:9-16. 44 Costa, H.J., White, K.A., Ruspantini, J.J.(2004) “Distinguishing PAH Background and MGP Residues in Sediments of Fresh Water Creek.” Environmental Forensics,:3, 171-182. 45 Seung-Kyu Kim, Dong Soo Lee, Won Joon Shim, Un Hyuk Yim, Yong-Seung Shin (2009). “Interrelationship of Pyrogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Contamination in Different Environmental Media. Sensors.” 9:9582-9602; doi: 10.3390/s91209582. 46 Stout, S.A., Magar, V.S., Uhler, R.M., Ickes, J., Abbott, J., Brenner, R. (2001).”Characterization of Naturally Occurring and Anthropogenic PAHs in Urban Sediments – Wycoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site.” Environmental Forensics, 2:287-300.



5.3 Gas Risk Assessment (Pollutant Linkage 3)

One precautionary gas monitoring visits have been undertaken on the study site. Gas monitoring results in full are presented in Appendix D. Following guidance set out in CIRIA C66547 and BS848548 peak methane and steady carbon dioxide concentrations have been used in the gas risk assessment. In addition, and as per guidance, flow rates were measured first. All gas concentrations, flow, pressure and groundwater levels are shown on Table 5-2.

Boreholes CH4

(%v/v) CO2

(%v/v) O2

(%v/v) H2S

(ppm)CO

(ppm) Flow(l/h)

Groundwater (mbgl)

Pressure(mb)

WS101 0.1 2.3 17.1 0 0 0 - 1003 WS102 0.1 4.6 14.2 0 0 0 4.01 1003 WS103 0.1 2.7 18.0 0 2 0 2.88 1003 WS104 0.1 1.6 19.3 0 0 0 1.68 1003 WS105 0.1 4.1 16.4 0 2 0 2.17 1003 WS106 0.1 1.6 18.8 0 2 0 1.98 1003 WS107 0.1 1.7 20.5 0 0 0.1 - 1003 WS108 0.1 0.2 20.6 0 2 0 1.24 1003

Table 5-2: Summary of gas monitoring. Notes: If concentrations / flow are zero then equipment detection limits are assumed. Table shows peak concentrations of CH4, O2, H2S, CO and steady concentrations of CO2. Bold where CO2 exceeds 5%v/v and CH4 exceeds 1% v/v.

No elevated methane or carbon dioxide was recorded in the boreholes on site. Negligible flow rate were recorded in monitored boreholes. Very slight concentrations of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) were noted, but they are significantly below the 8hr time weighted average of 5ppm as described in EH4049.

47 CIRIA (2007). “Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings.” CIRIA C665. 48 BSI (2015). “Code of Practice for the Characterisation and Remediation from Ground Gas in Affected Developments.” BS8485:2015. 49 HSE (2005) “Workplace Exposure Limits” EH40:2005.



Gas Screening Value

In accordance with CIRIA C66550, a Gas Screening Value (GSV) may be calculated. Assuming worst-case scenario maximum gas concentrations and flow for each borehole have been used to calculate the GSV. The GSV can be used to determine the characteristic situation (CS). Table 5-3 shows the maximum GSV for each borehole and the appropriate characteristic situation (based on GSV only).

Boreholes Max GSV

(l/hr) CS / TL

WS101 0.0023 CS1 / Green WS102 0.0046 CS1 / Green WS103 0.0027 CS1 / Green WS104 0.0016 CS1 / Green WS105 0.0041 CS1 / Green WS106 0.0016 CS1 / Green WS107 0.0017 CS1 / Green WS108 0.0002 CS1 / Green

Table 5-3: Summary of worst-case Gas Screening Values (GSV). Notes: CS – Characteristic Situation; TL= Traffic Light.

The site has been identified as being within an Intermediate Probability Radon Area (5 to 10% of homes are estimated to be at or above the Action Level). LKC consider the probability of radon affecting site users and buildings as low. Assuming a severe consequence, there is a moderate risk and remediation associated with radon is required. The PRA did not identify any significant sources of ground gas to be within influencing distance of the site, other than the Standish Hospital landfill on the adjacent site. The landfill is not anticipated to contain putrescible materials. Moreover, gas monitoring on the adjacent Standish Hospital site (closer to the landfill site) did not identify a gas risk. The intervening cohesive deposits identified beneath the Westridge and Standish Hospital sites are likely to represent a barrier to potential gas migration from the landfill. Limited to no made ground (<0.5mbgl) was identified on site and no putrescible material was identified. LKC consider the site would be classified as low risk as described in RB1751 . LKC consider the probability of carbon dioxide and/or methane gas affecting site users and buildings as unlikely. Assuming a severe consequence, there is a moderate / low risk. Given the minimal gas concentrations and flow, a low risk is considered most appropriate for carbon dioxide and methane and no remediation is required. It should be noted that the radon protection measures required, as described above are likely to be suitable for CS2 gas risk sites and will offer ample protection against ground gas risk for the site.

5.4 Controlled Water Assessment (Pollutant Linkage 4)

LKC considers the nearby surface water feature (pond) and the underlying secondary undifferentiated aquifer as the primary receptors.

50 CIRIA (2007). “Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings.” CIRIA C665. 51 CL:AIRE (2012). “Research Bulletin RB17: A Pragmatic Approach to Ground Gas Risk Assessment” CL:AIRE 2012.



No contaminants of concern were identified to be above their limits of detection. Based on the above, LKC considers the probability of contaminants on site affecting the controlled wasters as unlikely. Given the medium consequence, a low risk is anticipated (Pollutant Linkage 4) and no remediation is required subject to further sampling in the main investigation.

5.5 Additional Risk Assessment

5.5.1 Concrete (Pollutant Linkage 5)

As discussed in Section 4.5, based on the current information sulphate resistant concrete will not be required at the site. The site was classified as DS-1 AC-1.

Further investigation is recommended as part of the main investigation in order to get a more representative understanding of the potential for sulphate resistant concrete. Based on the above, the probability of sulphate concentrations affecting buildings is a low likelihood. Given the consequence is considered to be mild, the risk (pollutant linkage 5) is anticipated to be low risk and further investigation is required.

5.5.2 Potable Water Supply (Pollutant Linkage 6)

Severn Trent Water (STW) guidelines for new connections52, make reference to the past history of the site and proximity of past pollution incidents and fuel filling stations. No significantly elevated concentrations of organic contaminants have been identified on the site and the PRA report has not identified any pollution incidents within 250m of the site. The closest fuel filling station was identified as being one adjacent west of the site which is within the 100m buffer zone stipulated by STW in their guidance. On the basis of a qualitative review of STW guidance LKC consider that a potential risk to potable water supplies has been identified and it is likely that a potable water risk assessment form to be completed prior to the installation of water pipes using the UKWIR53 guidance document. However, this should be confirmed, as appropriate, with STW. At this stage, the probability of organic contaminants affecting potable water pipes is a low likelihood. Limited amounts of made ground identified on site (<0.75m) means that pipelines are likely to be installed in natural strata. The consequence is considered to be moderate, therefore the risk (pollutant linkage 6) is anticipated to be low / moderate risk and remediation may be required (subject to further risk assessment) subject to confirmation of pipeline routes and depths.

5.5.3 Phytotoxicity (Pollutant Linkage 7)

Soil results were compared to phytotoxic guideline values as outlined in BS388254. No elevated contaminants were identified therefore the probability of phytotoxic contaminants affecting vegetation is considered to be unlikely. With a minor consequence, the risk (pollutant linkage 7) is anticipated to be very low. However, this assessment should be updated upon completion of a main investigation. 52 http://www.stwater.co.uk/content/ConMediaFile/2625 53 UKWIR (2010). Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be used in Brownfield Suites.” Report ref: 10/WM/03/21. 54 BS (2015). “Specifications for Topsoil and Requirements for Use.” BS3882:2015.



5.6 Revised Contamination Conceptual Model

The preliminary contamination conceptual model (Table 2-3) has been revised following the risk assessments undertaken in Sections 5.1-5.5. The revised contamination conceptual model follows the same methodology and guidance used in the preliminary contamination conceptual model. The risk matrix is provided in Appendix A. The revised contamination conceptual model is presented in Table 5-7. Where a very low risk is identified no specific remediation is required. The requirement for further assessment during the main investigation has been included in the recommendations based on the updated risk. Further details of the remedial proposals and a remedial option appraisal are given in Section 8.



Pollutant Linkage

Pathway Receptor Contaminant (source) Probability Consequence Risk Assessment and Recommendations

PL1

Dermal contact. Inhalation of soil, fibres and dust.

Ingestion of soils, dust, vegetables, soil attached to vegetables.

Windblown dust.


ACM. Unlikely Severe Moderate

/ Low

No asbestos identified. Recommendation: Further confirmatory sampling during main investigation.

Arsenic PAHs.

Likely Medium Moderate

Likely probability as localised elevated PAHs and arsenic identified.


PL2

Inhalation of vapours. Migration through permeable strata and preferential pathways.


Volatiles such as petroleum hydrocarbons.

Unlikely Medium Low

Unlikely probability as no evidence of volatile contamination was identified in the exploratory investigation.

Recommendation: No additional specific volatile testing required unless evidence encountered during main investigation.

PL3

Inhalation of gas. Migration through permeable strata and preferential pathways.

Explosion in confined spaces.

Future site users. Buildings. Offsite land users.

Methane, carbon dioxide. Unlikely Severe Moderate

/ Low

Unlikely probability as no elevated ground gas or flow has been recorded. GSV of 0.0046 (CS1).Low risk assumed.

Limited made ground (<1m) and interceding clay from offsite landfill.

Recommendation: No further gas monitoring required.

Radon. Low

LikelihoodSevere Moderate

Site lies within an Intermediate Probability Radon Area (5-10% of homes est. to be > above action level).

Recommendation: Basic radon protection measures required.

PL4

Surface Run-off. Migration through permeable strata and preferential pathways

Perched waters migration.

Groundwater (secondary undifferentiated).

Surface water (pond).

Mobile contaminants such as metals, PAHs, hydrocarbons, volatile compounds, solvents, and glycols.

Unlikely Medium Low

Low likelihood as no contaminants of concern above detection limits.

Recommendation: Additional groundwater monitoring during main investigation to confirm low risk.

PL5 Sulphate attack on concrete.

Building structure. Sulphate. Low Mild Low


PL6 Ingestion of tainted water supply.

Future site users. Water pipes.

Organic Contaminants such as hydrocarbons, solvents.

Low Likelihood

Medium Moderate

/ Low

No significantly elevated concentrations of contaminants which may permeate pipework.

Low risk assumed at this stage due to limited made ground (<0.75m). Pipeline likely to be installed in natural strata.

Recommendation: Pipeline risk assessment should be completed when depth and location of pipelines are known.


PL7 Direct Contact (plant uptake).

Flora. Phytotoxic Contaminants. Low

LikelihoodMinor Very Low

No elevated concentrations of phytotoxic contaminants identified.

Recommendation: Confirmatory sampling in main investigation.

Table 5-7. Revised Contamination Conceptual Model. Notes *1 Although no ACM identified, contractors should be vigilant during earthworks of any potential ACM. This is discussed further in Section 8.



6 PART 2A LIABILITY ASSESSMENT

The most seriously contaminated sites are dealt with through the statutory contaminated land regime which can be found in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Part 2A was inserted into the EPA 1990 by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995.

Under Part 2A, liability for the remediation of contaminated land or waters falls under the ‘polluter pays’ principle where the ‘polluter’ is the person (or persons) who ‘caused’ or ‘knowingly permitted’ contamination to remain on a site or to migrate to another site.

A ‘knowing permitter’ is someone who has knowledge of pollution on their land and who fails to take any action to remove or control it, the concept of knowingly permitting means subsequent owners of land can be held liable as well as the original polluter.

If no polluter or knowing permitter can be found after reasonable investigation then the owner or occupier of the site may be liable to pay the remediation costs55. Part 2A does not apply to all contamination it only applies where:

Significant harm is being caused; or There is a significant possibility of significant harm being caused, or; Pollution of controlled waters (such as rivers/groundwater) is being, or is likely to

be, caused.

The paragraphs below set out the different categories of harm that should be considered with regard to harm to human health risk. In all cases the harm should be directly attributable to the effects of the contaminants in, on or under the land on the body(ies) of the person(s) concerned56.

With regard to risks to Human Health: Category 1: Human Health - The local authority should assume that a significant

possibility of significant harm exists in any case where it considers there is an unacceptably high probability, supported by robust science-based evidence that significant harm would occur if no action is taken to stop it.

Category 4: Human Health - The local authority should not assume that land poses

a significant possibility of significant harm if it considers that there is no risk or that the level of risk posed is low.

Categories 2 and 3: Human Health - For land that cannot be placed into

Categories 1 or 4, the local authority should decide whether the land should be placed into either: (i) Category 2: Human Health, in which case the land would be capable of being determined as contaminated land on grounds of significant possibility of significant harm to human health; or (ii) Category 3: Human Health, in which case the land would not be capable of being determined on such grounds.

Land should be placed into Category 2 if the authority concludes that there is a strong case for considering that the risks from the land are of sufficient concern. Category 2 may include land where there is little or no direct evidence that similar land, situations or levels of exposure have caused harm before, but nonetheless the authority considers on the

55 EA (2001). Local Authority Guide to the Application of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Issue 01 rev 0, Dated July 2001. 56 Defra (2012). Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A, Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance, HM Government, Reference: PB13735.



basis of the available evidence, including expert opinion, that there is a strong case for taking action under Part 2A on a precautionary basis. LKC are of the opinion that the site at Westridge Hospital would probably be identified as a ‘Category 3: Human Health’ site as it has not been proven that significant harm is being caused, nor is there reason to believe at this time that the land poses a significant possibility of significant harm without further intrusive investigation by the Local Authority. With regard to risks to Controlled Waters: Category 1: Water - This covers land where the authority considers that there is a

strong and compelling case for considering that a significant possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters exists. In particular this would include cases where there is robust science-based evidence for considering that it is likely that high impact pollution would occur if nothing were done to stop it.

Category 4: Water - This covers land where the authority concludes that there is no

risk, or that the level of risk posed is low. In particular, the authority should consider that this is the case where: (i) no contaminant linkage has been established in which controlled waters are the receptor in the linkage; or (ii) the possibility only relates to types of pollution that should not be considered to be significant pollution; or (iii) the possibility of water pollution similar to that which might be caused by ‘background’ contamination.

Category 2: Water - This covers land where: (i) the authority considers that the

strength of evidence to put the land into Category 1 does not exist; but (ii) nonetheless, on the basis of the available scientific evidence and expert opinion, the authority considers that the risks posed by the land are of sufficient concern that the land should be considered to pose a significant possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters on a precautionary basis.

Category 3: Water - This covers land where the authority concludes that the risks

are such that the tests set out in Categories 1 and 2 above are not met, and therefore regulatory intervention under Part 2A is not warranted. This category should include land where the authority considers that it is very unlikely that serious pollution would occur; or where there is a low likelihood that less serious types of significant pollution might occur.

LKC are of the opinion that the site at Westridge Hospital would probably be identified as a ‘Category 4: Water’ site as it has not been proven that significant harm is being caused, nor is there reason to believe at this time that the land poses a significant possibility of significant harm.



7 WASTE DISPOSAL ASSESSMENT

The soil contamination results as presented in Appendix C have been used to help determine the disposal route should any material be earmarked for off-site disposal. As an initial screen the soil results were inputted into Hazwaste Online. This is a web-based facility that allows an assessment of contaminant soils and classifies the soils as either hazardous or non-hazardous waste. It is understood that Hazwaste Online has been designed to cover the European Waste Catalogue code number 17 05 03 "soil and stones containing dangerous substances” and follows current guidance57,58,59,60,61. Where less than limits of detection (LOD) were recorded, the value of the LOD was inputted. The output sheet is presented in Appendix H and summarised in Table 6-1.

Sampling Location

Depth (m) Hazardous Waste

Y/N

Hazard (Risk Phrase)

Contaminants Top Base

WS101 0.00 0.30 N WS102 0.00 0.40 N

WS103A 0.00 0.30 N WS103A 0.50 1.00 N WS104 0.35 0.40 N WS104 0.40 1.00 N WS105 0.10 0.30 N WS105 0.40 0.60 N WS106 0.10 0.20 Y HP7, HP11 TPH (C6-C40) WS107 0.00 0.40 N WS107 0.50 1.00 N WS108 0.00 0.20 N

Table 6-1: Waste assessment findings. Based on individual locations hazardous waste has been identified at WS106 (0.1-0.2m) onsite. Material containing tarmacadam component in the made ground should be classified as HAZARDOUS WASTE based on carcinogenic and mutagenic risk phrases. This material is likely to have included some bituminous tarmacadam fill material and is present within the upper 0.1-0.2m and probably constitutes sub-base to the tarmacadam hardstanding above and is not thought to be representative of ground conditions in this area as a whole. Material where no tarmacadam component was identified should be classified as NON-HAZARDOUS. Site won material to be re-used onsite should be in recourse to appropriate exemptions. A U1 and T5 exemption should be registered. This will allow the reuse of up to 50,000

57 EA (2013). “Hazardous Waste: Interpretation of the Definition and Classification of Hazardous Waste”. Technical Guidance WM3. 1st Edition 2015. 58 The Hazardous Waste Directive, (HWD, Council Directive 91/689/EC). 59 European Waste Catalogue, 2002 (EWC 2002, Commission Decision 2000/532/EC) as amended by Commission Decision 2001/118/EC, 2001/119/EC and Council Decision 2001/573/E. 60 List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005. 61 Approved Supply List (Eighth Edition), 2002. ISBN: 0 7176 2368 8.



tonnes (c. 25,000m3) of bituminous material to be used in roadways. This would allow the amount of potentially hazardous material removed from site to be significantly reduced or removed completely.



8 CONCLUSIONS

8.1 Geotechnical

Traditional strip/trench fill foundations are recommended from 1mbgl. Soft spots should be excavated and replaced with mass concrete or granular material compacted to specification. Foundations may need to be deepened to mitigate effects of trees and shrubs in fine grained soils according to National House Building Council (NHBC) Building Standards, Chapter 4.2, Building Near Trees. A medium to high volume change potential for silty CLAY and a low volume potential has been identified in silts in WS104. Further advice on foundation design should be sought from a structural engineer.

8.2 Contamination Assessment

A revised contamination conceptual model has been produced by LKC which is summarised in Table 7-1 below (more detailed model provided in Section 5). Where a moderate / low risk was identified, the assumed risk at this stage has been shown.

Pollutant Linkage Risk Recommendations

1

Contaminants posing a risk to site users via dermal contact, ingestion and inhalation (of soil, dust, fibres and vegetables).

Low No asbestos identified. Recommendation: Further confirmatory sampling during main investigation.

Moderate

Localised elevated PAHs and arsenic identified. PAHs likely relate to tarmacadam within limited amounts of made ground.


2

Volatile contaminants posing a risk to site users via the inhalation of vapours.

Low No evidence of volatile contamination identified. Recommendation: No additional testing required unless evidence encountered.

3

Gas posing a risk to buildings and site users via the migration of gas into building causing explosion and asphyxiation.

Low

No elevated ground gas or flow has been recorded. GSV of 0.0046 (CS1).Low risk assumed at this stage.

Limited made ground and interceding clay from small offsite landfill.

Recommendation: No additional monitoring required.

Moderate Site lies within an Intermediate Probability Radon Area. Recommendation: Basic radon protection measures required.

4

Mobile contamination posing a risk to controlled waters via the migration through permeable strata.

Low No contaminants of concern above detection limits. Recommendation: Additional groundwater monitoring during main investigation to confirm low risk.

5 Sulphate posing a risk to building via direct contact (sulphate attack).

Low


6 Organic contaminants posing a risk to water pipes.

Low

No significantly elevated contaminants which may permeate pipework. Low risk assumed at this stage.

Recommendation: Pipeline risk assessment should be completed when depth and location of pipelines are known,


7 Phytotoxic metals posing a risk to flora via root uptake.

Very Low

No elevated concentrations of phytotoxic contaminants identified.

Recommendation: Confirmatory sampling in main investigation.

Table 7-1: Summary Risk Table.



9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REMEDIAL STRATEGY

The recommendations provided below are considered appropriate for the site based on the site investigation work undertaken. LKC should stress that no remediation, enabling works or designing works should take place until Regulatory approval has been obtained.

9.1 Remediation and Validation

Table 8-1 details the further works and remedial recommendations / requirements at this stage and will be confirmed following the findings after the main investigation. The table shows work required post-demolition of building(s) as part of the main investigation, pre-construction (i.e. during earthworks) and during / post construction (build phase). Figure 5 shows the proposed locations of trial pits as part of the main investigation. This work is likely to be required to satisfy future planning requirements.



Phase PL Remediation Requirements Validation Requirements M

ain

In

ves

tig

ati

on

(i

nc.

po

st-

dem

oli

tio

n)

1, 3, 5, 6

Post-demolition Main Investigation Trial Pitting This is recommended to confirm ground conditions below the current buildings, allow delineation of areas of concern and to satisfy sample number requirements for a main investigation. This should allow a more targeted remediation strategy to be completed. This work will also provide more geotechnical information for foundation design.

N/A (Investigation Report will be provided with an updated Remediation Strategy).

Pre

-C

on

stru

cti

on

Geotech Grubbing Out of In-Ground Structures It is recommended that in-ground structures such as former building foundations and controlled treatment system and associated pipework are grubbed out as part of the groundworks.

N/A (for geotechnical purposes only).

Bu

ild-P

has

e C

on

stru

ctio

n

All

Earthworks Site Inspections A watching brief (daily / weekly) should be maintained during earthworks to confirm the ground conditions and identify any unusual ground conditions. Should any unusual ground conditions be encountered, work should stop and samples be collected for chemical analysis. Depending on the outcome of the chemical analysis further remediation may be required.

Log of work undertaken including photographs. Details of any sampling undertaken and validation of any potential additional remedial work (TBC).

1,2

Any site won material re-used onsite should be in recourse to appropriate exemptions. A U1 and T5 exemption should be registered. This will allow the following: 1,000 tonnes (c. 600m3) of non-hazardous soil 5,000 tonnes (c. 3,000m3) of natural sand and gravels. 50,000 tonnes (c. 25,000m3) of bituminous material to be used in roadways. 5,000 tonnes (c. 3,000m3) of crushed concrete / stone.

A Materials Management Plan (MMP) with recourse to the CL:AIRE Code of Practice may be required if volumes exceed exemption limits.

To ensure material is compliant with appropriate waste regulations. Material will need to be tested at the rate and analytical suites presented in Table 8-2. If a MMP is required this needs to be registered by a Qualified Person (QP) and there must be ‘certainty of use’ for any material re-used onsite or exported to site to ensure there is no ‘sham recovery’.

Table 8-1: Further work, remediation and validation requirements Notes: See Table 5-7 for pollutant linkage (PL) details



Phase PL Remediation Requirements Validation Requirements B

uild

-Ph

ase

Co

nst

ruct

ion

1

Upon completion of the main investigation, including the delineation of areas of concern, the location and scope of this remediation will be refined. As the made ground is relatively shallow the following options are given: Option 1 Removal of all reworked topsoil / made ground from garden and soft landscaping and raise levels (as required) with suitably chemically validated subsoil and topsoil. Option 2 If all or some of the made ground remains in place in gardens and soft landscaping areas, an environmental cover system will be required. The environmental cover system should be as follows: Private Gardens: 600mm thick environmental cover system comprising: Either 100mm physical break layer (MOT type 1 material, 20-30mm, minimal fines) and at least 500mm comprising clean inert fill and sufficient topsoil for a growing medium. Or geotextile membrane and at least 600mm comprising clean inert fill and sufficient topsoil for a growing medium. Front Gardens & Shared Landscaping: 300mm thick environmental cover system comprising: Either 100mm physical break layer (MOT type 1 material, 20-30mm, minimal fines) and at least 200mm comprising clean inert fill and sufficient topsoil for a growing medium. Or geotextile membrane and at least 300mm comprising clean inert fill and sufficient topsoil for a growing medium.

If Option 1Consignment notes confirming the removal of made ground. Chemical validation of imported soils: See Table 9-2. If Option 2 Measuring depth of environmental cover system using a staff and providing photographic evidence. Photographic evidence of the granular physical break or geotextile layer. Chemical validation of imported soils: See Table 8-2. A nominal 150mm of clean topsoil required to reduce contact with underlying undesirable material matrix. The subsoil layer can be replaced by additional topsoil. A diagram of a typical environmental cover system is shown in Appendix I

6

Potable Water Pipes It is recommended that a Water Pipeline Assessment is undertaken once the location and depth of potable water pipes are known and following the main investigation. Limited made ground encountered to date means pipeline is likely to be installed in natural strata.

Delivery Notes of Pipe Material. Photographs of the Installed Pipe.

Other Considerations

Health and Safety Considerations In working with, removing or treating any contaminating material it is important that any potential risks associated with the actual site works are mitigated by good environmental management of the site during the remedial phases. Standard health and safety precautions (as per HSE guidance62) should be adopted by all workers involved with site enabling and construction works.Unexpected Contamination The relevant contractors should be briefed that during development works at the site should any unusual ground conditions and / or visual or olfactory evidence of contamination (including asbestos containing material) be encountered at the site, LKC and the Local Authority should be informed and further assessment of the material may be required. Should asbestos be identified during groundworks, precautions should be taken to ensure the safety of the construction workers and nearby land users. It would be advisable to introduce an asbestos management strategy in line with CIRIA C73363.

Table 8-1 (cont.): Further work, remediation and validation requirements Notes: See Table 5-7 for pollutant linkage (PL) details

62 HSE (1991). “Protection of Workers and the General Public During Development of Contaminated Land” London HMSO. 63 CIRIA (2014). “Asbestos in Soil and Made Ground: A Guide to Understanding and Managing Risks”. C733.



9.1.1 Validation of Imported Subsoil / Topsoil

Chemical validation of all imported soils to be used on site in gardens and soft landscaping areas should be undertaken. Imported soils should be accompanied by a certificate of analysis and source details.

A summary of the required imported material sampling requirements are presented in Table 9-2. Ideally, the material should be sampled at source to prevent double handling if soil fails, with confirmatory sampling undertaken on importation to site. However, where this is not possible then material imported should be segregated based on source and soil type. Validation samples should be taken prior to placement in gardens to ensure suitability for use.

Material

Type Source

Suite of Analysis

Sampling Rate

Topsoil Greenfield Suite A

1 sample per 50m3

(minimum of 3 samples per source) Brownfield / Unknown Suite B

Subsoil

Brownfield / Unknown Suite B 1 sample per 150m3 (minimum of 3 samples per source)

Site won natural material Suite A

First Generation i.e. quarried sand (subsoil) or stone (break layer)

No testing is required. Certification of material provenance is required.

Physical Stone Break Layer Recycled Stone (6F2 / screened) Suite B

1 sample per 500m3 (minimum of 3 samples per source)

Table 9-2: Sampling requirements for imported soils. Notes: Suite A - Heavy metals, pH, water soluble sulphate, speciated PAH, soil organic matter and asbestos screen. Suite B - Heavy metals, pH, water soluble sulphate, speciated PAH, phenol, total and free cyanide, soil organic matter, asbestos screen, banded petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH CWG), BTEX, MTBE.

Any soil with visual or olfactory evidence of hydrocarbons should be rejected. In addition, it should be ensured that the matrix of the topsoil is suitable as a growing medium and no undesirable material is present (in line with BS388264). LKC advise this information is provided by the supplier before material is imported onto site and approved by the appointed landscaper. Imported material to be used in gardens will be compared against residential with plant uptake criteria (as used in the contamination risk assessment).

64 BS (2015). “Specifications for Topsoil and Requirements for use.” BS3882:2015.



9.2 Site Completion Report

It is recommended that any remediation carried out on the site is validated by a third party and suitable documentary evidence provided in a Site Completion Report, such as photographs, consignment documents and analytical results. This should include as a minimum:

Details of the demolition of the current farm buildings within a Pre-Demolition and Major Refurbishment Asbestos Survey.

Validation of radon protection measures installed. Provision of waste transfer documents. If Option 1 (source removal)): Validation of any made ground removal (photographic

evidence that natural strata was reached). If Option 2 (environmental capping layer): Validation of environmental cover system. Verification testing of all imported soil for garden and soft landscaping areas. Information on the installation of protective pipes and / or sterile trenches. Details of any unexpected contamination identified onsite, suitably risk assessed and

/ or validated. The Site Completion Report will assist the Local Authority in the discharge of any future relevant planning condition and will also be of use to solicitors acting on behalf of any prospective conveyancer who may have concerns over the former use of the site.


LK Consult Ltd May 2017 Ref: CL-602-LKC 17 1065-02 [R0]

FIGURES

0 1,000

metres

Scale: 1:25,000

Figure 1: Site Location Plan, Westridge Hospital, Housemarling Lane, Standish

Drawn: May 2017 Scale: 1:25,000 @ A4 (see scale bar)

Site

N

Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2010©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©

SCALE (Metres)

0 50

Site Boundary

Site:

Client:

Title:

LKC 17 1065Scale (See Scale Bar):

1:1000 @ A4Drawn By: Drawn:

AC May 2017

KEY

N

Extract from: PJ Livesay Group LtdDrawing Ref: Legal Title (09/06/2016)

Sampling Locations and features annotated by LK Consult Ltd are approximateand are based upon observed measurements unless otherwise stated. Do notscale from this drawing and work from marked dimensions only. All dimensionsand features should be confirmed on site by the Contractor. Where this drawingincludes information provided to LK Consult Ltd by others, LK Consult Ltd givesno warranty, representation or assurance as to the accuracy of such information.

Job No.:

Checked By:

PD

Figure: Revision:

Housemarling Lane, Standish


Site Boundary Plan

2

Westridge Hospital,

SCALE (Metres)

0 50

Site Boundary

Site:

Client:

Title:



AC May 2017

KEY

N

Extract from: Planit Intelligent Environments LtdDrawing Ref: New Housing Tenure Plan, No.BD286-VW-004-01 Rev:1 (25/01/2017)


Job No.:

Checked By:

PD

Figure: Revision:



Proposed Site Use

3

Westridge Hospital,

SCALE (Metres)

0 50

WS103

WS104

WS106

WS105WS107

WS102

WS101

WS108

WS103A

Site Boundary

Window SampleBorehole (WS)

Site:

Client:

Title:



AC May 2017

KEY

N



Job No.:

Checked By:

PD

Figure: Revision:



Exploratory Site Investigation Locations

4

Westridge Hospital,

SCALE (Metres)

0 50

WS103

WS104

WS106

WS105WS107

WS102

WS101

WS108

WS103A

Site Boundary

Window SampleBorehole (WS)

Proposed Trial PitLocation (18no.)

Proposed HandAuger Location (1no.)

Site:

Client:

Title:



AC May 2017

KEY

N



Job No.:

Checked By:

PD

Figure: Revision:



Main Investigation Proposed Locations

5

Westridge Hospital,



APPENDIX A

RISK MATRIX



Risk Evaluation

The method for risk evaluation is a qualitative method of interpreting the output from the risk estimation stage of the assessment, based on CIRIA 55265. It involves the classification of the:

Magnitude of the potential consequence (severity) of the risk occurring (Table A). Magnitude if the probability (likelihood) of the risk occurring (Table B).

Consequence (Severity)

Classification Definition Example Severe - Short term (acute) risk to human health likely to results

in ‘significant harm’ as defined by the Environment Protection Act 1990, Part IIA.

- Short term risk of pollution (note: water Resources Act contains no scope for considering significance of pollution) of sensitive water resource.

- Catastrophic damage to buildings/properties. - A short term risk to a particular ecosystem, or organism

forming part of such ecosystem (note: the definition of ecological systems within the Draft Circular on Contaminated Land, DETR, 2000).

- High Concentrations of cyanide on the surface of an informal recreation area.

- Major spillage of contaminants from site into controlled waters.

- Explosion, causing building collapse (can also equate to short term human health risk if buildings are occupied).

Medium - Chronic damage to Human Health (‘significant harm’ as

defined in DETR, 2000). - Pollution of sensitive water resources (note Water

Resources Act contains no scope for considering significance of pollution).

- A significant change in a particular ecosystem, or organism forming part of such ecosystem.

- Concentrations of a contaminant from site exceed generic, or site specific assessment criteria.

- Leaching of contaminants from a site to a major or minor aquifer (Principal and Secondary).

- Death of a species within a designated nature reserve.

Mild - Pollution of non-sensitive water resources. - Significant damage to crops, buildings, structures and

services (‘significant harm’ as defined in DETR, 2000). - Damage to sensitive buildings/structures/services or the

environment.

- Pollution of non-classified groundwater.

- Damage to building rendering it unsafe to occupy (e.g. foundation damage resulting in instability).

Minor - Harm, although not necessarily significant harm, which may result in a financial loss, or expenditure to resolve.

- Non-permanent health effects to human health (easily prevented by means such as personal protective clothing etc).

- Easily repairable damage to buildings, structures and services.

- The presence of contaminants at such concentrations that protective equipment is required during site works.

- The loss of plants in a landscaping scheme.

- Discoloration of concrete. Table A. Classification of Consequence

Probability (Likelihood) Classification Definition

High Likelihood

- There is a pollutant linkage and an event that either appears very likely in the short term and almost inevitable over the long term, or there is evidence at the receptor of harm or pollution.

Likely - There is a pollutant linkage and all the elements are present and in the right place, which means that it is probable that an event will occur.

- Circumstances are such that an event is not inevitable, but possible in the short term and likely over the long term.

Low Likelihood

- There is a pollutant linkage and circumstances are possible under which an event could occur. - However it is by no means certain that even over a longer period such event would take place,

and is less likely in the shorter term. Unlikely - There is a pollutant linkage but circumstances are such that it is improbable that an event would

occur in the very long term. Table B. Classification of Probability.

65 CIRIA C552 (2001) Contaminated Land Risk Assessment - A guide to good practice.



These classifications are then compared to indicate the risk presented by each pollutant linkage (Table C). It is important that this classification is only applied where there is a possibility (which can range from high likelihood to unlikely) of a pollutant linkage existing.

Consequence

Severe Medium Mild Minor

Pro

bab

ility

High Likelihood Very High

Risk High Risk

Moderate Risk

Moderate / Low Risk

Likely High Risk

Moderate Risk

Moderate / Low Risk

Low Risk

Low Likelihood Moderate

Risk Moderate / Low

Risk Low Risk

Very Low Risk

Unlikely Moderate / Low

Risk Low Risk

Very Low Risk

Very Low Risk

Table C. Comparison of Consequence against Probability

Once the risk has been determined the corresponding action can be assessed (Table D).

Risk Action Required

Very High Risk

There is a high probability that severe harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard, OR, there is evidence that sever harm to a designated receptor is currently happening. This risk, if realised, is likely to results in a substantial liability. Urgent investigation (if not already undertaken) and remediation are likely to be required.

High Risk

Harm is likely to arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard. Realisation of the risk is likely to present a substantial liability. Urgent investigation (if not undertaken already) is required and remedial works may be necessary in the short term and are likely over the longer term.

Moderate Risk

It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard. However, it is either relatively unlikely that any such harm would be severe, or if any harm were to occur it is more likely that the harm would be relatively mild. Investigation (if not already undertaken) is normally required to clarify the risk and to determine the potential liability. Some remedial works may be required in the longer term.

Low Risk It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard, but it is likely that this harm, if realised, would at worst normally be mild.

Very Low Risk There is a low possibility that harm could arise to a receptor. In the event of such harm being realised it is not likely to be severe.

Table D. Description of the Classification and Likely Action Required. Where a very low risk is identified no specific remediation is required. Where a low risk is identified, some form of remediation may be required depending on the pollutant linkage, the type and concentration of contaminants present and the proposed development. Where there is a moderate/low risk is identified, an assessment will be undertaken to establish what category the pollutant linkage will fall into. Where LKC identifies a moderate or higher risk, remediation or further investigation work is recommended.



APPENDIX B

PROFILE LOGS

LK CONSULT LTDEton Business Park, Eton Hill Road, Radcliffe, M26 2ZSTel: 0161 763 7200 web: www.thelkgroup.com

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er

Legend InstrDescriptionDepth

(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)

Level(mOD)Sample / Tests

Remarks Scale(approx)

LoggedBy

Figure No.

LKC 17 1065.WS101

1:40 NS

Westridge Hospital, Stroud


D & I Drilling Ltd

LKC 17 1065

WS101Number

04/04/2017

Produced by the GEOtechnical DAtabase SYstem (GEODASY) (C) all rights reserved

Dimensions

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Excavation Method

Drive-in Windowless Sampler

(0.30) Grass over brown slightly gravelly silty CLAY with frequent rootlets and rare sandstone cobble. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular to sub-rounded comprising sandstone, coal and mudstone.

0.30

(1.70)

Firm consistency medium to high strength brown mottled orange and grey silty CLAY with rare coal fragments and occasional gravel comprising sandstone, limestone and mudstone.

2.00

(1.39)

Weak orange weathered SANDSTONE (recovered as a clayey sand with frequent weak sandstone gravel).

3.39Complete at 3.39m

0.00-0.30 D1PID 0.9ppm

No groundwater encountered.

0.50-1.00 B10.50-1.00 D1PID 0.1ppm

1.00 SV 56kPa1.00-1.45 SPT N=9 1,1/2,2,2,3

1.50-2.00 U1

2.00 SV 113kPa2.00-2.45 SPT N=15 3,3/3,4,4,4

3.00 SV 88kPa3.00-3.39 SPT 50/240 5,7/11,11,12,16

1/1


Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)



LoggedBy

Figure No.

LKC 17 1065.WS101

1:40 NS



D & I Drilling Ltd

LKC 17 1065

WS102Number

04/04/2017


Dimensions

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Excavation Method


1

2

(0.30) MADE GROUND: Grass over soft to firm consistency dark brown slightly gravelly silty CLAY with frequent rootlets and rare sandstone cobble. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular to sub-rounded comprising brick, sandstone, coal and mudstone.

0.30

(0.70)Firm consistency orange brown silty CLAY with rare coal fragments and occasional gravel comprising sandstone and limestone. 1.00

(2.00)

Stiff consistency medium to low strength orange brown slightly gravelly sandy silty CLAY. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to sub-angular, comprising sandstone.

3.00(0.20) Orange brown silty SAND. Sand is fine to medium.

3.20

(2.25)

Medium dense to dense orange brown slightly gravelly silty SAND. Sand is fine. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular, comprising sandstone.

Sand becoming wet from 4.0mbgl.


0.00-0.40 D1PID 0.7ppm

0.50-1.00 D1PID 0.1ppm

1.00 SV 65kPa1.00-1.45 SPT N=9 1,2/2,2,2,31.00-1.50 B1

2.00-2.45 SPT N=5 1,1/1,1,1,2

2.50-3.00 U1

Water strike(1) at 3.00m.3.00 SV 30kPa

3.00-3.45 SPT N=12 3,3/3,3,3,3

Water strike(2) at 4.00m.4.00-4.45 SPT N=20 5,5/7,5,5,3

5.00-5.45 SPT N=49 6,6/10,11,13,15

1/1


Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er

LegendDescriptionDepth

(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)



LoggedBy

Figure No.

LKC 17 1065.WS101

1:40 NS



D & I Drilling Ltd

LKC 17 1065

WS103Number

04/04/2017


Dimensions

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Excavation Method


(0.30) Grass over soft to firm consistency dark brown slightly gravelly silty CLAY with frequent rootlets and rare sandstone cobble. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular to sub-rounded comprising sandstone.

0.30

(1.55)

Firm to very stiff consistency high strength orange brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy silty CLAY. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular, comprising sandstone.

Sandstone cobble encountered at 1.80mbgl. 1.85

Abandoned at 1.85m

No groundwater encountered.SPT refused on sandstone cobble at 1.845mbgl.

1.00 SV 94kPa1.00-1.45 SPT N=15 3,3/3,4,4,4

1.70-2.45 SPT N=50 25/50

1/1


Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)



LoggedBy

Figure No.

LKC 17 1065.WS101

1:40 NS



D & I Drilling Ltd

LKC 17 1065

WS103ANumber

04/04/2017


Dimensions

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Excavation Method


(0.30) Grass over soft to firm consistency dark brown slightly gravelly silty CLAY with frequent rootlets and rare sandstone cobble. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular to sub-rounded comprising sandstone.

0.30

(2.20)

Firm to very stiff consistency low strength orange brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy silty CLAY. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular, comprising sandstone.

2.50

(0.54)

Orange weak weathered SANDSTONE (recovered as gravelly sandy clay with occasional sandstone cobbles. Sand is medium to coarse. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-rounded, comprising sandstone).


0.00-0.30 D1PID 0.1ppm


0.50-1.00 D2PID 0.1ppm

1.00 SV 35kPa1.00-1.45 SPT N=9 3,2/2,2,2,3

1.50-2.00 U1

2.00-2.45 SPT N=16 4,4/3,4,4,52.00-3.00 B1

2.90-3.04 SPT 51*/7050/70

25,26/50

1/1


Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)



LoggedBy

Figure No.

LKC 17 1065.WS101

1:40 NS



D & I Drilling Ltd

LKC 17 1065

WS104Number

04/04/2017


Dimensions

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Excavation Method


1

MADE GROUND: Tarmacadam. 0.08(0.27)

MADE GROUND: Concrete. 0.35

MADE GROUND: Light grey sandy gravel comprising concrete, limestone and rare coal (MOT).

0.40

(1.60)

Soft to stiff consistency orange brown slightly sandy silty CLAY with frequent sandstone gravel and rare rootlets. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to sub-angular, comprising sandstone.

2.00

(0.40)

Light brown sandy clayey SILT. Sand is fine to medium.

2.40

(1.00)

Soft consistency high strength light brown gravelly sandy clayey SILT. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to sub-angular of sandstone.

3.40

(0.40)

Light brown sandy clayey silty GRAVEL. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to sub-angular of sandstone.

3.80

(0.50)

Stiff consistency grey silty CLAY with significant silt bands.

4.30(0.15) Weak grey thinly bedded MUDSTONE. 4.45

Complete at 4.45m

0.35-0.40 D1PID 0.1ppm0.40-1.00 D2PID 0.1ppm

1.00-1.45 SPT N=6 1,1/1,1,2,2

1.50-2.00 U1

Water strike(1) at 2.00m.2.00-2.45 SPT N=8 2,2/2,2,2,22.00-2.50 B1

3.00 SV 86kPa3.00-3.45 SPT N=15 3,3/3,3,4,5

4.00-4.45 SPT 50/295 5,6/8,13,15,14

1/1


Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)



LoggedBy

Figure No.

LKC 17 1065.WS101

1:40 NS



D & I Drilling Ltd

LKC 17 1065

WS105Number

04/04/2017


Dimensions

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Excavation Method


1

(0.10) MADE GROUND: Tarmacadam. 0.10(0.20)

MADE GROUND: Green/grey clayey sandy gravel. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular, comprising coal, tarmacadam, sandstone, mudstone with ash and clinker.

0.30

(0.50)

Firm consistency grey with greenish grey clayey SILT with occasional root. 0.80

(0.60)Stiff consistency orange brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy CLAY. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to sub-angular, comprising sandstone and mudstone.

1.40

(0.90)

Weak reddish brown weathered SANDSTONE (recovered as sandy clay with frequent sandstone gravel).

2.30

(0.70)

Orange highly weathered SANDSTONE (recovered as fine to coarse SAND with rare coal fragments).

3.00

(0.50)

Yellow brown highly weathered SANDSTONE (recovered as a silty SAND. Sand is fine to medium).

3.50

(0.92)

Weak reddish brown weathered SANDSTONE (recovered as sand with frequent sandstone gravel).


0.10-0.30 D1PID 0.5ppm

0.40-0.60 D2PID 0.5ppm

1.00 SV 110kPa1.00-1.45 SPT N=11 2,2/2,2,3,4

1.50-2.00 U1

2.00 SV 66kPa2.00-2.45 SPT N=14 3,3/3,3,4,42.00-3.00 B1

3.00-3.45 SPT N=17 3,3/4,4,4,53.00-4.00 B2 Water strike(1) at 3.10m.

4.00-4.42 SPT 50/270 6,8/11,13,16,10

1/1


Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)



LoggedBy

Figure No.

LKC 17 1065.WS101

1:40 NS



D & I Drilling Ltd

LKC 17 1065

WS106Number

04/04/2017


Dimensions

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Excavation Method


MADE GROUND: Tarmacadam. 0.08(0.12)

MADE GROUND: Black sandy gravel. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular, comprising coal, tarmacadam with ash and clinker.

0.20(0.10)

Soft consistency dark brown slightly sandy silty CLAY with occasional coal fragments.

0.30(0.10)

Soft consistency orange slightly gravelly slightly sandy silty CLAY. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular, comprising sandstone.

0.40

(0.70)

Firm to very stiff consistency high strength dark brown silty CLAY with rare coal fragments and sandstone gravel.

Limestone cobble encountered at 0.80mbgl.

1.10

(1.10)Very stiff consistency medium strength orange brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy silty CLAY with occasional coal fragments. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to medium, sub-angular to sub-rounded, comprising sandstone. 2.20

(0.25) Weak reddish brown weathered SANDSTONE. 2.45

Complete at 2.45m


0.10-0.20 D1PID 0.1ppm

0.40-0.80 D2PID 0.1ppm0.50-1.00 B1

1.00 SV 105kPa1.00-1.45 SPT N=15 2,3/3,3,4,5

2.00 SV 70kPa2.00-2.45 SPT 50/295 5,6/8,10,14,18

1/1


Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)



LoggedBy

Figure No.

LKC 17 1065.WS101

1:40 NS



D & I Drilling Ltd

LKC 17 1065

WS107Number

04/04/2017


Dimensions

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Excavation Method


(0.20) MADE GROUND: Grass over light brown silty clay with frequent rootlets and occasional fragments of coal, limestone and sandstone.

0.20(0.20)

MADE GROUND: Orangish grey slightly sandy gravelly silty clay. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular, comprising brick, concrete limestone and coal.

0.40

(0.40)

Firm consistency grey mottled orange slightly sandy silty CLAY with occasional rootlets and rare sandstone gravel.

0.80(0.20)

Firm consistency grey silty CLAY with rare coal fragments.

1.00

(1.00)Stiff consistency high strength brown slightly sandy gravelly silty CLAY with rare coal fragments. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular, comprising limestone and sandstone. 2.00

(0.80)

Very stiff consistency high strength light brown thinly laminated silty CLAY.

2.80

(0.50)

Very stiff consistency high strength orange sandy silty CLAY with thin sandstone bands. Sand is fine.

3.30(0.14) Weak light grey weathered LIMESTONE. 3.44

Complete at 3.44m

0.00-0.40 D1PID 0.1ppm


0.50-1.00 D2PID 0.1ppm

1.00 SV 98kPa1.00-1.45 SPT N=13 2,3/3,3,3,41.00-1.50 B1

1.50-2.00 U1

2.00 SV 150kPa2.00-2.45 SPT N=19 4,4/4,4,5,6

3.00 SV 80kPa3.00-3.44 SPT 50/290 4,7/11,13,14,12

1/1


Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)



LoggedBy

Figure No.

LKC 17 1065.WS101

1:40 NS



D & I Drilling Ltd

LKC 17 1065

WS108Number

04/04/2017


Dimensions

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Excavation Method


(0.20) MADE GROUND: Grass over light brown silty clay with frequent rootlets and occasional fragments of coal, limestone and sandstone.

0.20

(0.80)Firm consistency grey mottled orange silty CLAY with rare sandstone gravel.

1.00

(2.70)

Stiff consistency medium to high strength orangish brown slightly sandy silty CLAY with occasional limestone and sandstone gravel with rare coal fragments.

3.70

(0.60)

Stiff consistency light grey slightly sandy gravelly silty CLAY. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular, comprising weak weathered limestone.

4.30(0.14) Weak pale grey weathered LIMESTONE. 4.44

Complete at 4.44m

0.00-0.20 D1PID 0.2ppm


0.50-1.00 B10.50-1.00 D2PID 0.1ppm

1.00 SV 63kPa1.00-1.45 SPT N=11 1,2/2,3,3,3

2.00 SV 150kPa2.00-2.45 SPT N=16 3,3/3,4,4,5

3.00 SV 131kPa3.00-3.44 SPT 12/290 3,3/3,3,3,3

4.00-4.44 SPT 50/285 4,7/9,13,13,15

1/1



APPENDIX C

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS - SOIL & GROUNDWATER

Chemtest Ltd.

Depot Road

Newmarket

CB8 0AL

Tel: 01638 606070

Email: [email protected]

Report No.: 17-08447-1

Initial Date of Issue: 13-Apr-2017

Client LK Consult

Client Address: Eton Business Park Eton Hill Road Radcliffe Manchester Lancashire M26 2ZS

Contact(s): Contaminated Land Peter Dunn

Project LKC 17 1065 Westridge Hospital, Stroud

Quotation No.: Date Received: 07-Apr-2017

Order No.: 732416 Date Instructed: 07-Apr-2017

No. of Samples: 12

Turnaround (Wkdays): 5 Results Due: 13-Apr-2017

Date Approved: 13-Apr-2017

Approved By:

Details: Robert Monk, Technical Development Chemist

Final Report

Page 1 of 10

Results - Soil

Client: LK Consult 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447Quotation No.: 436630 436632 436634 436635 436636 436637 436638 436639 436640

WS101 WS102 WS103A WS103A WS104 WS104 WS105 WS105 WS106SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.35 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.100.30 0.40 0.30 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.30 0.60 0.20

04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY

Determinand Accred. SOP Units LOD

ACM Type U 2192 N/A - - - - - - - - -

Asbestos Identification U 2192 % 0.001 No Asbestos Detected

No Asbestos Detected








Moisture N 2030 % 0.020 16 25 22 24 14 26 21 28 12Soil Colour N 2040 N/A Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown BrownOther Material N 2040 N/A Stones NONE NONE NONE Stones NONE Stones NONE WoodSoil Texture N 2040 N/A Clay Clay Clay Sand Sand Clay Sand Sand SandChromatogram (TPH) N N/A See Attached See AttachedpH M 2010 N/A 8.6 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.4Boron (Hot Water Soluble) M 2120 mg/kg 0.40 0.97 0.67Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 M 2120 g/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.025 < 0.010 0.015Cyanide (Free) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50Cyanide (Total) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50Arsenic M 2450 mg/kg 1.0 23 68 43 47 28 70 27Cadmium M 2450 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 0.30 0.14 0.29 < 0.10 0.27 0.12Chromium M 2450 mg/kg 1.0 39 94 190 230 110 360 94Copper M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 19 52 21 13 16 22 24Mercury M 2450 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Nickel M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 32 62 83 110 43 91 39Lead M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 24 36 39 32 43 37 51Selenium M 2450 mg/kg 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20Vanadium U 2450 mg/kg 5.0 38 130 240 340 130 260 93Zinc M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 59 140 190 180 130 140 120Chromium (Hexavalent) N 2490 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50Organic Matter M 2625 % 0.40 3.1 1.6 1.7 0.59 6.2 2.6 1.9 3.3 13Fuel Type N 2670 N/A N/A PAH PAH H.Oil/PAHAliphatic TPH >C5-C6 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C6-C8 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C8-C10 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C10-C12 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C12-C16 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 5.7 20Aliphatic TPH >C16-C21 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 16 29 130Aliphatic TPH >C21-C35 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 54 94 330Aliphatic TPH >C35-C44 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Total Aliphatic Hydrocarbons N 2680 mg/kg 5.0 < 5.0 70 130 470Aromatic TPH >C5-C7 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Aromatic TPH >C7-C8 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Aromatic TPH >C8-C10 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Project: LKC 17 1065 Westridge Hospital, Stroud

Top Depth (m):Bottom Depth (m):

Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:

Chemtest Sample ID.:

Client Sample ID.:Sample Type:

Date Sampled:

Page 2 of 10

Results - Soil

Client: LK Consult 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447 17-08447Quotation No.: 436630 436632 436634 436635 436636 436637 436638 436639 436640

WS101 WS102 WS103A WS103A WS104 WS104 WS105 WS105 WS106SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.35 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.100.30 0.40 0.30 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.30 0.60 0.20

04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY




Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:



Date Sampled:

Aromatic TPH >C10-C12 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.4 < 1.0Aromatic TPH >C12-C16 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 15 25 29Aromatic TPH >C16-C21 U 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 110 180 150Aromatic TPH >C21-C35 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 220 840 1700Aromatic TPH >C35-C44 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 48 220Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons N 2680 mg/kg 5.0 < 5.0 340 1100 2100Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons N 2680 mg/kg 10.0 < 10 410 1200 2600Naphthalene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.54 < 0.10Acenaphthylene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 2.3 < 0.10Acenaphthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 2.9 < 0.10Fluorene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 3.5 < 0.10Phenanthrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 19 0.53Anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 5.7 0.13Fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 0.16 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.40 32 1.1Pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 0.18 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.25 33 0.97Benzo[a]anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 17 0.59Chrysene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 17 0.75Benzo[b]fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 19 0.77Benzo[k]fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 12 0.78Benzo[a]pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 22 0.67Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 15 < 0.10Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 5.6 < 0.10Benzo[g,h,i]perylene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 13 < 0.10Total Of 16 PAH's M 2700 mg/kg 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 220 6.3Benzene M 2760 µg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Toluene M 2760 µg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Ethylbenzene M 2760 µg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0m & p-Xylene M 2760 µg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0o-Xylene M 2760 µg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether M 2760 µg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Total Phenols M 2920 mg/kg 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30

Page 3 of 10

Results - Soil

Client: LK Consult

Quotation No.:


ACM Type U 2192 N/A

Asbestos Identification U 2192 % 0.001

Moisture N 2030 % 0.020Soil Colour N 2040 N/AOther Material N 2040 N/ASoil Texture N 2040 N/AChromatogram (TPH) N N/ApH M 2010 N/ABoron (Hot Water Soluble) M 2120 mg/kg 0.40Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 M 2120 g/l 0.010Cyanide (Free) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50Cyanide (Total) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50Arsenic M 2450 mg/kg 1.0Cadmium M 2450 mg/kg 0.10Chromium M 2450 mg/kg 1.0Copper M 2450 mg/kg 0.50Mercury M 2450 mg/kg 0.10Nickel M 2450 mg/kg 0.50Lead M 2450 mg/kg 0.50Selenium M 2450 mg/kg 0.20Vanadium U 2450 mg/kg 5.0Zinc M 2450 mg/kg 0.50Chromium (Hexavalent) N 2490 mg/kg 0.50Organic Matter M 2625 % 0.40Fuel Type N 2670 N/AAliphatic TPH >C5-C6 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C6-C8 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C8-C10 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C10-C12 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C12-C16 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C16-C21 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C21-C35 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aliphatic TPH >C35-C44 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0Total Aliphatic Hydrocarbons N 2680 mg/kg 5.0Aromatic TPH >C5-C7 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aromatic TPH >C7-C8 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aromatic TPH >C8-C10 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0



Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:



Date Sampled:

17-08447 17-08447 17-08447436642 436643 436644WS107 WS107 WS108SOIL SOIL SOIL0.00 0.50 0.000.40 1.00 0.20

04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY

- - -No Asbestos

DetectedNo Asbestos

DetectedNo Asbestos

Detected19 22 36

Brown Brown BrownStones Stones RootsSand Sand Sand

See Attached8.5 8.00.660.19 < 0.010

< 0.50< 0.50

30 150.22 0.1847 4314 15

0.24 < 0.1028 2836 28

< 0.20 < 0.2054 4265 67

< 0.50 < 0.502.6 1.4 7.8N/A N/A

< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 5.0 < 5.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0

Page 4 of 10

Results - Soil

Client: LK Consult

Quotation No.:




Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:



Date Sampled:

Aromatic TPH >C10-C12 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aromatic TPH >C12-C16 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aromatic TPH >C16-C21 U 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aromatic TPH >C21-C35 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0Aromatic TPH >C35-C44 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons N 2680 mg/kg 5.0Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons N 2680 mg/kg 10.0Naphthalene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Acenaphthylene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Acenaphthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Fluorene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Phenanthrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[a]anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Chrysene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[b]fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[k]fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[a]pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[g,h,i]perylene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10Total Of 16 PAH's M 2700 mg/kg 2.0Benzene M 2760 µg/kg 1.0Toluene M 2760 µg/kg 1.0Ethylbenzene M 2760 µg/kg 1.0m & p-Xylene M 2760 µg/kg 1.0o-Xylene M 2760 µg/kg 1.0Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether M 2760 µg/kg 1.0Total Phenols M 2920 mg/kg 0.30

17-08447 17-08447 17-08447436642 436643 436644WS107 WS107 WS108SOIL SOIL SOIL0.00 0.50 0.000.40 1.00 0.20

04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017 04-Apr-2017COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY

< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 5.0 < 5.0< 10 < 10

< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.100.25 < 0.100.22 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 0.10 < 0.10< 2.0 < 2.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0< 0.30

Page 5 of 10

TPH Chromatogram on Soil Sample: 436634

Page 6 of 10


Page 7 of 10


Page 8 of 10

Test Methods

SOP Title Parameters included Method summary

2010 pH Value of Soils pH pH Meter

2030Moisture and Stone Content of Soils(Requirement of MCERTS)

Moisture contentDetermination of moisture content of soil as a percentage of its as received mass obtained at <37°C.

2040 Soil Description(Requirement of MCERTS) Soil description As received soil is described based upon

BS5930

2120 Water Soluble Boron, Sulphate, Magnesium & Chromium Boron; Sulphate; Magnesium; Chromium Aqueous extraction / ICP-OES

2192 Asbestos Asbestos Polarised light microscopy / Gravimetry

2300 Cyanides & Thiocyanate in Soils

Free (or easy liberatable) Cyanide; total Cyanide; complex Cyanide; Thiocyanate

Allkaline extraction followed by colorimetric determination using Automated Flow Injection Analyser.

2450 Acid Soluble Metals in Soils

Metals, including: Arsenic; Barium; Beryllium; Cadmium; Chromium; Cobalt; Copper; Lead; Manganese; Mercury; Molybdenum; Nickel; Selenium; Vanadium; Zinc

Acid digestion followed by determination of metals in extract by ICP-MS.

2490 Hexavalent Chromium in Soils Chromium [VI]

Soil extracts are prepared by extracting dried and ground soil samples into boiling water. Chromium [VI] is determined by ‘Aquakem 600’ Discrete Analyser using 1,5-diphenylcarbazide.

2625 Total Organic Carbon in Soils Total organic Carbon (TOC)Determined by high temperature combustion under oxygen, using an Eltra elemental analyser.

2670 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) in Soils by GC-FID

TPH (C6–C40); optional carbon banding, e.g. 3-band – GRO, DRO & LRO*TPH C8–C40 Dichloromethane extraction / GC-FID

2680 TPH A/A Split

Aliphatics: >C5–C6, >C6–C8,>C8–C10, >C10–C12, >C12–C16, >C16–C21, >C21– C35, >C35– C44Aromatics: >C5–C7, >C7–C8, >C8– C10, >C10–C12, >C12–C16, >C16– C21, >C21– C35, >C35– C44

Dichloromethane extraction / GCxGC FID detection

2700Speciated Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Soil by GC-FID

Acenaphthene; Acenaphthylene; Anthracene; Benzo[a]Anthracene; Benzo[a]Pyrene; Benzo[b]Fluoranthene; Benzo[ghi]Perylene; Benzo[k]Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Dibenz[ah]Anthracene; Fluoranthene; Fluorene; Indeno[123cd]Pyrene; Naphthalene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene

Dichloromethane extraction / GC-FID

2760Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Soils by Headspace GC-MS

Volatile organic compounds, including BTEX and halogenated Aliphatic/Aromatics.(cf. USEPA Method 8260)*please refer to UKAS schedule

Automated headspace gas chromatographic (GC) analysis of a soil sample, as received, with mass spectrometric (MS) detection of volatile organic compounds.

2920 Phenols in Soils by HPLC

Phenolic compounds including Resorcinol, Phenol, Methylphenols, Dimethylphenols, 1-Naphthol and TrimethylphenolsNote: chlorophenols are excluded.

60:40 methanol/water mixture extraction, followed by HPLC determination using electrochemical detection.

Page 9 of 10

Report Information

Key

U 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 the indicated laboratory Issue numbers are sequential starting with 1 all subsequent reports are incremented by 1

Sample Deviation Codes

A - 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 Disposal

All 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 10 of 10

mailto:[email protected]

Chemtest Ltd.

Depot Road

Newmarket

CB8 0AL

Tel: 01638 606070

Email: [email protected]

Report No.: 17-10030-1

Initial Date of Issue: 03-May-2017

Client LK Consult

Client Address: Eton Business Park Eton Hill Road Radcliffe Manchester Lancashire M26 2ZS

Contact(s): Contaminated Land Peter Dunn

Project LKC 17 1065 Westridge Hospital

Quotation No.: Date Received: 26-Apr-2017

Order No.: 732445 Date Instructed: 26-Apr-2017

No. of Samples: 3

Turnaround (Wkdays): 5 Results Due: 03-May-2017

Date Approved: 03-May-2017

Approved By:

Details: Glynn Harvey, Laboratory Manager

Final Report

Page 1 of 5

Results - Water

Client: LK Consult 17-10030 17-10030 17-10030Quotation No.: 444384 444385 444386

WS102 WS105 WS108WATER WATER WATER

25-Apr-2017 25-Apr-2017 25-Apr-2017Determinand Accred. SOP Units LOD

pH U 1010 N/A 7.9 7.8 8.1Sulphate U 1220 mg/l 1.0 76 77 30Cyanide (Total) U 1300 mg/l 0.050 < 0.050 < 0.050 < 0.050Cyanide (Free) U 1300 mg/l 0.050 < 0.050 < 0.050 < 0.050Total Hardness as CaCO3 U 1270 mg/l 15 480 510 260Mercury Low Level U 1460 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Chromium (Hexavalent) U 1490 µg/l 20 < 20 < 20 < 20Total Organic Carbon U 1610 mg/l 2.0 5.9 7.6 6.0Fuel Type N 1670 N/A N/A N/A N/AAliphatic TPH >C5-C6 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aliphatic TPH >C6-C8 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aliphatic TPH >C8-C10 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aliphatic TPH >C10-C12 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aliphatic TPH >C12-C16 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aliphatic TPH >C16-C21 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aliphatic TPH >C21-C35 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aliphatic TPH >C35-C44 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Total Aliphatic Hydrocarbons N 1675 µg/l 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0Aromatic TPH >C5-C7 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aromatic TPH >C7-C8 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aromatic TPH >C8-C10 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aromatic TPH >C10-C12 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aromatic TPH >C12-C16 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aromatic TPH >C16-C21 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aromatic TPH >C21-C35 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Aromatic TPH >C35-C44 N 1675 µg/l 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons N 1675 µg/l 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons N 1675 µg/l 10 < 10 < 10 < 10Naphthalene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Acenaphthylene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Acenaphthene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Fluorene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Phenanthrene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Anthracene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Fluoranthene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Pyrene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Benzo[a]anthracene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Chrysene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Benzo[b]fluoranthene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Benzo[k]fluoranthene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Benzo[a]pyrene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010

Project: LKC 17 1065 Westridge Hospital

Chemtest Job No.:



Date Sampled:

Page 2 of 5

Results - Water

Client: LK Consult 17-10030 17-10030 17-10030Quotation No.: 444384 444385 444386

WS102 WS105 WS108WATER WATER WATER

25-Apr-2017 25-Apr-2017 25-Apr-2017Determinand Accred. SOP Units LOD

Project: LKC 17 1065 Westridge Hospital

Chemtest Job No.:



Date Sampled:

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Benzo[g,h,i]perylene N 1700 µg/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Total Of 16 PAH's N 1700 µg/l 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20Benzene U 1760 µg/l 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Toluene U 1760 µg/l 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Ethylbenzene U 1760 µg/l 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0m & p-Xylene U 1760 µg/l 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0o-Xylene U 1760 µg/l 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether N 1760 µg/l 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Total Phenols U 1920 mg/l 0.030 < 0.030 < 0.030 < 0.030

Page 3 of 5

Test Methods

SOP Title Parameters included Method summary

1010 pH Value of Waters pH pH Meter

1220 Anions, Alkalinity & Ammonium in Waters

Fluoride; Chloride; Nitrite; Nitrate; Total; Oxidisable Nitrogen (TON); Sulfate; Phosphate; Alkalinity; Ammonium

Automated colorimetric analysis using ‘Aquakem 600’ Discrete Analyser.

1270 Total Hardness of Waters Total hardnessCalculation applied to calcium and magnesium results, expressed as mg l-1 CaCO3 equivalent.

1300 Cyanides & Thiocyanate in Waters

Free (or easy liberatable) Cyanide; total Cyanide; complex Cyanide; Thiocyanate Continuous Flow Analysis.

1415 Cations in Waters by ICP-MS Sodium; Potassium; Calcium; Magnesium Direct determination by inductively coupled plasma - mass spectrometry (ICP-MS).

1460 Mercury low-level in Waters by AFS Mercury Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry, with

collimated UV source, wavelength 253.7 nm.

1490 Hexavalent Chromium in Waters Chromium [VI]

Automated colorimetric analysis by ‘Aquakem 600’ Discrete Analyser using 1,5-diphenylcarbazide.

1610 Total/Dissolved Organic Carbon in Waters Organic Carbon TOC Analyser using Catalytic Oxidation

1670 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) in Waters by GC-FID

TPH (C6–C40); optional carbon banding, e.g. 3-band – GRO, DRO & LRO Pentane extraction / GC FID detection

1675TPH Aliphatic/Aromatic split in Waters by GC-FID(cf. Texas Method 1006 / TPH CWG)

Aliphatics: >C5–C6, >C6–C8, >C8– C10, >C10–C12, >C12–C16, >C16–C21, >C21– C35, >C35– C44Aromatics: >C5–C7, >C7–C8, >C8– C10, >C10–C12, >C12–C16, >C16– C21, >C21– C35, >C35– C44

Pentane extraction / GCxGC FID detection

1700Speciated Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Waters by GC-FID

Acenaphthene; Acenaphthylene; Anthracene; Benzo[a]Anthracene; Benzo[a]Pyrene; Benzo[b]Fluoranthene; Benzo[ghi]Perylene; Benzo[k]Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Dibenz[ah]Anthracene; Fluoranthene; Fluorene; Indeno[123cd]Pyrene; Naphthalene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene

Pentane extraction / GC FID detection

1760Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Waters by Headspace GC-MS

Volatile organic compounds, including BTEX and halogenated Aliphatic/Aromatics. (cf. USEPA Method 8260)

Automated headspace gas chromatographic (GC) analysis of water samples with mass spectrometric (MS) detection of volatile organic compounds.

1920 Phenols in Waters by HPLCPhenolic compounds including: Phenol, Cresols, Xylenols, Trimethylphenols Note: Chlorophenols are excluded.

Determination by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) using electrochemical detection.

Page 4 of 5

Report Information

Key

U 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 the indicated laboratory Issue numbers are sequential starting with 1 all subsequent reports are incremented by 1

Sample Deviation Codes

A - 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 Disposal

All 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 5 of 5

mailto:[email protected]



APPENDIX D

GAS MONITORING RESULTS

LK CONSULT LTDGAS MONITORING RECORD

1 of 1

Borehole ID Date/Time CH4 (% v/v)

CO2 (% v/v)

O2 (% v/v)

Peak CH4 (% v/v)

% of Lower Explosive

Limit*2

CO Pod (ppm)

H2S Pod (ppm)

Balance (%)

Barometric Pressure (mb)

Relative Pressure (mb)

Internal Flow *3 (ltr/hr)

Standing Water Level (mbgl)

Installation Base Dip (mbgl)

WS101 25-04-17 8:20 0.1 2.3 17.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.3 80.5 1003.0 -0.29 0 - 3.01WS102 25-04-17 8:30 0.1 4.6 14.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.3 81.1 1003.0 -0.27 0 4.01 4.91WS103 25-04-17 8:41 0.0 2.7 18.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 -0.2 79.3 1003.0 -0.24 0 2.88 2.90WS104 25-04-17 8:49 0.1 1.6 19.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 79.0 1003.0 -0.17 0 1.68 3.50WS105 25-04-17 8:56 0.1 4.1 16.4 0.1 0.0 2.0 -0.2 79.4 1003.0 -0.15 0 2.17 3.98WS106 25-04-17 9:03 0.1 1.6 18.8 0.1 0.0 2.0 -0.2 79.5 1003.0 -0.18 0 1.98 2.09WS107 25-04-17 9:12 0.1 1.7 20.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 77.7 1003.0 -0.15 0.1 - 3.03WS108 25-04-17 9:20 0.1 0.2 20.6 0.1 0.0 2.0 -0.2 79.1 1003.0 0.16 0 1.24 3.26

ABBREVIATIONS NOTES

*1 Refer to Note 1 ppm Parts per million 1. Equipment is serviced and checked as recommended by the manufacturer. Refer to calibration records. ND Not detected mb Millibars and service certificates.NR Not recorded ltr/hr Litres per hour 2. CH4 is explosive between the range of 5 - 15% v/v. 100% lower explosive limit is equal to 5% v/v CH4.UR Unable to record mbgl Metres below ground level 3. Flow readings are based on a 1 minute average value where flow is detected (equipment range of +/- 12 ltr/hr)OS Off recordable scale LEL Lower explosive limit in air 4. After CIRIA C665. GSV = gas concentration (%) x flow rate. Peak CH4 and Steady CO2 values used.N/A Not applicable OEL Occupational exposure limit 5. Monitoring is carried out in line with procedures set by LKC Ltd with reference to CIRIA C665. Refer to procedural documents

% v/v Percentage volume by total volume

Westridge HospitalREF

VISIT

25-Apr-2017LKC 17 1065

PP

EQUIPMENT*1

GA10350 Serviced, calibrated & gas checked.Instrument / Model Type

Geotechnical Instruments GA2000+

SITE

DATESTAFF

ATMOSPHERIC / GROUND CONDITIONSSteady Serial Number CommentsFalling

Atmospheric Pressure Trend on SiteAtmospheric Pressure (Prev 24hrs)Weather Conditions Sunny, cool, breezyGeotech oil in water meter Operating Normally

81454-14

Ground Conditions Moist

Notes



APPENDIX E

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS – GEOTECHNICAL

LK CONSULT LTDGAS MONITORING RECORD

1 of 1

Borehole ID Date/Time CH4 (% v/v)

CO2 (% v/v)

O2 (% v/v)

Peak CH4 (% v/v)

% of Lower Explosive

Limit*2

CO Pod (ppm)

H2S Pod (ppm)

Balance (%)

Barometric Pressure (mb)

Relative Pressure (mb)

Internal Flow *3 (ltr/hr)

Standing Water Level (mbgl)

Installation Base Dip (mbgl)

WS101 25-04-17 8:20 0.1 2.3 17.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.3 80.5 1003.0 -0.29 0 - 3.01WS102 25-04-17 8:30 0.1 4.6 14.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.3 81.1 1003.0 -0.27 0 4.01 4.91WS103 25-04-17 8:41 0.0 2.7 18.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 -0.2 79.3 1003.0 -0.24 0 2.88 2.90WS104 25-04-17 8:49 0.1 1.6 19.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 79.0 1003.0 -0.17 0 1.68 3.50WS105 25-04-17 8:56 0.1 4.1 16.4 0.1 0.0 2.0 -0.2 79.4 1003.0 -0.15 0 2.17 3.98WS106 25-04-17 9:03 0.1 1.6 18.8 0.1 0.0 2.0 -0.2 79.5 1003.0 -0.18 0 1.98 2.09WS107 25-04-17 9:12 0.1 1.7 20.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.2 77.7 1003.0 -0.15 0.1 - 3.03WS108 25-04-17 9:20 0.1 0.2 20.6 0.1 0.0 2.0 -0.2 79.1 1003.0 0.16 0 1.24 3.26

ABBREVIATIONS NOTES

*1 Refer to Note 1 ppm Parts per million 1. Equipment is serviced and checked as recommended by the manufacturer. Refer to calibration records. ND Not detected mb Millibars and service certificates.NR Not recorded ltr/hr Litres per hour 2. CH4 is explosive between the range of 5 - 15% v/v. 100% lower explosive limit is equal to 5% v/v CH4.UR Unable to record mbgl Metres below ground level 3. Flow readings are based on a 1 minute average value where flow is detected (equipment range of +/- 12 ltr/hr)OS Off recordable scale LEL Lower explosive limit in air 4. After CIRIA C665. GSV = gas concentration (%) x flow rate. Peak CH4 and Steady CO2 values used.N/A Not applicable OEL Occupational exposure limit 5. Monitoring is carried out in line with procedures set by LKC Ltd with reference to CIRIA C665. Refer to procedural documents

% v/v Percentage volume by total volume

Westridge HospitalREF

VISIT

25-Apr-2017LKC 17 1065

PP

EQUIPMENT*1

GA10350 Serviced, calibrated & gas checked.Instrument / Model Type

Geotechnical Instruments GA2000+

SITE

DATESTAFF

ATMOSPHERIC / GROUND CONDITIONSSteady Serial Number CommentsFalling

Atmospheric Pressure Trend on SiteAtmospheric Pressure (Prev 24hrs)Weather Conditions Sunny, cool, breezyGeotech oil in water meter Operating Normally

81454-14

Ground Conditions Moist

Notes



APPENDIX F

FALLING HEAD TESTS


In Situ Permeability Type

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

BoreholeNumber

JobNumber

Sheet

Remarks

Test No.



LKC

WS101

LKC 17 1065

04-Apr-17

Key: bgl = Below Ground Level btoc = Below Top of Casing


Falling Head 1

Height of casing above ground level: 0.00 m

Depth to Base of Borehole: 3.10 m bgl

Depth to Base of Casing: 1.00 m bgl

Depth to equilibrium water level: 3.10 m btoc

Test Length L: 2.10 m

Diameter of Test Length D: 0.11 m

Area of Test Section: 0.0087 m2

Intake Factor F: 3.5763

(after condition D, figure 6, BS 5930)

PERMEABILITY (after Hvorslev, 1951)

Basic Time Lag Analysis

The value T when Ht/Ho = 0.37 is the basic time lag, T

T = 16.67

k = 2.42E-06 ms-1

Elapsedtime

(mins)

Depth towater

(m btoc)

Head ofWater, H

(m)

Ht/

Ho

0.0 2.280 0.820 1.0000.1 2.330 0.770 0.9390.2 2.380 0.720 0.8780.3 2.430 0.670 0.8170.5 2.470 0.630 0.7680.7 2.510 0.590 0.7200.8 2.530 0.570 0.6951.0 2.570 0.530 0.6461.5 2.600 0.500 0.6102.0 2.640 0.460 0.5612.5 2.660 0.440 0.5373.0 2.690 0.410 0.5003.5 2.700 0.400 0.4884.0 2.720 0.380 0.4634.5 2.720 0.380 0.4635.0 2.730 0.370 0.4516.0 2.740 0.360 0.4397.0 2.750 0.350 0.4278.0 2.760 0.340 0.4159.0 2.760 0.340 0.41510.0 2.770 0.330 0.40215.0 2.790 0.310 0.37820.0 2.810 0.290 0.35425.0 2.840 0.260 0.31730.0 2.850 0.250 0.30540.0 2.880 0.220 0.26850.0 2.900 0.200 0.24460.0 2.920 0.180 0.22070.0 2.920 0.180 0.22080.0 2.920 0.180 0.22090.0 2.930 0.170 0.207

120.0 2.970 0.130 0.159

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Elapsed time (mins)

Ht/

Ho

1/9



Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

BoreholeNumber

JobNumber

Sheet

Remarks

Test No.



LKC

WS101

LKC 17 1065

04-Apr-17



Falling Head 2













T = 1.09

k = 3.86E-05 ms-1

Elapsedtime

(mins)

Depth towater

(m btoc)

Head ofWater, H

(m)

Ht/

Ho

0.0 1.500 1.490 1.0000.1 1.700 1.290 0.8660.2 1.860 1.130 0.7580.3 2.100 0.890 0.5970.5 2.230 0.760 0.5100.7 2.320 0.670 0.4500.8 2.380 0.610 0.4091.0 2.420 0.570 0.3831.5 2.530 0.460 0.3092.0 2.650 0.340 0.2282.5 2.690 0.300 0.2013.0 2.720 0.270 0.1813.5 2.730 0.260 0.1744.0 2.750 0.240 0.1614.5 2.770 0.220 0.1485.0 2.780 0.210 0.1416.0 2.810 0.180 0.1217.0 2.830 0.160 0.1078.0 2.850 0.140 0.0949.0 2.870 0.120 0.08110.0 2.890 0.100 0.06715.0 2.940 0.050 0.03420.0 2.950 0.040 0.02725.0 2.950 0.040 0.02730.0 2.960 0.030 0.02040.0 2.960 0.030 0.02050.0 2.970 0.020 0.01360.0 2.970 0.020 0.01370.0 2.980 0.010 0.00780.0 2.990 0.000 0.00090.0 2.990 0.000 0.000

0 11.3 22.5 33.8 45 56.3 67.5 78.8 900.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.050.060.070.080.090.100.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.500.600.700.800.90

Elapsed time (mins)

Ht/

Ho

2/9



Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

BoreholeNumber

JobNumber

Sheet

Remarks

Test No.



LKC

WS101

LKC 17 1065

04-Apr-17



Falling Head 3













T = 0.48

k = 8.83E-05 ms-1

Elapsedtime

(mins)

Depth towater

(m btoc)

Head ofWater, H

(m)

Ht/

Ho

0.0 0.950 2.040 1.0000.1 1.180 1.810 0.8870.2 1.400 1.590 0.7790.3 1.850 1.140 0.5590.5 2.290 0.700 0.3430.7 2.360 0.630 0.3090.8 2.420 0.570 0.2791.0 2.470 0.520 0.2551.5 2.540 0.450 0.2212.0 2.650 0.340 0.1672.5 2.690 0.300 0.1473.0 2.730 0.260 0.1273.5 2.740 0.250 0.1234.0 2.770 0.220 0.1084.5 2.800 0.190 0.0935.0 2.820 0.170 0.0836.0 2.840 0.150 0.0747.0 2.850 0.140 0.0698.0 2.860 0.130 0.0649.0 2.880 0.110 0.05410.0 2.900 0.090 0.044

0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5 6.3 7.5 8.8 100.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.050.060.070.080.090.100.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.500.600.700.800.90

Elapsed time (mins)

Ht/

Ho

3/9



Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

BoreholeNumber

JobNumber

Sheet

Remarks

Test No.



LKC

WS103A

LKC 17 1065

04-Apr-17



Falling Head 1













T = 4.88

k = 8.48E-06 ms-1

Elapsedtime

(mins)

Depth towater

(m btoc)

Head ofWater, H

(m)

Ht/

Ho

0.0 2.380 0.520 1.0000.1 2.410 0.490 0.9420.2 2.440 0.460 0.8850.3 2.460 0.440 0.8460.5 2.470 0.430 0.8270.7 2.490 0.410 0.7880.8 2.500 0.400 0.7691.0 2.520 0.380 0.7311.5 2.530 0.370 0.7122.0 2.540 0.360 0.6922.5 2.570 0.330 0.6353.0 2.610 0.290 0.5583.5 2.650 0.250 0.4814.0 2.680 0.220 0.4234.5 2.700 0.200 0.3855.0 2.710 0.190 0.3656.0 2.720 0.180 0.3467.0 2.740 0.160 0.3088.0 2.760 0.140 0.2699.0 2.770 0.130 0.25010.0 2.780 0.120 0.23115.0 2.780 0.120 0.23120.0 2.780 0.120 0.23125.0 2.780 0.120 0.23130.0 2.780 0.120 0.23140.0 2.780 0.120 0.23150.0 2.780 0.120 0.23160.0 2.780 0.120 0.23170.0 2.780 0.120 0.231

0 8.8 17.5 26.3 35 43.8 52.5 61.3 70

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Elapsed time (mins)

Ht/

Ho

4/9



Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

BoreholeNumber

JobNumber

Sheet

Remarks

Test No.



LKC

WS103A

LKC 17 1065

04-Apr-17



Falling Head 2













T = 4.79

k = 9.46E-06 ms-1

Elapsedtime

(mins)

Depth towater

(m btoc)

Head ofWater, H

(m)

Ht/

Ho

0.0 2.400 0.390 1.0000.1 2.420 0.370 0.9490.2 2.440 0.350 0.8970.3 2.450 0.340 0.8720.5 2.460 0.330 0.8460.7 2.470 0.320 0.8210.8 2.480 0.310 0.7951.0 2.490 0.300 0.7691.5 2.520 0.270 0.6922.0 2.550 0.240 0.6152.5 2.580 0.210 0.5383.0 2.610 0.180 0.4623.5 2.620 0.170 0.4364.0 2.630 0.160 0.4104.5 2.640 0.150 0.3855.0 2.650 0.140 0.3596.0 2.690 0.100 0.2567.0 2.700 0.090 0.2318.0 2.710 0.080 0.2059.0 2.710 0.080 0.20510.0 2.710 0.080 0.20515.0 2.710 0.080 0.20520.0 2.720 0.070 0.17925.0 2.730 0.060 0.15430.0 2.730 0.060 0.15440.0 2.740 0.050 0.12850.0 2.760 0.030 0.077

0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25 31.3 37.5 43.8 500.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.050.060.070.080.090.100.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.500.600.700.800.90

Elapsed time (mins)

Ht/

Ho

5/9



Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

BoreholeNumber

JobNumber

Sheet

Remarks

Test No.



LKC

WS103A

LKC 17 1065

04-Apr-17



Falling Head 3













T = 0.28

k = 1.61E-04 ms-1

Elapsedtime

(mins)

Depth towater

(m btoc)

Head ofWater, H

(m)

Ht/

Ho

0.0 1.850 0.910 1.0000.1 2.360 0.400 0.4400.2 2.390 0.370 0.4070.3 2.430 0.330 0.3630.5 2.480 0.280 0.3080.7 2.500 0.260 0.2860.8 2.510 0.250 0.2751.0 2.530 0.230 0.2531.5 2.550 0.210 0.2312.0 2.580 0.180 0.1982.5 2.610 0.150 0.1653.0 2.620 0.140 0.1543.5 2.630 0.130 0.1434.0 2.640 0.120 0.1324.5 2.650 0.110 0.1215.0 2.660 0.100 0.1106.0 2.680 0.080 0.0887.0 2.680 0.080 0.0888.0 2.680 0.080 0.0889.0 2.680 0.080 0.08810.0 2.680 0.080 0.088

0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5 6.3 7.5 8.8 100.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.050.060.070.080.090.100.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.500.600.700.800.90

Elapsed time (mins)

Ht/

Ho

6/9



Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

BoreholeNumber

JobNumber

Sheet

Remarks

Test No.



LKC

WS106

LKC 17 1065

04-Apr-17



Falling Head 1













T =

k = ms-1

Elapsedtime

(mins)

Depth towater

(m btoc)

Head ofWater, H

(m)

Ht/

Ho

0.0 0.000 2.040 1.0000.1 0.000 2.040 1.0000.2 0.000 2.040 1.0000.3 0.000 2.040 1.0000.5 0.000 2.040 1.0000.7 0.000 2.040 1.0000.8 0.000 2.040 1.0001.0 0.010 2.030 0.9951.5 0.010 2.030 0.9952.0 0.020 2.020 0.9902.5 0.030 2.010 0.9853.0 0.030 2.010 0.9853.5 0.030 2.010 0.9854.0 0.040 2.000 0.9804.5 0.040 2.000 0.9805.0 0.040 2.000 0.9806.0 0.040 2.000 0.9807.0 0.050 1.990 0.9758.0 0.050 1.990 0.9759.0 0.050 1.990 0.97510.0 0.070 1.970 0.96615.0 0.080 1.960 0.96120.0 0.090 1.950 0.95625.0 0.100 1.940 0.95130.0 0.110 1.930 0.94640.0 0.120 1.920 0.94150.0 0.130 1.910 0.936

180.0 0.360 1.680 0.824300.0 0.500 1.540 0.755

0 37.5 75 112.5 150 187.5 225 262.5 300

0.80

0.90

Elapsed time (mins)

Ht/

Ho

7/9



Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Project Contractor

BoreholeNumber

JobNumber

Sheet

Remarks

Test No.



LKC

WS108

LKC 17 1065

04-Apr-17



Falling Head 1













T =

k = ms-1

Elapsedtime

(mins)

Depth towater

(m btoc)

Head ofWater, H

(m)

Ht/

Ho

0.0 0.000 4.530 1.0000.1 0.000 4.530 1.0000.2 0.000 4.530 1.0000.3 0.000 4.530 1.0000.5 0.000 4.530 1.0000.7 0.000 4.530 1.0000.8 0.000 4.530 1.0001.0 0.000 4.530 1.0001.5 0.000 4.530 1.0002.0 0.000 4.530 1.0002.5 0.000 4.530 1.0003.0 0.000 4.530 1.0003.5 0.000 4.530 1.0004.0 0.000 4.530 1.0004.5 0.000 4.530 1.0005.0 0.000 4.530 1.0006.0 0.000 4.530 1.0007.0 0.000 4.530 1.0008.0 0.000 4.530 1.0009.0 0.000 4.530 1.00010.0 0.000 4.530 1.00015.0 0.000 4.530 1.00020.0 0.000 4.530 1.00025.0 0.000 4.530 1.00030.0 0.000 4.530 1.00040.0 0.000 4.530 1.00050.0 0.000 4.530 1.00060.0 0.000 4.530 1.00070.0 0.000 4.530 1.00080.0 0.000 4.530 1.00090.0 0.000 4.530 1.000

120.0 0.000 4.530 1.000150.0 0.000 4.530 1.000180.0 0.000 4.530 1.000

0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 135 157.5 1800.100.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Elapsed time (mins)

Ht/

Ho

9/9



APPENDIX G

GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA VALUES

Catego

ory 4 Screeening Levells (C4SL)

Summary Table for the Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment Land Quality Management (LQM) S4ULs.

All GAC are based on sandy loam soils with a pH 7.

LQM Generic Assessment Criteria (mg/kg) Dry weight soil

Contaminant SOM Res + Res - Allot. Comm. POSresi POSpark

Met

als

Inorganic Arsenic 6% 37 40 43 640 79 170 Beryllium 6% 1.7 1.7 35 12 2.2 63

Boron 6% 290 11,000 45 240,000 21,000 46,000 Cadmium 6% 11 85 1.9 190 120 532

Chromium (III) 6% 910 910 18,000 8,600 1,500 33,000 Chromium (VI) 6% 6.0 6.0 1.8 33 7.7 220

Copper 6% 2,400 7,100 520 68,000 12,000 44,000 Elemental Mercury 6% 1.2 1.2 21 58 (25.8) vap 16 30 (25.8) vap Inorganic Mercury 6% 40 56 19 1,100 120 240

Methylmercury 6% 11 15 6.0 320 40 68 Nickel 6% 180 180 230 980 230 3,400

Selenium 6% 250 430 88 12,000 1,100 1,800 Vanadium 6% 410 1,200 91 9,000 2,000 5,000

Zinc 6% 3,700 40,000 620 730,000 81,000 170,000

BT

EX

Co

mp

ou

nd

s

Benzene 1% 0.087 0.38 0.017 27 72 90

2.5% 0.17 0.70 0.034 47 72 100 6% 0.37 1.4 0.075 90 73 110

Toluene 1% 130 880 (869) vap 22 56,000 (869) vap 56,000 87,000 (869) vap

2.5% 290 1,900 51 110,000 (1,920) vap 56,000 95,000 (1,920) vap 6% 660 3,900 120 180,000 (4,360) vap 56,000 100,000 (4,360) vap

Ethylbenzene 1% 47 83 16 5,700 (518) vap 24,000 17,000 (518) vap

2.5% 110 190 39 13,000 (1,220) vap 24,000 22,000 (1,220) vap 6% 260 440 91 27,000 (2,840) vap 25,000 27,000 (2,840) vap

-xylene 1% 60 88 28 6,600 (478) sol 41,000 17,000 (478) sol

2.5% 140 210 67 15,000 (1,120) sol 42,000 24,000 (1,120) sol 6% 330 480 160 33,000 (2,620) sol 43,000 33,000 (2,620) sol

m-xylene 1% 59 82 31 6,200 (625) vap 41,000 17,000 (625) vap

2.5% 140 190 74 14,000 (1,470) vap 42,000 24,000 (1,470) vap 6% 320 450 170 31,000 (3,460) vap 43,000 32,000 (3,460) vap

-xylene 1% 56 79 29 5,900 (576) sol 41,000 17,000 (576) sol

2.5% 130 180 69 14,000 (1,350) sol 42,000 23,000 (1,350) sol 6% 310 430 160 30,000 (3,170) sol 43,000 31,000 (3,170) sol

NOTES Sol / vap = solubility / vapour limit (potentially use if free product identified, although highly conservative). f = oral, dermal and inhalation exposures compared to oral HCV.




Po

lycy

clic

Aro

mat

ic H

ydro

carb

on

s (

PA

Hs)

Acenaphthene 1% 210 3,000 (57.1) sol 34 84,000 (57.0) sol 15,000 29,000

2.5% 510 4,700 (141) sol 85 97,000 (141) sol 15,000 30,000 6% 1,100 6,000 (336) sol 200 100,000 15,000 30,000

Acenaphthylene 1% 170 2,900 (86.1) sol 28 83,000 (86.1) sol 15,000 29,000

2.5% 420 4,600 (212) sol 69 97,000 (212) sol 15,000 30,000 6% 920 6,000 (506) sol 160 100,000 15,000 30,000

Anthracene 1% 2,400 31,000 (1.17) vap 380 520,000 74,000 150,000

2.5% 5,400 35,000 950 540,000 74,000 150,000 6% 11,000 37,000 2,200 540,000 74,000 150,000

Benz(a)anthracene 1% 7.2 11 2.9 170 29 49

2.5% 11 14 6.5 170 29 56 6% 13 15 13 180 29 62

Benzo(a)pyrene (only) 1% 2.2 3.2 0.97 35 5.7 11

2.5% 2.7 3.2 2.0 35 5.7 12 6% 3.0 3.2 3.5 36 5.7 13

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1% 2.6 3.9 0.99 44 7.1 13

2.5% 3.3 4.0 2.1 44 7.2 15 6% 3.7 4.0 3.9 45 7.2 16

Benzo(ghi)perylene 1% 320 360 290 3,900 640 1,400

2.5% 340 360 470 4,000 640 1,500 6% 350 360 640 4,000 640 1,600

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1% 77 110 37 1,200 190 370

2.5% 93 110 75 1,200 190 410 6% 100 110 130 1,200 190 440

Chrysene 1% 15 30 4.1 350 57 93

2.5% 22 31 9.4 350 57 110 6% 27 32 19 350 57 120

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 1% 0.24 0.31 0.14 3.5 0.57 1.1

2.5% 0.28 0.32 0.27 3.6 0.58 1.3 6% 0.3 0.32 0.43 3.6 0.58 1.4

Fluoranthene 1% 280 1,500 52 23,000 3,100 6,300

2.5% 560 1,600 130 23,000 3,100 6,300 6% 890 1,600 290 23,000 3,100 6,400

Fluorene 1% 170 2,800 (36.0) sol 27 63,000 (30.9) sol 9,900 20,000

2.5% 400 3,800 (76.5) sol 67 68,000 9,900 20,000 6% 860 4,500 (183) sol 160 71,000 9,900 20,000

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 1% 27 45 9.5 500 82 150

2.5% 36 46 21 510 82 170 6% 41 46 39 510 82 180

Naphthalene 1% 2.3 f 2.3 f 4.1 f 190 f (76.4) sol 4,900 f 1,200 f (76.4) sol

2.5% 5.6 f 5.6 f 10 f 460 f (183) sol 4,900 f 1,900 f (183) sol 6% 13 f 13 f 24 f 1,100 f (432) sol 4,900 f 3,000

Phenanthrene 1% 95 1,300 (36.0) sol 15 22,000 3,100 6,200

2.5% 220 1,500 38 22,000 3,100 6,200 6% 440 1,500 90 22,000 3,100 6,300

Pyrene 1% 620 3,700 110 54,000 7,400 15,000

2.5% 1,200 3,800 270 54,000 7,400 15,000 6% 2,000 3,800 620 54,000 7,400 15,000

Coal Tar (B(a)P as surrogate

marker)

1% 0.79 1.2 0.32 15 2.2 4.4 2.5% 0.98 1.2 0.67 15 2.2 4.7 6% 1.1 1.2 1.2 15 2.2 4.8

NOTES Sol / vap = solubility / vapour limit (potentially use if free product identified, although highly conservative). f = naphthalene is based on comparison of inhalation exposure with TDIinhal for localised effect.




Aliphatic EC 5-6 1% 42 42 730 3,200 (304) sol 570,000(304)sol 95,000 (304) sol EC>6-8 1% 100 100 2,300 7,800 (144) sol 600,000 150,000 (144) sol EC>8-10 1% 27 27 320 2,000 (78) sol 13,000 14,000 (78) vap

Pet

role

um

Hy

dro

carb

on

s

EC>10-12 1% 130 (48) vap 130 (48) vap 2,200 9,700 (48) sol 13,000 21,000 (48) vap EC>12-16 1% 1,100 (24) sol 1,100 (24) sol 11,000 59,000 (24) sol 13,000 25,000 (24) sol EC>16-35 1% 65,000 (8.48) f,sol 65,000 (8.48) f,sol 260,000 f 160,000 f 250,000 f 450,000 f EC>35-44 1% 65,000 (8.48) f,sol 65,000 (8.48) f,sol 260,000 f 160,000 f 250,000 f 450,000 f Aliphatic EC 5-6 2.5% 78 78 1,700 5,900 (558) sol 590,000 130,000 (558) sol EC>6-8 2.5% 230 230 5,600 17,000 (322) sol 610,000 220,000 (322) sol EC>8-10 2.5% 65 65 770 4,800 (190) vap 13,000 18,000 (190) vap EC>10-12 2.5% 330 (118) vap 330 (118) vap 4,400 23,000 (118) vap 13,000 23,000 (118) vap EC>12-16 2.5% 2,400 (59) sol 2,400 (59) sol 13,000 82,000 (59) sol 13,000 25,000 (59) sol EC>16-35 2.5% 92,000 (21) f,sol 92,000 (21) f,sol 270,000 f 1,700,000 f 250,000 f 480,000 f EC>35-44 2.5% 92,000 (21) f,sol 92,000 (21) f,sol 270,000 f 1,700,000 f 250,000 f 480,000 f Aliphatic EC 5-6 6% 160 160 3,900 12,000 (1,150) sol 600,000 180,000 (1,150) sol EC>6-8 6% 530 530 13,000 40,000 (736) sol 620,000 320,000 (736) sol EC>8-10 6% 150 150 1,700 11,000 (451) vap 13,000 21,000 (451) vap EC>10-12 6% 760 (283) vap 760 (283) vap 7,300 47,000 (283) vap 13,000 24,000 (283) vap EC>12-16 6% 4,300 (142) sol 4,400 (142) sol 13,000 90,000 (142) sol 13,000 26,000 (142) sol EC>16-35 6% 110,000f 110,000f 270,000 f 1,800,000f 250,000 f 490,000 f EC>35-44 6% 110,000f 110,000f 270,000 f 1,800,000f 250,000 f 490,000 f Aromatic EC5-7(benzene as non-threshold)

1% 70 370 13 26,000 (1,220) sol 56,000 76,000 (1,220) sol

EC>7-8(toluene) 1% 130 860 22 56,000 (869) vap 56,000 87,000 (869) vap EC>8-10 1% 34 47 8.6 3,500 (613) vap 5,000 7,200 (613) vap EC>10-12 1% 74 250 13 16,000 (364) sol 5,000 9,200 (364) sol EC>12-16 1% 140 1,800 23 36,000 (169 )sol 5,100 10,000 EC>16-21 1% 260 f 1,900 f 46 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,600 f EC>21-35 1% 1,100 f 1,900 f 370 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,800 f EC>35-44 1% 1,100 f 1,900 f 370f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,800 f Aromatic EC5-7(benzene as non-threshold)

2.5% 140 690 27 46,000 (2,260) sol 56,000 84,000 (2,260) sol

EC>7-8(toluene) 2.5% 290 1,800 51 110,000 (1,920) sol 56,000 95,000 (1,920) sol EC>8-10 2.5% 83 110 21 8,100 (1,500) vap 5,000 8,500 (1,500) vap EC>10-12 2.5% 180 590 31 28,000 (899) sol 5,000 9,700 (899) sol EC>12-16 2.5% 330 2,300 (419) sol 57 37,000 5,100 10,000 EC>16-21 2.5% 540 f 1,900 f 110 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,700 f EC>21-35 2.5% 1,500 f 1,900 f 820 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,800 f EC>35-44 2.5% 1,500 f 1,900 f 820 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,800 f Aromatic EC5-7(benzene as non-threshold)

6% 300 1,400 57 86,000 (4,710) sol 56,000 92,000 (4,710) sol

EC>7-8(toluene) 6% 660 3,900 120 180,000 (4,360)

vap 56,000 100,000 (4,360) vap

EC>8-10 6% 190 270 51 17,000 (3,580) vap 5,000 9,300 (3,580) vap EC>10-12 6% 380 1,200 4 34,000 (2,150) sol 5,000 10,000 EC>12-16 6% 660 2,500 130 38,000 5,100 10,000 EC>16-21 6% 930f 1,900 f 260 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,800 f EC>21-35 6% 1,700 f 1,900 f 1,600 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,900 f EC>35-44 6% 1,700 f 1,900 f 1,600 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,900 f

Aliphatic +Aromatic >EC44

1% 1,600 f 1,900 f 1,200 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,800 f 2.5% 1,800 f 1,900 f 2,100 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,800 f 6% 1,900 f 1,900 f 3,000 f 28,000 f 3,800 f 7,900 f

NOTES Sol / vap = solubility / vapour limit (potentially use if free product identified, although highly conservative). f = oral, dermal and inhalation exposures compared to oral HCV.




Ch

loal

kan

es a

nd

Alk

en

es &

Ex

plo

sive

s

1,2 Dichloroethane (DCA)

1% 7.1E-03 9.2E-03 4.6E-03 0.67 29 21 2.5% 1.1E-02 1.3E-02 8.3E-03 0.97 29 24 6% 1.9E-02 2.3E-02 1.6E-02 1.7 29 28

1,1,1 Trichloroethane (TCA)

1% 8.8 9.0 48 660 140,000 57,000 (1,425) vap 2.5% 18 18 110 1,300 140,000 76,000 (2,915) vap 6% 39 40 240 3,000 140,000 100,000 (6,392) vap

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanes (PCA)

1% 1.6 3.9 0.41 270 1,400 1,800 2.5% 3.4 8.0 0.89 550 1,400 2,100 6% 7.5 17 2.0 1,100 1,400 2,300

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethanes (PCA)

1% 1.2 1.5 0.79 110 1,400 1,500 2.5% 2.8 3.5 1.9 250 1,400 1,800 6% 6.4 8.2 4.4 560 1,400 2,100

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 1% 0.18 0.18 0.65 19 1,400 810 (424) sol

2.5% 0.39 0.40 1.5 42 1,400 1,100 (951) sol 6% 0.90 0.92 3.6 95 1,400 1,500

Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride)

1% 2.6E-02 2.6E-02 0.45 2.9 890 190 2.5% 5.6E-02 5.6E-02 1.0 6.3 920 270 6% 0.13 0.13 2.4 14 950 400

Trichloroethene (TCE) 1% 1.6E-02 1.7E-02 4.1E-02 1.2 120 70

2.5% 3.4E-02 3.6E-02 9.1E-02 2.6 120 91 6% 7.5E-02 8.0E-02 0.21 5.7 120 120

Trichloromethane (chloroform) 1% 0.91 1.2 0.42 99 2,500 2,600

2.5% 1.7 2.1 0.83 170 2,500 2,800 6% 3.4 4.2 1.7 350 2,500 3,100

Chloroethene (vinyl chloride) 1% 6.4E-04 7.7E-04 5.5E-04 5.9E-02 3.5 4.8

2.5% 8.7E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 7.7E-02 3.5 5.0 6% 1.4E-03 1.5E-03 1.8E-03 0.12 3.5 5.4

2,4,6-Trinitritoluene (TNT) 1% 1.6 65 0.24 1,000 130 260

2.5% 3.7 66 0.58 1,000 130 270 6% 8.1 66 1.4 1,000 130 270

RDX 1% 120 13,000 17 210,000 26,000 49,000 (18.7) sol

2.5% 250 13,000 38 210,000 26,000 51,000 6% 540 13,000 85 210,000 27,000 53,000

HMX 1% 5.7 6,700 0.86 110,000 13,000 23,000 (0.35) vap

2.5% 13 6,700 1.9 110,000 13,000 23,000 (0.39) vap 6% 26 6,700 3.9 110,000 13,000 24,000 (0.48) vap

Pes

tici

de

s

Aldrin 1% 5.7 7.3 3.2 170 18 30

2.5% 6.6 7.4 6.1 170 18 31 6% 7.1 7.5 9.8 170 18 31

Dieldrin 1% 0.97 7.0 0.17 170 18 30

2.5% 2.0 7.3 0.41 170 18 30 6% 3.5 7.4 0.96 170 18 31

Atrazine 1% 3.3 610 0.5 9,300 1,200 2,300

2.5% 7.8 620 1.2 9,400 1,200 2,400 6% 17.4 620 2.7 9,400 1,200 2,400

Dichlorvos 1% 3.2E-02 6.4 4.9E-03 140 16 26

2.5% 6.6E-02 6.5 1.0E-02 140 16 26 6% 0.14 6.6 2.2E-02 140 16 27

Endosulfanns (2 isomers) 1% 7.4 160 (3.0E-03) vap 1.2 5,600 (3.0E-03) vap 1,200 2,300

2.5% 18 280 (7.0E-03) vap 2.9 7,400 (7.0E-03) vap 1,200 2,400 6% 41 410 (1.6E-02) vap 6.8 8,400 (1.6E-02) vap 1,200 2,500

Hexachlorocyclohexane (3 isomers), inc Lindane

1% 8.5E-02 3.7 1.3E-02 65 8.1 15 2.5% 0.2 3.8 3.2E-02 65 8.1 15 6% 0.46 3.8 7.7E-02 65 8.1 16

NOTES Sol / vap = solubility / vapour limit (potentially use if free product identified, although highly conservative).




Ch

loro

be

nze

ne

s

Chlorobenzene 1% 0.46 0.46 5.9 56 11,000 1,300 (675) sol

2.5% 1.0 1.0 14 130 13,000 2,000 (1,520) sol 6% 2.4 2.4 32 290 14,000 2,900

Dichlorobenzenes (3 isomers)

1% 23 24 94 2,000 (571) sol 90,000 24,000 (571) sol 2.5% 55 57 230 4,800 (1,370) sol 95,000 36,000 (1,370) sol 6% 130 130 540 11,000 (3,240) sol 98,000 51,000 (3,270) sol

Trichlorobenzenes (3 isomers)

1% 2.6 2.6 55 220 15,000 1,700 (318) vap 2.5% 6.4 6.4 140 530 17,000 2,600 (786) vap 6% 15 15 320 1,300 19,000 4,000 (1,880) vap

Tetrachlorobenzenes (3 isomers)

1% 0.66 0.75 0.38 49 (39.4) vap 78 110 (39) vap 2.5% 1.6 1.9 0.90 120 (98.1) vap 79 120 6% 3.7 4.3 2.2 240 (235) vap 79 130

Pentachlorobenzene 1% 5.8 19 1.2 640 (43.0) sol 100 190

2.5% 12 30 3.1 770 (107) sol 100 190 6% 22 38 7.0 830 100 190

Hexachlorobenzene 1% 1.8 (0.20) vap 4.1 (0.20) vap 0.47 110 (0.20) vap 16 30

2.5% 3.3 (0.50) vap 5.7 (0.50) vap 1.1 120 16 30 6% 4.9 6.7 (1.2) vap 2.5 120 16 30

Ch

loro

ph

eno

l

Chlorophenols (4 congeners)

1% 0.87 g 94 0.13 g 3,500 620 1,100 2.5% 2.0 150 0.30 4,000 620 1,100 6% 4.5 210 0.70 4,300 620 1,100

Pentachlorophenol

1% 0.22 27 (16.4) vap 3.0E-02 400 60 110 2.5% 0.52 29 8.0E-02 400 60 120

6% 1.2 31 0.19 400 60 120

Oth

ers

Carbon Disulphide 1% 0.14 0.14 4.8 11 11,000 1,300

2.5% 0.29 0.29 10 22 11,000 1,900 6% 0.62 0.62 23 47 11,000 2,700

Hexachlorobutadiene 1% 0.29 0.32 0.25 31 25 48

2.5% 0.7 0.78 0.61 66 25 50 6% 1.6 1.8 1.4 120 25 51

Phenol 1% 280 750 66 760 dir (31,000) 760 dir (11,000) 760 dir (8,600)

2.5% 550 1,300 140 1,500 dir (35,000) 1,500 dir (11,000) 1,500 dir (9,700) 6% 1,100 2,300 280 3,200 dir (37,000) 3,200 dir (11,000) 3,200 dir (11,000)

NOTES Sol / vap = solubility / vapour limit (potentially use if free product identified, although highly conservative). dir = S4uls based on threshold protective of direct skin contact with phenol (brackets long term exposure for illustration purposes). g = derived based on 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol.



APPENDIX H

WASTE ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATES

www.hazwasteonline.com C2KGX-DUZHV-GPSK2 Page 1 of 28

Waste Classification Report

C2KGX-DUZHV-GPSK2

Job name

Westridge Hospital

Description/Comments

Project

LKC 17 1065

Site

Westridge Hospital

Waste Stream Template

LK SUITE 1 - 5

Classified by

Name:Colin CromptonDate:18/05/2017 07:41:09 UTCTelephone:0161 763 7200

Company:LK GroupUnit 29, Eton Business ParkEton Hill Rd, RadcliffeManchesterM26 2ZS

Report

Created by: Colin CromptonCreated date: 18/05/2017 07:41 UTC

Job summary# Sample Name Depth [m] Classification Result Hazard properties Page1 WS101 0.30 Non Hazardous 3

2 WS102 0.40 Non Hazardous 5

3 WS103A 0.30 Non Hazardous 7

4 WS103A[1] 1.00 Non Hazardous 9


6 WS104[1] 1.00 Non Hazardous 12



9 WS106 0.20 Hazardous HP 7, HP 11 19




Appendices PageAppendix A: Classifier defined and non CLP determinands 26Appendix B: Rationale for selection of metal species 27

Report created by Colin Crompton on 18/05/2017

Page 2 of 28 C2KGX-DUZHV-GPSK2 www.hazwasteonline.com

Appendices PageAppendix C: Version 28



Classification of sample: WS101

Non Hazardous WasteClassified as 17 05 04

in the List of Waste

Sample details

Sample Name:WS101Sample Depth:0.30 mMoisture content:16%(dry weight correction)

LoW Code:Chapter: 17: Construction and Demolition Wastes (including excavated soil

from contaminated sites)Entry: 17 05 04 (Soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05

03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands

Moisture content: 16% Dry Weight Moisture Correction applied (MC)

#Determinand

CLP

Not

e

User entered dataConv.Factor

Compound conc.Classification

value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed

CLP index number EC Number CAS Number

1arsenic { arsenic trioxide }

23 mg/kg 1.32 26.179 mg/kg 0.00262 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3

2cadmium { cadmium oxide }

<0.1 mg/kg 1.142 <0.0985 mg/kg <0.00000985 % <LOD048-002-00-0 231-152-8 [1]215-146-2 [2]

7440-43-9 [1]1306-19-0 [2]

3chromium in chromium(III) compounds { chromium(III)oxide } 39 mg/kg 1.462 49.139 mg/kg 0.00491 %

215-160-9 1308-38-9

4 copper { dicopper oxide; copper (I) oxide } 19 mg/kg 1.126 18.441 mg/kg 0.00184 %029-002-00-X 215-270-7 1317-39-1

5mercury { mercury dichloride }

<0.1 mg/kg 1.353 <0.117 mg/kg <0.0000117 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7

6nickel { nickel chromate }

32 mg/kg 2.976 82.104 mg/kg 0.00821 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7

7lead { lead chromate }

1 24 mg/kg 1.56 32.272 mg/kg 0.00207 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

8

selenium { selenium compounds with the exception ofcadmium sulphoselenide and those specified elsewherein this Annex } <0.2 mg/kg 2.554 <0.44 mg/kg <0.000044 % <LOD

034-002-00-8

9vanadium { divanadium pentaoxide; vanadium pentoxide }

38 mg/kg 1.785 58.48 mg/kg 0.00585 %023-001-00-8 215-239-8 1314-62-1

10zinc { zinc chromate }

59 mg/kg 2.774 141.099 mg/kg 0.0141 %024-007-00-3

11chromium in chromium(VI) compounds { chromium(VI)oxide } <0.5 mg/kg 1.923 <0.829 mg/kg <0.0000829 % <LOD

024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0

12confirm TPH has NOT arisen from diesel or petrol

13naphthalene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3



#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


14acenaphthylene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

15acenaphthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

16fluorene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

17phenanthrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8

18anthracene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

19fluoranthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD 205-912-4 206-44-0

20pyrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD 204-927-3 129-00-0

21benzo[a]anthracene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

22chrysene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9

23benzo[b]fluoranthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2

24benzo[k]fluoranthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9

25benzo[a]pyrene; benzo[def]chrysene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8

26indeno[123-cd]pyrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5

27dibenz[a,h]anthracene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3

28benzo[ghi]perylene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0862 mg/kg <0.00000862 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

Total: 0.0399 %

KeyUser supplied data

Determinand values ignored for classification, see column 'Conc. Not Used' for reason

Determinand defined or amended by HazWasteOnline (see Appendix A)

Speciated Deteminand - Unless the Determinand is Note 1, the Conversion Factor is used to calculate the compoundconcentration

<LOD Below limit of detectionCLP: Note 1 Only the metal concentration has been used for classification






Sample details




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



68 mg/kg 1.32 71.826 mg/kg 0.00718 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


0.3 mg/kg 1.142 0.274 mg/kg 0.0000274 %048-002-00-0 231-152-8 [1]215-146-2 [2]

7440-43-9 [1]1306-19-0 [2]


215-160-9 1308-38-9



<0.1 mg/kg 1.353 <0.108 mg/kg <0.0000108 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7


62 mg/kg 2.976 147.623 mg/kg 0.0148 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7


1 36 mg/kg 1.56 44.923 mg/kg 0.00288 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

8


034-002-00-8


130 mg/kg 1.785 185.659 mg/kg 0.0186 %023-001-00-8 215-239-8 1314-62-1


140 mg/kg 2.774 310.704 mg/kg 0.0311 %024-007-00-3


024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0


13naphthalene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3



#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


14acenaphthylene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

15acenaphthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

16fluorene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

17phenanthrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8

18anthracene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

19fluoranthene

0.16 mg/kg 0.128 mg/kg 0.0000128 % 205-912-4 206-44-0

20pyrene

0.18 mg/kg 0.144 mg/kg 0.0000144 % 204-927-3 129-00-0


<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

22chrysene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.1 mg/kg <0.08 mg/kg <0.000008 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

Total: 0.0904 %








Classification of sample: WS103A



Sample details

Sample Name:WS103ASample Depth:0.30 mMoisture content:22%(dry weight correction)



03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



43 mg/kg 1.32 46.536 mg/kg 0.00465 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


0.14 mg/kg 1.142 0.131 mg/kg 0.0000131 %048-002-00-0 231-152-8 [1]215-146-2 [2]

7440-43-9 [1]1306-19-0 [2]


215-160-9 1308-38-9



<0.1 mg/kg 1.353 <0.111 mg/kg <0.0000111 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7


83 mg/kg 2.976 202.484 mg/kg 0.0202 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7


1 39 mg/kg 1.56 49.863 mg/kg 0.0032 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

8


034-002-00-8


240 mg/kg 1.785 351.184 mg/kg 0.0351 %023-001-00-8 215-239-8 1314-62-1


190 mg/kg 2.774 432.039 mg/kg 0.0432 %024-007-00-3


024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0

12TPH (C6 to C40) petroleum group

<10 mg/kg <8.197 mg/kg <0.00082 % <LOD TPH




#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


14tert-butyl methyl ether; MTBE;2-methoxy-2-methylpropane <1 mg/kg <0.82 mg/kg <0.000082 % <LOD

603-181-00-X 216-653-1 1634-04-4

15benzene

<1 mg/kg <0.82 mg/kg <0.000082 % <LOD601-020-00-8 200-753-7 71-43-2

16toluene

<1 mg/kg <0.82 mg/kg <0.000082 % <LOD601-021-00-3 203-625-9 108-88-3

17ethylbenzene

<1 mg/kg <0.82 mg/kg <0.000082 % <LOD601-023-00-4 202-849-4 100-41-4

18

xylene

<1 mg/kg <0.82 mg/kg <0.000082 % <LOD601-022-00-9 202-422-2 [1]

203-396-5 [2]203-576-3 [3]215-535-7 [4]

95-47-6 [1]106-42-3 [2]108-38-3 [3]1330-20-7 [4]

19naphthalene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3

20acenaphthylene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

21acenaphthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

22fluorene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

23phenanthrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8

24anthracene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

25fluoranthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 205-912-4 206-44-0

26pyrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 204-927-3 129-00-0


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

28chrysene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

35phenol

<0.3 mg/kg <0.246 mg/kg <0.0000246 % <LOD604-001-00-2 203-632-7 108-95-2

Total: 0.133 %








Classification of sample: WS103A[1]



Sample details

Sample Name:WS103A[1]Sample Depth:1.00 mMoisture content:24%(dry weight correction)



03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



47 mg/kg 1.32 50.045 mg/kg 0.005 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


0.29 mg/kg 1.142 0.267 mg/kg 0.0000267 %048-002-00-0 231-152-8 [1]215-146-2 [2]

7440-43-9 [1]1306-19-0 [2]


215-160-9 1308-38-9



<0.1 mg/kg 1.353 <0.109 mg/kg <0.0000109 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7


110 mg/kg 2.976 264.023 mg/kg 0.0264 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7


1 32 mg/kg 1.56 40.253 mg/kg 0.00258 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

8


034-002-00-8


340 mg/kg 1.785 489.486 mg/kg 0.0489 %023-001-00-8 215-239-8 1314-62-1


180 mg/kg 2.774 402.699 mg/kg 0.0403 %024-007-00-3


024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0


13naphthalene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3



#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


14acenaphthylene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

15acenaphthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

16fluorene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

17phenanthrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8

18anthracene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

19fluoranthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD 205-912-4 206-44-0

20pyrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD 204-927-3 129-00-0


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

22chrysene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0806 mg/kg <0.00000806 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

Total: 0.152 %











Sample details




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



410 mg/kg 359.649 mg/kg 0.036 % TPH



603-181-00-X 216-653-1 1634-04-4

4benzene

<1 mg/kg <0.877 mg/kg <0.0000877 % <LOD601-020-00-8 200-753-7 71-43-2

5toluene

<1 mg/kg <0.877 mg/kg <0.0000877 % <LOD601-021-00-3 203-625-9 108-88-3

6ethylbenzene

<1 mg/kg <0.877 mg/kg <0.0000877 % <LOD601-023-00-4 202-849-4 100-41-4

7

xylene

<1 mg/kg <0.877 mg/kg <0.0000877 % <LOD601-022-00-9 202-422-2 [1]

203-396-5 [2]203-576-3 [3]215-535-7 [4]

95-47-6 [1]106-42-3 [2]108-38-3 [3]1330-20-7 [4]

Total: 0.0364 %



Determinand defined or amended by HazWasteOnline (see Appendix A)<LOD Below limit of detection

Supplementary Hazardous Property Information

HP 3(i) on Flam. Liq. 1; H224, Flam. Liq. 2; H225, Flam. Liq. 3; H226: Force this Hazardous property to non hazardous becauseNo flammable components present.



Classification of sample: WS104[1]



Sample details

Sample Name:WS104[1]Sample Depth:1.00 mMoisture content:26%(dry weight correction)



03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



28 mg/kg 1.32 29.341 mg/kg 0.00293 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


<0.1 mg/kg 1.142 <0.0907 mg/kg <0.00000907 % <LOD048-002-00-0 231-152-8 [1]215-146-2 [2]

7440-43-9 [1]1306-19-0 [2]


215-160-9 1308-38-9



<0.1 mg/kg 1.353 <0.107 mg/kg <0.0000107 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7


43 mg/kg 2.976 101.571 mg/kg 0.0102 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7


1 43 mg/kg 1.56 53.232 mg/kg 0.00341 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

8


034-002-00-8


130 mg/kg 1.785 184.186 mg/kg 0.0184 %023-001-00-8 215-239-8 1314-62-1


130 mg/kg 2.774 286.221 mg/kg 0.0286 %024-007-00-3


024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0


13naphthalene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3



#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


14acenaphthylene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

15acenaphthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

16fluorene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

17phenanthrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8

18anthracene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

19fluoranthene

0.4 mg/kg 0.317 mg/kg 0.0000317 % 205-912-4 206-44-0

20pyrene

0.25 mg/kg 0.198 mg/kg 0.0000198 % 204-927-3 129-00-0


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

22chrysene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0794 mg/kg <0.00000794 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

Total: 0.078 %











Sample details




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



70 mg/kg 1.32 76.382 mg/kg 0.00764 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


0.27 mg/kg 1.142 0.255 mg/kg 0.0000255 %048-002-00-0 231-152-8 [1]215-146-2 [2]

7440-43-9 [1]1306-19-0 [2]


215-160-9 1308-38-9



<0.1 mg/kg 1.353 <0.112 mg/kg <0.0000112 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7


91 mg/kg 2.976 223.835 mg/kg 0.0224 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7


1 37 mg/kg 1.56 47.697 mg/kg 0.00306 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

8


034-002-00-8


260 mg/kg 1.785 383.593 mg/kg 0.0384 %023-001-00-8 215-239-8 1314-62-1


140 mg/kg 2.774 320.976 mg/kg 0.0321 %024-007-00-3


024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0


1200 mg/kg 991.736 mg/kg 0.0992 % TPH




#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



603-181-00-X 216-653-1 1634-04-4

15benzene

<1 mg/kg <0.826 mg/kg <0.0000826 % <LOD601-020-00-8 200-753-7 71-43-2

16toluene

<1 mg/kg <0.826 mg/kg <0.0000826 % <LOD601-021-00-3 203-625-9 108-88-3

17ethylbenzene

<1 mg/kg <0.826 mg/kg <0.0000826 % <LOD601-023-00-4 202-849-4 100-41-4

18

xylene

<1 mg/kg <0.826 mg/kg <0.0000826 % <LOD601-022-00-9 202-422-2 [1]

203-396-5 [2]203-576-3 [3]215-535-7 [4]

95-47-6 [1]106-42-3 [2]108-38-3 [3]1330-20-7 [4]

19naphthalene

0.54 mg/kg 0.446 mg/kg 0.0000446 %601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3

20acenaphthylene

2.3 mg/kg 1.901 mg/kg 0.00019 % 205-917-1 208-96-8

21acenaphthene

2.9 mg/kg 2.397 mg/kg 0.00024 % 201-469-6 83-32-9

22fluorene

3.5 mg/kg 2.893 mg/kg 0.000289 % 201-695-5 86-73-7

23phenanthrene

19 mg/kg 15.702 mg/kg 0.00157 % 201-581-5 85-01-8

24anthracene

5.7 mg/kg 4.711 mg/kg 0.000471 % 204-371-1 120-12-7

25fluoranthene

32 mg/kg 26.446 mg/kg 0.00264 % 205-912-4 206-44-0

26pyrene

33 mg/kg 27.273 mg/kg 0.00273 % 204-927-3 129-00-0


17 mg/kg 14.05 mg/kg 0.0014 %601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

28chrysene

17 mg/kg 14.05 mg/kg 0.0014 %601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


19 mg/kg 15.702 mg/kg 0.00157 %601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


12 mg/kg 9.917 mg/kg 0.000992 %601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9


22 mg/kg 18.182 mg/kg 0.00182 %601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


15 mg/kg 12.397 mg/kg 0.00124 % 205-893-2 193-39-5


5.6 mg/kg 4.628 mg/kg 0.000463 %601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


13 mg/kg 10.744 mg/kg 0.00107 % 205-883-8 191-24-2

35phenol

<0.3 mg/kg <0.248 mg/kg <0.0000248 % <LOD604-001-00-2 203-632-7 108-95-2

Total: 0.267 %











Sample details




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



27 mg/kg 1.32 27.851 mg/kg 0.00279 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


0.12 mg/kg 1.142 0.107 mg/kg 0.0000107 %048-002-00-0 231-152-8 [1]215-146-2 [2]

7440-43-9 [1]1306-19-0 [2]


215-160-9 1308-38-9



<0.1 mg/kg 1.353 <0.106 mg/kg <0.0000106 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7


39 mg/kg 2.976 90.683 mg/kg 0.00907 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7


1 51 mg/kg 1.56 62.149 mg/kg 0.00398 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

8


034-002-00-8


93 mg/kg 1.785 129.705 mg/kg 0.013 %023-001-00-8 215-239-8 1314-62-1


120 mg/kg 2.774 260.076 mg/kg 0.026 %024-007-00-3


024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0


13naphthalene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0781 mg/kg <0.00000781 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3



#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


14acenaphthylene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0781 mg/kg <0.00000781 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

15acenaphthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0781 mg/kg <0.00000781 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

16fluorene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.0781 mg/kg <0.00000781 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

17phenanthrene

0.53 mg/kg 0.414 mg/kg 0.0000414 % 201-581-5 85-01-8

18anthracene

0.13 mg/kg 0.102 mg/kg 0.0000102 % 204-371-1 120-12-7

19fluoranthene

1.1 mg/kg 0.859 mg/kg 0.0000859 % 205-912-4 206-44-0

20pyrene

0.97 mg/kg 0.758 mg/kg 0.0000758 % 204-927-3 129-00-0


0.59 mg/kg 0.461 mg/kg 0.0000461 %601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

22chrysene

0.75 mg/kg 0.586 mg/kg 0.0000586 %601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


0.77 mg/kg 0.602 mg/kg 0.0000602 %601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


0.78 mg/kg 0.609 mg/kg 0.0000609 %601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9


0.67 mg/kg 0.523 mg/kg 0.0000523 %601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0781 mg/kg <0.00000781 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0781 mg/kg <0.00000781 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.1 mg/kg <0.0781 mg/kg <0.00000781 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

Total: 0.0683 %









Hazardous WasteClassified as 17 05 03 *


Sample details



from contaminated sites)Entry: 17 05 03 * (Soil and stones containing hazardous substances)

Hazard properties

HP 7: Carcinogenic "waste which induces cancer or increases its incidence"

Hazard Statements hit:

Carc. 1B; H350 "May cause cancer [state route of exposure if it is conclusively proven that no other routes of exposure cause thehazard]."

Because of determinand:

TPH (C6 to C40) petroleum group: (conc.: 0.232%)

HP 11: Mutagenic "waste which may cause a mutation, that is a permanent change in the amount or structure of the genetic material ina cell"

Hazard Statements hit:

Muta. 1B; H340 "May cause genetic defects [state route of exposure if it is conclusively proven that no other routes of exposure causethe hazard]."

Because of determinand:

TPH (C6 to C40) petroleum group: (conc.: 0.232%)

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



2600 mg/kg 2321.429 mg/kg 0.232 % TPH



603-181-00-X 216-653-1 1634-04-4

4benzene

<1 mg/kg <0.893 mg/kg <0.0000893 % <LOD601-020-00-8 200-753-7 71-43-2

5toluene

<1 mg/kg <0.893 mg/kg <0.0000893 % <LOD601-021-00-3 203-625-9 108-88-3

6ethylbenzene

<1 mg/kg <0.893 mg/kg <0.0000893 % <LOD601-023-00-4 202-849-4 100-41-4

7xylene

<1 mg/kg <0.893 mg/kg <0.0000893 % <LOD601-022-00-9 202-422-2 [1]203-396-5 [2]

95-47-6 [1]106-42-3 [2]



#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


203-576-3 [3]215-535-7 [4]

108-38-3 [3]1330-20-7 [4]

Total: 0.233 %



Hazardous result









Sample details




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



30 mg/kg 1.32 33.286 mg/kg 0.00333 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


0.22 mg/kg 1.142 0.211 mg/kg 0.0000211 %048-002-00-0 231-152-8 [1]215-146-2 [2]

7440-43-9 [1]1306-19-0 [2]


215-160-9 1308-38-9



0.24 mg/kg 1.353 0.273 mg/kg 0.0000273 %080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7


28 mg/kg 2.976 70.03 mg/kg 0.007 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7


1 36 mg/kg 1.56 47.188 mg/kg 0.00303 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

8


034-002-00-8


54 mg/kg 1.785 81.008 mg/kg 0.0081 %023-001-00-8 215-239-8 1314-62-1


65 mg/kg 2.774 151.529 mg/kg 0.0152 %024-007-00-3


024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0


<10 mg/kg <8.403 mg/kg <0.00084 % <LOD TPH




#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



603-181-00-X 216-653-1 1634-04-4

15benzene

<1 mg/kg <0.84 mg/kg <0.000084 % <LOD601-020-00-8 200-753-7 71-43-2

16toluene

<1 mg/kg <0.84 mg/kg <0.000084 % <LOD601-021-00-3 203-625-9 108-88-3

17ethylbenzene

<1 mg/kg <0.84 mg/kg <0.000084 % <LOD601-023-00-4 202-849-4 100-41-4

18

xylene

<1 mg/kg <0.84 mg/kg <0.000084 % <LOD601-022-00-9 202-422-2 [1]

203-396-5 [2]203-576-3 [3]215-535-7 [4]

95-47-6 [1]106-42-3 [2]108-38-3 [3]1330-20-7 [4]

19naphthalene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3

20acenaphthylene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

21acenaphthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

22fluorene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

23phenanthrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8

24anthracene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

25fluoranthene

0.25 mg/kg 0.21 mg/kg 0.000021 % 205-912-4 206-44-0

26pyrene

0.22 mg/kg 0.185 mg/kg 0.0000185 % 204-927-3 129-00-0


<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

28chrysene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.1 mg/kg <0.084 mg/kg <0.0000084 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

35phenol

<0.3 mg/kg <0.252 mg/kg <0.0000252 % <LOD604-001-00-2 203-632-7 108-95-2

Total: 0.0453 %











Sample details




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



15 mg/kg 1.32 16.234 mg/kg 0.00162 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3


0.18 mg/kg 1.142 0.169 mg/kg 0.0000169 %048-002-00-0 231-152-8 [1]215-146-2 [2]

7440-43-9 [1]1306-19-0 [2]


215-160-9 1308-38-9



<0.1 mg/kg 1.353 <0.111 mg/kg <0.0000111 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7


28 mg/kg 2.976 68.308 mg/kg 0.00683 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7


1 28 mg/kg 1.56 35.799 mg/kg 0.0023 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

8


034-002-00-8


42 mg/kg 1.785 61.457 mg/kg 0.00615 %023-001-00-8 215-239-8 1314-62-1


67 mg/kg 2.774 152.351 mg/kg 0.0152 %024-007-00-3


024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0


13naphthalene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3



#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


14acenaphthylene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

15acenaphthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

16fluorene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

17phenanthrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8

18anthracene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

19fluoranthene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 205-912-4 206-44-0

20pyrene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 204-927-3 129-00-0


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

22chrysene

<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3


<0.1 mg/kg <0.082 mg/kg <0.0000082 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

Total: 0.0389 %











Sample details




03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands


#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed



<10 mg/kg <7.353 mg/kg <0.000735 % <LOD TPH



603-181-00-X 216-653-1 1634-04-4

4benzene

<1 mg/kg <0.735 mg/kg <0.0000735 % <LOD601-020-00-8 200-753-7 71-43-2

5toluene

<1 mg/kg <0.735 mg/kg <0.0000735 % <LOD601-021-00-3 203-625-9 108-88-3

6ethylbenzene

<1 mg/kg <0.735 mg/kg <0.0000735 % <LOD601-023-00-4 202-849-4 100-41-4

7

xylene

<1 mg/kg <0.735 mg/kg <0.0000735 % <LOD601-022-00-9 202-422-2 [1]

203-396-5 [2]203-576-3 [3]215-535-7 [4]

95-47-6 [1]106-42-3 [2]108-38-3 [3]1330-20-7 [4]

Total: 0.0011 %






Appendix A: Classifier defined and non CLP determinands

chromium(III) oxide (EC Number: 215-160-9, CAS Number: 1308-38-9)

Conversion factor: 1.462Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 17/07/2015Risk Phrases: R20 , R22 , R36 , R37 , R38 , R42 , R43 , R50/53 , R60 , R61Hazard Statements: Acute Tox. 4 H332 , Acute Tox. 4 H302 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , Resp. Sens. 1H334 , Skin Sens. 1 H317 , Repr. 1B H360FD , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Aquatic Chronic 1 H410

dicopper oxide; copper (I) oxide (EC Number: 215-270-7, CAS Number: 1317-39-1)

CLP index number: 029-002-00-XData source: Regulation (EU) 2016/1179 of 19 July 2016 (ATP9)Additional Risk Phrases: N R50/53 , N R50/53 >= 0.25 %Additional Hazard Statement(s): None.Reason for additional Hazards Statement(s)/Risk Phrase(s):10/10/2016 - N R50/53 risk phrase sourced from: WM3 v1 still uses ecotoxic risk phrases10/10/2016 - N R50/53 >= 0.25 % risk phrase sourced from: WM3 v1 still uses ecotoxic risk phrases

confirm TPH has NOT arisen from diesel or petrol

Description/Comments: Chapter 3, section 4b requires a positive confirmation for benzo[a]pyrene to be used as a marker in evaluatingCarc. 1B; H350 (HP 7) and Muta. 1B; H340 (HP 11)Data source: WM3 1st Edition 2015Data source date: 25/05/2015Risk Phrases: None.Hazard Statements: None.

acenaphthylene (EC Number: 205-917-1, CAS Number: 208-96-8)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 17/07/2015Risk Phrases: R22 , R26 , R27 , R36 , R37 , R38Hazard Statements: Acute Tox. 4 H302 , Acute Tox. 1 H330 , Acute Tox. 1 H310 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315

acenaphthene (EC Number: 201-469-6, CAS Number: 83-32-9)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 17/07/2015Risk Phrases: R36 , R37 , R38 , N R50/53 , N R51/53Hazard Statements: Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , AquaticChronic 2 H411

fluorene (EC Number: 201-695-5, CAS Number: 86-73-7)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 06/08/2015Risk Phrases: N R50/53Hazard Statements: Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Aquatic Chronic 1 H410

phenanthrene (EC Number: 201-581-5, CAS Number: 85-01-8)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 06/08/2015Risk Phrases: R22 , R36 , R37 , R38 , R40 , R43 , N R50/53Hazard Statements: Acute Tox. 4 H302 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Carc. 2 H351 , Skin Sens. 1 H317 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400, Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315

anthracene (EC Number: 204-371-1, CAS Number: 120-12-7)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 17/07/2015Risk Phrases: R36 , R37 , R38 , R43 , N R50/53Hazard Statements: Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , Skin Sens. 1 H317 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , AquaticChronic 1 H410



fluoranthene (EC Number: 205-912-4, CAS Number: 206-44-0)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 21/08/2015Risk Phrases: Xn R22 , N R50/53Hazard Statements: Acute Tox. 4 H302 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Aquatic Chronic 1 H410

pyrene (EC Number: 204-927-3, CAS Number: 129-00-0)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory Database; SDS Sigma Aldrich 2014Data source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 21/08/2015Risk Phrases: Xi R36/37/38 , N R50/53Hazard Statements: Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Aquatic Chronic 1 H410

indeno[123-cd]pyrene (EC Number: 205-893-2, CAS Number: 193-39-5)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 06/08/2015Risk Phrases: R40Hazard Statements: Carc. 2 H351

benzo[ghi]perylene (EC Number: 205-883-8, CAS Number: 191-24-2)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory Database; SDS Sigma Aldrich 28/02/2015Data source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 23/07/2015Risk Phrases: N R50/53Hazard Statements: Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Aquatic Chronic 1 H410

TPH (C6 to C40) petroleum group (CAS Number: TPH)

Description/Comments: Hazard statements taken from WM3 1st Edition 2015; Risk phrases: WM2 3rd Edition 2013Data source: WM3 1st Edition 2015Data source date: 25/05/2015Risk Phrases: R10 , R45 , R46 , R51/53 , R63 , R65Hazard Statements: Flam. Liq. 3 H226 , Asp. Tox. 1 H304 , STOT RE 2 H373 , Muta. 1B H340 , Carc. 1B H350 , Repr. 2 H361d ,Aquatic Chronic 2 H411

ethylbenzene (EC Number: 202-849-4, CAS Number: 100-41-4)

CLP index number: 601-023-00-4Data source: Commission Regulation (EU) No 605/2014 – 6th Adaptation to Technical Progress for Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.(ATP6)Additional Risk Phrases: None.Additional Hazard Statement(s): Carc. 2 H351Reason for additional Hazards Statement(s)/Risk Phrase(s):03/06/2015 - Carc. 2 H351 hazard statement sourced from: IARC Group 2B (77) 2000

Appendix B: Rationale for selection of metal species

arsenic {arsenic trioxide}

Reasonable case CLP species based on hazard statements/molecular weight and most common (stable) oxide of arsenic. Industrialsources include: smelting; main precursor to other arsenic compounds (edit as required)

cadmium {cadmium oxide}

Reasonable case CLP species based on hazard statements/molecular weight, very low solubility in water. Industrial sources include:electroplating baths, electrodes for storage batteries, catalysts, ceramic glazes, phosphors, pigments and nematocides. (edit asrequired) Worst case compounds in CLP: cadmium sulphate, chloride, fluoride & iodide not expected as either very soluble and/orcompound's industrial usage not related to site history (edit as required)

chromium in chromium(III) compounds {chromium(III) oxide}

Reasonable case species based on hazard statements/molecular weight. Industrial sources include: tanning, pigment in paint, inks andglass (edit as required)

copper {dicopper oxide; copper (I) oxide}

Reasonable case CLP species based on hazard statements/molecular weight and insolubility in water. Industrial sources include:oxidised copper metal, brake pads, pigments, antifouling paints, fungicide. (edit as required) Worse case copper sulphate is very solubleand likely to have been leached away if ever present and/or not enough soluble sulphate detected. (edit as required)



mercury {mercury dichloride}

Worst case CLP species based on hazard statements/molecular weight (edit as required)

nickel {nickel chromate}


lead {lead chromate}


selenium {selenium compounds with the exception of cadmium sulphoselenide and those specified elsewhere in this Annex}

Harmonised group entry used as most reasonable case. Pigment cadmium sulphoselenide not likely to be present in this soil. Noevidence for the other CLP entries: sodium selenite, nickel II selenite and nickel selenide, to be present in this soil. (edit as required)

vanadium {divanadium pentaoxide; vanadium pentoxide}

Most conservative species.

zinc {zinc chromate}


chromium in chromium(VI) compounds {chromium(VI) oxide}

Worst case CLP species based on hazard statements/molecular weight. Industrial sources include: production stainless steel,electroplating, wood preservation, anti-corrosion agents or coatings, pigments (edit as required)

Appendix C: Version

HazWasteOnline Classification Engine: WM3 1st Edition, May 2015HazWasteOnline Classification Engine Version: 2017.129.3312.6648 (09 May 2017)HazWasteOnline Database: 2017.129.3312.6648 (09 May 2017)

This classification utilises the following guidance and legislation:WM3 - Waste Classification - May 2015CLP Regulation - Regulation 1272/2008/EC of 16 December 20081st ATP - Regulation 790/2009/EC of 10 August 20092nd ATP - Regulation 286/2011/EC of 10 March 20113rd ATP - Regulation 618/2012/EU of 10 July 20124th ATP - Regulation 487/2013/EU of 8 May 2013Correction to 1st ATP - Regulation 758/2013/EU of 7 August 20135th ATP - Regulation 944/2013/EU of 2 October 20136th ATP - Regulation 605/2014/EU of 5 June 2014WFD Annex III replacement - Regulation 1357/2014/EU of 18 December 2014Revised List of Wastes 2014 - Decision 2014/955/EU of 18 December 20147th ATP - Regulation 2015/1221/EU of 24 July 20158th ATP - Regulation (EU) 2016/918 of 19 May 20169th ATP - Regulation (EU) 2016/1179 of 19 July 2016POPs Regulation 2004 - Regulation 850/2004/EC of 29 April 20041st ATP to POPs Regulation - Regulation 756/2010/EU of 24 August 20102nd ATP to POPs Regulation - Regulation 757/2010/EU of 24 August 2010



APPENDIX I

ENVIRONMENTAL COVER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION



PRIVATE REAR GARDENS

Either (physical break layer) GROUND LEVEL

150mm (minimum) chemically validated TOPSOIL

350mm chemically validated SUBSOIL

100mm PHYSICAL BREAK LAYER

Existing MADE GROUND

Or (geotextile membrane) GROUND LEVEL


450mm chemically validated SUBSOIL GEOTEXTILE MEMBRANE (at base of subsoil)


600mm (minimum)

600mm (minimum)



FRONT GARDENS & SHARED LANDSCAPING

Either (physical break layer) GROUND LEVEL


100mm PHYSICAL BREAK LAYER


Or (geotextile membrane) GROUND LEVEL


150mm chemically validated SUBSOIL GEOTEXTILE MEMBRANE (at base of subsoil)


300mm (minimum)

300mm (minimum)



APPENDIX J

DOUBLE RATIO PLOT

PJ L

LK CRef:

Livesey Holdings L

Consult Ltd CL-602-LKC 17 1

Ltd

1065-02 [R0]

Westridgge Hospital, Stroud

May 2017

d

7

westridge hospital stroud gl10 3ha exploratory geo ... · deepen foundations to mitigate effects of...

Documents