SHAWFAIR PARK SITE, DANDERHALL
REPORT ON
SITE INVESTIGATIONS
DATE
AUGUST 2019
CLIENT
SHAWFAIR LLP
www.masonevans.co.uk
SHAWFAIR LLP
SHAWFAIR PARK SITE, DANDERHALL
REPORT ON SITE INVESTIGATIONS
Date of Issue: August 2019
Report Status: First Edition
Project Reference: P19/216
Prepared by: Lindsay Reid – Project GeoScientist
Reviewed and Approved by: Niall Lawless – Managing Director
Mason Evans Partnership Limited The Piazza 95 Morrison Street GLASGOW G5 8BE www.masonevans.co.uk
Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
C O N T E N T S PAGE NO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Commission 1 1.2 Investigation Proposals 1 1.3 Limitations 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF DESK STUDY INFORMATION 4
2.1 The Site 4 2.2 Site History 5 2.3 Published Geological Information 6 2.4 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model 9 2.5 Receptor Characterisation 9 2.6 Source Characterisation 9 2.7 Pathway Characterisation (Pollutant Linkages) 10
3.0 SITE INVESTIGATIONS 14
3.1 Objectives 14 3.2 Scope and Methods of Investigations 14 3.3 Summary of Ground Investigation Data 15 3.4 Investigation Rationale 16 3.5 Analytical Procedures 19
4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS 20
4.1 Ground Conditions 20 4.2 Groundwater 22 4.3 Visual/Olfactory Evidence of Contamination 24
5.0 CONTAMINATION RISK ASSESSMENT 25
5.1 Human Health and Groundwater Risk Assessment Screening Criteria 25 5.2 Statistical Analysis of Data 25 5.3 Ground Gas Assessment 26 5.4 Building Materials Assessment 26
Mason Evans Partnership Limited Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
6.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 27
6.1 Contaminants in Soils 27 6.2 Herbicide/Pesticide Screen 28
7.0 WATER ENVIRONMENT RISK ASSESSMENT 29
7.1 Water Environment Vulnerability 29 7.2 Surface Water Assessment 29 7.3 Conclusions 32
8.0 GROUND GAS EMISSIONS 33
8.1 General 33 8.2 Ground Gas – Results 33 8.3 Ground Gas – Assessment 33 8.4 Radon 39 8.5 Conclusions 39
9.0 RISKS TO CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPMENT 40
9.1 Sulphate Attack on Construction Materials 40 9.2 Water Supply Pipes 40 9.3 Phytotoxicity 42
10.0 REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 43
10.1 Contamination Sources 43 10.2 Pollutant Linkage Assessment 43 10.3 Mitigation Measures 43 10.4 Waste Management Legislations 45 10.5 Contingent Liabilities 46
11.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 47
11.1 General 47 11.2 Topsoil 47 11.3 Made Ground 47 11.4 Glacial Soils (granular) 47 11.5 Glacial Soils (cohesive) 47 11.6 Glacial Till 48 11.7 Particle Size Distribution Testing (PSD’s) 48 11.8 Potential Re-Use Potential of On-Site Materials in Earthworks 48 11.9 Rockhead 49
Mason Evans Partnership Limited Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
12.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 50
12.1 Details of the Development 50 12.2 Foundations (relative to existing site levels) 50 12.3 Excavations 50
13.0 MINING AND MINE ENTRIES 51
13.1 General 51 13.2 Mining Methods 51 13.3 Mining Conditions 52 13.4 General Principles of Surface Instability 53 13.5 Surface Instability Due to Mining 54 13.6 Potential for Future Mineral Extraction 54 13.7 Mine Entries 54 13.8 Quarrying 54
14.0 ROAD CONSTRUCTION 55
14.1 General 55 14.2 Ground Conditions 55 14.3 Chemical Contamination 55 14.4 Gas Emissions 55 14.5 Mining and Mineral Stability 55
15.0 INVASIVE SPECIES 56
15.1 General 56 15.2 Results 56
16.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57
16.1 General 57 16.2 Contamination and Gas Emissions 57 16.3 The Built Environment 57 16.4 Foundation Recommendations (relative to existing site levels) 58 16.5 Mining 58 16.6 Invasive Plants 58 16.7 Consultations with Public Authorities 58
Mason Evans Partnership Limited Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
L I S T O F D R A W I N G S PAGE NO
Drawing No P19/216/SI/R/F/01 Site Location Plan 2 Drawing No P19/216/SI/R/F/02 Study Area 3 Drawing No P19/216/SI/R/F/03 Extract from Published Geological Survey Map (Drift and Solid) 7 Drawing No P19/216/SI/R/F/04 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model 12 Drawing No P19/216/SI/R/F/05 Location of Exploratory Holes 17 Drawing No P19/216/SI/R/F/06 Recorded Made Ground Thickness 21 Drawing No P19/216/SI/R/F/07 Recorded Depth to Definite Rockhead 23 Drawing No P19/216/SI/R/F/08 Ground Gas Emissions Survey 34 Drawing No P19/216/SI/R/F/09 Revised Conceptual Site Model 44
L I S T O F A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix 1 Site Walkover Survey (June 2019) Appendix 2 Envirocheck Report Appendix 3 SEPA Databases Appendix 4 The Coal Authority Report Appendix 5 BGS Borehole Scans Appendix 6 Mine Abandonment Plants Appendix 7 Records of Exploratory Holes Appendix 8 Sampling Strategy and Analysis Rationale Appendix 9 Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Results Appendix 10 Chemical Laboratory Analysis Results Appendix 11 Metal Bioavailability Assessment Tool (M-BAT) and Lead Screening Tool Appendix 12 RTM Groundwater Modelling Worksheets Appendix 13 Waste Classification Report (HazWaste Online, July 2019) Appendix 14 Geotechnical Laboratory Analysis Results Appendix 15 Kleerkut Limited Invasive Plant Survey (June 2019)
Mason Evans Partnership Limited Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Client SHAWFAIR LLP Site Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall Project Objectives . To investigate the possible presence of ground contamination and any potential associated risks. . To investigate the ground conditions and provide recommendations on foundation and infrastructure design. . To provide recommendations (if any) for additional works/remediation required. Assessment of Risks No significant contamination source was identified at the site, and no significant risks to site to Human Health & users, construction personnel, vegetation or the Water Environment were identified. the Water Consequently, no remedial measures are considered necessary at the site. Environment Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing was undertaken on a selection of made ground samples obtained from across the proposed development site. Our interpretation of the WAC results, together with chemical analyses, indicate that the made ground soils may be classified as ‘inert waste’ if required to go to landfill. However, should soils be required to be removed from site to a landfill cell, we would recommend that the Waste Classification Report and the soil analyses sheets be presented to the accepting landfill operator to allow them to carry out their own assessment and classification of the materials. Assessment of the UKWIR testing indicates that polyethylene (PE) water supply pipework should be suitable for Built Environment use within the proposed development. However, this will require to be confirmed by Scottish Water. Recommended concrete (ACEC) Classification for the site is AC-1s with a Design Sulphate Class of DS-1. Assessment of Based on the results of the gas monitoring undertaken to date, gas protection measures, Ground Gas corresponding to a ‘Characteristic Situation 2’, will be required within the proposed development due to the presence of elevated carbon dioxide within the shallow soils. Confirmatory monitoring is continuing at the site and the results will be reported as an addendum to this report upon completion. Foundation Given the generally variable of the soils at the site, it is concluded that abnormal foundations will Construction be required, assuming that site levels will generally be maintained. The most appropriate foundation option is considered likely to be vibro-compaction. However, the suitability of the soils for vibro-compaction would require to be confirmed by specialist contractors and it is possible that they may require further investigation to enable them to view the soils in-situ. If confirmed to be appropriate, vibro-compaction should be able to provide a uniform foundation layer for suitably reinforced shallow foundations designed to an allowable bearing capacity of 100 kPa to 125 kPa. If a greater bearing capacity is required, piling to the underlying competent rock strata, utilising end-bearing piles, should be considered. The underlying rock strata, which was encountered at varying depths of between 6.50 m and 7.80 m, should provide a presumed bearing value of greater than 500 kPa. Mining Mining instability is not considered a potential constraint to development.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - CONT
Radon Radon protection measures are not considered necessary within the proposed development given that the site is located within a Lower Probability Radon Area (less than 1% of homes are estimated to be at or above the Action Level). Invasive Plants Horsetail was identified within the western site area. As such, we would recommend that specialist advice be sought on this matter to ensure that an Invasive Weeds Management Plan/Management Strategy is put in place as soon as possible in order to manage risk and reduce the possibility of spread.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Commission
1.1.1 Mason Evans (ME) were commissioned by Shawfair LLP (the Client), to undertake ground investigations at a site known as ‘Shawfair Park Site’, Danderhall, in connection with the proposed development of the site (Drawing Nos. P19/216/SI/R/F/01 and 02). The proposed development layout was not available at the time of reporting but was understood to be for a commercial development.
1.2 Investigation Proposals
1.2.1 The investigation proposals were outlined in our correspondence to the Client, dated June 2019. The intention of the investigation was to provide further information on the following:
. Soil profile beneath proposed development areas of the site . Chemical contamination conditions . Gas emissions . Geotechnical characteristics of the materials . Foundation bearing characteristics . Possible existence of invasive plants . Mining Constraints
1.3 Limitations
1.3.1 Our interpretations of the ground conditions are based on the information retrieved from the exploratory pits and bores sunk at the site during the investigations. While we have carried out some interpretation of the ground conditions between the exploratory locations, it should be recognised that soil and groundwater conditions can vary from point to point. As such, ground conditions at variance with those indicated by the exploratory pits/bores may exist in areas not investigated.
1.3.2 It should be recognised that this report is prepared in accordance with current recommended practice and existing legislation. It is written in the context of a proposed commercial development. Should there be any alternative end-use, it would be prudent to consult us further to ensure the continued pertinence of the recommendations advised.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 1 N
client details: SHAWFAIR LLP 27 SILVERMILLS COURT EDINBURGH, EH3 5DG project title: drawing title:
Geo-Environmental Consultants SHAWFAIR PARK SITE SITE LOCATION PLAN t: 0141 420 2025 e: [email protected] DANDERHALL
project no: drawing no: revision: date: drawn by: approved by: scale: The Piazza, 95 Morrison Street, Glasgow, G5 8BE P19/216 P19/216/SI/R/F/01 27.08.19 RC NDL 1:50,000 A4 border: 277 x 190 NOTES
Site boundary
$ %" $ #' $ &" $ $' $ &! $ "% $ &# N $ '# $ #% $ '$ $ %! 58 58 $ !$ $ &% $! $ $% $ "% $ ! $ '& 2 WESTER SHAWFAIR $! $ %# $ " $ #! $ '$ 6)4 )+. 62)60 $ $" $ $! % $ $$ $! ' $ $% $ "# $ !" $ # 2 $ " $ ! $ &" $ " $! $ "& /4)55,4;,16+0 $! $ % $ $ /4)55 $ "" $ !$ $! $ !" $ $ $! $ $ $ $ $ $ " $ "$ $ % $ & $ # $ ! $ %" $ $ $! $ # $! ! $ % $ # $ !$ $ % $ #' $! ' $ " $ $ % $! !! $ '% $! # $ & $ ! $ & $! "! $ # $ $ $! "# $! !! /4)55 $ !& $ ' 2 $ &' $ $! # $ " $! # $ &" $ &" $ &% $ $! %' $ !% $ $ & $ $ ! $ $! #$ /4)55,4;,16+0 45 $ % $ ! 6)+ $ '% $! $$ $ &$ $ '$
$! # $! '$ $ $#
$! $ % $ ! $ $
$! %!
$ $ $ '$
$ $ $ # $ $ ! $ %$ $ '" $ $% * *6
$! "& $ $& $ " $ &' $ # $ $ $ '# $! + $ # $ &" $! & 0 $ $ $ % $ ' $ " + $ $" $ $" $ $ 2 $! & $ % $ %& + + $! $# $" $ %' $! & $ $ '!
$! &' $! %# $ $& /4)55,4;,16+0 $ &! $ % $ '' 6)4 )+. 62)60 $! ! $ % $ &! $ % $ ' $ $ '& $! %% $! !! /4)55,4;,16+0 $ !! 6)4 )+. 62)60 /4)55 $ && $ ' $ %" $ %' $" % $ % 45 $ # $ ' $ &
$" $" %" $ '$ $ ''
$" $! # $ & 4 7/0/4)55 # $ $" $ &
$" $# $ # 0 $! #"$! %# $" % $ # + $ %# $ &" $ '$ $! &! $ %'
$" ! $" $ $" $ ! $" #
$" ! %# $ $ &%
$! %
$" # $" $" # $"
$" " $ #
$" # $
4 7/0/4)55 $
$! $" " $! &$ $! %" $" %# $" "& /4)55 $ $ $ ' $ " $" "' $ "
$" #$
$ "% # $ $ ' $ $# $" # $# $ $" $ $! &" $" %
$# !" $ !$ 64.88 # $! $ &
0 $ #
+ $" '& # $# $! %" $ '" $" %#
$ % $ &
$" '"
$" %!
$" & $! # $ '&
$ "
65.01 $ # $ '' $
$" '' $# $# !# # $
$#
$! %# REV DATE $" &' DETAILS $# # $ %
$" ! /4)55,4;,16+0 $" $ * $ $ $# '
$# $ $! #! $ #' # $
$# # $ %& + + 2 $" # $" $ "& $# & $# # $ $
$# !% $ ! $# ! *6
$ + $# " $# # $" # $# !' $ ! $# %& $ !& $# ' $# !$
$# ' 1+ $" %# 4 7/0/4)55 58 $# "" + $# !% /4)55 $# "' $" ! $ ' $ " $ ! 58 $ "
$# $ $ !& / $# !% $# $# $# $ $# ! $ !# $# ' $ %& $# $ ! $# !' $# ! $ $ ' $# " $# & $# ! $ '!
$# $ # $# $# $! "#
$ ! 65.48 $# #! $# !! $ %! $ " /4)55 0 / *6
+ $# 2 $# $ + $# "" $# !& $# ' %# $
$ "# $# % $# # $# ' $ !% $# ! $# % 0;, $# # $# #! $# !$ $# ! $# $ $# " $# " $# !" $# "$ $# " $ ! $# $ 0 $# " 6)4 )+. 62)60 *6 / + $# & $# $# ! $ # + $# "% $# " $# ! 6)+ $ $ SHAWFAIR LLP $# $" $# # $# !! $" !$ $ #% $ & $ !& $# "# $! "
$ %% $ "! $ '
$ ## 0 # $# $# "" $# ## + $# ! $ !'
$# ' # $ 27 SILVERMILLS COURT 6)4 )+ $# ' $# ! $ &! *6 $ !
+ $ # $# " $# # $ "! $# !$ $ %! $ "! $ ""
$# !' $! EDINBURGH $ & 65.93 $# !$ $ "' $! $ %! $ $
$ !' $# ' $# " $ "% 0 $ ! $! ' + $ ' $ # $# #' 2 90J $ " EH3 5DG $" "$ $# "$ $# $ ## $# !'
$# $ $ # $ " $ !
65.94 $ %
$# " 0;, $! # $!
$# #$ $ ' $# "" $ '! 4 7/0/4)55 $ " $! !
0-,/- $ %# $ $! # $! / $ ' $ #'
$# "" $# $ $ # 65.97 $# #& $ %" $ "'
$" ! /4)55,4;,16+0 $" && $! %# 66.19 $# #' 6)4 )+. 62)60 /4)55 $# "& /4)55 $# $& PROJECT TITLE
$" $ # $! " $! ! $ #% 66.05 $" $! "! 2 $# "# + +
$! # $" # $"
$! $
$ ' $! $ &!
$ %# $# %!
0 $" %" + $# #! $" # $# $# $ % 2 40J % $# #" $# % Mud 66.13 $! # SHAWFAIR PARK SITE $ &
$! &$ $ '$ $# "$ $" %# 66.16 $ &#
$ '
$! " $#
$! "
$! # $! DANDERHALL $! "' $ '$
$! !$ $# %$ # $# $" $ $! #' 66.07 66.17 $ && $! $&
45 $# %! $# # $! "' $ '& $# $ $# && $# !$ $! $! !" $!
$" " $! $$ $! "
66.00 / $# %# $! % $! $
$# $ $! # 66.31 0 $! & + $! DRAWING TITLE $! &
$# ' $# $! $' 0 $" % 66.39 + $# & $! "" $# ' $! !% $# %' $# '$ STUDY /4)55
$! %# $! " $! ' $! $' 65.95 4 7/0/4)55 $" % AREA $# ! $! ' 66.00 $! $ $$ 0 $! #! 66.14 $! #& + $# '" $" % 2 $$ ! + +
$# '! $! %! $! $" $! % $# &$ DRAWN BY CHK'D BY APP'D BY DATE SCALES
65.97 $" $$ $! $'
66.31 RC LR NDL 28.08.19 1:500 $$ $" %$ 2 90J
66.00 $$ # $" " 2 @ A3 $$ $# #" $" !% $" !# $! &" $$
66.48 66.26 $$ ! $$
65.78 $" # 66.63 $" % # $" PROJECT No. DRAWING No. REVISION $$ ! $! '%
$$ # $# '' $! ' $$ ! P19/216 P19/216/SI/R/F/02 66.18 $$ " $$ & $$ % 66.48 $#
0-,/-
65.94 $# $% 6)4 )+. 62)60$" !$ /4)55 $" $" $" ' $$ 2 40J % /4)55,4;,16+0$" !
$" /4)55
66.23 $$ ! $" # $" & $" # 66.45 66.28
66.74 $" !&
$" #'
$" ! 66.50 66.43 51/ $# "!
$" ! 66.86 65.97 $" #& 65.09 $" %& 0 $" %# $" !& + $" !#
66.19 $" &% $" "$
$" %& 65.88
2 66.69 66.53 $" % 66.54 + + 66.97 $" "% $" #
66.74 $" $% $" #' 66.11 Geo-Environmental Consultants 67.08
65.31 67.00 66.49 t: 0141 420 2025 e: [email protected]
65.03 64.91 66.62 66.19
66.99 66.66 64.86 The Piazza, 95 Morrison Street, Glasgow, G5 8BE )!> H@AH " : %! Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
2.0 SUMMARY OF DESK STUDY INFORMATION
2.1 The Site
2.1.1 A summary of the current site conditions as understood from the supplied survey information and site reconnaissance is included in Table 1. A site walkover was undertaken in mid June 2019 (included in Appendix 1), an Envirocheck report was procured (Appendix 2) and a review of selected publicly available databases was undertaken (Appendices 3 and 4). A summary of the findings of these researches are included in the table below:
TABLE 1 - Site Details and Review of Public Records Site Name Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall National Grid Ref 331310, 668760 Site Area 0.67 Ha (approximately) Topography Gently sloping down towards the north with a raised area along the north-western boundary. Current Usage At the time of the investigation, the proposed development site was vacant land. Proposed Use The proposed development layout was not available at the time of reporting but was understood to be for a commercial development. Surface Water Two ponds were recorded approximately 192 m to the south-south-east and approximately Bodies 286 m to the north-east of the proposed development site. However, SEPA have no further information on either of these water bodies. The Dead Burn was recorded approximately 850 m to the south-south-east of the proposed development site (at its closest point), flowing towards the north-east towards the River North Esk. SEPA have no further information on the Dead Burn. The River North Esk was recorded approximately 1.90 km to the east of the proposed development site (at its closest point), flowing towards the north-east towards the River Esk and then ultimately towards the coast. SEPA’s Water Classification Hub, indicated the River North Esk (Elginhaugh to confluence with South Esk (ID: 3806)) to have an overall status of ‘Poor’ in 2017. The Burdiehouse/Swanston Burn was recorded approximately 2.50 km to the north-west of the proposed development site (at its closest point), flowing towards the north-east towards the coast. SEPA’s Water Classification Hub indicated the Burdiehouse Burn/Swanston Burn (ID: 3600) to have an overall status of ‘moderate ecological potential’ in 2017. Please see Appendix 3 for further details. Groundwater SEPA’s Water Classification Hub indicated the groundwater beneath the site to be named ‘Dalkeith’ (ID: 150552). The most recent SEPA classification sheet, dated 2017, indicated this groundwater body to have an overall status of ‘Poor’. Please see Appendix 3 for further details. Flooding The SEPA Flood Maps indicate that the proposed development site it outwith the surface water, river and coastal water flood maps. However, these comments are preliminary only and for a detailed assessment of these risks, specialist flood advice should be sought. Please see Appendix 3 for further details.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 4 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 1 CONT - Site Details and Review of Public Records Public Register No Discharge Consents, Local Authority Recorded Landfill Sites, Registered Landfill Sites, Information Registered Waste Transfer Sites, BGS Recorded Mineral Sites, Fuel Station Entries or Areas of Ancient Woodland were recorded within 250 m of the proposed development site. 4 No. Contemporary Trade Directory Entries (1 No. recorded as inactive) were recorded within 250 m of the proposed development site for; hospitals, pet food and animal feeds, stone products (manufacturers) and car dealers. 1 No. Area of Adopted Green Belt was recorded 161 m from the proposed development site. Mining The Coal Authority Report indicates that the site is underlain by 7 No. seams of coal, at depths of between 42 m and 833 m depth, and last worked in 1973. The report also states that there are no recorded mine entries within 100 m of the proposed development site. Please see Appendix 4 for further details. Radon The site is located within a Lower Probability Radon Area (less than 1% of homes are estimated to be at or above the Action Level) and therefore radon protection measures are not considered necessary within the proposed development.
2.2 Site History
2.2.1 Information on the site’s historical use was obtained through an inspection of available Ordnance Surveys maps (copy of maps included in Appendix 2) dating from 1854 to present day. A summary of the information is presented below: TABLE 2 - Site History OS Map Description The proposed development site was indicated to be vacant land. The surrounding area was also indicated to be largely vacant land with a few isolated residential properties (presumed farmhouses) also noted. A thrashing machine was noted at 1854 ‘Campend’ farmhouse approximately 390 m to the south-east. A path, later named ‘The Kaim (Supposed Ancient Way)’ was recorded approximately 230 m to the east. Within the wider site area, ‘Kaim Plantation’ was recorded approximately 410 m to the north-north-east. By 1894, the ‘Edinburgh Loanhead & Roslin Branch’ of the North British Railway was 1894 - 1895 recorded approximately 210 m to the north of the proposed development site. The thrashing machine was no longer noted at Campend. 1908 - 1938 No significant changes were recorded onsite or within the immediate surrounding area. The site remained as vacant land. Within the surrounding area, an electrical transmission line was recorded approximately 145 1948 - 1949 m to the west and ‘Danderhall Sewage Works’, with associated filter beds, was recorded approximately 270 m to the north-west. Some limited development was also noted at ‘Todhills’, approximately 225 m to the south-south-west. 1952 - 1958 No significant changes were recorded onsite or within the immediate surrounding area. No significant changes were recorded onsite. Within the surrounding area, the electrical transmission line to the west was no longer noted 1959 - 1968 but two new lines had been constructed approximately 140 m to the south. A further line was also noted approximately 295 m to the east.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 5 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 2 CONT - Site History OS Map Description By 1974, the sewage works to the west was no longer noted and development continued at 1974 - 1978 Todhills. 1989 - 1995 No significant changes were recorded onsite or within the immediate surrounding area. The site remained as vacant land. 1999 Within the surrounding area, the railway line to the north had been dismantled. Our recent site walkover (Appendix 1) indicated that the proposed development site remained as vacant land, although roads were now recorded to extend parallel to the site boundaries and a public house/restaurant had been developed immediately to the south of Present Day the site. A hospital and commercial unit were also noted to have been developed approximately 30 m to the north. There had also been infrastructural development to the south-east of the proposed development site with a new roundabout and Shawfair Park and Ride noted.
2.3 Published Geological Information
Superficial Deposits
2.3.1 The British Geological Survey (BGS) indicated that the soils across the site were likely to comprise of glacial sand and gravel deposits, underlain by glacial till (Drawing No. P19/216/SI/R/F/03). Historical boreholes (Appendix 5) sunk within the surrounding area indicated the superficial deposits to be up to approximately 8.00 m in thickness. Significant made ground deposits were not anticipated, although made ground deposits of a limited thickness, associated with the surrounding commercial and infrastructural development, could not entirely be discounted, but were considered unlikely.
Solid Geology and Mining
2.3.2 The BGS indicated the underlying solid strata to belong to the Middle Coal Measures, which typically comprises of alternative beds of sandstones, mudstones and siltstones with frequent seams of coal of known economic importance (Drawing No. P19/216/SI/R/F/03). A geological fault was recorded close to the south-western site boundary, downthrowing the strata towards the north-east by approximately 7.00 m.
2.3.3 The Rough Coal (up to approximately 1.21 m in thickness) was indicated to outcrop within the central site area, dipping towards the east and therefore could potentially underlie the site at relatively shallow depths. This seam was indicated to be underlain by a number of seams including; the Beefie Coal (up to approximately 1.10 m in thickness), Diamond Coal (up to approximately 1.40 m in thickness), Musselburgh Jewel Coal (up to approximately 1.20 m in thickness) and Golden Coal (up to approximately 0.80 m in thickness (in leaves)).
2.3.4 However, based on the results of our recent mineral investigations undertaken within the surrounding area in both 2015 and 2017, on behalf of the Client, the Beefie Coal was anticipated not to have been worked within the Danderhall area, given that this seam was recorded as intact during our previous investigations. Therefore, the Beefie Coal is not considered to pose a surface instability risk to the current proposed development.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 6 N
client details: SHAWFAIR LLP 27 SILVERMILLS COURT EDINBURGH, EH3 5DG project title: drawing title: EXTRACT FROM PUBLISHED Geo-Environmental Consultants SHAWFAIR PARK SITE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP t: 0141 420 2025 e: [email protected] DANDERHALL (DRIFT & SOLID)
project no: drawing no: revision: date: drawn by: approved by: scale: The Piazza, 95 Morrison Street, Glasgow, G5 8BE P19/216 P19/216/SI/R/F/03 27.08.19 RC NDL 1:10,560 A4 border: 277 x 190 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
2.3.5 Furthermore, the Coal Authority Report (Appendix 4) confirmed that the Musselburgh Jewel Coal lies at a depth of 42 m beneath the proposed development site. Therefore, based on this information and the separation indicated on the stratigraphic column between the Musselburgh Jewel Coal and the overlying Diamond Coal (i.e. 11 m), the Diamond Coal was conjectured to be present at a depth of 31 m beneath the proposed development site. Therefore, of the seams identified, only the Rough Coal was considered to lie within potentially critical depths of the surface.
2.3.6 However, it should be noted that available mine abandonment plans (Appendix 6) showed no evidence of recorded mining within the Rough Coal directly beneath the site or within the immediate surrounding area. That being said, our historical investigations undertaken within the surrounding area indicated the Rough Coal to have been worked within relatively close proximity of the site. Therefore, there could potentially be unrecorded mineworkings beneath the proposed development site and as such, mineral investigations were considered necessary to confirm, or otherwise, the presence of shallow mining beneath the site and this is discussed in further detail in Section 13.0.
2.3.7 The Coal Authority confirmed that there are no recorded mine entries within 100 m of the proposed development site (Appendix 4).
2.3.8 Interpretation of the site hydrogeology required consideration of the general geological conditions. In this instance, the available information indicated the site to be potentially comprised of four geological units: made ground (limited), glacial sand and gravel deposits, glacial till and sedimentary bedrock. The typical permeabilities of each of these strata are recorded in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3 –Typical Material Permeability Material Typical Permeability Range (m/sec) Made Ground (limited) Variable Glacial Sand and Gravel Deposits 10-2 – 106 Glacial Till 10-6 – 10-9 Sedimentary Bedrock 10-4 – 10-8
2.3.9 At present, surface run-off from the site would be relatively low given that the site was surfaced by rough grasses (i.e. permeable surface). Infiltration of surface water could therefore be high in these undeveloped areas.
2.3.10 As the shallow soils could potentially allow infiltration, it was considered possible that a shallow groundwater table could occur within the made ground (if encountered) and glacial sand and gravel deposits, with the underlying cohesive glacial till providing a relatively impermeable barrier to the downward migration of groundwater. The potential for this and deeper groundwater below rockhead to interact was therefore considered to be low, although lateral migration of shallow groundwater was considered possible. The Envirocheck Report (Appendix 2) indicates the underlying sedimentary strata to be a ‘minor or moderately permeable aquifer – fractured or potentially fractured rocks which do not have a high primary permeability or other formations of variable permeability’.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 8 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
2.3.11 It was considered likely that shallow groundwater could exist either within any made ground or natural soils. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) provides guidance in document WAT-PS-10-01 ‘Assigning Groundwater Assessment Criteria for Pollutant Inputs’ (March 2012) for assessing contamination risks to groundwater and the water environment. It was however considered unlikely that groundwater within the superficial soils beneath the site could meet the minimum criteria to be classified as a water body i.e. an abstraction could achieve 10 m3 per day. However, it was considered prudent to regard groundwater as a potential sensitive receptor at this stage.
2.4 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model
2.4.1 In order to fully evaluate the potential presence and impact of contamination at the site, the area must be considered in an environmental context taking account of its geology, topography and past and present land- use. Science Report SC050021/SR3, published by the Environment Agency in January 2009, supersedes the previous Contaminated Land Reports (CLR7 to CLR10 and briefing notes) series and provides standard guidance for the assessment of sites that may be contaminated. This essentially highlights the importance of developing a robust Conceptual Site Model. The model then forms an integral part of the contamination assessment for the proposed development site, looking at conventional source-pathway-receptor linkages.
2.4.2 Statutory guidance sets the definition of contaminated land within the context of the “suitable for use” approach. It is based on the principles of risk assessment, including the concept of a pollutant linkage between a source contaminant and a receptor, by means of a pathway. The presence of all three elements identifies a plausible pollutant linkage. An assessment of the potential sources, pathways and receptors constitutes a conceptual mode for the site. This concept is considered further below. We would highlight that the approach, while perhaps rendering the site suitable for its current use, may provide inappropriate to a change in site designation or specific land use, arising from existing site conditions.
2.5 Receptor Characterisation
2.5.1 Potential receptors at the site are defined on the basis of the site proposal for a commercial development. The following receptors are considered relevant to his project:
• Humans – site end users and construction work (outdoor), • Humans – site end users (indoor), • Buildings and services (including water supply pipes), • Vegetation (plants in soft landscaped areas (if any)), • Water Environment (groundwater and surface water).
2.6 Source Characterisation
2.6.1 The potential on-site sources of contamination identified by this desk study are:
• Possible deposition of contaminated fill materials associated with the construction of the roads which border the site (considered unlikely) • Agricultural activities
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 9 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
2.6.2 The typical processes involved and associated Contaminants of Concern (COC) are discussed and summarised in Table 4 below. TABLE 4: Contaminants of Concern
Associated Potential THE SITE Industrial Activity/ Site Use Potential Pathways Contaminants • Deposition of waste materials Metals: • Generation and As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn, Cu, Hg, Pb • Possible deposition of accumulation of ground Organics: contaminated fill materials gasses Fuel oils, PAH, Miscellaneous: CURRENT AND associated with the construction • Leaching of Asbestos, Cyanide, PREVIOUS of the roads which border the contaminants to Ground Gasses: site (considered unlikely) groundwater CO2, CH4 • • Agricultural activities Migration of gases and Herbicides/Pesticides vapours • Spillage/leakage of fuels and chemicals IMMEDIATE Associated Potential SURROUNDING Industrial Activity/ Site Use • Potential Pathways Contaminants AREA • Deposition of waste • Possible deposition of materials contaminated fill materials • Generation and associated with surrounding accumulation of residential, commercial and Leachates (metals, semi-metals ground/mine gasses infrastructural development and non-metals) CURRENT AND • Leaching of Ground Gasses: • Spillages/leakages of fuels/oils PREVIOUS contaminants to CO2, CH4 associated with the former groundwater Fuel oils, PAH, phenol. railway line • Migration of gases and • Former thrashing machine vapours. • Former sewage works and filter • Leakage/spillage of beds hydrocarbon products * It should be noted that the potential contaminants listed above are intended as a guide to the possible contaminant species which may be encountered in such sites, and that other contaminants could potentially be present. The species will, however, be considered in the site assessment and evolution of appropriate chemical testing regime based upon the finding of the investigations and recommendations of the industry profiles will be carried out.
2.7 Pathway Characterisation (Pollutant Linkages)
2.7.1 The pathways by which sensitive receptors may be exposed to potential sources of contamination, as determined by the proposed end use for the site are as follows:
1. Humans – site end users and construction workers (outdoor) • Dermal (skin) contact with contaminated soil, fugitive dust and the absorption of any contaminants through the skin into the body. • Inhalation of fugitive soil dust or vapour. • Ingestion of soil by hand to mouth activity.
2. Humans – site end users (indoor) • Inhalation of any ground gas migrating into the buildings. • Inhalation of soil derived dust.
3. Buildings • Potential soil gas generated in the ground vertically migrating and pooling within the structure. • Contact with aggressive or acidic soils will affect the concrete design of the foundations.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 10 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
4. Services including the domestic water supply • Direct contact with contaminated soil or groundwater. • Leaching of contaminants through the soil. • Service trenches acting as preferential migration pathways for contamination. • Permeation of plastic water supply pipes.
5. Vegetation (plants in soft landscaped areas (if any)) • Direct contact with contaminated soils and groundwater. • Uptake of contaminants from the soil or groundwater into the plant.
6. Water Environment (groundwater and surface water) • Leaching of contaminants from the soil to groundwater. • Contaminant migration offsite in the groundwater. • Contaminant uptake as base flow within surface watercourse. • Direct entry of contaminants (e.g. spillage or via outfall pipes) into surface water.
2.7.2 The potential source-receptor-pathway linkages identified for the site are illustrated within our Preliminary Conceptual Site Model (Drawing No. P19/216/SI/R/F/04) and on Tables 5A and 5B. Site investigations were required to confirm or otherwise the existence of such linkages in addition to providing further confirmation of the geological and geotechnical conditions.
TABLE 5A: Preliminary Qualitative Risk Assessment – On Site
Further Source COCs Pathway Receptors (s) Assessment Investigation Required Human – site workers Spillage/leakage of contaminants Dermal contact, impacting near surface soils. Yes ingestion, inhalation Humans – end users Contaminated materials may have (outdoor) been deposited within the site. Contaminants may be leached and Leaching through soil The water environment - potentially mobilised from the soil by Yes Metals, semi- or direct migration groundwater percolation and/or shallow metals and non- groundwater movement. metals: Potential for aggressive chemical As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Direct contact, environments for concrete due to Zn, Cu, Hg, Pb leaching through soil, Buildings and services sulphate and acidic conditions. Yes 1. Possible groundwater migration Presence of contaminants in soil that deposition of Organics: may permeate water supply pipes. contaminated fill Phenols Contamination may include materials Hydrocarbons, Buildings and services gas/vapour producing materials or associated with PAH Gas/vapour inhalation, compounds that could vertically the development Anions: vertical/lateral Yes migrate into overlying buildings of the roads Cyanide, migration Humans – end users producing a potentially asphyxiating or which border the Sulphate (indoor) explosive environment. site Direct contact or uptake of Ground gasses: contamination from the soil or 2. Agricultural CO2, CH4 Direct contact, uptake Plants Yes groundwater could adversely affect activities any plants grown. Asbestos Migration in the Contaminants could impact the Groundwater Yes Herbicides/ groundwater groundwater and migrate offsite. Pesticides Direct entry of contaminants into surface water via accidental Point source discharge Surface water Yes spillage/leakage or from discharge pipework. Contaminants could migrate in the Diffuse source Surface Water groundwater and act as base flow for Yes surface water recharge.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 11 NOTES
Site Site Boundary Boundary
Given the proposed commercial end-use, West the number of areas of soft landscaping East are anticipated to be minimal, if any.
Old Colliery A 2,4,6,8,9 A 1,3,5,7,9 Public House/ Restaraunt
B 10 Wester Shawfair Road D 13
REV DATE DETAILS Made ground deposits of Made Ground Made Ground a limited thickness could Potential Potential Shallow groundwater be anticipated at the site Contamination Contamination boundaries. C 11,12 table anticipated.
Glacial Sand & Gravel Deposits E 14 SHAWFAIR LLP Glacial Till The BGS indicates the 27 SILVERMILLS COURT superficial deposits to be EDINBURGH up to 8.00m in thickness. EH3 5DG Sedimentary Bedrock The Rough Coal was considered to potentially lie within critical Rough Coal Seam depths of the surface. PROJECT TITLE
SHAWFAIR PARK SITE DANDERHALL
DRAWING TITLE PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL Potential Source Potential Exposure Pathways Potential Receptors SITE MODEL . Potentially contaminated made ground 1. Outdoor ingestion of dust. A. Site users / construction personnel. (considered unlikely). 2. Indoor ingestion of dust. B. Vegetation / fauna. DRAWN BY CHK'D BY APP'D BY DATE SCALES . Agricultural activites. 3. Skin contact with outdoor soil. C. Groundwater. RC LR NDL 28.08.19 Not to . Ground/mine gas. 4. Skin contact with indoor dust. D. Buried concrete (Service and foundations) Scale 5. Outdoor inhalation of dust. E. Plastic water supply pipes. PROJECT No. DRAWING No. REVISION 6. Indoor inhalation of dust. P19/216 P19/216/SI/R/F/04 7. Outdoor inhalation of soil vapour. 8. Indoor inhalation of soil vapour. 9. Inhalation of ground gases. 10. Contaminant uptake by vegetation. 11. Leaching of contaminants to the groundwater. 12. Contaminant migration in the groundwater. 13. Detrimental effects on buried concrete. 14. Permeation of plastic water supply pipes. Geo-Environmental Consultants t: 0141 420 2025 e: [email protected]
The Piazza, 95 Morrison Street, Glasgow, G5 8BE A4 border: 297 X 210 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 5B: Preliminary Qualitative Risk Assessment – Off-Site
Further Source COCs Pathway Receptors (s) Assessment Investigation Required Human – site Contaminants likely to migrate into workers the site via groundwater or via pore Dermal contact, spaces in granular soils and therefore No ingestion, inhalation Humans – end users unlikely to be exposed to site users (outdoor) via direct contact, ingestion of Metals, non- inhalation pathways. metals and The water Contaminants may be leached and 1. Possible deposition of Leaching through soil semi-metals: environment - potentially mobilised by shallow Yes contaminated fill or direct migration (Leachates) groundwater groundwater movement. materials associated with As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Potential for aggressive chemical the surrounding Zn, Cu, Hg, Pb Direct contact, environments for concrete due to residential, commercial Buildings and leaching through soil, sulphate and acidic conditions. No and infrastructural services groundwater migration Presence of contaminants in soil that development Organics: may permeate water supply pipes.
Phenols Contamination may include 2. Spillages/leakages of Buildings and Hydrocarbons, gas/vapour producing materials or fuels/oils associated with Gas/vapour inhalation, services PAH compounds that could vertically the former railway line vertical/lateral Yes Anions: migrate into overlying buildings migration Humans – end users Cyanide, producing a potentially asphyxiating or 3. Former thrashing (indoor) Sulphate explosive environment. machine Uptake of contamination from the soil
Ground gasses: Direct contact, uptake Plants or groundwater could adversely affect No 4. Former sewage works CO2, CH4 and filter beds plant growth. Leachates may migrate either into the Asbestos Groundwater site (from the offsite source) or offsite Yes (via an onsite source). Migration in the Contaminants may migrate in the groundwater groundwater and act as base flow for Surface water surface water recharge, allowing Yes contaminants to migrate significant distance in the surface watercourse.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 13 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
3.0 SITE INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 Objectives
3.1.1 The investigations were designed relative to the preliminary conceptual site model and in recognition of the nature of the proposed development. The objectives of the investigation included the determination of:
a) The conjectured distribution and composition of (any) made ground and natural soils. b) The geological context. c) The groundwater regime. d) Chemical contamination. e) Potential foundation solutions. f) Mining constraints.
3.2 Scope and Methods of Investigations
3.2.1 The scope and method of investigation to fulfil objectives (a) to (f) is summarised in Table 6 below.
TABLE 6 - Site Investigations Based on Objectives Objective Site Investigation The conjectured distribution and (July 2019) 8 No. trial pits (TP01 to TP08) excavated by Mason Evans. a) composi tion of (any) made ground and natural soils (June 2019) 4 No. terrier boreholes (BH01 to BH04) sunk by SKF Limited, on behalf of Mason Evans. b) Th e geological context
Terrier boreholes with gas/groundwater monitoring wells i.e. 4 out of 4 boreholes (BH01 c) The groundwater regime to BH04). Soil Contamination (2019) trial pits with soil analysis i.e. 8 samples (6 No. made ground samples and 2 No. natural samples) recovered from TP02 to TP06 and TP08. (2019) trial pits with UKWIR analysis i.e. 1 sample (1 No. natural sample) recovered from TP06. (2019) trial pits with Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing i.e. 2 samples (2 No. d) Chemical contamination made ground samples) recovered from TP03 and TP06. (2019) terrier boreholes with soil analysis i.e. 5 samples (2 No. made ground samples and 3 No. natural samples) recovered from BH01 to BH04. (2019) terrier boreholes with a herbicide/pesticide screen i.e. 4 samples (2 No. made ground samples and 2 No. natural samples) recovered from BH01 to BH04. (2019) terrier borehole with UKWIR analysis i.e. 2 samples (2 No. natural samples) recovered from BH01 and BH03. Water Contamination (2019) trial pits with leachate analysis i.e. 8 samples (6 No. made ground samples and 2 d) Chemical contamination No. natural samples) recovered from TP02 to TP06 and TP08. (2019) terrier boreholes with leachate analysis i.e. 5 samples (2 No. made ground samples and 3 No. natural samples) recovered from BH01 to BH04.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 14 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 6 CONT - Site Investigations Based on Objectives Objective Site Investigation
e) P otential foundation solutions All trial pits and terrier boreholes.
(July 2019) 3 No. rotary probe boreholes (R01 to R03) sunk by Hydracrat Ground Investigation Contractors, on behalf of Mason Evans. f) Mining Constraints Rotary probe boreholes with gas/groundwater monitoring wells i.e. 3 out of 3 boreholes (R01 to R03).
3.3 Summary of Ground Investigation Data
3.3.1 The scope and location of the works was determined by Mason Evans, where access permitted. The sampling was generally non-targeted in relation to geo-environmental matters as dictated by the potential off-site contamination risk identified in the Preliminary Conceptual Site Model. Site works were implemented generally in accordance with BS10175:2011.
TABLE 7 – Site Investigations
8 No. trial pits (TP01 to TP08), excavated mechanically, extended to depths of up to 3.40 m and Trial Pits logged by a geologist from Mason Evans. 4 No. terrier boreholes (BH01 to BH10 ) were sunk by SKF Limited, on behalf of Mason Evans, to depths of up to 5.00 m. Soils Boreholes Standpipe installations were installed within each of the boreholes to allow for a period of gas and groundwater monitoring. 3 No. rotary probe boreholes (R01 to R03) were sunk by Hydracrat Ground Investigation Contractors, on behalf of Mason Evans, to depths of 35.00 m. Rotary Boreholes Standpipe installations were installed within each of the rotary boreholes to allow for a period of gas and groundwater monitoring, particularly the presence of any mine gases within the rock strata. 13 No. samples were tested for a comprehensive range of potential contaminants (including an asbestos screen), 13 No. samples were tested for leachate analysis, 3 No. samples were tested for Chemical Testing the UKWIR suite of analysis, 4 No. samples were tested for a herbicide/pesticide screen and 2 No. samples were testing for WAC analysis. In-situ SPT tests were undertaken in all of the soils boreholes. In addition, moisture content Geotechnical Testing analysis, particle size distribution (PSD) testing, California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing and compaction testing was undertaken on a selection of samples.
3.3.2 The trial pits were intended to provide coverage of the proposed development area, in order to define the general nature of the shallow soils and allow selection of representative samples for a comprehensive suite of chemical analyses. Given the proposed end-use of the site, the purpose of the sampling and testing was to identify potential risks to site users and the Water Environment.
3.3.3 The soils borehole investigation was intended to provide geotechnical and hydrogeological data along with more targeted contamination sampling of specific site areas associated with proposed development.
3.3.4 The rotary borehole investigation was intended to identify areas of surface instability due to historical mineral extraction or to prove that no shallow mining was present.
3.3.5 UKWIR testing was carried out to determine water supply pipe suitability.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 15 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
3.3.6 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing was undertaken on a selection of made ground samples to determine the waste classification for the receiving waste disposal facility site, should any of the made ground materials required to be removed from site.
3.3.7 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing was undertaken to test the strength of the soils for road subgrades and basescourses.
3.3.8 The total number of sampling points from the investigations was 12 No. (excluding the rotary boreholes) corresponding to a density of approximately one sampling point every 24 m. This was considered appropriate given the proposed end-use (i.e. commercial development).
3.3.9 Representative samples the of the made ground and underlying natural soils were obtained during the investigation and tested for a comprehensive suite of analysis, including an asbestos screen. The results of the analyses were utilised in a site-specific risk assessment in accordance with the current UK technical guidance for human health and SEPA guidance for the Water Environment.
3.3.10 All soil samples recovered for chemical analysis were contained in sealed plastic tubs, labelled and stored onsite in cool boxes to maintain natural temperature. Where hydrocarbon or organic contamination was suspected, samples were contained in glass amber jars to prevent chemical breakdown as a result of exposure to light and limit absorption of the contaminant to the sample container. The procedure is designed to maintain sample integrity and ensure that the chemical analysis is as representative of the site conditions as possible.
3.3.11 All soil samples were collected and dispatched to the laboratory for immediate testing. The scope of the chemical testing of soil samples recovered during the investigation are discussed in detail in section 6.0 of this report.
3.3.12 Properties recorded during logging of the shallow soils included the general composition, strength, material, description, colour, density, state of weathering and any other notable feature. These were generally described in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Code of Practice for Site Investigations BS5930:2015.
3.3.13 The locations of the investigative works are indicated on Drawing No. P19/216/SI/R/F/05 and records of the exploratory holes are included in Appendix 7.
3.4 Investigation Rationale
3.4.1 The findings of our preliminary CSM indicated the potential presence of a number of potentially contaminative off-site sources (i.e. potentially contaminated made ground associated with the surrounding residential, commercial and infrastructural development; spillages/leakages of fuels/oils associated with the former railway line; former thrashing machine and former sewage works and filter beds). Significant made ground deposits were not anticipated onsite given the generally greenfield nature of the site and the lack of historical development. Consequently, the sampling strategy for the investigations undertaken was largely non-targeted with targeted sampling being undertaken close to the site boundaries.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 16 NOTES Site boundary
TP01 to TP08 Trial pit excavated by Mason Evans (July 2019)
$ %" BH01 to BH04 $ #' Terrier borehole sunk by SKF Ltd, $ &" $ $' $ &! $ "% $ &# N on behalf of Mason Evans (June 2019) $ '# $ #% $ '$ $ %! 58 58 $ !$ $ &% $! $ $% $ "% $ ! $ '& 2 WESTER SHAWFAIR $! $ %# $ " $ #! Rotary probe borehole sunk by $ '$ 6)4 )+. 62)60 $ $" $ R01 to R03 $! % $ $$ $! ' $ $% $ "# $ !" Hydracrat Ground Investigation Contractors, $ # 2 $ " $ ! $ &" $ " $! $ "& /4)55,4;,16+0 $ % on behalf of Mason Evans (July 2019) $! $ $ /4)55 $ "" $ !$ $! $ !" $ $ $! $ $ $ $ $ $ " $ "$ $ % $ & $ # $ ! $ %" $ $ $! $ # $! ! $ % $ # $ !$ $ % Ground gas/water monitoring standpipe installation $ #' $! ' $ " $ $ % $! !! $ '% $! # $ & $ ! $ & $! "! BH04 $ # $ $ $! "# $! !! /4)55 $ !& $ ' 2 $ &' $ $! # $ " $! # $ &" $ &" $ &% $ $! %' $ !% $ $ & $ $ ! $ $! #$ /4)55,4;,16+0 45 $ % $ ! 6)+ $ '% $! $$ $ &$ $ '$
$! # $! '$ $ $#
$! $ % $ ! $ $
$! %!
$ $ $ '$
$ $ $ # $ $ ! $ %$ $ '" $ $% * *6
$! "& $ $& $ " $ &' $ # $ $ $ '# $! + $ # $ &" $! & 0 $ $ $ % $ ' $ " + $ $" $ $" $ $ 2 $! & $ % $ %& + + $! $# $" $ %' $! & $ $ '!
$! &' $! %# $ $& /4)55,4;,16+0 $ &! $ % $ '' 6)4 )+. 62)60 $! ! $ % $ &! $ % $ ' $ $ '& $! %% $! !! /4)55,4;,16+0 $ !! 6)4 )+. 62)60 /4)55 $ && $ ' $ %" $ %' $" % $ % 45 $ # $ ' $ &
$" $" %" $ '$ $ ''
$" $! # $ & 4 7/0/4)55 # $ $" $ &
$" $# $ # 0 $! %# TP07 $ # $! #" $" % + $ %# $ &" $ '$ $! &! $ %'
$" ! $" $ $" $ ! $" #
$" ! %# $ $ &%
$! % TP01
$" # $" $" # $"
$" " $ #
$" # $
4 7/0/4)55 $
$! $" " $! &$ $! %" $" %# $" "& /4)55 $ $ $ ' $ " $" "' $ "
$" #$
$ "% # $ $ ' $ $# $" # $# $ $" $ $! &" $" %
$# !" $ !$ 64.88 # $! $ &
0 $ #
+ $" '& # $# $! %" $ '" $" %#
$ % $ &
$" '"
$" %!
$" & $! # $ '&
$ "
65.01 $ # $ '' $
$" '' TP08 # $ $# $# !#
$#
$! %# REV DATE $" &' DETAILS $# # $ %
$" ! /4)55,4;,16+0 R01 $" R02 $ * $ $ $# '
$# $ $! #! $ #' # $
$# # $ %& + + 2 $" # $" $ "& $# & $# # $ $
$# !% $ ! $# ! *6
$ + $# " $# # $" # $# !' $ ! $# %& $ !& $# ' $# !$
$# ' 1+ $" %# 4 7/0/4)55 58 $# "" + $# !% /4)55 $# "' $" ! $ ' $ " $ ! 58 $ "
$# $ $ !& / $# !% $# $# $# $ $# ! $ !# $# ' $ %& $# $ ! $# !' $# ! $ $ ' $# " $# & $# ! $ '!
$# $ # $# $# $! "#
$ ! 65.48 $# #! $# !! $ %! $ " /4)55 0 / *6
+ $# 2 $# $ + $# "" $# !& $# ' %# $
$ "# $# % $# # $# ' $ !% $# ! $# % 0;, $# # $# #! $# !$ $# ! $# $ $# " $# " $# !" $# "$ $# " $ ! $# $ 0 $# " 6)4 )+. 62)60 *6 / + $# & $# $# ! $ # + $# "% $# " $# ! 6)+ $ $ SHAWFAIR LLP $# $" $" !$ $ #% $# # $# !! BH02 $ & $ !& $# "# $! " $ %% $ "! $ '
BH03 $ ## 0 # $# $# "" $# ## + $# ! $ !'
$# ' # $ 27 SILVERMILLS COURT 6)4 )+ $# ' $# ! $ &! TP06 *6 $ !
+ $ # $# " $# # $ "! $# !$ TP02 $ %! $ "" $ "!
$# !' $! EDINBURGH $ & 65.93 $# !$ $ "' $! $ %! $ $
$ !' $# ' $# " $ "% 0 $ ! $! ' + $ ' $ # $# #' 2 90J $ " EH3 5DG $" "$ $# "$ $# $ ## $# !'
$# $ $ # $ " $ !
65.94 $ %
$# " 0;, $! # $!
$# #$ $ ' $# "" $ '! 4 7/0/4)55 $ " $! !
0-,/- $ %# $ $! # $! / $ ' $ #'
$# "" $# $ $ # 65.97 $# #& $ %" $ "'
$" ! /4)55,4;,16+0 $" && $! %# 66.19 $# #' 6)4 )+. 62)60 /4)55 $# "& /4)55 $# $& PROJECT TITLE
$" $ # $! " $! ! $ #% 66.05 $" $! "! 2 $# "# + +
$! # $" # $"
$! $
$ ' $! $ &!
$ %# $# %!
0 $" %" + $# #! $" # $# $# $ % 2 40J % $# #" $# % Mud 66.13 $! # SHAWFAIR PARK SITE $ &
$! &$ $ '$ $# "$ $" %# 66.16 $ &#
$ '
$! " $# TP03 $! "
TP05 # $! DANDERHALL TP04 $! "' $ '$
$! !$ $# # $# $" $ $! #' 66.17 $# %$ 66.07 R03 $ && $! $&
45 $# %! $# # $! "' $ '& $# $ $# && $# !$ $! $! !" $!
$" " $! $$ $! "
66.00 / $# %# $! % $! $
$# $ $! # 66.31 0 $! & + $! DRAWING TITLE $! &
$# ' $# $! $' 0 $" % 66.39 + $# & $! "" $# ' $! !% $# %' $# '$ LOCATION OF /4)55
$! %# $! " $! ' $! $' 65.95 4 7/0/4)55 $" % EXPLORATORY HOLES $# ! $! ' 66.00 $! $ $$ 0 $! #! 66.14 $! #& + $# '" $" % 2 $$ ! + +
$# '! $! %! $! $" $! % $# &$ DRAWN BY CHK'D BY APP'D BY DATE SCALES
65.97 BH01 $" $$ $! $'
66.31 RC LR NDL 28.08.19 1:500 $$ $" %$ 2 90J
66.00 $$ # $" " 2 @ A3 $$ $# #" $" !% $" !# $! &" $$
66.48 66.26 $$ ! $$
65.78 $" # 66.63 $" % # $" PROJECT No. DRAWING No. REVISION $$ ! $! '%
$$ # $# '' $! ' $$ ! P19/216 P19/216/SI/R/F/05 66.18 $$ " $$ & $$ % 66.48 $#
0-,/-
65.94 $# $% 6)4 )+. 62)60$" !$ /4)55 $" $" $" ' $$ 2 40J % /4)55,4;,16+0$" !
$" /4)55
66.23 $$ ! $" # $" & $" # 66.45 66.28
66.74 $" !&
$" #'
$" ! 66.50 66.43 51/ $# "!
$" ! 66.86 65.97 $" #& 65.09 $" %& 0 $" %# $" !& + $" !#
66.19 $" &% $" "$
$" %& 65.88
2 66.69 66.53 $" % 66.54 + + 66.97 $" "% $" #
66.74 $" $% $" #' 66.11 Geo-Environmental Consultants 67.08
65.31 67.00 66.49 t: 0141 420 2025 e: [email protected]
65.03 64.91 66.62 66.19
66.99 66.66 64.86 The Piazza, 95 Morrison Street, Glasgow, G5 8BE )!> H@AH " : %! Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
3.4.2 The scope and location of exploratory holes was determined by ourselves, where access permitted. The chemical analysis involved the sampling of any made ground and natural soils at regular depth intervals, to allow for an assessment of the risk to human health as well as to evaluate the risk to potential receptors including vegetation/fauna, groundwater, concrete structures/foundations and/or buried services (i.e. water supply pipes). The analytic schedule was then based on the interpreted origin of the soils and their description, which is consistent with best practice under current contaminated land guidance BS:10175:2011 ‘Code of Practice for the Investigation of Contaminated Land’. As such, we have implemented the following site practices:
. The drilling works have been undertaken by a suitably accredited sub-contractor; . The geological succession at each trial pit location has been logged by an experienced field specialist and samples taken for laboratory analysis. A visual assessment was made of the geological character and potential contamination, if present. Soil samples have predominantly been taken at approximately 0.5 m intervals, or at a change in lithology, or where evidence of potential contamination impact was observed. . In selecting the appropriate samples for testing, we have taken cognisance of a number of factors, including the proposed site use. Sampling rationale has been determined in accordance with R&D Technical Report P5-066/TR Secondary Model Procedure for the Development of Appropriate Soil Sampling Strategies for Land Contamination, as indicated in the table below. . The scope of the testing implemented considered the interpreted origin of the materials in association with their description. This is consistent with best practice under current contaminated land guidance. The chemical composition of these materials was assessed for a wide spectrum of potential contaminants, comprising a broad range of common organic and inorganic substances primarily of a toxic or phytotoxic nature, and appropriate to the past usage of the site. . During sample collection, relevant information such as notes of field observations has been logged before transferring the samples to laboratory-prepared sample bottles of appropriate type. Care was also taken to minimise the aeration of samples during transfer to the bottles.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 18 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 8 – Sampling Strategy Rationale for Sampling at Different Depths Depth Range Rationale To assess: • Human/ animal intake arising from ingestion and dermal contact. • Potential for wind entrainment leading to inhalation (of contaminated soils and dusts) or Ground Level – deposition onto neighbouring land. 1.0 m • Surface water run-off (e.g. due to flash flooding). • Uptake by shallow rooting plants (e.g. crops, ornamental and wild species). • Surface leaching to groundwater. To assess: • Intake via ingestion/ inhalation/ dermal contact arising from ‘abnormal’ (or unpredicted) excavation (e.g. children digging dens) or for other purposes such as swimming pools, ponds, house extensions. • Uptake by deep rooting shrubs or trees. • Intake by or arising from the activities of burrowing animals. • Intake arising from construction/ maintenance of buildings and services, for example: a. Foundations (usually within 2.0 m of final formation level). b. Water supply pipes, telecommunications, gas and power (0.5 m to 1.0 m of final formation >1.0 m in made levels). or natural ground c. Sewers (from 0.5 m to >1.0 m of final formation level). • To locate perched water of groundwater. • To confirm depth of made ground. • To locate possible lateral pathways for gas or vapour migration in made ground. • To establish the extent of any leaching of soluble constituents from superficial soils. • To detect ‘deep’ contamination (e.g. gas generating materials, leachable materials, dense solvents located above an impermeable stratum). • To obtain information on ‘background’ soil properties. • To locate ‘natural’ lateral migration pathways.
3.4.3 Please refer to Appendix 8 for a tabulated summary of the soil sampling and analysis strategy for individual exploratory hole locations.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
3.5.1 Analytical procedures adopted during the chemical analyses, carried out on behalf of the consultant, by Derwentside Environmental Testing Services (DETS), conformed to recognised practices, allowing the award of UKAS accreditation (unless indicated otherwise).
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 19 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS
4.1 Ground Conditions
4.1.1 The ground conditions encountered during the investigation were generally consistent with the anticipated sequence of strata indicated by the desk study information. The soils were noted to comprise of topsoil or made ground, overlying glacial granular and cohesive deposits. The glacial soils were then indicated to be underlain by glacial till deposits at greater depth. Definite rockhead was encountered in all of the rotary boreholes at varying depths of between 6.50 m and 7.80 m.
4.1.2 The descriptions of the superficial deposits from the rotary boreholes have not been utilised in this assessment as they are not considered a suitable means for describing superficial soils.
TABLE 9 – Summary of Ground Conditions Soil Type Depth Range (m) Topsoil 0.00 – 0.40 Made Ground 0.00 – 0.90 Glacial Soils (granular) 0.00 – 6.00 Glacial Soils (cohesive) 1.10 – 3.40 Glacial Till 3.80 – 7.80 Definite Rockhead 6.50 – 7.80
Soils Encountered
4.1.3 The generalised soil sequence encountered was as follows:
• Topsoil – natural topsoil, described as; dark brown/grey sandy gravelly clay with rootlets, was encountered in TP01, TP07, BH03 and BH04 from the ground surface to a maximum recorded depth of 0.40 m. It should be noted that natural topsoil was recorded as made ground in BH03 and BH0. However, following discussions with our drilling contractor, the soils encountered were interpreted to be natural deposits.
• Made Ground – encountered in TP02 to TP06, TP08 and BH01 from the ground surface to a maximum recorded depth of 0.90 m (TP02). Described as; topsoil; reworked topsoil; red/brown slightly clayey sandy gravel; dark grey/brown clayey gravelly sand; or dark brown and grey slightly clayey sand and gravel, with extraneous materials including; sandstone cobbles, textiles, plastic, plastic pipe, brick, metal wires and wood. The recorded thickness of made ground deposits encountered (including topsoil where it is underlain by made ground) is indicated on Drawing No. P19/216/SI/R/F/06.
• Glacial Soils (granular) – the underlying natural soils were encountered across the site at varying depths from the ground surface, extending to a maximum recorded depth of 6.00 m (R02). These deposits were generally described as; orange/brown slightly silty SAND; orange/brown clayey SAND; light brown/grey/orange clayey gravelly SAND; grey/brown silty, locally very silty, SAND; or orange/brown silty gravelly SAND, with rare cobbles and occasional localised pockets of grey/brown very clayey sand or clayey pockets.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 20 NOTES Site boundary
TP01 to TP08 Trial pit excavated by Mason Evans (July 2019)
$ %" BH01 to BH04 $ #' Terrier borehole sunk by SKF Ltd, $ &" $ $' $ &! $ "% $ &# N on behalf of Mason Evans (June 2019) $ '# $ #% $ '$ $ %! 58 58 $ !$ $ &% $! $ $% $ "% $ ! $ '& 2 WESTER SHAWFAIR $! $ %# $ " $ #! Rotary probe borehole sunk by $ '$ 6)4 )+. 62)60 $ $" $ R01 to R03 $! % $ $$ $! ' $ $% $ "# $ !" Hydracrat Ground Investigation Contractors, $ # 2 $ " $ ! $ &" $ " $! $ "& /4)55,4;,16+0 $ % on behalf of Mason Evans (July 2019) $! $ $ /4)55 $ "" $ !$ $! $ !" $ $ $! $ $ $ $ $ $ " $ "$ $ % $ & $ # $ ! $ %" $ $ $! $ # $! ! $ % $ # $ !$ $ % Ground gas/water monitoring standpipe installation $ #' $! ' $ " $ $ % $! !! $ '% $! # $ & $ ! $ & $! "! BH04 $ # $ $ $! "# $! !! /4)55 $ !& $ ' 2 $ &' $ $! # $ " $! # $ &" $ &" $ &% $ Recorded made ground thickness (m) $! %' (n/e) $ !% $ $ & $ $ ! $ (0.90m) $! #$ /4)55,4;,16+0 45 $ % $ ! 6)+ $ '% $! $$ $ &$ $ '$
$! # $! '$ $ $#
$! $ % $ ! $ $
$! %!
$ $ $ '$
$ $ $ # $ $ ! $ %$ $ '" $ $% * *6
$! "& $ $& $ " $ &' $ # $ $ $ '# $! + $ # Not encountered $ &" $! & 0 $ $ $ % $ ' $ " (n/e) + $ $" $ $" $ $ 2 $! & $ % $ %& + + $! $# $" $ %' $! & $ $ '!
$! &' $! %# $ $& /4)55,4;,16+0 $ &! $ % $ '' 6)4 )+. 62)60 $! ! $ % $ &! $ % $ ' $ $ '& $! %% $! !! /4)55,4;,16+0 $ !! 6)4 )+. 62)60 /4)55 $ && $ ' $ %" $ %' $" % $ % 45 $ # $ ' $ &
$" $" %" $ '$ $ ''
$" $! # $ & 4 7/0/4)55 # $ $" $ &
$" $# $ # 0 $! %# TP07 $ # $! #" $" % + $ %# $ &" $ '$ $! &! $ %'
$" ! $" $ $" $ ! $" #
$" ! %# $ $ &%
$! % TP01 $" # $"
$" # $" (n/e)
$" " $ #
$" # $
4 7/0/4)55 $
$! /4)55 $" " $! &$ $! %" $" %# $" "& (n/e) $ $ $ ' $ " $" "' $ "
$" #$
$ "% # $ $ ' $ $# $" # $# $ $" $ $! &" $" %
$# !" $ !$ 64.88 # $! $ &
0 $ #
+ $" '& # $# $! %" $ '" $" %#
$ % $ &
$" '"
$" %!
$" & $! # $ '&
$ "
65.01 $ # $ '' $
$" '' TP08 # $ $# $# !#
$#
$! %# REV DATE $" &' DETAILS $# # $ %
$" ! /4)55,4;,16+0 R01 $" R02 $ * $ $
$# ' (0.60m) $# $ $! #! $ #' # $
$# # $ %& + + 2 $" # $" $ "& $# & $# # $ $
$# !% $ ! $# ! *6
$ + $# " $# # $" # $# !' $ ! $# %& $ !& $# ' $# !$
$# ' 1+ $" %# 4 7/0/4)55 58 $# "" + $# !% /4)55 $# "' $" ! $ ' $ " $ ! 58 $ "
$# $ $ !& / $# !% $# $# $# $ $# ! $ !# $# ' $ %& $# $ ! $# !' $# ! $ $ ' $# " $# & $# ! $ '!
$# $ # $# $# $! "#
$ ! 65.48 $# #! $# !! $ %! $ " /4)55 0 / *6
+ $# 2 $# $ + $# "" $# !& $# ' %# $
$ "# $# % $# # $# ' $ !% $# ! $# % 0;, $# # $# #! $# !$ $# ! $# $ $# " $# " $# !" $# "$ $# " $ ! $# $ 0 $# " 6)4 )+. 62)60 *6 / + $# & $# $# ! $ # + $# "% $# " $# ! 6)+ $ $ SHAWFAIR LLP $# $" $" !$ $ #% $# # $# !! BH02 $ & $ !& $# "# $! " $ %% $ "! $ '
BH03 $ ## 0 # $# $# "" $# ## + $# ! $ !'
$# ' # $ 27 SILVERMILLS COURT 6)4 )+ $# ' $# ! $ &! (0.70m) $ ! TP06 *6
+ $ # $# " $# # $ "! $# !$ (n/e) TP02 $ %! $ "" $ "!
$# !' $! EDINBURGH $ & 65.93 $# !$ $ "' $! (0.50m) $ %! $ $ $ !' $# ' $# " $ "% 0 $ ! (0.90m) $! ' + $ ' $ # $# #' 2 90J $ " EH3 5DG $" "$ $# "$ $# $ ## $# !'
$# $ $ # $ " $ !
65.94 $ %
$# " 0;, $! # $!
$# #$ $ ' $# "" $ '! 4 7/0/4)55 $ " $! !
0-,/- $ %# $ $! # $! / $ ' $ #'
$# "" $# $ $ # 65.97 $# #& $ %" $ "'
$" ! /4)55,4;,16+0 $" && $! %# 66.19 $# #' 6)4 )+. 62)60 /4)55 $# "& /4)55 $# $& PROJECT TITLE
$" $ # $! " $! ! $ #% 66.05 $" $! "! 2 $# "# + +
$! # $" # $"
$! $
$ ' $! $ &!
$ %# $# %!
0 $" %" + $# #! $" # $# $# $ % 2 40J % $# #" $# % Mud 66.13 $! # SHAWFAIR PARK SITE $ &
$! &$ $ '$ $# "$ $" %# 66.16 $ &#
$ '
$! " $# TP03 $! "
TP05 # $! DANDERHALL TP04 $! "' $ '$
$! !$ $# # $# $" $ $! #' 66.17 $# %$ 66.07 R03 $ && (0.80m) $! $&
(0.60m) (0.70m) 45 $# %! $# # $! "' $ '& $# $ $# && $# !$ $! $! !" $!
$" " $! $$ $! "
66.00 / $# %# $! % $! $
$# $ $! # 66.31 0 $! & + $! DRAWING TITLE $! &
$# ' $# $! $' 0 $" % 66.39 + $# & $! "" $# ' $! !% $# %' $# '$ RECORDED MADE GROUND /4)55
$! %# $! " $! ' $! $' 65.95 4 7/0/4)55 $" % THICKNESS $# ! $! ' 66.00 $! $ $$ 0 $! #! 66.14 $! #& + $# '" $" % 2 $$ ! + +
$# '! $! %! $! $" $! % $# &$ DRAWN BY CHK'D BY APP'D BY DATE SCALES
65.97 BH01 $" $$ $! $'
66.31 RC LR NDL 28.08.19 1:500
$$ (0.60m) $" %$ 2 90J
66.00 $$ # $" " 2 @ A3 $$ $# #" $" !% $" !# $! &" $$
66.48 66.26 $$ ! $$
65.78 $" # 66.63 $" % # $" PROJECT No. DRAWING No. REVISION $$ ! $! '%
$$ # $# '' $! ' $$ ! P19/216 P19/216/SI/R/F/06 66.18 $$ " $$ & $$ % 66.48 $#
0-,/-
65.94 $# $% 6)4 )+. 62)60$" !$ /4)55 $" $" $" ' $$ 2 40J % /4)55,4;,16+0$" !
$" /4)55
66.23 $$ ! $" # $" & $" # 66.45 66.28
66.74 $" !&
$" #'
$" ! 66.50 66.43 51/ $# "!
$" ! 66.86 65.97 $" #& 65.09 $" %& 0 $" %# $" !& + $" !#
66.19 $" &% $" "$
$" %& 65.88
2 66.69 66.53 $" % 66.54 + + 66.97 $" "% $" #
66.74 $" $% $" #' 66.11 Geo-Environmental Consultants 67.08
65.31 67.00 66.49 t: 0141 420 2025 e: [email protected]
65.03 64.91 66.62 66.19
66.99 66.66 64.86 The Piazza, 95 Morrison Street, Glasgow, G5 8BE )!> H@AH " : %! Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
• Glacial Soils (cohesive) - encountered underlying the granular soils in TP01 and TP04 to TP08, extending to a maximum recorded depth 3.40 m (TP05). These deposits were generally described as; soft grey/brown, locally laminated, silty sandy, locally very sandy, CLAY; or soft to firm grey laminated very sandy silty CLAY.
• Glacial Till – only encountered in BH02, BH04 and R01 to R03 at varying depths of between 3.80 m and 6.00 m, extending to a maximum recorded depth of 7.80 m (R03). These deposits were generally described as; firm becoming stiff with depth or stiff, dark brown sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional cobbles.
Rockhead
4.1.4 Rockhead was definitively encountered in each of the rotary boreholes at varying depths of between 6.50 m and 7.80 m. Rockhead was described as a sequence of sandstones and mudstones with coal bands. The conjectured depth to rockhead is indicated on Drawing No. P19/216/SI/R/F/07, based on the definitive depths encountered in the rotary boreholes.
4.1.5 A detailed account of the geological and mining conditions encountered at the site is included in Section 13.0.
Obstructions
4.1.6 No man-made obstructions were encountered during the exploratory works.
4.2 Groundwater
4.2.1 Slow water ingress was encountered in TP05 at 2.00 m depth and moderate water ingress was encountered in BH01 to BH04 at varying depths of between 1.80 m and 2.40 m during formation. TP01, TP02, TP04 and TP06 were also recorded as damp at varying depths of between 1.50 m and 3.10 m and TP03, TP07 and TP08 were recorded as damp through the excavation.
4.2.2 Groundwater strikes were also recorded within the rock strata in R01, R02 and R03 at varying depths of between 16.00 m and 17.00 m.
4.2.3 Monitoring wells were installed in each of the soils boreholes (BH01 to BH04) to provide a more accurate assessment of the groundwater behaviour and have been monitored on 4 No. occasions (results included in Appendix 9). The results of the groundwater depth monitoring undertaken are summarised in the table below:
TABLE 10 - Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results within the Shallow Soils
Location BH01 BH02 BH03 BH04 Minimum Depth 2.51 1.38 2.31 1.39 (mbgl) Maximum Depth 2.66 1.49 2.43 1.51 (mbgl)
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 22 NOTES Site boundary Rotary probe borehole sunk by R01 to R03 Hydracrat Ground Investigation Contractors, on behalf of Mason Evans (July 2019)
$ %" $ #' $ &" $ $' $ &! $ "% $ &# N $ #% Ground gas/water monitoring standpipe installation $ '# $ '$ $ %! 58 58 $ !$ $ &% $! $ $% $ "% $ ! $ '& 2 WESTER SHAWFAIR $! $ %# $ " $ #! $ '$ 6)4 )+. 62)60 $ $" $ $! % $! ' $ $$ $ $% Recorded depth to definite rockhead (m) $ "# $ !" (6.50m) $ # 2 $ " $ ! $ &" $ " $! $ "& /4)55,4;,16+0 $! $ % $ $ /4)55 $ "" $ !$ $! $ !" $ $ $! $ $ $ $ $ $ " $ "$ $ % $ & $ # $ ! $ %" $ $ $! $ # $! ! $ % $ # $ !$ $ % $ #' $! ' $ " $ $ % $! !! $ '% $! # $ & $ ! $ & $! "! $ # $ $ $! "# $! !! /4)55 $ !& $ ' 2 $ &' $ $! # $ " $! # $ &" $ &" $ &% $ $! %' $ !% $ $ & $ $ ! $ $! #$ /4)55,4;,16+0 45 $ % $ ! 6)+ $ '% $! $$ $ &$ $ '$
$! # $! '$ $ $#
$! $ % $ ! $ $
$! %!
$ $ $ '$
$ $ $ # $ $ ! $ %$ $ '" $ $% * *6
$! "& $ $& $ " $ &' $ # $ $ $ '# $! + $ # $ &" $! & 0 $ $ $ % $ ' $ " + $ $" $ $" $ $ 2 $! & $ % $ %& + + $! $# $" $ %' $! & $ $ '!
$! &' $! %# $ $& /4)55,4;,16+0 $ &! $ % $ '' 6)4 )+. 62)60 $! ! $ % $ &! $ % $ ' $ $ '& $! %% $! !! /4)55,4;,16+0 $ !! 6)4 )+. 62)60 /4)55 $ && $ ' $ %" $ %' $" % $ % 45 $ # $ ' $ &
$" $" %" $ '$ $ ''
$" $! # $ & 4 7/0/4)55 # $ $" $ &
$" $# $ # 0 $! #"$! %# $" % $ # + $ %# $ &" $ '$ $! &! $ %'
$" ! $" $ $" $ ! $" #
$" ! %# $ $ &%
$! %
$" # $" $" # $"
$" " $ #
$" # $
4 7/0/4)55 $
$! $" " $! &$ $! %" $" %# $" "& /4)55 $ $ $ ' $ " $" "' $ "
$" #$
$ "% # $ $ ' $ $# $" # $# $ $" $ $! &" $" %
$# !" $ !$ 64.88 # $! $ &
0 $ #
+ $" '& # $# $! %" $ '" $" %#
$ % $ &
$" '"
$" %!
$" & $! # $ '&
$ "
65.01 $ # $ '' $
$" '' $# $# !# # $
$#
$! %# REV DATE $" &' DETAILS $# # $ %
$" ! /4)55,4;,16+0 R01 $" R02 $ * $ $ $# '
$# $ $! #! $ #' # $
$# # $ %& + + 2 $" # $" $ "& $# & $# # $ $ $# !% *6 $ !
$# ! (6.50m) (7.00m)
$ + $# " $# # $" # $# !' $ ! $# %& $ !& $# ' $# !$
$# ' 1+ $" %# 4 7/0/4)55 58 $# "" + $# !% /4)55 $# "' $" ! $ ' $ " $ ! 58 $ "
$# $ $ !& / $# !% $# $# $# $ $# ! $ !# $# ' $ %& $# $ ! $# !' $# ! $ $ ' $# " $# & $# ! $ '!
$# $ # $# $# $! "#
$ ! 65.48 $# #! $# !! $ %! $ " /4)55 0 / *6
+ $# 2 $# $ + $# "" $# !& $# ' %# $
$ "# $# % $# # $# ' $ !% $# ! $# % 0;, $# # $# #! $# !$ $# ! $# $ $# " $# " $# !" $# "$ $# " $ ! $# $ 0 $# " 6)4 )+. 62)60 *6 / + $# & $# $# ! $ # + $# "% $# " $# ! 6)+ $ $ SHAWFAIR LLP $# $" $# # $# !! $" !$ $ #% $ & $ !& $# "# $! "
$ %% $ "! $ '
$ ## 0 # $# $# "" $# ## + $# ! $ !'
$# ' # $ 27 SILVERMILLS COURT 6)4 )+ $# ' $# ! $ &! *6 $ !
+ $ # $# " $# # $ "! $# !$ $ %! $ "! $ ""
$# !' $! EDINBURGH $ & 65.93 $# !$ $ "' $! $ %! $ $
$ !' $# ' $# " $ "% 0 $ ! $! ' + $ ' $ # $# #' 2 90J $ " EH3 5DG $" "$ $# "$ $# $ ## $# !'
$# $ $ # $ " $ !
65.94 $ %
$# " 0;, $! # $!
$# #$ $ ' $# "" $ '! 4 7/0/4)55 $ " $! !
0-,/- $ %# $ $! # $! / $ ' $ #'
$# "" $# $ $ # 65.97 $# #& $ %" $ "'
$" ! /4)55,4;,16+0 $" && $! %# 66.19 $# #' 6)4 )+. 62)60 /4)55 $# "& /4)55 $# $& PROJECT TITLE
$" $ # $! " $! ! $ #% 66.05 $" $! "! 2 $# "# + +
$! # $" # $"
$! $
$ ' $! $ &!
$ %# $# %!
0 $" %" + $# #! $" # $# $# $ % 2 40J % $# #" $# % Mud 66.13 $! # SHAWFAIR PARK SITE $ &
$! &$ $ '$ $# "$ $" %# 66.16 $ &#
$ '
$! " $#
$! "
$! # $! DANDERHALL $! "' $ '$
$! !$ $# # $# $" $ $! #' 66.17 $# %$ 66.07 R03 $ && $! $&
45 $# %! $# # $! "' $ '& $# $ $# && $# !$ (7.80m) $! $! !" $!
$" " $! $$ $! "
66.00 / $# %# $! % $! $
$# $ $! # 66.31 0 $! & + $! DRAWING TITLE $! &
$# ' $# $! $' 0 $" % 66.39 + $# & $! "" $# ' $! !% $# %' $# '$ RECORDED DEPTH TO /4)55
$! %# $! " $! ' $! $' 65.95 4 7/0/4)55 $" % DEFINTE ROCKHEAD $# ! $! ' 66.00 $! $ $$ 0 $! #! 66.14 $! #& + $# '" $" % 2 $$ ! + +
$# '! $! %! $! $" $! % $# &$ DRAWN BY CHK'D BY APP'D BY DATE SCALES
65.97 $" $$ $! $'
66.31 RC LR NDL 28.08.19 1:500 $$ $" %$ 2 90J
66.00 $$ # $" " 2 @ A3 $$ $# #" $" !% $" !# $! &" $$
66.48 66.26 $$ ! $$
65.78 $" # 66.63 $" % # $" PROJECT No. DRAWING No. REVISION $$ ! $! '%
$$ # $# '' $! ' $$ ! P19/216 P19/216/SI/R/F/07 66.18 $$ " $$ & $$ % 66.48 $#
0-,/-
65.94 $# $% 6)4 )+. 62)60$" !$ /4)55 $" $" $" ' $$ 2 40J % /4)55,4;,16+0$" !
$" /4)55
66.23 $$ ! $" # $" & $" # 66.45 66.28
66.74 $" !&
$" #'
$" ! 66.50 66.43 51/ $# "!
$" ! 66.86 65.97 $" #& 65.09 $" %& 0 $" %# $" !& + $" !#
66.19 $" &% $" "$
$" %& 65.88
2 66.69 66.53 $" % 66.54 + + 66.97 $" "% $" #
66.74 $" $% $" #' 66.11 Geo-Environmental Consultants 67.08
65.31 67.00 66.49 t: 0141 420 2025 e: [email protected]
65.03 64.91 66.62 66.19
66.99 66.66 64.86 The Piazza, 95 Morrison Street, Glasgow, G5 8BE )!> H@AH " : %! Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
4.2.4 The water depth results suggest that any groundwater beneath the site is likely to be perched and discontinuous within the glacial soils, with the underlying cohesive glacial till providing a relatively impermeable barrier to the downward migration. This interpretation is consistent with the later groundwater monitoring as groundwater samples could not be obtained from any of the boreholes due to slow recharge rates and insufficient volumes of water for sampling. Due to its impersistent and restricted nature, the shallow groundwater beneath the site would not be classified as a water body, as defined by SEPA Document WAT-PS- 10-01 (and supporting guidance WAT-SG-53), as it is unlikely to sustain 10 m3 per day extraction/supply long term.
4.2.5 Monitoring wells were also installed into the rock strata in each of the rotary boreholes (R01 to R03) to provide a more accurate assessment of the groundwater behaviour within the rock strata and have been monitored on 4 No. occasions (results included in Appendix 9). The results of the groundwater depth monitoring undertaken within the rock strata are summarised in the table below:
TABLE 11 - Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results within the Rock Strata
Location R01 R02 R03 Minimum Depth 8.63 6.04 8.69 (mbgl) Maximum Depth 8.91 6.25 9.04 (mbgl)
4.2.6 The results of the monitoring undertaken indicate that no persistent aquifer was recorded within the rock strata and that any deeper groundwater was likely to occur within cracks and fissures in the rock (the groundwater results recorded within R02 were considered to be representative of the perched groundwater table within the superficial deposits). As such it is considered unlikely that any shallow groundwater would interact with water encountered within the rock strata.
4.2.7 The Envirocheck Report (Appendix 2) confirmed that the proposed development site is underlain by a ‘minor or moderately permeable aquifer – fractured or potentially fractured rocks which do not have a high primary permeability or other formations of variable permeability’.
4.3 Visual/Olfactory Evidence of Contamination
4.3.1 No obvious visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was observed in the exploratory holes during site works, which is consistent with the lack of a significant contaminative usage.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 24 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
5.0 CONTAMINATION RISK ASSESSMENT
5.1 Human Health and Groundwater Risk Assessment Screening Criteria
5.1.1 Consideration of analytical results against applicable, conservative risk-based screening criteria has been used to provide an assessment of risk. A tiered risk-based approach comprises:
. Preliminary Risk Assessment (e.g. establishing potential pollutant linkages); . Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment (GQRA) (e.g. the comparison of contaminant concentrations against Soil Guideline Values (SGV) or other Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC)); and . Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA) (e.g. the comparison of contaminant concentrations against site specific assessment criteria).
5.1.2 A GQRA has been carried out as part of this assessment. Soil chemical analysis data has been assessed in terms of risks to human health and vegetation while leachate data has been assessed in terms of risks to the water environment. The GACs utilised are the recently published Suitable 4 Use Levels (S4ULs) derived by LQM/CIEH, based on the exposure parameters, outlined in the DEFRA publication SP1010 (Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SLs) (March 2014). The S4ULs are derived in accordance with current UK legislation, and national policy using the most recent version of the CLEA software (v1.06). Normally the CLEA software utilises the default exposure pathways and land use assumptions outlined in SR3 (Environment Agency 2009b). In order to implement the revised exposure and land use assumptions introduced by DEFRA publication SP1010, a number of modifications were made to the land use and receptor databases of the CLEA model including the introduction of two additional land use scenarios: Public Open Space ‘park’ and Public Open Space, near residential housing. These changes are summarised in both DEFRA publication SP1010 (2014), and LQM/CIEH publication S4UL3203 (2015).
5.1.3 The derived S4ULs are based on the concept of minimal tolerable risk as described in SR2 (Environment Agency 2009a) which underpins all previous EA SGVs and other GACs. Please note that S4ULs do not incorporate any toxicological parameter changes to the CLEA base model, however recent toxicological data has been incorporated into the contaminant databases. Furthermore, S4UL GACs are considered to be equivalent to the previously published Environment agency SGVs, and previous iterations of LQM/CIEH GACs and as such are suitable for use in generic quantitative risk assessments under both planning and Part IIa regimes.
5.1.4 In this case we have utilised S4UL values appropriate to the most appropriate end-use i.e. commercial.
5.2 Statistical Analysis of Data
5.2.1 Where appropriate, chemical data for soils can be considered statistically in general accordance with the guidelines given in the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Publication Guidance on comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration (May 2008).
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 25 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
Sample Depths
5.2.2 At the generic assessment stage, it should be assumed that all pathways contained within the generic model applied will be active. In reality, unless a contaminant is volatile (e.g. organic), exposure by direct contact will likely be mitigated by the depth of the contaminant or available surface cover. Generally, direct contact with contaminants at greater than 600 mm depth or under hardstanding is highly unlikely to occur unless the ground is to be disturbed through removal of surfacing or earthworks.
5.3 Ground Gas Assessment
5.3.1 The potential presence of carbon dioxide and methane at the target site have been appraised in compliance with ‘BS Standard 8485:2015 & A1:2019 Code of Practice for the design of protective measures for Methane and Carbon Dioxide Ground Gases for new buildings’. This document details site investigations methodologies and risk assessment procedures for assessing the results from such investigations. The risk assessment procedures are primarily based on those detailed by Wilson and Card (1999).
5.4 Building Materials Assessment
5.4.1 BRE Special Digest 1 ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’ (3rd Edition, 2005) has been used to determine an appropriate concrete class for the development.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 26 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
6.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
6.1 Contaminants In Soils
6.1.1 The results of analysis for a range of contaminants have been compared directly to their respective Generic Assessment Criteria. A summary table of all chemical results is included in Appendix 10.
TABLE 12– Exceedance of Guideline Levels (Commercial)*
Measured Concentrations in Measured Exceedance Excess of SGV/GSV/SSTL SGV/GSV/ Concentrations (mg/kg) Contaminant Effect (mg/kg) SSV Source (mg/kg) Natural Made Ground Natural Made Ground Metals Arsenic Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 640 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Mercury (Inorganic) Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 1,100 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Boron (water soluble) Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 240,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Chromium III Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 8,600 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Chromium VI Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 33 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Lead Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 6,000 C4SL (DEFRA SP1010) (2014)) Cadmium Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 190 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Selenium Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 12,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Nickel Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 980 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Nickel** Phytotoxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 110 BS:3882 (2015) Copper Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 68,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Copper** Phytotoxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 200 BS:3882 (2015) Zinc Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 730,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Zinc** Phytotoxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 300 BS:3882 (2015) Inorganics Total Sulphate Phytotoxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 10,000 ICRCL/SAC Total Cyanide Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 34 ATRISK (2015) Phenols Phenol Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 1,500 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) Aliphatic C5-C6 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 5,900 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aliphatic C6-C8 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 17,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aliphatic C8-C10 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 4,800 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aliphatic C10-C12 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 23,00 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aliphatic C12-C16 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 82,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aliphatic C16-C21 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 1,700,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aliphatic C21-C35 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 1,700,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aliphatic C5-C35 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - N/A N/A Aromatic C5-C7 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 46,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aromatic C7-C8 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 110,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aromatic C8-C10 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 8,100 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aromatic C10-C12 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 28,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aromatic C12-C16 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 37,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aromatic C16-C21 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 28,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aromatic C21-C35 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 28,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Aromatic C5-C35 Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - N/A N/A Total Aliphatics and Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - N/A N/A Aromatics C5-C35 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Acenaphthene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 97,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Acenaphthylene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 97,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Anthracene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 540,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Benz(a)anthracene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 170 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Benzo(a)pyrene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 35 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Benzo(b)fluoranthene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 44 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 4,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Benzo(k)fluoranthene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 1,200 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Chrysene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 350 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 3.6 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Fluoranthene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 23,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Fluorene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 68,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) *Guidelines based on a conservative SOM of 2.5%. Average SOM calculated to be 3.35%. ** Phytotoxic values based on an average pH of >7.0 (average pH calculated to be 7.38)
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 27 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 12 CONT– Exceedance of Guideline Levels (Commercial)*
Measured Concentrations in Measured Exceedance Excess of SGV/GSV/SSTL SGV/GSV/ Concentrations (mg/kg) Contaminant Effect (mg/kg) SSV Source (mg/kg) Natural Made Ground Natural Made Ground Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Indeno(1,2,3-CD) Pyrene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 510 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Naphthalene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 460 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Phenanthrene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 22,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Pyrene Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - 54,000 LQM/CIEH S4ULs (2015) Total PAH’s Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - N/A N/A Other Asbestos Toxic 0 out of 5 0 out of 8 - - Detection HSE *Guidelines based on a conservative SOM of 2.5%. Average SOM calculated to be 3.35%. ** Phytotoxic values based on an average pH of >7.0 (average pH calculated to be 7.38)
6.1.2 The GRQA has identified no contaminants at concentrations above the recommended guideline values.
6.1.3 In addition, no asbestos fibres were detected in the samples scheduled for analysis.
6.2 Herbicide/Pesticide Screen
6.2.1 A herbicide/pesticide screen was undertaken on 4 No. samples (BH01, BH02, BH03 and BH04) obtained from across the site. Herbicides/pesticides were anticipated to have potentially been used within the site due to its agricultural usage. However, it should be noted that at the time of our assessment, the site was vacant land.
6.2.2 The results of the testing indicate that the values recorded were all below the limits of detection (results included in Appendix 10). Therefore, herbicides/pesticides are not considered to pose a significant risk to the proposed development.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 28 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
7.0 WATER ENVIRONMENT RISK ASSESSMENT
7.1 Water Environment Vulnerability
7.1.1 As previously discussed, 2 No. ponds were recorded approximately 192 m to the south-south-east and approximately 286 m to the north-east of the proposed development site. However, these features have not been classified by SEPA and are therefore considered to be more representative of man-made features rather than natural surface water bodies. As SEPA do not consider man-made features to be afforded the same ecological protection as natural surface water bodies, we have taken the Dead Burn, located approximately 850 m to the south-south-east of the proposed development site (at its closest point), as the main Water Environment receptor with regards to the subject site.
7.1.2 The perched and discontinuous groundwater table beneath the site was not considered to be a water body as defined by SEPA Document WAT-PS-10-01 (August 2014) and supporting guidance WAT-SG-53 (December 2015) as it is unlikely to sustain 10m3 per day extraction/supply long term. Therefore, we have taken the Dead Burn as the most sensitive receptor.
7.2 Surface Water Assessment
7.2.1 Following SEPA Position Statement WAT-PS-10-01, ‘Assigning Groundwater Assessment Criteria for Pollutant Inputs’ (August 2014), the following assessment should be carried out for potential pollutant linkages to the water environment:
1) Assess which receptors (including surface / coastal waters, wetlands, potable water extractions, and future drinking water potential) may be affected by contamination sources. 2) For potential pollutant linkages, assess contaminant concentrations against relevant screening values at the recommended assessment point, taking into consideration mixing and upstream/upgradient concentrations, where appropriate. 3) Evaluate whether remedial measures would be either disproportionately costly, a risk to other receptors, or cause deterioration of the natural environment.
7.2.2 Leachate analysis was carried out to determine the risks posed, if any, by the on-site conditions (if any) to the water environment. Leachate testing of TPHs and PAHs was not undertaken as part of this assessment, as by their very nature, TPHs and PAHs are very leachable and would present themselves in samples of the groundwater.
7.2.3 However, groundwater samples could not be obtained from any of the bores due to slow recharge rates and insufficient volumes of water for sampling. A summary table of all results is included in Appendix 10.
7.2.4 The leachate results have been compared to the appropriate guideline values (Table 13). Where surface water is considered a primary risk, as is the case in this instance, Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) are used as obtained from SEPA document WAT-SG-53 (February 2018). In the absence of any SEPA published EQS we have reverted to the laboratory Limits of Detection, as recommended in SEPA position Statement WAT-PS-10- 01.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 29 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
Surface Water Assessment
7.2.5 The nearest surface water body, the Dead Burn, is considered a sensitive receptor and therefore the leachate results have been compared to the relevant assessment criteria as detailed above and as shown in Table 13 below.
TABLE 13: Analysis of Leachate Samples Compared with Environmental Quality Standards
Environmental Limits of No of Samples Above Range of Concentrations which Potential Contaminant Quality Standard Detection Assessment Levels Exceeded Relevant Guidelines mg/l (µg/l) (µg/l)
Metals Arsenic 50 - 0 out of 13 Cadmium* <0.08 - 0 out of 13 Chromium III 4.7 - 0 out of 13 Copper (toxic) 1.0 - 7 out of 13 1.4 – 9.7 Lead 1.2 - 2 out of 13 2.1 – 2.7 Mercury (inorganic) 0.07 - 0 out of 13 Nickel (toxic) 4.0 - 3 out of 13 5.8 - 57 Selenium** - 0.25 3 out of 13 0.44 – 1.2 Zinc (toxic) 10.9 - 2 out of 13 11 - 77 Inorganics Sulphate as SO4 400 (mg/l) - 0 out of 13 - Phenols Phenol 7.7 - 0 out of 13 - * Based on an average water hardness of 13.916 mg/l ** Most conservative Limit of Detection value used as no reporting value was available in the WAT-SG-53 (2015) document.
7.2.6 Against current guideline values, the leachate testing identified exceedances of the contaminants; copper, lead, nickel, selenium and zinc.
Interpretation of Results
7.2.7 From all of the contaminants identified; copper, lead, nickel, selenium and zinc were identified at concentrations which may pose a risk to the surface Water Environment. However, it should be noted that for the purpose of this assessment, we have utilised the leachate analysis results as groundwater samples were not available to assess surface water risk.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 30 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
7.2.8 Most EQS’s for metal in water are based on the amount of the contaminant that is bioavailable in the water. Consequently, to assess the risk posed by copper, nickel and zinc to the surface water environment we have utilised the UKTAG River and Lake Assessment Method Specific Pollutants (Metals) Bioavailability Assessment Tool (M-BAT) by the Water Framework Directive – United Kingdom Technical Advisory Group (WFD- UKTAG), 2014. The tool predicts the bioavailable concentration of zinc (and other metals) based on site conditions including pH, calcium and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). DOC was not tested for using the leachate analysis, therefore we have been conservative in our assessment and used a DOC value of 10 mg/l. We have also utilised the relevant pH value from the soil testing in our assessment as pH was again not tested for in the leachate analysis. Utilising the M-BAT, the results indicate that the bioavailable concentrations of copper were below the EQS value 1.0 ug/l. Therefore, copper is not considered to pose a significant risk to the surface Water Environment. However, following the m-BAT, nickel and zinc were still above the EQS values of 4.0 ug/l and 10.9 ug/l, respectively, in BH01 at 0.50 m depth where the bioavailable concentration of nickel was at 9.41 ug/l and in TP06 at 0.50 m depth where the bioavailable concentration of zinc was at 18.57 ug/l. Therefore, nickel and zinc were still considered to pose a risk to the surface Water Environment. A copy of the m-BAT models are attached in Appendix 11.
7.2.9 The Lead Screening Tool was utilised to predict the potential risk posed by lead to the aquatic environment (model included in Appendix 11). Again, we have been conservative in our assessment and used a DOC value of 10 mg/l. The results of the modelling indicate that the bioavailable concentrations of lead are below the EQS value of 1.2 ug/l. As such, lead is not considered to pose a significant risk to the surface Water Environment.
7.2.10 Groundwater modelling of; nickel, selenium and zinc was undertaken to assess the potential risk of these contaminants to the water environment. We utilized RD P20 RTM (V3.2) published by the Environment Agency in our assessment and a copy of the models are included in Appendix 12. Based on groundwater levels to date (i.e. 4 No. rounds), groundwater flow was indicated to be variable within the site but generally towards the north, towards the coast. However, given the proximity of the Dead Burn to the proposed development site (approximately 850 m to the south-south-east), we have chosen to model to the burn in order to represent the shortest likely path the groundwater would take to reach the coast. We have also assumed a clayey sand as the main constituent of the aquifer material to represent a worst case scenario. The model was run for each of the contaminants which were recorded to exceed the EQS or LoD. The results of the modelling are shown in Table 14 below.
TABLE 14 – Results of P20 Groundwater Modelling (compliance point – Dead Burn) Maximum Final Target Value Target Value Contaminant Recorded concentration (µg/l) Source Exceedance (µg/l) (µg/l) Nickel 9.41* 4.0 EQS (AA) 0.00203 Selenium 1.2 0.25 LoD 0.000258 Zinc 18.57* 10.9 EQS (AA) 0.004 LoD – Limit of Detection AA – Annual average * Maximum bioavailable concentration utilised following m-BAT model
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 31 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
7.2.11 Modelling to a compliance point of 850 m (i.e. the distance from the edge of the site to the Dead Burn (at its closest point)) the final concentrations of the contaminants; nickel, selenium and zinc were recorded to be lower than the target concentrations. Therefore, these contaminants are considered to pose a low risk to the nearest surface water body i.e. the Dead Burn.
7.3 Conclusions
7.3.1 As demonstrated through chemical analysis and groundwater modelling, the proposed development is not considered to pose a significant risk to the Water Environment. It should also be noted that no significant shallow groundwater was present beneath the site and that a significant contamination source was not generally identified within the site boundary.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 32 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
8.0 GROUND GAS EMISSIONS
8.1 General
8.1.1 A ground gas assessment has been undertaken to assess risks associated with carbon dioxide and methane to new buildings and their users. The identified potential sources of gas onsite were the made ground deposits and potential abandoned mineworkings.
8.1.2 The assessment of risk due to ground gases has been further discussed in publications for CIRIA and BRE, which have indicated a number of ‘characteristic situations’ depending on the concentrations and flow rates of gas. This classification system has been further developed by Wilson and Card (1999), and Boyle and Witherington (2006) and a revised industry guidance has been provided within CIRIA Report C665 (2007) and BS 8485 (2015) & A1:2019.
8.1.3 The gas monitoring data was reviewed and a risk assessment prepared in line with British Standard BS 8485 (2015) & A1:2019, whereby a scoring system is used to design suitable gas preclusion measures.
8.2 Ground Gas – Results
8.2.1 Ground gas standpipes were installed within each of the soils boreholes (BH01 to BH04) and within all of the rotary boreholes (R01 to R03). The boreholes have been monitored on 4 No. occasions to date, using a portable gas meter, and the results and calibration certificates are attached in Appendix 9. Confirmatory monitoring is continuing at the site and the results will be reported as an addendum to this report upon completion.
8.2.2 Measurements were taken over a variety of atmospheric conditions, including falling pressure conditions, with barometric pressure ranging from 1001 mb to 1013 mb. Carbon dioxide concentrations ranged between 0.1% and 7.0% and methane concentrations were recorded to always be 0.0%. However, it should be noted that carbon dioxide was only ever recorded at elevated concentrations (i.e. >5.0%) in BH01. Hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide were also recorded in the rotary boreholes (R01 to R03) and on one number occasions in BH01. Oxygen concentrations ranged between 10.7% and 20.6% and flow (steady state) was recorded to be 0.0 l/hr throughout the monitoring period. The results of the gas monitoring undertaken to date are indicated on Drawing No. P19/216/SI/R/F/08.
8.3 Ground Gas – Assessment
8.3.1 Gas Screening Values have been calculated in line with CIRIA 665 and BS 8485 (2015) & A1:2019 guidance.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 33 NOTES $ %" $ #' $ &" $ $' $ &! $ "% $ &# $ '# $ #% $ '$ $ %! 58 58 $ !$ $ &% $! $ $% Site boundary $ "% $ ! $ '& 2 WESTER SHAWFAIR $! $ %# $ " $ #! $ '$ 6)4 )+. 62)60 $ $" $ $! % $ $$ $! ' $ $% $ "# $ !" BH01 to BH04 $ # 31180E $ ! 2 Terrier borehole sunk by SKF Ltd, $ " $ &" $ " $! $ "& /4)55,4;,16+0 $! $ % $ $ /4)55 $ "" $ !$ $! $ !" $ $ $! $ " $ $ $ $ $ $ % on behalf of Mason Evans June 2019) $ "$ $ & $ # $ ! $ %" $ $ $! $ # $! ! $ % $ # $ !$ $ % $ #' $! ' $ " $ $ % $! !! $ '% $! # $ & $ ! $ & N $! "! BH04 $ # $ $ $! !! /4)55 Rotary probe borehole sunk by $! "# $ !& $ ' 2 $ &' $ R01 to R03 $! # $! # $ " 68800N $ &" $ &" $ &% $ & $ Hydracrat Ground Investigation Contractors, 66.52 65.92 $! %' $ !% $ $ $ ! $ $! #$ /4)55,4;,16+0 45 $ % $ ! 6)+ $ '% $! $$ $ &$ $ '$
$! # $! '$ $ $#
$! $ % $ ! $ $ on behalf of Mason Evans (July 2019) $! %!
$ $ $ '$
$ $ $ # $ $ ! $ %$ $ '" $ $% * *6
$! "& $ $& $ " $ &' $ # $ $ $ '# $! + $ # $ &" $! & 0 $ $ $ % $ ' $ " + $ $" $ $" $ $ 2 $! & $ % $ %& + + $! $# $" $ %' $! & $ $ '!
$! &' $! %# $ $& /4)55,4;,16+0 66.48 $ &! $ % $ '' 6)4 )+. 62)60 $! ! $ % $ &! $ % $ ' Ground gas/water monitoring standpipe installation 66.75 $ $ '& $! %% $! !! /4)55,4;,16+0 $ !! 6)4 )+. 62)60 /4)55 $ && 65.56 $ ' $ %" $ %' $" % $ % 45 $ # $ ' $ &
$" $" %" $ '$ $ ''
$" $! # $ & 4 7/0/4)55 # $ $" $ &
$" $# $ # 0 $! #"$! %# $" % $ # + $ %# $ &" $ '$ $! &! $ %'
$" ! $" $ $" $ ! $" #
$" ! %# $ $ &%
$! % $" # $"
66.89 # $"
$" " $ # $" # $
67.21 4 7/0/4)55 $ $! $" " $! &$ $! %" $" %# $" "& /4)55 $ $ $ ' $ " $" "' $ "
$" #$
$ "% # $ $ ' $ $# $" # $# $ $" $ $! &" $" %
65.80 $# !" $ !$ 64.88 # $! $ &
0 $ #
+ $" '& # $# $! %" $ '" 65.50 $" %#
$ % $ &
$" '"
$" %!
$" & $! # $ '&
$ "
65.01 $ # $ '' $
$" '' $# $# !# # $ $#
$" &' $! %# 67.08 $# # $ %
$" ! /4)55,4;,16+0
68780N 66.00 67.38 R01 $" R02 $ * $ $ $# '
$# $ $! #! $ #' # $
$# # $ %& + + 2 $" # $" $ "& 66.27 $# & $# # $ $
65.38 $# !% $ ! $# ! *6
66.50 $ + $# " $# # $" # $# !' $ ! $# %& $ !& Kerb $# ' $# !$
$# ' 1+ $" %# 4 7/0/4)55 58 /4)55 65.58 $# "" + $# !% $# "' $" ! $ ' $ " $ ! 58 $ "
67.27 $# $ $ !& / $# !% $# $# $# $ $# ! $ !# $# ' $ %& 65.57 $# $ ! 67.49 $# !' $# ! $ $ '
$# " $# & $# ! $ '! $# # $# $! "# 67.00 $# $ $#
$ ! 66.34 65.48 $# #! $# !! $ %! $ " /4)55 0 / *6
66.57 + $# 2 $# $ + $# "" $# !& $# ' %# $
$ "# $# % $# # 65.98 $# ' $ !% $# ! $# % 0;, $# # 65.61 $# #! $# !$ $# ! $# $ $# " $# " $# !" $# "$ $# " $ ! $# $ 0 $# " 6)4 )+. 62)60 *6 / + $# & $# $# ! $ # + $# "% $# " $# ! $ $ 65.96 $# $" 6)+ $" !$ $ #% $# # $# !! BH02 67.36 $ & $ !& $# "# $! " $ %% $ "! $ '
BH03 $ ## 0 # $# $# ""
$# ## + $# ! $ !' $# ' # $ 6)4 )+ 65.94 $# ' $# ! $ &! *6 $ !
66.48 + $ # 66.64 $# " $# # $ "! $# !$ $ %! $ "! $ ""
66.18 $# !' $! $ & 66.67 65.93 $# !$ $ "' $! $ %! $ $
$ !' $# ' $# " $ "% 0 $ ! $! ' + $ ' $ # 66.15 $# #' 2 90J $ " $" "$ 67.25 $# "$ $# $ ## 68760N $# !'
$# $ $ # $ " $ !
65.94 $ %
$# " 0;, $! # $!
$# #$ $ ' $# "" $ '! REV DATE DETAILS 66.72 4 7/0/4)55 $ " $! !
0-,/- $ %# $ $! # $! / 66.80 $ ' $ #' $# "" $# $ $ # 66.83 65.97 $# #& $ %" $ "'
$" ! /4)55,4;,16+0 $" && $! %# 66.19 $# #' 6)4 )+. 62)60 El Sub Sta /4)55 $# "& /4)55
$# $& 66.51 $" 66.09 $ # $! " $! ! $ #% 66.05 $" $! "! 2 66.78 $# "# + +
$! # $" # $"
$! $ $ ' 66.94 $! $ &! $ %# $# %!
0 $" %" + $# #! $" # $# $# $ % 2 40J % 66.64 $# #" $# % Mud 66.13 $! #
$ &
$! &$ $ '$ $# "$ $" %# $ &# 66.06 66.16 $ '
$! " $#
66.47 $! " 67.33 # $! $! "' $ '$
66.14 $! !$ 66.74 # $# $" $ $! #' 66.17 $# %$ 66.07 R03 $ && $! $&
68740N 45 SHAWFAIR LLP $# %! $# # $! "' $ '& $# $ $# && $# !$ $! $! !" 66.69 $!
$" " $! $$ $! "
66.00 / $# %# $! % 27 SILVERMILLS COURT $! $
$# $ $! # 66.31 0 66.30 $! & + $! $! & 66.56 $# ' EDINBURGH 66.47 $# $! $' 0 $" % 66.39 + $# & $! "" 66.94 66.22 $# ' $! !% $# %' $# '$ /4)55 EH3 5DG
$! %# $! " 66.88 $! ' $! $' 65.95 4 7/0/4)55 $" %
$# ! $! ' 66.00 $! $ $$ 0 $! #! 66.14 $! #& 66.61 + $# '" $" % 2 $$ ! + +
$# '! $! %! 66.85 66.60 $! $" $! % 67.02 $# &$
65.97 BH01 $" $$ $! $'
66.60
66.31 $$ $" %$ 2 90J 66.94 BH01 66.00 $$ # $" " Borehole BH01 2 $$ $# #" $" !% $" !# $! &" 68720N $$
66.48 66.26 65.78 $$ ! $$ PROJECT TITLE
Atmos. Pressure G/Water Depth $" # 66.63 $" % # $" 66.71 Date. CH4 % Vol. CO2 % Vol. 02 % Vol. Ave Flow (l/h) $$ ! $! '% 66.80 66.72 (mb) (m) $$ # $# '' $! ' Mud $$ ! 66.18 $$ " $$ & $$ % 09.07.19 0.0 7.0 10.7 0.0 66.66 1013 2.58 66.48 $# 0-,/- 66.83 65.94 $# $% 6)4 )+. 62)60$" !$ /4)55 $" $" $" ' $$ 2 40J % /4)55,4;,16+0$" !
$" /4)55
23.07.19 0.0 6.1 12.3 0.0 1011 2.51 66.23 $$ ! $" # $" & $" # 66.45 66.28 SHAWFAIR PARK SITE 66.85 66.74 $" !&
66.81 $" #'
$" ! 66.87 66.50 66.74 66.43 51/ $# "! 08.08.19 0.0 3.8 15.4 0.0 1004 2.63 $" ! 66.86 65.97 $" #& DANDERHALL 66.89 65.09 $" %& 0 $" %# $" !& + $" !#
22.08.19 0.0 3.2 16.2 0.0 1007 2.66 66.19 $" &% $" "$
$" %& 65.88 66.84 2 66.69 66.53 $" % 66.54 + +
BH02 66.92 66.97 R01 Borehole66.99 BH02 Borehole R01 $" "% 67.05 66.92 $" # 68700N 66.74 $" $% $" #' 66.11 Atmos. Pressure G/Water Depth 67.08 Atmos. Pressure G/Water Depth 66.99 Mud 65.31
Ave Flow (l/h) 67.00 Ave Flow (l/h) Date. CH4 % Vol. CO2 % Vol. 02 % Vol. (mb) (m) Date. CH4 % Vol. CO2 % Vol. 02 % Vol. (mb) (m) DRAWING TITLE 66.49
65.03 64.91 09.07.19 0.0 2.2 19.5 0.0 1013 1.42 09.07.19 0.0 0.5 66.62 13.3 0.0 101366.19 8.91
66.99 66.66 64.86 67.12 66.96 GROUND GAS 23.07.1967.57 0.067.55 1.867.19 19.9 0.0 1011 1.38 23.07.19 0.0 0.4 14.6 0.0 1011 8.84 66.96 66.16 65.57 67.11 64.81 EMISSIONS SURVEY 64.58 65.16 67.06 66.62 08.08.19 0.0 1.6 20.2 0.0 1004 1.46 08.08.19 0.0 66.710.6 13.7 0.0 1004 8.76 64.95 64.77 64.97 64.89
67.50 66.23 BT CL
66.59 Grass 22.08.19 0.0 1.8 19.8 0.0 67.111007 1.49 66.95 22.08.19 0.0 0.5 14.1 0.0 1007 8.63 67.08 DRAWN BY CHK'D BY APP'D BY DATE SCALES Kerb 67.48 67.57 67.50
65.03 66.22 65.65 65.23
BH03 67.00 R02 Borehole BH03 67.14 66.95 Borehole R02 RC LR NDL 28.08.19 Not to 68680N 64.98 67.31 66.62 66.51 64.85 64.89 64.73 Atmos. Pressure G/Water Depth Atmos. Pressure G/WaterFootpath Depth Scale
Ave Flow (l/h) Ave Flow66.38 (l/h) LP Kerb Date. CH4 % Vol. CO2 % Vol. 02 % Vol. (mb) (m) Date. CH4 % Vol. CO2 % Vol. 02 % Vol. (mb) (m) Dropped 64.87 67.08 66.77 67.10 66.98 65.28 65.10 PROJECT No. DRAWING No. REVISION 09.07.1967.44 67.470.0 1.4 20.4 0.0 1013 2.34 09.07.19 0.0 0.2 19.9 0.0 1013 6.25 65.66 66.12 66.90 65.04
31200E 31220E 67.05 31240E 31260E 31280E 31300E 31320E 31340E 31360E P19/216 P19/216/SI/R/F/08 Kerb 67.45
23.07.19 0.0 1.1 20.6 0.0 1011 2.31 23.07.19 66.68 0.0 66.220.2 20.2 0.0 1011 Grass 6.22 65.20
65.34 65.08 IC CL 65.86 65.97 Tactile Paving 65.09 67.17 66.50 Post Post & Wire 1.2 High 65.21 08.08.19 0.0 1.3 20.3 0.0 1004 2.38 08.08.1966.67 0.0 0.1 20.6 0.0 1004 64.99 6.13 67.19 66.85 65.83 67.48 65.48 66.10 65.14 67.32 66.90 65.72 TS DroppedKerb 65.95 65.74 22.08.19 0.0 1.4 20.1 0.0 66.98 1007 2.43 22.08.19 0.0 0.3 20.2 0.0 1007 64.97 6.04 Grass 65.20 G BT CL 67.36 GV 65.74HERAS 65.67 66.48 66.32
65.21 BH04 66.00 R03 Borehole BH04 Borehole R03 68660N 67.05 65.14 65.80
66.76 66.42 65.51
Atmos. Pressure 66.67G/Water Depth Atmos.65.02 Pressure G/Water Depth
4 2 2 Ave Flow (l/h) 4 2 2 Ave Flow (l/h) Date. CH % Vol. CO % Vol. 0 % Vol. (mb) (m) Date. 24 CH % Vol. CO % Vol. 0 % Vol. (mb) (m) 67.14 66.70 66.16 65.71 67.00 67.17 66.73 09.07.19 0.0 1.8 19.6 0.0 1013 1.42 09.07.19 0.0 3.2 12.5 65.30 0.0 1013 9.04 66.26 66.93 66.05 65.18
66.77 65.55 LP 66.80 65.84
23.07.19 0.0 1.6 19.8 0.0 1011 1.39 23.07.19 0.0 2.6 14.1 0.0 65.05 1011 8.93 66.22 66.65 66.37 66.32 Geo-Environmental Consultants Footpath 66.75 65.63 08.08.19 0.0 1.9 19.466.51 0.0 1004 1.44 08.08.19 0.0 65.79 1.7 Gas16.4 Gov 0.0 1004 6.13 65.30 Grass
65.22 65.90 65.78 t: 0141 420 2025 e: [email protected] 22.08.19 0.0 1.6 19.7 0.0 1007 1.51 22.08.19 0.0 1.4 65.48 17.2 0.0 1007 8.69
66.51 66.23 65.61 65.09 66.67 65.92 66.19 68640N The Piazza, 95 Morrison Street, Glasgow, G5 8BE )!> H@AH " : %! Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
8.3.2 This is done by calculating a Qhg for each monitoring point, for each monitoring event. Hazardous gas flow rate
Qhg (in lh-1) is calculated using the following:
Qhg = Chg/100 x q
Where:
Chg is the measured hazardous gas concentration (in percentage volume-by-volume) q is the flow rate (in litres per hour) of combined gasses from the standpipe found by direct measurement.
8.3.3 Hazardous gas flow rates were calculated for each monitoring point during each event (Appendix 9). Based on
the monitoring undertaken to date, a worst-case scenario was realised on the 9th July 2019 in BH01 where C02 was 7.0% and a gas flow rate of 0.0 l/hr was recorded. The resultant hazardous gas flow rate is therefore as follows:
Qhg = 7.0/100 x 0.1*
Qhg = 0.0070
*If a gas flow rate is not detected, it should be assumed that it is at the limit of detection of the equipment used for the purpose of this calculation i.e. 0.1 l/hr
The value derived above is the highest hazardous gas flow rate calculated over the duration of the gas monitoring. Given the low number of monitoring rounds, it was considered conservative to use this maximum value to proceed with the characterisation of the site and evaluate the gas protection measures employed.
8.3.4 Based on the BS 8485 (2015) & A1:2019 guidance, the calculated GSV corresponds to ‘Characteristic Situation 1’ (Table 15), which does not require gas protection measures. However, carbon dioxide was recorded at elevated concentrations (i.e. >5.0%) on a number of occasions in BH01 and hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide were also recorded during the monitoring period. Therefore, we would recommend upgrading the site to ‘Characteristic Situation 2’ (Table 15), which does require gas protection measures.
8.3.5 The rotary boreholes recorded no elevated concentrations of methane (i.e. >1.0%) or carbon dioxide (i.e. >5.0).
TABLE 15 – Assessment of Gas Characterisation
Gas Screening Characteristic Hazard Potential Value (GSV) Additional Limiting Factors Situation (l/hr)) Methane not to exceed 1% by 1 Very Low <0.07 volume and carbon dioxide not to exceed 5% by volume. Borehole air flow not to exceed 70 2 Low 0.07 to <0.7 l/hr, otherwise increase to CS3. 3 Moderate 0.7 to <3.5 None 4 Moderate to High 3.5 to <15 None 5 High 15 to <70 None 6 Very High >70 None
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 35 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
8.3.6 The construction and use of the buildings, together with the control of future structural changes to the building and its maintenance (the building’s management) should be assessed, since potential risks posed by ground gases are strongly influenced by these factors. The assessment should lead to the categorisation of the building as a whole, or each different part of the building, into one of four building types: Type A, Type B, Type C or Type D.
8.3.7 New buildings should be categorised in accordance with Table 16, as outlined in BS 8485 (2015) & A1:2019. The proposed development is considered to be Type C.
TABLE 16 – Building Types and Descriptions (BS 8485 – 2015 & A1:2019) Building Type Description Private ownership with no building management controls on alterations to the internal structure, the use of rooms, the ventilation of rooms or the structural fabric of the building. A Some small rooms present. Probably conventional building construction (rather than civil engineering). Examples include private housing and some retail premises. Private or commercial property with central building management control of any alterations to the building or its uses but limited or no central building management control of the maintenance of the building, including the gas protection measures. Multiple occupancy. Small to medium size rooms with passive ventilation of rooms and other internal spaces B throughout ground floor and basement areas. May be conventional building or civil engineering construction. Examples include managed apartments, multiple occupancy offices, some retail premises and parts of some public buildings (such as schools, hospitals, leisure centres) and parts of hotels. Commercial building with central building management control of any alterations to the building or its uses and central building management control of the maintenance of the building, including the gas protection measures. Single occupancy of ground floor and basement areas. C Small to large size rooms with active ventilation or good passive ventilation of all rooms and other internal spaces throughout ground floor and basement areas. Probably civil engineering construction. Examples include offices, some retail premises, and parts of some public buildings (such as schools, hospitals, leisure centres and parts of hotels). Industrial style building having large volume internal space(s) that are well ventilated. Corporate ownership with building management controls on alterations to the ground floor and basement areas of the building and on maintenance of ground gas protective measures. D Probably civil engineering construction. Examples are retail park sales buildings, factory shop floor areas, warehouses. (Small rooms within these style buildings should be separately categorized as Type B or Type C).
8.3.8 From the identified Characteristic Situation and type of building, the minimum gas protection score should be calculated, in accordance with Table 17 below.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 36 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 17: Gas Protection Score by Characteristic Situation and Type of Building
Characteristic MINIMUM GAS PROTECTION SCORE (POINTS) Situation High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Type B Building (CIRIA 149) Type A Building Type C Building Type D Building
1 0 0 0 0
2 3.5 3.5 2.5 1.5
3 4.5 4 3 2.5
4 6.5 5.5 4.5 3.5
5 - 6.5 5.5 4.5
6 - - 7.5 6.5
8.3.9 Following the determination of the minimum gas protection score, a combination of two or more of: 1) structural barrier of the floor slab; 2) ventilation measures; and 3) a gas resistant membrane should be implemented in order to achieve an adequate score. The protection measures along with relevant scores are outlined in Tables 18, 19 and 20 below.
TABLE 18: Gas Protection Scores for the Structural Barrier
Floor and Substructure Design Score Precast suspended segmented subfloor (i.e. beam and block). 0
Cast in situ ground-bearing floor slab (with only nominal mesh reinforcement). 0.5
Cast in situ monolithic reinforced ground-bearing raft or reinforced cast in situ suspended floor slab with 1 or 1.5 minimal penetrations. Basement floor and walls conforming to BS 8102:2009 Grade 2 Waterproofing. 2
Basement floor and walls conforming to BS 8102:2009 Grade 3 Waterproofing. 2.5
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 37 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 19: Gas Protection Scores for Ventilation Protection Measures
Protection Element / System Score Comments (a) Pressure relief pathway (usually formed of low Whenever possible a pressure relief pathway (as a minimum) fines gravel or with a thin geocomposite blanket or should be installed in all gas protection measures systems. 0.5 strips terminating in a gravel trench external to the If the layer has a low permeability and/or is not terminated in a building) venting trench (or similar), then the score is zero. (b) Passive sub floor dispersal layer:
Very good performance: 2.5
Good performance: 1.5 The ventilation effectiveness of different media depends on a
number of different factors including the transmissivity of the Media used to provide the dispersal layer medium, the width of the building, the side ventilation spacing are: and type and the thickness of the layer. . Clear void. . Polystyrene void former blanket. . Geocomposite void former blanket. . No-fines gravel layer with gas drains. . No-fines gravel layer. This system relies on continued serviceability of the pumps, (c) Active dispersal layer, usually comprising fans with therefore alarm and response systems should be in place. active abstraction (suction) from a subfloor dilution There should be robust management systems in place to ensure layer, with roof level vents. The dilution layer may 1.5 to 2.5 the continued maintenance of the system, including pumps and comprise a clear void or be formed of geocomposite vents. Active ventilation should always be designed to meet at or polystyrene void formers least “good performance”. This system relies on continued operation of the pumps, (d) Active positive pressurization by the creation of a therefore alarm and response systems should be in place. blanket of external fresh air beneath the building floor The score assigned should be based on the efficient “coverage” slab by pumps supplying air to points across the 1.5 to 2.5 of the building footprint and the redundancy of the system. central footprint of the building into a permeable Active ventilation should always be designed to meet at least layer, usually formed of a thin geocomposite blanket. “good performance”. (e) Ventilated car park (floor slab of occupied part of Assumes that the car park is vented to deal with car exhaust the building under consideration is underlain by a 4 fumes, designed to Buildings Regulations 2000, Approved basement or undercroft car park). Document F[9].
TABLE 20: Gas Protection Scores for the Gas Resistant Membrane Protection Element / System Score Comments Gas resistant membrane meeting all of the following criteria:
. Sufficiently impervious to the gases with a methane gas transmission rate <40.0 ml/day/m2/atm (average) for sheet and joints (tested in accordance with BS ISO 15105-1 manometric method); The performance of membranes is heavily dependent on . Sufficiently durable to remain serviceable for the anticipated the quality and design of the installation, resistance to life of the building and duration of gas emissions; damage after installation and integrity of joints. . Sufficiently strong to withstand in-service stresses (e.g. 2
settlement if placed below a floor slab); If a membrane is installed that does not meet all the . Sufficiently strong to withstand the installation process and criteria in column 1 then the score is zero. following trades until covered (e.g. penetration from steel fibres in fibre reinforced concrete, penetration of reinforcement ties, tearing due to working above it, dropping tools, etc); . Capable, after installation, of providing a complete barrier to the entry of the relevant gas; . Verified in accordance with CIRIA C735.
8.3.10 It is therefore recommended that gas protection measures comprising the following are implemented on properties (Table 21). A ventilation measure (i.e. passive sub-floor dispersal layer) would not be required as the protection score achieved from both the slab and the membrane would be sufficient to provide the required score of 2.5 for a ‘Characteristic Situation 2’. The total score of the recommended gas protection measures is therefore as follows:
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 38 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 21 – Risk Assessment Summary
Gas Protection Measure Score Cast in situ monolithic reinforced ground-bearing raft or reinforced cast in situ suspended floor slab with 1.0 minimal penetrations. Gas resistant membrane meeting relevant criteria 2.0
TOTAL SCORE 3.0
8.3.11 It should be noted that the recommended gas protection measures also provide adequate protection for a ‘Characteristic Situation 3’. However, we would recommend that discussions are held with Midlothian Council as soon as possible regarding the omission of the ventilation measure.
8.3.12 Furthermore, as gas protection measures, corresponding to a ‘Characteristic Situation 2’, are to be implemented onsite, and the fact that hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide are larger molecules than methane, the recommended gas protection measures are also considered adequate to provide protection against any hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide. Therefore, hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide are not considered to pose a significant risk to the proposed development.
8.4 Radon
8.4.1 Researches of BGS information and the BRE Report BR211(2015): “Radon: Protective Measures for New Buildings” indicate that the site is located in a low radon probability area and that in accordance with the current guidelines indicated within the report, protection measures are not required.
8.5 Conclusions
8.5.1 Based on the results of the gas monitoring undertaken to date, gas preclusion measures will be required in all buildings constructed within the proposed development site due to the presence of elevated carbon dioxide. Confirmatory monitoring is continuing at the site and the results will be reported as an addendum to this report upon completion.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 39 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
9.0 RISKS TO CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPMENT
9.1 Sulphate Attack on Construction Materials
9.1.1 Laboratory testing was undertaken on selected soil samples recovered from the site, to determine the sulphate content and acidity and hence the concrete class required for buried concrete (results included in Appendix 10). The results of chemical tests carried out are summarised below:
TABLE 22 -Sulphate and pH Summary Determinant Recorded Value SD1 DS Class SD1 ACEC Class pH 6.93
Total Sulphate as SO4 (%)** 0.06625 DS-1 AC-1s
Sulphate as SO4 (mg/l)** 2.6
*Concrete class was based on the mean of the lowest 20% of test results as a characteristic value in accordance with guidance document BRE Special Digest (3rd Edition, 2005) **Concrete class was based on the mean of the highest 20% of test results as a characteristic value in accordance with guidance document BRE Special Digest (3rd Edition, 2005)
9.1.2 In accordance with BRE Special Digest 1:2005 ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’, no elevated sulphate (i.e. >0.24 %) or areas of acidic conditions (<5.5) have been encountered. As such, recommendations for concrete would be Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) Classification AC-1s with a Design Sulphate Class for the site of DS-1.
9.2 Water Supply Pipes
9.2.1 UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) document, ‘Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be Laid in Brownfield Sites’, ref 10/WM/03/21, states that on brownfield sites, MDPE/HDPE water supply pipes could be at risk from organic contaminants including mineral oils, VOC’s and SVOC’s, if the pipes are laid within 15 m of recorded contamination. Additionally, UKWIR states that where metallic pipes are being considered for use, conductivity, pH and redox state of the soil should be assessed to determine if the pipes are at risk of being corroded.
9.2.2 As part of the investigations, 3 No. UKWIR samples (TP06, BH01 and BH03) were obtained from along the proposed water supply route at depth of 1.40 m, and testing was undertaken for the mandatory parameters outlined in UKWIR guidance to give an indication of the pipe material likely to be suitable for use within the proposed development (results attached in Appendix 10). The test results are summarised in the tables below:
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 40 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 23 – Recorded Values
Date: 08/07/19 & Laboratory Name: DETS Cert Nos. 19-12449 & 19-12499 09/07/2019
Depth (m) – 1.40 Maximum Concentrations Detected Group Parameter Group No. Sample Code/ Units Detection Limit Concentration Hole 1 Extended VOC suite (with TIC) mg/kg 0.01 <0.01 All 1a • BTEX + MTBE mg/kg 0.01 <0.01 All 2 Extended SVOC suite (with TIC) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 All 2e • Phenols mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 All • Cresols and chlorinated 2f mg/kg 0.1* <0.1** All phenols 3 Mineral Oils C11-C20 mg/kg 10 <10 All 4 Mineral Oils C20-C40 mg/kg 10 <10 All 5 Corrosive (Conductivity, Redox and pH) Conductivity µS/cm 1 140 - 1200 All Redox Potential Volt -500mV <-500 - 69 All pH - - 6.9 – 7.2 All Specific suite if identified relevant 2a • Ethers mg/kg Detection Not Detected All 2b • Nitrobenzene mg/kg Detection Not Detected All 2c • Ketones mg/kg Detection Not Detected All 2d • Aldehydes mg/kg Detection Not Detected All 6 Amines mg/kg Detection Not Detected All *Laboratory Limit of Detection is above the permissible guideline threshold value of 0.04 mg/kg for PVC water supply pipes. **All samples fail the threshold for PVC water supply pipes, as the Limit of Detection is above the Guideline Value of 0.04 mg/kg.
TABLE 24 – UKWIR Screening Guideline Values
Pipe Material
All Threshold Concentrations are in mg/kg Barrier Pipe Wrapped Wrapped Parameter Group PE PVC Copper (PE-AI-PE) Steel Ductile Iron Extended VOC suite by purge and trap or head 1 0.5 0.125 Pass Pass Pass Pass space and GC-MS with TIC 1a + BTEX + MTBE 0.1 0.03 Pass Pass Pass Pass SVOCs TICby purge and trap or head space and 2 GC-MS with TIC 2 1.4 Pass Pass Pass Pass (aliphatic and aromatic C5 – C10) 2e + Phenols 2 0.4 Pass Pass Pass Pass + Cresols and chlorinated 2f 2 0.04 Pass Pass Pass Pass phenols 3 Mineral Oil C11-C20 10 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass 4 Mineral Oil C21-C40 500 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Corrosive if Corrosive if pH <5, Eh not Corrosive if pH <5 Corrosive (Conductivity, pH <7 and 5 Pass Pass Pass neutral and or >8 and Eh Redox and pH) conductivity > conductivity positive 400 µS/cm >400 µS/cm Specific suite identified as relevant following Site Investigation 2a Ethers 0.5 1 Pass Pass Pass Pass 2b Nitrobenzene 0.5 0.4 Pass Pass Pass Pass 2c Ketones 0.5 0.02 Pass Pass Pass Pass 2d Aldehydes 0.5 0.02 Pass Pass Pass Pass 6 Amines Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 41 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 25 – Pipework Preferred Selection
Parameter Group Barrier Wrapped Wrapped PE PVC Pipe (PE- Copper Steel Ductile Iron AI-PE) 1 Extended VOC suite by purge and trap or head space and GC-MS with TIC 1a + BTEX + MTBE 2 SVOCs TIC by purge and trap or head space and GC- MS with TIC (aliphatic and aromatic C5 – C10) 2e + Phenols 2f + Cresols and chlorinated x phenols 3 Mineral oil C11-C20 4 Mineral oil C21-C40 5 Corrosive (Conductivity, x Redox and pH) 2a Ethers N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 2b Nitrobenzene N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 2c Ketones N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 2d Aldehydes N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 6 Amines N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Pipes that pass chemical x x thresholds N/D – None detected
9.2.3 Based on the analysis undertaken, PE (polyethylene), barrier pipe, wrapped ductile iron and copper water supply pipework are all generally considered suitable for use within the proposed development. It is anticipated that PE pipework will be the most likely option. However, this will require to be confirmed by Scottish Water.
9.3 Phytotoxicity
9.3.1 Guidance on the effects of metal contamination on plant growth is provided within BS3882:2015 Specification for Topsoil and similar guidance issued by the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC). A summary of test results, versus the recommended phytotoxic screening criteria is provided below:
TABLE 26: Summary of Soil Results vs Phytotoxic Screening Criteria Screening Value Max > MAFF Contaminant Conc Range (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Screening Value Zinc 300 37 - 98 NO Copper 200 11 - 29 NO Nickel 110 11 - 30 NO Note – screening value based on an average pH >7.0 (The average pH was calculated to be 7.38)
9.3.2 No exceedances of BS3882:2015 screening values have been noted in the samples tested. Consequently, the phytotoxic risk was considered to be generally low at the site.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 42 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
10.0 REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
10.1 Contamination Sources
Human Health: No significantly elevated concentrations of toxic contaminants were recorded within either the made ground or natural soils at the site. Therefore, the risk to human health was considered to be low. In addition, no asbestos fibres were detected in the samples scheduled for analysis. Water Environment: Several contaminants were present above current guidelines values. However, modelling was undertaken and the overall risk to the Water Environment is considered to be low with the potential for off-site migration also considered to be low. Ground Gas: Based on the results of the gas monitoring undertaken to date, gas protection measures, corresponding to a ‘Characteristic Situation 2’, will be required within the proposed development due to the presence of elevated carbon dioxide. Confirmatory monitoring is continuing at the site and the results will be reported as an addendum to this report upon completion. The site was indicated to be located in an area where radon was not indicated to be present at significant levels. Built Environment: Samples analysed for pH and sulphate are generally below BRE thresholds. UKWIR testing indicates that PE water supply pipework should be suitable for use within the proposed development. However, this will require to be confirmed by Scottish Water. Plant Life: No exceedances of BS3882:2015 screening values were noted. Therefore, the phytotoxic risk is considered to be generally low.
10.2 Pollutant Linkage Assessment
10.2.1 Based on the ground and groundwater contamination conditions noted at the site, viable source-pathway- receptor pollutant linkage have been identified, in relation to ground gas, and the conceptual site model has been revised as indicated on Drawing No. P19/216/SI/R/F/09.
10.3 Mitigation Measures
Contamination
10.3.1 No significantly elevated contaminants of concern have been recorded in the samples from the site and taking into account the nature of the proposed development, contamination is not considered a significant risk.
10.3.2 Construction personnel should be aware of the nature of the soils on the site and vigilance should be maintained for any soils at variance from those anticipated during construction works.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 43 NOTES
Site Site Boundary Boundary
Gas protection measures, corresponding to West East a 'Characteristic Situation 2', are required within the proposed development.
No phytotoxic Old Colliery A None. risk identified. A None. Public House/ DS-1, AC-1s Restaraunt concrete class. B None. Wester Shawfair REV DATE DETAILS Road D None. PE water supply pipework is Made ground deposits were Made Ground E None. encountered across the majority considered suitbale for use. of the proposed development site to a maximum recorded Perched and discontinuous depth of 0.90m. Glacial Soils groundwater table (no risk). SHAWFAIR LLP (granular & cohesive) C None. Glacial till was encountered to underlie 27 SILVERMILLS COURT Rockhead was definitively the glacial soils at varying depths of EDINBURGH encountered in each of the Glacial Till between 3.80m and 6.00m, extending to EH3 5DG rotary boreholes at varying a maximum recorded depth of 7.80m. depths of between 6.50m and 7.80m. Sedimentary Bedrock The Rough Coal was considered
to potentially lie within critical PROJECT TITLE Rough Coal Seam depths of the surface.
SHAWFAIR PARK SITE DANDERHALL
DRAWING TITLE REVISED CONCEPTUAL Source Exposure Pathways Receptors SITE MODEL . Ground gas. . None following remedial measures. A. Site users / construction personnel. B. Vegetation / fauna. DRAWN BY CHK'D BY APP'D BY DATE SCALES C. Groundwater. RC LR NDL 29.08.19 Not to D. Buried concrete (Service and foundations) Scale E. Plastic water supply pipes. PROJECT No. DRAWING No. REVISION P19/216 P19/216/SI/R/F/09
Geo-Environmental Consultants t: 0141 420 2025 e: [email protected]
The Piazza, 95 Morrison Street, Glasgow, G5 8BE A4 border: 297 X 210 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
Groundwater
10.3.3 The shallow soils were considered to pose a low risk to the Water Environment.
Ground Gas
10.3.4 Based on the results of the gas monitoring undertaken to date, gas protection measures, corresponding to a ‘Characteristic Situation 2’, will be required within the proposed development due to the presence of elevated carbon dioxide within the shallow soils. No elevated concentrations of methane (i.e. >1.0%) or carbon dioxide (i.e. >5.0) were recorded within the standpipes installed into the rock strata. Confirmatory monitoring is continuing at the site and the results will be reported as an addendum to this report upon completion.
10.3.5 Radon protection measures are not considered necessary within the proposed development given that the site is located within a Lower Probability Radon Area (less than 1% of homes are estimated to be at or above the Action Level).
The Built Environment
10.3.6 UKWIR testing indicates that polyethylene (PE) water supply pipework should be suitable for use within the proposed development. However, this will require to be confirmed by Scottish Water.
10.3.7 Concrete class DS-1, AC-1s is considered sufficient to protect buried concrete from pH and sulphate levels in the soils and groundwater.
Construction/Maintenance Workers
10.3.8 All site staff should remain vigilant to the possible risk of encountering isolated areas of unrecorded contaminated material. Should such materials be encountered, further testing may be required to assess the risk to health and safety of the site workers and the environment.
10.3.9 Good site working practices should be followed, including:
. Use of appropriately qualified personnel for the task; . Use of appropriate PPE . Provision of on-site washing facilities; . Maintenance of a high standard of basic hygiene; and . Implementation of a non-smoking and eating policy within the working area, with designated clean areas set aside for these activities.
10.4 Waste Management Legislation
10.4.1 Should materials be removed and disposed off-site, the developer has a statutory responsibility under the Duty of Care Regulations of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to ensure that contaminated soil and water is disposed of off-site to a suitably licensed waste management facility in a safe and approved manner.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 45 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
10.4.2 2 No. samples of the made ground (TP03 and TP06) were obtained from across the proposed development site and were subject to the ‘HazWasteOnline Classification Engine: WM3 1st Edition, May 2015’ whereby the materials are classified as hazardous or non-hazardous. The results of the HazWasteOnline Classification Engine indicated that the samples tested were both non-hazardous. A copy of the report is included in Appendix 13.
10.4.3 WAC testing was also undertaken on the samples obtained to determine the limit values for waste if destined to go to landfill. Our interpretation of the WAC results, together with chemical analyses, indicate that the made ground would generally be classified as ‘inert’ if required to go to landfill. However, it should be noted that in both of the samples tested, the pH was recorded as greater than 6.0, which could potentially push the material into the ‘stable non-reactive hazardous waste’ (SNRHW) range. Therefore, should any of the made ground deposits require to be removed from site to a landfill cell, we would recommend that the Waste Classification Report and the soil analyses sheets (included in Appendix 13 and 10, respectively) should initially be presented to the accepting landfill operator to allow them to carry out their own assessment and classification of the materials.
10.4.4 In the event that material, uncharacteristic to that which has been previously identified within the site is encountered, we would recommend that a suitably qualified engineer/scientist obtain samples of the suspect material for chemical analysis, thus determining how the material should be managed.
10.5 Contingent Liabilities
10.5.1 Assessments of the site include the determination of contingent liabilities in respect of current and future ownerships subsequent to remedial measures. These consider the impact of the environmental conditions on the study area and surrounding areas on site users, properties and also the liability of the site owners.
10.5.2 With regard to site users, considerations in relation to liability are inherent in the development of a suitable remedial strategy. In the site-specific circumstances presented by the identified conditions, the risk levels suggest minimal liability on ownership due to the environmental conditions, subsequent to development.
10.5.3 The potential for liability arising from site conditions impacting on the surrounding environment largely considers the potential for migration of pollutants beyond the site boundary normally associated with groundwater. Within this report we have concluded that there is no significant contamination source within the site. Hydrological modelling to the nearest surface water body has also shown no significant migration potential. Therefore, overall offsite migration potential is considered to be low. Consequently, the potential for liability arising from the site conditions would be considered to be low.
10.5.4 In the event that more definitive advice is required, we would recommend that the Client seeks specific advice on the liabilities incumbent on ownership from their legal advisors.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 46 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
11.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
11.1 General
11.1.1 Geotechnical laboratory testing was undertaken on a selection of natural soils encountered in the soils boreholes. In addition, visual assessment of the soils during the sinking of the terrier boreholes was supplemented by in-situ standard penetration tests (SPT’s). It should be recognised that SPT testing of cohesive soils will only provide an indicative assessment of soils strength, although testing of granular soils will provide more reliable test data. Greater reliance can be placed on visual assessment of the strength of cohesive soils in trial pits.
11.1.2 Moisture content analysis, particle size distribution (PSD) testing and compaction testing was also undertaken on a selection of natural samples. Geotechnical results are included in Appendix 14.
11.2 Topsoil
11.2.1 Natural topsoil was encountered in TP01, TP07, BH03 and BH04, from the ground surface to a maximum recorded depth of 0.40 m.
11.3 Made Ground
11.3.1 Made ground described as; topsoil; reworked topsoil; slightly clayey sandy gravel; clayey gravelly sand; or slightly clayey sand and gravel with extraneous materials (i.e. reworked natural soils), were encountered in TP02 to TP06, TP08 and BH01 from the ground surface to a maximum recorded depth of 0.90 m. (TP02).
11.3.2 The density of these soils was anticipated to be highly variable, reflective of their origin as made ground deposits placed under generally uncontrolled conditions.
11.4 Glacial Soils (granular)
11.4.1 The underlying natural soils were encountered across the site, at varying depths from the ground surface, extending to a maximum recorded depth of 6.00 m (R02). These deposits were generally described as; slightly silty SAND; clayey SAND; clayey gravelly SAND; silty, locally very silty, SAND; or silty gravelly SAND, with rare cobbles and occasional localised pockets of very clayey sand or clayey pockets.
11.5 Glacial Soils (cohesive)
11.5.1 Cohesive glacial soils, described as; soft, locally laminated, silty sandy, locally very sandy, CLAY; or soft to firm laminated very sandy silty CLAY, were encountered underlying the granular soils in TP01 and TP04 to TP08, extending to a maximum recorded depth 3.40 m (TP05).
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 47 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
11.6 Glacial Till
11.6.1 Glacial till described as; firm becoming stiff with depth or stiff, sandy gravelly CLAY with occasional cobbles, was only encountered in BH02, BH04 and R01 to R03 at varying depths of between 3.80 m and 6.00 m, extending to a maximum recorded depth of 7.80 m (R03).
11.6.2 The geotechnical properties of the soils tested at the site are indicated in the table below:
TABLE 27: Geotechnical Summary
Test Sample In-situ Uncorrected Corrected Moisture Visual Description Depth Range Strength/ N Value N Value* Content (%) (m) Density Very loose Glacial Sols (granular) 0.90 – 4.95 to medium 2 - 18 3.0 – 18.9 13 - 29 dense Stiff and Glacial Till 4.00 – 4.95 19 - 35 - - very stiff *Does not include for the water correction factor as the groundwater beneath the proposed development site is considered to be perched and discontinuous
11.6.3 The SPT testing carried out in the boreholes indicated the granular glacial soils to be variable but generally loose becoming medium dense with depth. Whilst we recognise that the granular soils have been generally described as medium dense within the trial pits, this is a visual assessment by the onsite engineer only and more reliable test data on the density of granular soils will be obtained through SPT testing.
11.6.4 SPT tests could not be carried out within the cohesive glacial soils as these deposits were only encountered in trial pits. However, it should be noted that our onsite engineer visually assessed these soils as being soft and soft to firm.
11.6.5 The glacial till deposits were indicated by the SPT tests to be stiff and very stiff, which is generally consistent with the visual appraisal of these soils.
11.7 Particle Size Distribution Testing
17.1 The particle size distribution (PSD) testing indicated the glacial soils to be; silty/clayey SAND; sandy CLAY/SILT; very sandy CLAY/SILT or very sandy slightly gravelly CLAY/SILT.
11.8 Potential Re-Use of On-Site Materials in Earthworks
11.8.1 Samples of the granular glacial soils (TP01 and TP04) were selected for compaction testing. The testing indicated that these soils may be suitable for use as structural fill. However, it should be noted that the sample obtained from TP01 exhibited a relatively low moisture content. Consequently, it is considered that careful management of these soils would be required. Additional testing will be required in any indicated areas of ‘cut’ when development proposals are finalised.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 48 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
11.9 Rockhead
11.9.1 Definite rockhead was encountered in each of the rotary boreholes at varying depths of between 6.50 m and 7.80 m.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 49 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
12.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
12.1 Details of the Development
12.1.1 The development proposals for the site were not available at the time of reporting but were understood to be for a commercial development.
12.2 Foundations (relative to existing site levels)
12.2.1 Made ground deposits were encountered in TP02 to TP06, TP08 and BH01 from the ground surface to a maximum recorded depth of 0.90 m (TP02). These deposits were recorded to be of a variable density and degree of compaction and are not considered a suitable foundation bearing horizon in their current condition.
12.2.2 An allowable bearing capacity of approximately 125 kPa is estimated for the underlying medium dense granular deposits and stiff or stronger cohesive deposits, which are conjectured to be present at depths of between greater than 2.80 m and 4.50 m, below existing ground level.
12.2.3 Based on these conditions, and the generally variable of the soils at the site, it is concluded that abnormal foundations will be required, assuming that site levels will generally be maintained. The most appropriate foundation option is considered likely to be vibro-compaction. However, the suitability of the soils for vibro- compaction would require to be confirmed by specialist contractors and it is possible that they may require further investigation to enable them to view the soils in-situ. If confirmed to be appropriate, vibro-compaction should be able to provide a uniform foundation layer for suitably reinforced shallow foundations designed to an allowable bearing capacity of 100 kPa to 125 kPa. If a greater bearing capacity is required, piling to the underlying competent rock strata, utilising end-bearing piles, should be considered. The underlying rock strata, which was encountered at varying depths of between 6.50 m and 7.80 m, should provide a presumed bearing value of greater than 500 kPa. Once the development layout and site levels have been finalised, we would advise that discussions are held with us to ensure the pertinence of our recommendations.
12.3 Excavations
12.3.1 The exploratory holes indicate that the natural deposits are likely to be relatively stable in the short term in open excavations. However, all excavations below 2.0 m depth requiring manned entry should be battered well back or provided with close/continuous support. The exploratory holes also indicate that localised perched groundwater entry is unlikely to occur at shallow depths.
12.3.2 If significant regrading of the site is to be undertaken, we should be consulted to ensure the continuing accuracy of our recommendations.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 50 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
13.0 MINING AND MINE ENTRIES
13.1 General
13.1.1 As previously discussed, researches of geological maps and further information from the British Geological Survey (BGS) and the Coal Authority indicated that the site was potentially underlain by mineworkings in a number of seams, with the Rough Coal Seam being the shallowest of these and likely to be the most critical with regards to potential surface instability.
13.1.2 The Coal Authority Report (Appendix 4) recorded no mine entries within 100 m of the proposed development site.
13.1.3 As old mine workings are notoriously susceptible to collapse, occasionally leading to surface subsidence, an assessment of the potential impact of old mines required consideration of various aspects of the geology and mining conditions. It was therefore considered necessary to undertake a detailed review of mining information for this area including geological maps and memoirs.
13.2 Mining Methods
13.2.1 The methods historically adopted in the area may be generally categorised as variations on two different techniques – the ‘stoop and room’ and ‘longwall’ systems of extraction. In the ‘longwall’ method of mining, extraction was virtually total with the seam face accessed via supported roadways. In the areas from which the seam has already been removed, the roof was generally allowed to collapse behind the face, or was partially supported by spoil or ‘waste’ deposited within the works. While the workings would be generally closed on abandonment with the withdrawal of roof support, roads would be expected to remain open and artificially supported long after the operations had ceased.
13.2.2 A variation on the longwall method is the technique commonly used in mining today but was generally only applied to the recovery of ironstones or coals of restricted thickness in the 19th Century.
13.2.3 In the stoop and room, or pillar and stall method as it is known in England, partial excavation of the mineral was conducted, with the seam recovered from rooms and roof supported by retained stoops or pillar of the mineral.
13.2.4 Normally at least 50% of the seam would remain intact as stoops within the mine, but occasionally higher levels of extraction took place either due to favourable geological conditions, or as a result of poorer controls on the mine management and safety. Often, ‘stoops’ were removed on abandonment of the mine in a practice commonly known as ‘stooping’ or ‘pillar robbing’.
13.2.5 The dimensions of the stoops and rooms varied depending on the geological conditions and seam thicknesses, but their width would normally average at about 3 to 4 times the height of the seam. Where more slender stoops were left, the additional support required for the roof would often be provided by artificial props, which would usually be timber.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 51 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
13.2.6 This form of mining was prevalent through the 19th Century where seams of generally greater than 0.70 m in thickness were involved. As the operations became increasingly mechanised and more sophisticated supports introduced, the stop and room method became less widely adopted for coal mining in Scotland.
13.3 Mining Conditions
13.3.1 The Rough Coal (up to approximately 1.21 m in thickness) was indicated to outcrop within the central site area, dipping towards the east. `This seam was indicated to be underlain by a number of seams including; the Beefie Coal (up to approximately 1.10 m in thickness), Diamond Coal (up to approximately 1.40 m in thickness), Musselburgh Jewel Coal (up to approximately 1.20 m in thickness) and Golden Coal (up to approximately 0.80 m in thickness (in leaves)).
13.3.2 From the seams identified, it was conjectured that only two coal seams, Rough Coal and Beefie Coal, lie within 30 m of the ground surface and could potentially pose a surface instability constraint to the proposed development.
13.3.3 Consequently, mineral investigations were considered necessary to confirm, or otherwise, the presence of shallow mining beneath the site. However, it should be noted that our investigations undertaken within the immediate surrounding in both 2015 and 2017 recorded the Beefie Coal as intact. Therefore, this coal seam was anticipated not to have been worked within the Danderhall area.
13.3.4 Three boreholes (R01 to R03) were sunk within the site by Hydracrat Ground Investigation Contractors to depths of up to 35.00 m (Drawing No. P19/216/SI/R/F/05). The details of our interpretation of the coal seams encountered within the boreholes are as follows:
TABLE 28– Conditions Encountered within the 2019 Rotary Boreholes Approximate Approximate Depth to Depth of Borehole No. Surface Level Remarks/Levels Rockhead Borehole (m) (mAoD) (mAOD) COAL: encountered at 54.23 mAOD – 53.83 mAOD (0.40 m thick); conjectured to be an unnamed coal seam. COAL: encountered at 51.03 mAOD – 50.33 mAOD (0.70 m thick); conjectured to be an unnamed coal R01 64.23 57.73 35.00 seam. COAL: encountered at 43.43 mAOD – 43.23 mAOD (0.20 m thick); conjectured to be a thin unnamed coal seam. END at 29.23 mAOD. COAL: encountered at 55.30 mAOD – 55.00 mAOD (0.30 m thick); conjectured to be the Rough Coal Seam. COAL: encountered at 51.00 mAOD – 50.60 mAOD (0.40 m thick); conjectured to be an unnamed coal seam. R02 62.50 55.50 35.00 COAL: encountered at 47.60 mAOD – 46.90 m mAOD (0.30 m thick); conjectured to be an unnamed coal seam. COAL: encountered at 39.80 mAOD – 39.60 mAOD (0.20 m thick); conjectured to be a thin unnamed coal seam. END at 27.50 mAOD. * Surface levels are extrapolated from existing topographic information
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 52 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
TABLE 28 CONT– Conditions Encountered within the 2019 Rotary Boreholes Approximate Approximate Depth to Depth of Borehole No. Surface Level Remarks/Levels Rockhead Borehole (m) (mAoD) (mAOD) COAL: encountered at 57.70 mAOD – 57.00 mAOD (0.70 m thick); conjectured to be the Rough Coal Seam. COAL: encountered at 53.20 mAOD – 52.80 mAOD (0.40 m thick); conjectured to be an unnamed coal seam. R03 65.50 57.70 35.00 COAL: encountered at 50.10 mAOD – 49.40 mAOD (0.70 m thick); conjectured to be an unnamed coal seam. COAL: encountered at 42.30 mAOD - 42.10 mAOD (0.20 m thick); conjectured to be a thin unnamed coal seam. END at 30.50 mAOD. * Surface levels are extrapolated from existing topographic information
13.3.5 The rotary boreholes recorded no evidence of abandoned mineworkings with only intact coal seams recorded and no loss of flushing medium during drilling. Consequently, the Rough Coal was considered not to have been worked directly beneath the proposed development site, corroborating the information from the mine abandonment plans. It was also noted that the seam appears to be of a limited thickness at this location.
13.3.6 Furthermore, the Beefie Coal was not encountered during the investigation works and is therefore considered to lie at sufficient depth below the surface not to present a risk to surface instability (if worked).
13.4 General Principles of Surface Instability
13.4.1 Deterioration within old mine workings can lead to collapse, a considerable time after abandonment. The mechanisms of failure are varied and complex but generally involve a yield in the roof of the mine between supports, or collapse as a direct result of failure of the supports.
13.4.2 Except in instances where the mineworkings are very shallow for example, less than 10 m deep, the stability is comparatively unaffected by loadings from buildings or by vibrations from heavy traffic. Progressive deterioration within the workings can, however, advance to a stage where instability is reached and collapse can occur. In most cases, however, it is impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy if, and when, such movements will take place.
13.4.3 Accordingly, it is generally accepted that old abandoned mineworkings are susceptible to collapse. Researches based on observations and past experience do, however, permit some assessment of the likelihood of any collapse within the mine being experienced at the surface as subsidence. It is also possible to make reasonable assessments of the magnitude of movements which may occur under assumed failure conditions.
13.4.4 The subsidence assessments consider various elements of the geological and mining configuration. These include the nature and thickness of the rock and soil overburden, the extracted height of the workings and the typical mine configuration.
13.4.5 In our assessment we have sought to achieve a rock cover thickness of 10 times the seam extraction height for stoop and room extraction. This is consistent with a number of recent studies in the field of mining stability assessment.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 53 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
13.5 Surface Instability Due to Mining
13.5.1 Our researches and investigations have confirmed that the Rough Coal is intact beneath the proposed development site. Therefore, as no evidence of mineworkings were recorded within our rotary boreholes, it was concluded that unrecorded mineworkings beneath the site are unlikely and as such, the risk to the proposed development from shallow mineworkings is considered to be low. Therefore, we considered the site to be minerally stable and no further investigation of this matter is considered necessary.
13.6 Potential for Future Mineral Extraction
13.6.1 While we feel that it is highly unlikely that underground or surface mineral extraction will occur beneath or within the site in the future, we have not carried out detailed assessments of this matter during the course of study. However, mineral reserves exist in the locality which could be worked at some time in the future, subject to feasibility licenses and planning consent and therefore should be examined by the client’s legal advisors.
13.7 Mine Entries
13.7.1 The Coal Authority Report (Appendix 4) recorded no mine entries within 100 m of the proposed development site.
13.7.2 However, we would highlight that in all areas of historical mining, the presence of unrecorded shafts may exist. Therefore, it is recommended that vigilance be maintained during all future site works for features that may represent mine entries.
13.8 Quarrying
13.8.1 Although our historical researches did not disclose any evidence of quarrying below the site, the potential presence of unrecorded quarrying cannot be discounted.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 54 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
14.0 ROAD CONSTRUCTION
14.1 General
14.1.1 The proposed development layout was not available at the time of reporting. However, it was anticipated that the site would be accessed off of the existing unnamed road which extends parallel to the southern site boundary.
14.2 Ground Conditions
14.2.1 California Bearing Ratio testing was carried out on 3 No. samples (TP02 to TP04) to test the strength of the soils for road subgrades and base courses. The values were recorded to range between 0.1% to 6.9% (results included in Appendix 14). Therefore, due to the variability of these soils, any new road within the proposed development will require a full 600 mm capping layer, if constructed to adoptable standards.
14.3 Chemical Contamination
14.3.1 No significant contamination constraints in relation to road or car park construction have been identified. However, appropriate health and safety measures are still advised during construction works.
14.4 Gas Emissions
14.4.1 No significant risk to road construction or maintenance personnel is envisaged due to ground gases. However, any trenches deeper than 1.2 m should be risk assessed by the contractor.
14.5 Mining and Mineral Stability
14.5.1 Based upon the results of our researches and investigations, we have concluded that the site is not within an area affected by shallow mineworkings and do not envisage any constraints to road construction.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 55 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
15.0 INVASIVE PLANT SURVEY
15.1 General
15.1.1 A survey of the site was undertaken by the specialist contractor Kleerkut Limited in mid June 2019, to identify the presence of any invasive plant species. It should be noted the presence of any controlled weeds were identified by plant material/vegetation visible at the time of the inspection only. A brief survey report from Kleerkut Limited is included in Appendix 15.
15.2 Results
15.2.1 The survey did not record the presence of Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam or Giant Hogweed within the proposed development area.
15.2.2 However, Horsetail (Problematic Non Legislated Species) was identified within the western site area. While it is not an offence to have this plant onsite, Horsetail is an aggressive perennial weed which often causes damage to roads, footways, hardstandings and drainage. Therefore, we would recommend that specialist advice be sought on this matter to ensure that the Horsetail is managed as part of the development works.
15.2.3 It should also be noted that Kleerkut state in their report that the Horsetail identified was found to be growing within an area of long grass. Therefore, it is possible that the infestation is more extensive than what has been currently identified due to be obscured by the long grass.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 56 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
16.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
16.1 General
16.1.1 Mason Evans have undertaken an intrusive investigation to identify ground related risks that have the potential to impact on the proposed development at the site.
16.1.2 The ground conditions encountered during the investigation were generally consistent with those anticipated from published information.
16.2 Contamination and Gas Emissions
16.2.1 No significant contamination source was identified at the site, and no significant risks to site users, construction personnel, vegetation or the Water Environment were identified. Consequently, no remedial measures are considered necessary at the site.
16.2.2 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing was undertaken on a selection of made ground samples obtained from across the proposed development site. Our interpretation of the WAC results, together with chemical analyses, indicate that the made ground soils may be classified as ‘inert waste’ if required to go to landfill. However, should soils be required to be removed from site to a landfill cell, we would recommend that the Waste Classification Report and the soil analyses sheets be presented to the accepting landfill operator to allow them to carry out their own assessment and classification of the materials.
16.2.3 Based on the results of the gas monitoring undertaken to date, gas protection measures, corresponding to a ‘Characteristic Situation 2’, will be required within the proposed development due to the presence of elevated carbon dioxide within the shallow soils. The rotary boreholes recorded no elevated concentrations of methane (i.e. >1.0%) or carbon dioxide (i.e. >5.0). Confirmatory monitoring is continuing at the site and the results will be reported as an addendum to this report upon completion.
16.2.4 Radon protection measures are not considered necessary within the proposed development given that the site is located within a Lower Probability Radon Area (less than 1% of homes are estimated to be at or above the Action Level).
16.3 The Built Environment
16.3.1 UKWIR testing indicates that polyethylene (PE) water supply pipework should be suitable for use within the proposed development. However, this will require to be confirmed by Scottish Water.
16.3.2 Concrete class DS-1, AC-1s is considered sufficient to protect buried concrete, from pH and sulphate levels in the soils and groundwater.
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 57 Shawfair Park Site, Danderhall August 2019
16.4 Foundation Recommendations (relative to existing site levels)
16.4.1 Given the generally variable of the soils at the site, it is concluded that abnormal foundations will be required, assuming that site levels will generally be maintained. The most appropriate foundation option is considered likely to be vibro-compaction. However, the suitability of the soils for vibro-compaction would require to be confirmed by specialist contractors and it is possible that they may require further investigation to enable them to view the soils in-situ. If confirmed to be appropriate, vibro-compaction should be able to provide a uniform foundation layer for suitably reinforced shallow foundations designed to an allowable bearing capacity of 100 kPa to 125 kPa. If a greater bearing capacity is required, piling to the underlying competent rock strata, utilising end-bearing piles, should be considered. The underlying rock strata, which was encountered at varying depths of between 6.50 m and 7.80 m, should provide a presumed bearing value of greater than 500 kPa.
16.5 Mining
16.5.1 Mining instability is not considered a potential constraint to development.
16.6 Invasive Plants
16.6.1 Horsetail was identified within the western site area. As such, we would recommend that specialist advice be sought on this matter to ensure that an Invasive Weeds Management Plan/Management Strategy is put in place as soon as possible in order to manage risk and reduce the possibility of spread.
16.7 Consultations with Public Authorities
16.7.1 It should be noted that various local authority departments may become involved in the review of the site conditions, including the issues of contaminated land. While measures proposed are consistent with conventional practice, we would advise that before design works are advanced to any considerable stage appropriate approvals are received from Midlothian Council. We would be pleased to liaise with the Council’s representatives in this regard.
We trust that this will meet with your current requirements. However, should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Lindsay Reid Niall Lawless Project GeoScientist Managing Director
Mason Evans Partnership Limited 58