Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN BOROUGH COUNCIL
FURTHERGATE PLOT 6 BLACKBURN, BB1 3HN
GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
Contract: 42354C
Date: November 2019
Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited 14 – 15 Rufford Court, Warrington, Cheshire WA1 4RF Tel: 01925 855440 e-mail: [email protected]
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
carried out at
FURTHERGATE PLOT 6
BLACKBURN, BB1 3HN
Prepared for
BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN BOROUGH COUNCIL First Floor One Cathedral Square Blackburn Lancashire BB1 1FB
Contract No: 42354C
Date: November 2019
Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited 14 – 15 Rufford Court, Warrington, WA1 4RF Tel: 01925 855440 e-mail: [email protected]
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
Document Control
Project reference: 42354C -02
Project name: Furthergate Plot 6
Report title: Ground Investigation Report
Revision Date Description
Rev 00 13th September 2019 First draft pending completion of monitoring
Rev 01 4th November 2019 Complete report
Rev 02 6th November 2019 Water testing analysis added
Author Technical Reviewer Project Manager
H. Hadwin T. Downes H. Hadwin
Engineering Geologist Technical Manager Engineering Geologist
Contract No. 42354C
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On the instructions of Envirotec Site Service Ltd (ESS) on behalf of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council (BWDBC), a ground investigation was undertaken to determine ground conditions for the re-development of the site for commercial end use.
The site comprises a plot of undeveloped scrubland located 2km to the east of the town centre of Blackburn.
Geological mapping indicates the site to be underlain by superficial deposits comprising Glacial Till subsequently underlain by bedrock of the Pennine Lower Coal Measures of Carboniferous age.
The site work was carried out between 30th and 31st July 2019.
The investigation comprised nine dynamic sample boreholes and three super heavy dynamic probes (DPSH).
The investigation has proved Made Ground to depths from 1.80m to 3.90m overlaying organic silt between 1.80m and 3.00m with Glacial Till to depths greater than 1.80m.
Traditional strip foundations are not considered appropriate due to the depth of made ground and soft clay and the presence of very loose and loose zones. In addition, there may be requirements to significantly extend the depth of traditional foundations due to the proximity of trees. A piled foundation is therefore recommended.
A Design Sulphate Class for the site may be taken as DS-1. The site conditions would suggest that an ACEC class for the site of AC-1 would be appropriate.
None of the results for the contaminants tested exhibited concentrations above the respective GAC for a commercial scenario. In the absence of a source of soil contamination a pollution linkage cannot be formed. No asbestos was detected.
On this basis the risks to human health from soil contamination are considered to be very low.
The groundwater analysis has indicated elevated levels of multiple contaminants within groundwater, with respect to EQS Freshwater guidelines. The nearest water course is a canal 168m northwest of the site. The potential for a contaminant linkage between site and this watercourse is considered to be low due to the distance from site, the intervening infrastructure and buildings and the isolation of canals from the surrounding hydrology. The risks to this water course are therefore considered to be low. Further development of the site will effectively reduce infiltration due to buildings and hardstanding cover and managed drainage.
Contract No. 42354C
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
The results of the gas monitoring determined the presence methane up to 1.2%w/w and carbon dioxide up to 7.1%v/v. Maximum flow values of 0.1 l/hr were detected. Resulting Gas Screening Values (GSV) of 0.0071 l/hr for CO2 and 0.0012 l/hr for methane have been calculated.
Based upon the GSV the site may be considered Characteristic Situation 1 (Very Low Risk) however the total concentrations of CO2 and CH4 indicate that an increase to Characteristic Situation 2 – Low Risk should be considered. Remedial measures may therefore be required.
Contract No. 42354C
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
2.0 SITE SETTING 4 2.1 Site Location 4 2.2 Geological Setting 4 2.3 Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) 5
3.0 SITE WORK 6
4.0 LABORATORY TESTS 7 4.1 Geotechnical Testing 7 4.2 Chemical Testing 8
5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED 9 5.1 Sequence 9 5.2 Made Ground 9 5.3 Natural Soils 10 5.4 Dynamic Probe 12 5.5 Groundwater 13
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 14 6.1 Proposed Development 14 6.2 Foundations 14 6.3 Ground Floor Slabs 15 6.4 Excavations 15 6.5 Road and Hard Standing 15 6.6 Chemical Attack on Buried Concrete 15
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 17 7.1 Contaminated Land 17 7.2 Risk Assessment 17 7.3 Pollutant Linkage 17 7.4 Risk Assessment – Human Health 18 7.5 Risk Assessment - Controlled Waters 19 7.6 Gas Generation 22 7.7 Protection of Services 22 7.8 Risk Evaluation 22 7.9 Summary of Risk Evaluation 23
8.0 MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATION 24 8.1 Remediation and Verification 24 8.2 Management of Unidentified Sources of Contamination 25 8.3 Consultation 25 8.4 Risk Management During Site Works 26
Contract No. 42354C Page 1 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
9.0 REFERENCES 27
APPENDIX 1 - DRAWINGS Figure A1.1 - Site Location Plan Figure A1.2 - Site Plan Figure A1.3 - Nominal section Figure A1.4 - SPT versus Depth Plot
APPENDIX 2 - SITE WORK General Notes on Site Work ii/i-ii/ii WS01 to WS07 - Borehole Records DPWS01B, 02 & 07 - Results of DPSH
APPENDIX 3 - LABORATORY TESTS General Notes on Laboratory Tests on Soils iii/i-iii/iii Test Reports 42354A - Results of geotechnical testing – soils & 19/07403
APPENDIX 4 - CHEMICAL TESTS Test Report 19/07403 - Results of Chemical Tests – Soils Test Report 19/08535 - Results of Chemical Tests – Water
APPENDIX 5 - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Guidelines for the Design of Piles - First Approximation of Working Loads v/i-v/iv
APPENDIX 6 - CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT General Notes on Chemical Contamination vi/i-vi/viii
APPENDIX 7 - GAS GENERATION General Notes on Gas Generation vii/i-vii/x - Results of Gas and Groundwater Monitoring
Contract No. 42354C Page 2 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 On the instructions of Envirotec Site Service Ltd (ESS) on behalf of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council (BWDBC), a ground investigation was undertaken to determine ground conditions for the redevelopment of the site for commercial end use.
1.2 It is recommended that a copy of this report be submitted to the relevant authorities to enable them to carry out their own site assessments and provide any comments.
1.3 The recommendations in this report are preliminary, and further investigation would be required upon finalisation of the proposed development.
1.4 This report has been prepared for the sole use of the Client for the purpose described and no extended duty of care to any third party is implied or offered. Third parties using any information contained within this report do so at their own risk.
1.5 The comments given in this report and the opinions expressed herein are based on the information received, the conditions encountered during site works, and on the results of tests made in the field and laboratory. However, there may be conditions prevailing at the site which have not been disclosed by the investigation and which have not been taken into account in the report.
1.6 The comments on groundwater conditions are based on observations made at the time the site work was carried out. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary owing to seasonal or other effects.
Contract No. 42354C Page 3 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
2.0 SITE SETTING
2.1 Site Location
2.1.1 The site comprises a disused bowling green and playground located 2km to the east of the town centre of Blackburn.
2.1.2 The site may be located by National Grid Reference SD 704 283.
2.1.3 A site location plan is included in Appendix 1, Figure A1.1.
2.2 Site Description
2.1.1 The site is rectangular in shape, narrowing towards the northeast. The site area is 0.56Ha in size.
2.1.2 A disused bowling green occupies the western part of the site. A tarmacadam playground occupies the eastern part.
2.1.3 The bowling green in the west is elevated 1m higher than the playground in the east.
2.1.4 The site slopes down towards the west with changes in levels from 133.50 mOAD (west) to 132.5mAOD (east).
2.1.5 The site is bound to the north by Hereford Road, to the east by Disbury Street, to the south by Masjid e Saliheen and to the west by Burnley Road (A678).
2.2 Geological Setting
2.2.1 Details of the geology underlying the site have been obtained from the British Geological Survey web based geological records database (contains British Geological Survey materials ©NERC 2010).
2.2.2 The geological map indicates the site to be underlain by superficial deposits comprising Glacial Till.
2.2.3 The superficial deposits are underlain by bedrock of the Pennine Lower Coal Measures of Carboniferous age.
2.2.4 A geological fault is recorded 76m northeast of the site.
2.2.5 The site is within an urban area and, although not indicated as present on the site from the geological maps, the possibility that Made Ground exists on site cannot be discounted.
2.2.6 One historical borehole (SD62NE40) close to the site indicated Made Ground to 3.10mbgl. Firm stiff clay was indicated from 3.10m to 9.40m. Mudstone interbedded with sandstone was encountered from 9.40m to 20.00m. Coal was recorded between 18.45m and 18.46m.
Contract No. 42354C Page 4 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
2.3 Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA)
2.3.1 A PRA has been provided by BWDBC, compiled by Capita (Phase 1 Geo- Environmental Desk Study, CS097434-P1DS). The principal hazards may be summarised as follows:
• Historic maps have indicated that the site has been occupied by reservoir and buildings c1849. C1956 the reservoir and buildings were no longer present on site. The site was occupied by rough grass and allotment gardens. C 2019 the site is derelict and abandoned.
• The report indicates there is 1 coal seam at 120m beneath the site last worked 1895.
• The site is underlain by a Secondary A aquifer related to the Pennine Lower Coal Measures. There are no portable or active groundwater abstraction within 500m of the site.
• Several historical landfills sites are been indicated within 500m of the site, the nearest one is 267m north.
• The report indicates the following contaminative land uses that are likely to be sources.
. Infilled ground/general made ground
. Electrical substation
. Historic reservoirs (ground gas)
• The risk from ground gas is high.
Contract No. 42354C Page 5 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
3.0 SITE WORK
3.1 The site work was carried out on 30th and 31st July 2019.
3.2 The scope of the investigation and locations of exploratory holes were indicated on drawings provided by ESS.
3.3 The site works were carried out on the basis of the practices set out in CLR 4, (ref. 9.1), BS 5930:2015 (ref. 9.2), BS EN ISO 14688-1:2018 (ref. 9.3) and BS 10175:2011, (ref. 9.5).
3.4 Exploratory holes were undertaken as follows:
• WS01 (with 01A, 01B) to WS07: Dynamic sample boreholes • DPWS01B, 02 & 07 : Super heavy dynamic probe (DPSH)
3.5 A site plan showing the positions of the Exploratory Holes is presented in Appendix 1 as Figure A1.2.
3.6 The depths of exploratory holes, descriptions of strata encountered and comments on groundwater conditions are given in the records presented in Appendix 2.
3.7 A Cable Avoidance Tool (CAT) survey was undertaken at each exploratory hole location prior to excavation. At the location of boreholes an inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m below ground level to check for buried services.
3.8 Representative disturbed and undisturbed samples were taken at the depths shown on the records. Samples for environmental analysis were collected in appropriate containers and kept in cool boxes for daily despatch to the analytical laboratory.
3.9 Standard penetration tests (SPT), ref. 9.3 were carried out in boreholes in the various strata to assess the relative density or consistency. The values of penetration resistance are given in the borehole records. Energy ratio calibration certification for SPT hammers used on site are presented in Appendix 2.
3.10 Perforated standpipes, surrounded by pea shingle and protected by a stopcock cover were installed in boreholes WS03, WS04 and WS05. The details of the installations are presented on the borehole records in Appendix 2.
3.11 The standpipes were protected at surface by lockable flush stopcock covers.
3.12 Three DPSH designated DPWS01B, DPWS02 and DPWS07 were undertaken at positions indicated on Figure A1.2. The results are presented in Appendix 2.
3.13 Gas and groundwater monitoring were carried out post site works.
3.14 The ground levels and co-ordinates reported on the records were determined by survey to OS datum by GPS methods.
Contract No. 42354C Page 6 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
4.0 LABORATORY TESTS
4.1 Geotechnical Testing
4.1.1 Geotechnical testing schedules were prepared by Ian Farmer Associates (IFA).
4.1.2 Geotechnical testing was undertaken by IFA at their Washington Laboratory. Geotechnical chemical tests were undertaken by Envirolab in Hyde.
4.1.3 Soil samples for testing were prepared in accordance with BS1377: Part One: 1990 ref. 9.11 and representative sub-samples were taken for testing. The following tests were carried out:
• 11 No. Moisture contents • 11 No. Plasticity indices • 4 No. Particle size distribution by wet sieving • 3 No. Remoulded Californian Bearing Ratio (CBR) by 2.5kg rammer* • 5 No. Undrained shear strength* • 14 No. Water soluble sulphate (Envirolab) • 14 No pH value (Envirolab)
4.1.4 The results of the soil tests are presented in Appendix 3, Test Report 42354C-2.
4.1.5 The results of the sulphate and pH tests are presented in Appendix 3, Test Report 19/07403.
4.1.6 *Abortive Test Notices (ATN) have been issued for the following: 2 No. triaxial and 2 no. CBR - ATN 42354C-1.
Contract No. 42354C Page 7 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
4.2 Chemical Testing
4.2.1 The chemical analyses were carried out on fourteen samples of soil. The nature of the analyses is detailed below:
4.2.2 Metals screen - arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, boron (water soluble), copper, nickel and zinc
4.2.3 Organic Screen - total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) – C10 to C14 and C15 to C36 aliphatic hydrocarbons, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) – USEPA 16 suite, monohydric phenols
4.2.4 Inorganics Screen - cyanide (total), sulphate (water soluble), sulphide, sulphur
4.2.5 Others - pH, organic matter, asbestos identification
4.2.6 The results of the chemical tests are presented in Appendix 3, Test Report 19/07403.
4.2.7 Chemical analysis was carried out on three samples of water taken from the borehole installations. The nature of the analyses is detailed below:
4.2.8 Metals screen - arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, copper, nickel and zinc
4.2.9 Organic Screen - total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) – C10 to C14 and C15 to C36 aliphatic hydrocarbons, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) – USEPA 16 suite, monohydric phenols
4.2.10 Inorganics Screen - cyanide (total), sulphate (water soluble and total), sulphide
4.2.11 Others – pH
4.2.12 The results of the chemical tests are presented in Appendix 3, Test Report 19/08535.
Contract No. 42354C Page 8 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED
5.1 Sequence
5.1.1 The sequence of the strata encountered during the investigation generally confirms the anticipated geology as interpreted from the geological map.
5.1.2 The sequence encountered generally comprised Made Ground overlaying organic silt and Glacial Till.
5.1.3 The general sequence of strata is shown on the nominal section; Figure A1.3.
5.1.4 SPTs vs Depth data is plotted as Figure A1.4.
5.2 Made Ground
5.2.1 Made Ground was encountered within all exploratory holes from ground level to depths between 1.80m and 3.90m.
5.2.2 The Made Ground comprised a mixture of coarse and fine soils.
5.2.3 The fine soils predominantly comprised very soft and soft to firm, dark grey orangish brown, slightly gravelly, sandy clay. Made Ground silt was described as dark brown, slightly gravelly, very sandy.
5.2.4 The coarse soils predominantly comprised of dark brown greyish brown, gravelly to very gravelly, clayey, fine to coarse sand. Made Ground of gravel was encountered within WS06 and WS07.
5.2.5 Low through to high cobble was noted within Made Ground.
5.2.6 Anthropogenic fragments included brick, concrete, clinker, ceramic and glass.
5.2.7 Thirteen SPT values in the range of 3 to greater than 50 blows were recorded within the Made Ground.
5.2.8 Obstructions were encountered with WS01, WS01A and WS01B at depths in range of 1.65m to 1.80m.
5.2.9 Based on Atterberg limit results the cohesive Made Ground may be classified as intermediate plasticity silt (one sample, WS03 at 0.90m), low plasticity clay (one sample WS02 at 2.00m) and high plasticity clay (one sample, WS06 at 2.00m).
Contract No. 42354C Page 9 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
5.2.10 Below is a summary of the SPTs and laboratory analysis of the Made Ground.
Made Ground
No. Max Min
SPT ‘N’ value 13 50 3 pH 13 8.52 6.66
Soluble SO4 contents 13 280 <10 (mg/l) Organic Matter 13 17.3 2.9 (%w/w) Plasticity Index % 3 23 6
Plastic Limit % 3 31 29
Water content % 3 39.5 16.2
5.2.11 Laboratory analysis of Made Ground indicated pH values from 6.66 to 8.52, soluble SO4 contents from <10mg/l to 280mg/l and organic matter values of 2.9 to 17.3% w/w.
5.2.12 The base of the Made Ground was proven at depths in the range of 1.80m to 3.00m within all exploratory holes. WS01, WS01A and WS01B were terminated at depths of 1.65m to 1.80m within Made Ground.
5.3 Natural Soils
5.3.1 Natural soils were encountered directly beneath the Made Ground at depths from 1.80m to 3.00m.
5.3.2 The natural soils comprised clay with localised organic silt.
Silt
5.3.3 Dark grey black organic silt was encountered in WS03 and WS05 at depths of 2.00m and 3.00m respectively. This material is likely to represent the historical reservoir.
5.3.4 An organic odour was noted within the silt.
5.3.5 Field logging indicated consistencies of soft and firm.
5.3.6 Two SPT values of 5 and 16 were recorded within the silt.
5.3.7 Based on Atterberg limit results the silt may be classified as extremely high plasticity silt (one sample, WS03 at 2.70m) and very high plasticity silt (one sample, WS05 at 3.60m).
Contract No. 42354C Page 10 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
5.3.8 Below is a summary of the SPTs and laboratory analysis of the silt.
Silt
No. Max Min
SPT ‘N’ value 2 16 5 Plasticity Index % 2 62 23
Plastic Limit % 2 61 56
Water content % 2 96.5 68.5
5.3.1 The base of the silt was proven within WS03 at 3.20m.
Clay
5.3.2 Clay was encountered directly beneath the Made Ground within WS02, WS04, WS06 at depths 1.80m to 3.00m. WS03 encountered clay at 3.20m below the organic silt.
5.3.3 This material is considered to represent Glacial Till.
5.3.4 The Glacial Till was predominantly described as brown mottled yellow orange, slightly sandy and slightly gravelly clay.
5.3.5 Soft clay was recovered between 2.30m and 2.80m within WS02.
5.3.6 Below is a summary of the SPTs and laboratory analysis of the Glacial Till.
Glacial Till
No. Max Min
SPT ‘N’ value 11 38 4
Plasticity Index % 6 22 14
Plastic Limit % 6 22 14 Water content % 6 28.1 17
pH 1 7.83
Soluble SO4 1 30 contents (mg/l) Organic Matter 1 2 (%w/w) Cu (kN/m2) 3 40 8
Contract No. 42354C Page 11 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
5.3.1 Based on Atterberg limit results the clay may be classified as low plasticity (one sample) and intermediate plasticity clay (five samples).
5.3.2 Field logging indicated consistencies of firm and stiff.
5.3.3 Three triaxial tests recorded undrained shear strengths (Cu) of 8kN/m2, 11kN/m2 and 40kN/m2for the Glacial Till. This value indicates extremely low, very low and low strength material that appears to contradict the field logging and SPT ‘N’ values.
5.3.4 Eleven SPT values in the range of 4 to 38 were recorded within Glacial Till.
5.3.5 The lowest SPT value of 4 was recorded at 3.00m within WS02. Excluding the lowest SPT value of 4 the remaining values are in the range of 13 to 38.
5.3.6 Derived Cu values, indicate 71 to 209kN/m2 may be determined from SPT ‘N’ values where full penetration was achieved. These have been based on an f1 value about 5.5.
5.3.7 The base of the Glacial Till was not proven. WS02, WS03, WS04, WS06 and WS07 were terminated at depths of 5.45m within Glacial Till.
5.4 Dynamic Probe
5.4.1 Three DPSH were undertaken within DPWS01B, DPWS02 and DPWS07 at 2.00m, 5.50m and 5.00m respectively. The data is summarised on Figure A1.5.
5.4.2 The end depths of probes were in the range of 2.30m to 8.20m.
5.4.3 DPWS01B values between 2.00m to 2.30m are in the range of 3 to 50. Refusal at 2.30m.
5.4.4 DPWS02 values between 5.50m to 6.30m are in the range of 3 to 9. Below 6.30m the values are greater than 9, with a maximum value of 50 recorded at 8.20m.
5.4.5 DPWS07 values between 5.00m to 5.70m are in the range of 5 to 9. Below 5.70m the values are greater than 9, with a maximum value of 50 recorded at 7.40m.
5.4.6 The dynamic probe results indicate there is vertically variability in resistance and therefore strength between 5.00m up to depth of 6.30m.
5.4.7 Generally, the blows per increments values increase with depth.
Contract No. 42354C Page 12 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
5.5 Groundwater
5.5.1 Groundwater strikes within exploratory holes have been summarised below:
Exploratory Depth (m) Strata Hole
WS02 1.20m no rise Made Ground
WS04 1.65m no rise Made Ground
WS05 2.10m no rise Made Ground
WS07 3.00m no rise Glacial Till
5.5.2 Groundwater was not noted in the rest of the exploratory holes.
5.5.3 Monitored water levels post site works were as follows:
V1:21/08/19 V2: 03/09/19 V3: 16/09/19 V4: 30/09/19 V5: 14/10/19 V6: 28/10/19
WS03 1.41 1.47 1.60 1.12 1.11 1.07
WS04 Dry 1.45 1.43 1.05 1.02 0.99
WS05 2.10 2.44 2.40 1.71 1.70 1.69
Contract No. 42354C Page 13 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
6.1 Proposed Development
6.1.1 It is understood that the site is to be re-developed for commercial end use.
6.1.2 Development details, including cut / fill details, building layout and proposed loads were not available at time of reporting.
6.1.3 The comments and discussion below do not fall within the requirements of EC7 and are offered for guidance. The foundation comments below are preliminary should be reviewed and recalculated when development details become available.
6.2 Foundations
6.2.1 The investigation has proved Made Ground to depths from 1.80m to 3.00m overlaying organic silt subsequently overlaying Glacial Till.
6.2.2 Organic silt and soft clay were encountered in WS03, WS05 and WS02 at depths in the range 2.00m and 3.00m.
6.2.3 Traditional strip foundations are not considered appropriate due to the depth of made ground and soft organic soils and the presence of very loose and loose zones. In addition, there may be requirements to significantly extend the depth of traditional foundations due to the proximity of trees. A piled foundation is therefore recommended.
6.2.4 Guidelines for the design of piles are given in Appendix 5.
6.2.5 Within the zone of influence of trees, sleeving of piles to a moisture stable depth should be considered. Compressible material should be considered below and on the inside faces of pile caps and beams, where appropriate.
6.2.6 The carrying capacity of piles depends not only on their size and the ground conditions but also on their method of installation. Pile design and installation are continuously evolving processes and state-of-the-art are often employed before they reach the public domain, perhaps several years down the line. Therefore, it is recommended that specialist Piling Contractors be contacted as to the suitability and carrying capacity of their piles in the ground conditions pertaining to the site.
6.2.7 It should be noted that shallow groundwater was present which could affect the installation of piles.
Contract No. 42354C Page 14 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
6.3 Ground Floor Slabs
6.3.1 Ground floor slabs bearing on the pile caps by a network of beams are considered appropriate to minimise any differential settlement between the floor and the piled structure.
6.4 Excavations
6.4.1 On the basis of observations on site, together with the results of in-situ and laboratory tests, it is considered that excavations to less than 1.00m should stand unsupported in the short term. Side support for safety purposes should of course be provided to all excavations which appear unstable, and those in excess of 1.20m deep, in accordance with Health and Safety Regulations.
6.4.2 Groundwater should be expected in shallow excavations for foundations or services. However, it is possible that perched groundwater could be present in the Made Ground overlying the natural strata. It is considered that this could be dealt with by localised pumping.
6.4.3 Monitored water levels indicate water at depths between 0.10m and 2.70m.
6.5 Road and Hard Standing
6.5.1 The structural design of a road or hard standing is based on the strength of the subgrade, which is assessed on the California Bearing Ratio, CBR, scale.
6.5.2 Laboratory testing determined CBR value on Made Ground of 3.5 and 5.5% with water content about 24 %.
6.5.3 This suggests a lower bound CBR value about 3.5% for made ground at this location.
6.5.4 Design assumptions for CBR values should be confirmed by in-situ testing on completion of development layouts.
6.6 Chemical Attack on Buried Concrete
6.6.1 The site has been classified in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1, ref. 9.21, as brownfield that contains pyrite and laboratory testing undertaken accordingly. It is recommended that the guidelines given in BRE Special Digest 1, ref. 9.21, be adopted. Relevant details of this digest are included in Appendix 5, Figure A5.6.
6.6.2 The results of chemical tests in the pyritic soils on site, indicate a sulphate concentration in the soil of between <10 mg/l and 280 mg/l as a 2:1 water/soil extract, a total sulphate concentration of between 0.02% and 0.22% and total sulphur of between 0.02% and 0.27%, with pH values in the range of 6.66 to 8.52.
Contract No. 42354C Page 15 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
6.6.3 It is recommended that for conventional shallow foundations the groundwater should be regarded as mobile.
6.6.4 Characteristic values for each strata have been derived from laboratory results for pH, 2:1 water/soil extract (WS), total (acid) soluble sulphate (AS), equivalent Total Potential Sulphate (TPS) and Oxidisable Sulphate (OS), and are presented in the table below, together with Design Sulphate Class and the ACEC Class: -
WS AS TPS OS Groundwater Stratum pH DS AC (mg/l) (%) (%) (%) Condition 6.66- <10- 0.02- 0.07- 0.01- Made Ground Mobile 1 1 8.52 280 0.27 0.66 0.57 Glacial Till 7.83 30 0.02 0.036 0.09 Mobile 1 1
6.6.5 Values for OS greater than 0.30% indicate that pyrite is present and may be oxidised to sulphate where the ground is disturbed.
6.6.6 On the basis of the laboratory test results it is considered that a Design Sulphate Class for the site may be taken as DS-1. The site conditions would suggest that an ACEC class for the site of AC-1 would be appropriate.
Contract No. 42354C Page 16 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
7.1 Contaminated Land
7.1.1 The statutory definition of contaminated land is defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, ref 9.23, which was introduced by the Environment Act 1995, ref 9.24, as;
• ‘Land which appears to the Local Authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that –
• significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or
• significant pollution of controlled waters is being caused, or there is a significant possibility of such pollution being caused.’
7.2 Risk Assessment
7.2.1 The definition of contaminated land is based on the principles of risk assessment. Risk is defined as a combination of:
• The probability, or frequency of exposure to a substance with the potential to cause harm, and:
• The seriousness of the consequence.
7.3 Pollutant Linkage
7.3.1 The basis of an environmental risk assessment involves identifying a ‘source’ of contamination, a ‘pathway’ along which the contamination may migrate and a ‘receptor’ at risk from the contamination.
7.3.2 Current legislation defines the various elements of the pollution linkage as:
• A contaminant is a substance which is in or under the ground and which has the potential to cause harm or to cause pollution of controlled waters.
• A pathway is one or more routes through which a receptor is being exposed to, or affected by, a contaminant, or could be so affected.
• A receptor is either a living organism, an ecological system, a piece of land or property, or controlled water.
7.3.3 A pollutant linkage indicates that all three elements have been identified. The site can only be defined as ‘Contaminated Land’ if a pollutant linkage exists and the contamination meets the criteria in Section 7.1 above.
Contract No. 42354C Page 17 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
7.3.4 The guidance proposes a four-stage approach for the assessment of contamination and the associated risks. The four stages are listed below:
• Hazard Identification
• Hazard Assessment
• Risk Assessment
• Risk Evaluation
7.3.5 The risk assessment and evaluation stages are presented in this phase 2 interpretive report, after an intrusive ground investigation has taken place.
7.4 Risk Assessment – Human Health
7.4.1 The proposal is the re-development of the site for commercial end use. The risk assessment has therefore been based on guidelines for a commercial / industrial end use. Should the proposed development be changed in the future then further risk assessment may be required, particularly should a more sensitive end-use be envisaged.
7.4.2 The results of the soil analyses from the current investigation have been compared to CLEA SGVs published in Environment Agency Science Reports SC050021/SR3, ref 9.26 and SC050021, ref 9.27, where available, Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC), determined by LQM and CIEH, ref 9.28, DEFRA C4SL, ref. 9.29 as well as Assessment Criteria (AC) derived in-house using the CLEA Software Version 1.06, ref 9.29. The CLEA AC have been derived by Ian Farmer Associates in accordance with current legislation and guidance.
7.4.3 The guidance values used within this contamination assessment have been tabulated and are detailed within Appendix 6.
7.4.4 The results of chemical analyses have been processed in accordance with recommendations set out in the CIEH and CL:AIRE document ‘Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’, ref 9.30. Where the concentrations determined on site are at or below the respective Guidance Level, they are considered not to pose a risk and are removed from further consideration, unless otherwise stated.
7.4.5 Where the concentrations determined on site are at or below the respective Screening Level, they are considered not to pose a risk and are removed from further consideration, unless otherwise stated.
7.4.6 None of the results for the contaminants tested exhibited concentrations above the respective GAC for a commercial scenario.
7.4.7 In the absence of a source of soil contamination a pollution linkage cannot be formed.
Contract No. 42354C Page 18 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
7.4.8 On this basis the risks to human health from soil contamination are considered to be very low.
7.4.9 Asbestos was identified in two soil samples during screening. Quantitative analysis recorded <0.001% asbestos in the samples from WS01 and WS07 at 0.60m and 0.80m respectively.
7.4.10 The principal risk from asbestos arises from the release of respirable fibres. Risks to end users of the development from these contaminants will depend on factors including development layout and any cut and fill earthworks that may be required.
7.4.11 It is recommended that further sampling and chemical analysis is carried out once the development plan is finalised. This will allow better delineation of the contaminated areas and, therefore, allow more targeted remediation to take place if required.
7.4.12 The risk to end users may require further assessment once the finalised development plans are available.
7.4.13 Construction management should consider the potential risks from asbestos during the development period.
7.5 Risk Assessment - Controlled Waters
7.5.1 The site is located on superficial strata (Diamicton – Till) classified as Unproductive and bedrock of the Pennine Lower Coal Measures classified as a Secondary A Aquifer.
7.5.2 The PRA compiled by Capita indicates that there are no active groundwater or surface water abstractions within 500m of the site. The nearest surface water feature is the Leeds and Liverpool Canal located 168m to the northwest. As a canal this will be effectively isolated form the surrounding hydrology.
7.5.3 An initial assessment of the risk to controlled waters has been conducted on based on the results of water analysis (3 water samples).
7.5.4 The water results have been screened against the EQS Freshwater Standards.
7.5.5 Waters were retrieved from WS03, WS04 and WS05. The WS03 and WA04 monitoring wells were installed into made ground whereas WS05 was installed into superficial deposits.
7.5.6 The screening levels used within the controlled waters assessment have been tabulated and are detailed within Appendix 6. Those contaminants with observed concentrations above the GAC for groundwater are detailed below:
Contract No. 42354C Page 19 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
EQS Location Strata Contaminant Concentration Freshwater
WS03 Made Ground 58µg/l
WS04 Made Ground Cyanide 49µg/l 1μg/l
WS05 Silt 36μg/l
WS04 Made Ground Nickel 52μg/l 20μg/l
WS03 Made Ground 15μg/l
WS04 Made Ground Zinc 142μg/l 11.9μg/l
WS05 Silt 65μg/l
WS03 Made Ground 0.66μg/l Anthracene 0.4µg/l WS04 Made Ground 1.13μg/l
WS03 Made Ground 3.16µg/l
WS04 Made Ground Benzo(a)pyrene 1.83µg/l 0.1µg/l
WS05 Silt 0.18µg/l
WS03 Made Ground 3.92µg/l
WS04 Made Ground Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.16µg/l 0.03µg/l
WS05 Silt 0.22µg/l
WS03 Made Ground 1.39µg/l
WS04 Made Ground Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.70µg/l 0.03µg/l
WS05 Silt 0.08µg/l
WS03 Made Ground 1.78µg/l
WS04 Made Ground Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.12µg/l 0.002µg/l
WS05 Silt 0.12µg/l
Contract No. 42354C Page 20 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
WS03 Made Ground 1.97µg/l
Indeno(123- WS04 Made Ground 1.17µg/l 0.002µg/l cd)perylene
WS05 Silt 0.12µg/l
WS04 Made Ground 9.21μg/l
WS03 Made Ground Fluoranthene 5.67μg/l 1.0µg/l
WS04 Made Ground 1.36μg/l
WS04 Made Ground Naphthalene 4.04µg/l 2.4µg/l
7.5.7 All the exceedances are from water samples within the shallow made ground / superficial deposits.
7.5.8 There is no evidence within the laboratory testing undertaken on soils of a significant potential on site source for these elevated contaminants.
7.5.9 The nearest water course is a canal 168m northwest of the site. The potential for a contaminant linkage between site and this watercourse is considered to be low due to the distance from site, the intervening infrastructure and buildings and the isolation of canals from the surrounding hydrology. The risks to this water course are therefore considered to be low. Further development of the site will effectively reduce infiltration due to buildings and hardstanding cover and managed drainage.
7.5.10 The site is underlain by unproductive, low permeability till that will minimise any potential impact on the underlying secondary bedrock aquifer. As there are no groundwater abstractions within 500m of the site any potential impact on groundwater is considered to be very low.
7.5.11 Given the ground conditions encountered at the site, the nature of the proposed development and the results of this contamination assessment, it is considered unlikely that further assessment of the risks to controlled waters may be required.
Contract No. 42354C Page 21 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
7.6 Gas Generation
7.6.1 Gas monitoring visits were undertaken between 3rd September and 28th October 2019, the results of which are included within Appendix 7.
7.6.2 The gas monitoring results determined the presence methane up to 1.2%w/w and carbon dioxide up to 7.1%v/v in WS05. A maximum flow rate of 0.1 l/hr was also recorded in WS04.
7.6.3 Maximum methane concentrations of 0.1%w/w and carbon dioxide concentrations of 2.9%w/w were detected in WS03 and WS04.
7.6.4 Based on monitoring results, GSV values of 0.0071 l/hr for CO2 and 0.0012 l/hr for methane may be calculated for WS05.
7.6.5 Variable oxygen concentrations were recorded consistently within WS05, with values of between 0%w/w and 2.6%w/w being recorded. Oxygen levels within WS03 and WS04 varied between 13.6%w/w and 20.9%w/w.
7.6.6 Based upon the GSV the site may be considered Characteristic Situation 1 (Very Low Risk) however the total concentrations of CO2 and CH4 indicate that an increase to Characteristic Situation 2 – Low Risk should be considered. Remedial measures may therefore be required.
7.6.7 The likely source of the gas recorded within WS05 is the organic black silt.
7.7 Protection of Services
7.7.1 Guidance from the UKWIR, ref 9.34, sets out the material requirements for newly laid water supply pipes within Brownfield sites. However, the exact requirements should be clarified with the relevant local water utility supplier for the site.
7.8 Risk Evaluation
7.8.1 The conceptual model formed within the ESS/BRP1/P1DS Burnley Road Plot 1 report has been updated to reflect the findings of the contamination risk assessment and the revised conceptual model, detailing the relevant pollutant linkages, is tabulated below:
Source Potential Pathways Receptor Group • Migration Humans and buildings Ground gas (CO2 • Ingression • Gas ingress into building/s and CH4) from soils • Inhalation • Site occupants
Contract No. 42354C Page 22 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
7.9 Summary of Risk Evaluation
7.9.1 Concentrations of contaminants in soils were below their relevant screening level. In the absence of a source of soil contamination a pollution linkage cannot be formed.
7.9.2 On this basis the risks to human health from soil contamination are considered to be very low.
7.9.3 Asbestos was identified in two soil sample during screening. Quantitative analysis recorded <0.001% asbestos in the samples from WS01 and WS07 at 0.60m and 0.80m respectively. The risk to end users may require further assessment once the finalised development plans are available.
7.9.4 The site may be considered Characteristic Situation 1 (Very Low Risk) however the total concentrations of CO2 and CH4 indicate that an increase to Characteristic Situation 2 – Low Risk should be considered. Remedial measures may therefore be required.
Contract No. 42354C Page 23 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
8.0 MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATION
8.1 Remediation and Verification
8.1.1 The risk management framework set out in the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11, ref. 9.35, is applicable to the redevelopment of sites that may be affected by contamination.
8.1.2 The risk management process set out in the Model Procedures has three main components:
• Risk assessment • Options appraisal • Implementation
8.1.3 This initial risk assessment has not identified any sources of contamination at the site and therefore a revised conceptual model has not been presented.
8.1.4 In the absence of a soil contamination source and pollutant linkage a remediation strategy would not be relevant for this site.
8.1.5 In the absence of a site remediation strategy no validation would be required.
8.1.6 The gas monitoring results determined the presence methane up to 1.2%w/w and carbon dioxide up to 7.1%v/v in WS05. A maximum flow rate of 0.1 l/hr was also recorded
8.1.7 This gives a maximum Gas Screening Value (GSV) of 0.0071 litres/hour which results in a Characteristic Situation 1 (very low risk gas regime) Situation A, Table A7.2. However, the total concentrations of CO2 and CH4 indicate that an increase to Characteristic Situation 2 – Low Risk should be considered. Remedial measures may therefore be required. For Situation A, being any development other than low rise residential gas protective measures are given in Appendix 7, sections A7.7 and A7.10.
Contract No. 42354C Page 24 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
8.2 Management of Unidentified Sources of Contamination
8.2.1 There is the possibility that other sources of contamination may be present on the site, which were not detected during the investigation. Should such contamination be identified or suspected during the site clearance or ground works, these should be dealt with accordingly. A number of options are available for handling this material, which include:
• The removal from site and disposal to a suitably licensed tip of all material suspected of being contaminated. The material would need to be classified prior to disposal.
• Short-term storage of the suspected material while undertaking verification testing for potential contamination. The storage area should be a contained area to ensure that contamination does not migrate and affect other areas of the site. Depending upon the amounts of material under consideration, this could be either a skip or a lined area.
• Having a suitably experienced environmental engineer either on-call or with a watching brief for the visual and olfactory assessment of the material, and sampling for verification purposes.
8.3 Consultation
8.3.1 During the development of a contaminated site, consultation may be required for a number of reasons with a number of regulatory Authorities. The following provides an indication as to the most likely Authorities with which consultation may be required.
• Local Authority. There may be a planning condition regarding contamination and consultation will be required with a designated Contaminated Land Officer within the Environmental Health Department. The Local Authority is generally concerned with human health risks. Some Authorities now require ‘Completion Certificates’ to be signed off following remediation works.
• Environment Agency. Where a site is within a groundwater protection zone or has been designated as a special site, the Environment Agency is likely to be involved to ensure that controlled waters are protected.
8.3.2 Based on the results of any consultation, there may be specific remediation requirements imposed by one or more of the Authorities.
Contract No. 42354C Page 25 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
8.4 Risk Management During Site Works
8.4.1 During ground works, some simple measures may have to be put in place to mitigate the risk of contamination affecting the site workers and the environs. The majority of the proposed measures represent good practice for the construction industry and include:
• Informing the site workers of the contamination on site and the potential health effects from exposure.
• Where appropriate, the provision of suitable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for workers who may be potentially impacted by working in areas of the contamination.
• Ensuring good hygiene is enforced on site and washing facilities are maintained on the site. Workers are discouraged from smoking, eating or drinking without washing their hands first.
• Dust monitoring, and if necessary, suppression measures should be put into practice where contamination is becoming airborne.
8.4.2 Where contaminated materials are being removed from the site they should be disposed of at a suitably licensed landfill, with a ‘duty of care’ system in place and maintained throughout the disposal operations.
Contract No. 42354C Page 26 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
9.0 REFERENCES
9.1 CLR 4, ‘Sampling strategies for contaminated land’. Report by The Centre for Research into the Built Environment, the Nottingham Trent University, DoE, 1994.
9.2 British Standards Institution: BS 5930:2015 ‘Code of practice for ground investigations.’ BSI 2015.
9.3 British Standards Institution: BS EN ISO 14688-1:2002+A1:2013. ‘Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification and Classification of Soil – Part 1 Identification and description.’ BSI 2013.
9.4 British Standards Institution: BS EN ISO 14689-1:2003. ‘Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification and Classification of Rock – Part 1 Identification and description.’ BSI 2003. Incorporating Corrigendum No. 1 February 2007.
9.5 British Standards Institute: BS 10175 ‘The investigation of potentially contaminated sites. Code of practice’, BSI:2011+A1:2013.
9.6 British Standards Institute: BS EN ISO 22476-3: 2005 + A1: 2011. ‘Geotechnical investigation and testing. Field testing. Standard penetration test.’
9.7 ISO 1997, Part 2:2007, ‘Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical Design – Part 2, Ground Investigation and Design’
9.8 British Standards Institute: BS EN ISO 22476-3: 2005 + A1: 2011. ‘Geotechnical investigation and testing. Field testing. Standard penetration test.’
9.9 ISO 22476 – 2:2005, ‘Geotechnical Investigation and Testing – Field Testing’ Part 2, Dynamic Probing.
9.10 ISO 22475-1:2006, ‘Geotechnical Investigation and Testing – Sampling Methods and Groundwater Measurements’ Part 1: Technical Principles for Execution.
9.11 British Standard 1377:1990, Parts1 - 9, ‘Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes’.
9.12 Ulusay, R. & Hudson, J.A. The complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization: 1974 - 2006.
9.13 Stroud, M.A. ‘The Standard Penetration Test in Insensitive Clays and Soft Rocks’, Proceedings of European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Stockholm, 1974.
9.14 Stroud, M.A. and Butler, F.G. 1975 ‘The Standard Penetration Test and Engineering Properties of Glacial Materials’, Symposium of Engineering Behaviour of Glacial Materials, Birmingham University.
9.15 National House-Building Council, Standards, Chapter 4.2, 2003 ‘Building Near Trees’.
9.16 BRE Digest 240, ‘Low-rise buildings on shrinkable clay soils: Part 1’. September 1993
Contract No. 42354C Page 27 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
9.17 Geotechnique, June 1983.
9.18 British Standard Code of Practice for Earth Retaining Structures, BS 8002:1994.
9.19 Thorburn, S. ‘Tentative Correction Chart for the Standard Penetration Test in non- cohesive soils’, Soil Engineering and Public Works Review, 58, 1963.
9.20 Design Guidance for Road Pavement Foundations, Interim Advice Note 173/06, February 2006
9.21 Building Research Establishment, Special Digest 1, ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’, 2005.
9.22 Berezantsev, V.G., “Load bearing capacity and deformation of piled foundations”. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics, Paris, 2, 11-12, 1961
9.23 The Environmental Protection Act, Part IIA, Section 78, 1990.
9.24 Environment Act 1995, Section 57, DoE 1995.
9.25 CLR 3, ‘Documentary research on industrial sites’, Report by RPS Consultants Ltd, DoE 1994.
9.26 Environment Agency Science Report SC050021/SR3, 2008, ‘Updated technical background to the CLEA model’
9.27 Environment Agency Science Report SC050021, 2009, ‘Contaminants in Soil: Updated Collation of Toxicological Data and Intake Values for Humans’
9.28 Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment (2nd Edition), Nathanial P, McCaffery C, Ashmore M, Cheng Y, Gillett A, Ogden R, and Scott D, Land Quality Press, Nottingham, published July 2009.
9.29 SP1010: Development of Category 4 Screening Levels for Assessment of Land Affected by Contamination – Policy Companion Document. DEFRA. March 2014.
9.30 ‘Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE) May 2008.
9.31 An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality, Shapiro, S. S. and Wilk, M. B. 1965
9.32 Environment Agency Science Report SC050021/SR2 ‘Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants in soil’
9.33 CLR 10, ‘The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA): Technical basis and algorithms’. DEFRA/EA, March 2002.
Contract No. 42354C Page 28 of 29
Furthergate Plot 6 Blackburn, BB1 3HN
9.34 UK Water Industry Research Ltd, Report 10/WM/03/21, ‘Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be used in Brownfield Sites’, 2010.
9.35 CLR 11, ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land’, DEFRA and Environment Agency, 2004.
9.36 Fakher, A., Khodaparast M. and Jones C. J. F. P., 2005, The use of the Mackintosh Probe for Site Investigation in soft soils.
9.37 CLR 2, ‘Guidance on preliminary site inspection of contaminated land’, Report by Applied Environmental, DoE 1994.
9.38 Environment Agency, 2008, ‘Review of the Fate and Transport of Selected Contaminants in the Soil Environment’. Draft Technical Report P5-079/TR1. Bristol: Environment Agency
9.39 CIRIA Reports 149 to 152, ‘Methane and Associated Hazards to Construction’, 1995.
9.40 CIRIA C665, ‘Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases in Buildings’, 2007.
9.41 British Standard 8485:2007, ‘Code of Practice for the Characterisation and Remediation from Ground Gas in Affected Developments
9.42 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, ‘The Building Regulations 2000, Approved Document C, Site Preparation and Resistance to Contaminants and Moisture’, 2004.
9.43 Building Research Establishment, Report 414, ‘Protective Measures for Housing on Gas Contaminated Land’, 2004
9.44 Wilson, S A and Haines, S, ‘Site Investigation and Monitoring for Soil Gas Assessment – Back to Basics’, Land Contamination and Reclamation, 2005
9.45 Wilson S A and Card G B, ‘Reliability and Risk in Gas Protection Design’, 2004.
9.46 Boyle and Witherington, ‘Guidance on Evaluation on Development Proposals on Sites where Methane and Carbon Dioxide are present, incorporating ‘Traffic Lights’’. Report 10627-R01-(02) for NHBC, 2006.
Contract No. 42354C Page 29 of 29
APPENDIX 1
DRAWINGS
N
Site
PROJECT: 42354C Furthergate Plot 6
FIGURE No. A1.1. SCALE: Not to Scale
TITLE: Site Location Plan
Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown copyright. Licence No. AL 100031101
Project Id: 42354C Title: Site Plan Project Title: Furthergate - Plot 6 Scale: 1:2000 Location: Engineer: MHW Client: Blackburn with Darwen Contractor: Project Id: 42354C Title: Section line 1 Project Title: Furthergate - Plot 6 Vertical Scale: 1:53 Location: Horizontal Scale: 1:1173 Client: Blackburn with Darwen Engineer: MHW
134 134
WS07 WS04 WS05 WS06
133 WS01 133
WS01A WS01B WS03 WS02
132 132
131 131
130 130
Legend Key 129 129
MADE GROUND
Sandy gravelly CLAY
SILT 128 128
Gravelly CLAY
126.00 127 127
Chainage (m) 0.001.755.91 13.8218.78 51.5252.35 87.8489.85 126.48127.58 158.00159.70 176.50181.97 207.73 217.07
Elevation (mAOD) 132.44132.75 132.44 132.42 133.22 133.41 133.30 133.11 132.40 Fig A1.4 SPT 'N' Keynetix Limited YourLogo www.keynetix.com value versus depth +44 (0)1527 688888
Project ID: 42354C Project Title: Furthergate - Plot 6
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Location:
CL MG Organic Silt
0 50 100 150 200 250 0
1
2
3 Depth (m below ground level) ground (mDepth below
4
5
6
Date Reported: 13/09/2019 Data Status: Figure A1.5
Blows Increment (mm) 0 102030405060 0
1 DPWS01B DPWS02 2 DPWS07
3
4
Depth (m) Depth 5
6
7
8
9
APPENDIX 2
SITE WORK
APPENDIX 2
GENERAL NOTES ON SITE WORKS
A2.1 SITE WORK
A2.1.1 General
Site work is carried out in general accordance with the guidelines given in ISO 1997, 9.3 and BS 5930, ref 9.2.
A2.1.2 Drive-in Window Sampler
The drive-in window sampler, ref 9.10, consists generally of a track mounted window sampler and a series of cylindrical sample tubes, generally varying in diameter from 98mm to 35mm. A cutting shoe is fitted to the bottom of each tube, while a window, representing about a quarter of the circumference, is cut along the length of the tube. Soil samples are extracted through the window of the tube.
The borehole is extended by using progressively smaller diameter tubes.
Alternatively, undisturbed samples may be collected in plastic liners, known as windowless sampling.
A2.1.3 Dynamic Probing Super Heavy, DPSH
This covers the determination of the resistance of in-situ soil to a 90° cone being driven dynamically, ref 9.11 and 9.9. Dynamic Probing can be used to determine presence of variations in strata, however, since samples are not recovered, it should be carried out in conjunction with sampling.
In principle, the test consists of driving a 90° cone of 20cm² cross-sectional area into the ground using a 63.5kg drop hammer falling a standard height of 750mm. At regular intervals, in order to minimise friction on the shaft, the rods are turned.
The results are recorded as the number of blows of the hammer to drive the cone 100mm, N100, together with the torque to turn the rods.
As an approximate correlation, the resistance determined by the DPSH may be related directly to the SPT ‘N’ value as:
‘N’ value = N100
A2.2 IN-SITU TESTS
A2.2.1 Standard Penetration Test
The Standard Penetration Test is carried out in accordance with the proposals recommended by ISO 1997, ref 9.3, BS 1377, Part 9, 1990 ref 9.11 and ISO 22476 ref 9.8.
The standard penetration test, SPT, covers the determination of the resistance of soils to the penetration of a split barrel sampler. A 50mm diameter split barrel sampler is driven 450mm into the soil using a 63.5kg hammer with a 760mm drop. The penetration resistance is expressed as the number of blows required to obtain 300mm penetration below an initial seating drive of 150mm through any disturbed ground at the bottom of the borehole. The number of blows to achieve the standard penetration of 300mm is reported as the ‘N’ value.
The test is generally carried out in fine soils, however, it may also be carried out in coarse granular soils, weak rocks and glacial tills using the same procedure as for the SPT but with a 50mm diameter, 60° apex solid cone replacing the split spoon sampler, CPT.
When attempting the standard penetration test in very dense material or weathered rocks it may be necessary to terminate the test before completion to prevent damage to the equipment. In these circumstances it is important to distinguish how the blow count relates to the penetration of the sampler. This may be achieved in the following manner:
Appendix 2 pages ii/i-ii/ii ii/i
Where the seating drive has been completed, the test drive is terminated if 50 blows are reached before the full penetration of 300mm is achieved. The penetration for 50 blows is recorded and an approximate N value obtained by linear extrapolation of the number of blows for the partial test drive.
If the seating drive of 150mm is not achieved within the first 25 blows, the penetration after 25 blows is recorded and the test drive then commenced.
For tests in soft rocks, the test drive should be terminated after 100 blows where the penetration of 300mm has not been achieved.
The N-value obtained from the Standard Penetration Test may be used to assess the relative density of sands and gravels as follows:
Term SPT N-Value : Blows/300mm Penetration
Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 4 - 10 Medium Dense 10 - 30 Dense 30 - 50 Very Dense Over 50 A2.3 SAMPLES
U represents undisturbed 100mm diameter sample, the number of blows to obtain the sample also recorded.
U fail indicates undisturbed sample not recovered
B represents large bulk disturbed samples
D represents small disturbed sample
ES represents environmental sample
W represents water sample
represents water strike
represents level to which water rose
A2.4 DESCRIPTION OF SOILS
A2.4.1 General
The procedures and principles given in ISO 14688 Parts 1 and 2, ref 9.3, supplemented by section 6 of BS 5930, ref. 9.2 have been used in the soil descriptions contained within this report.
Appendix 2 pages ii/i-ii/ii ii/ii
SPT Hammer Energy Test Report in accordance with BSEN ISO 22476-3:2005
James Fisher Testing Services Ltd SPT Hammer Ref: PM1 Ruby House Test Date: 14/09/2018 40a Hardwick Grange Report Date: 19/09/2018 Woolston Warrington File Name: PM1.spt WA1 4RF Test Operator: DA
Instrumented Rod Data SPT Hammer Information
Diameter d r (mm): 54 Hammer Mass m (kg): 63.5
Wall Thickness t r (mm): 7.0 Falling Height h (mm): 760
Assumed Modulus E a (GPa): 208 SPT String Length L (m): 14.5 Accelerometer No.1: 11936 Comments / Location Accelerometer No.2: 1137 Client: PM Sampling Location: Warrington Lab Hammer Type: Trip
Velocity Force 200 4
150 3
100 2 kN 50 m/sec 1
0 0
-50 109876543210 109876543210 Time (ms) Time (ms)
Acceleration Displacement
0 10,000 -1
5,000 -2 mm
m/sec2 0 -3 -4 -5,000 -5 109876543210 109876543210 Time (ms) Time (ms)
Calculations Area of Rod A (mm2): 1034
Theoretical Energy Etheor (J): 473
Measured Energy E meas (J): 339 Signed: I. Revenhorst Energy Ratio E r (%): 72 Title: Senior Technician
SPTMAN ver.2.00 All rights reserved, Testconsult ©2010 Plant used: Project: Location ID: Dando Terrior Furthergate - Plot 6 Dates: Client: WS01
30/07/2019 Blackburn with Darwen Sheet 1 of 1 Dynamic Sample Location: Ground level: Logged by: Vertical scale: Project ID: Borehole Log 370167.71E 428382.25N 132.75mOD JT 1:50 42354C Samples & In Situ Testing Strata Details Groundwater Level Depth (m) Water Backfill/ Depth Sample ID Test Result Strata Description Legend (mOD) (Thickness) Strike Installation MADE GROUND: Grass over soft, dark brown, slightly gravelly, (0.30) sandy CLAY. Gravel is angular to subangular, fine and medium 0.35 ES1 132.45 0.30 including concrete and sandstone. 0.40 D2 (0.40) MADE GROUND: Firm, dark brown, slightly gravelly, very sandy SILT with low cobble content. Gravel is angular to subangular, fine 132.05 0.70 0.80 D4 to coarse including brick, concrete and sandstone. Cobbles are 0.80 ES3 131.85 0.90 angular to subangular including brick and concrete. 1 1.00 D6 MADE GROUND: Firm, dark brown, slightly gravelly, very sandy 1.00 ES5 CLAY. Gravel is angular to subrounded, fine to coarse including 1.20 SPT(S) N=9 (2,2/3,2,2,2) (0.80) sandstone, brick and coal. 1.20 - 1.65 D7 MADE GROUND: Firm, brown, slightly sandy, slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular to rounded, fine to coarse including 131.05 1.70 sandstone and mixed lithologies. End of Borehole at 1.70m 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Dynamic Sample Recovery Remarks: Top (m) Base (m) Dia (mm) Recovery % Remarks Service inspection pit hand excavated from GL to 1.20m. Window sample terminated at 1.70m due to possible cobble relocated as WS01A.
SPT Hammer: PM1 Energy Ratio: 72% Water Strikes Monitoring Installations Strike (m) Cased (m) Sealed (m) Time (mins) Rose to (m) Remarks Top (m) Base (m) Pipe Type Dia (mm)
Checked by: HH IFA DS Log status: DRAFT v01.01 Plant used: Project: Location ID: Dando Terrior Furthergate - Plot 6 Dates: Client: WS01A
30/07/2019 Blackburn with Darwen Sheet 1 of 1 Dynamic Sample Location: Ground level: Logged by: Vertical scale: Project ID: Borehole Log 370167.42E 428376.50N 132.44mOD JT 1:50 42354C Samples & In Situ Testing Strata Details Groundwater Level Depth (m) Water Backfill/ Depth Sample ID Test Result Strata Description Legend (mOD) (Thickness) Strike Installation MADE GROUND: Grass over soft, dark brown, slightly sandy SILT (0.40) with abundant rootlets. 132.04 0.40 MADE GROUND: Firm, brown mottled dark brown, slightly sandy, slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular to subrounded, fine to (0.60) coarse including sandstone and coal.
131.44 1.00 MADE GROUND: Soft and firm, brown mottled yellowish brown 1 1.20 SPT(S) N=3 (1,0/1,0,1,1) and dark brown, slightly gravelly, sandy CLAY. Gravel is (0.80) subangular to subrounded, fine to coarse including sandstone and 1.50 ES1 coal.
1.80 SPT(S) 50 (9,16/50 for 130.64 1.80 At 1.70m: dark grey and rubber sheeting present. 75mm) End of Borehole at 1.80m 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Dynamic Sample Recovery Remarks: Top (m) Base (m) Dia (mm) Recovery % Remarks Service inspection pit hand excavated from GL to 1.20m. 1.20 2.00 80 Window sample terminated at 1.70m due to SPT refusal, relocated as WS01B.
SPT Hammer: PM1 Energy Ratio: 72% Water Strikes Monitoring Installations Strike (m) Cased (m) Sealed (m) Time (mins) Rose to (m) Remarks Top (m) Base (m) Pipe Type Dia (mm)
Checked by: HH IFA DS Log status: DRAFT v01.01 Plant used: Project: Location ID: Dano Terrier Furthergate - Plot 6 Dates: Client: WS01B
30/07/2019 Blackburn with Darwen Sheet 1 of 1 Dynamic Sample Location: Ground level: Logged by: Vertical scale: Project ID: Borehole Log 370159.93E 428385.98N 132.44mOD JT 1:50 42354C Samples & In Situ Testing Strata Details Groundwater Level Depth (m) Water Backfill/ Depth Sample ID Test Result Strata Description Legend (mOD) (Thickness) Strike Installation MADE GROUND: Grass over soft, very dark brown, slightly sandy 132.19 0.25 SILT with abundant rootlets. MADE GROUND: Soft and firm, dark greyish brown mottled yellowish brown, slightly sandy CLAY. Gravel is angular to subangular, fine to coarse including sandstone and concrete.
(1.55) 1 1.20 SPT(S) N=9 (3,2/3,2,2,2) 1.20 - 1.65 D2
1.70 ES1 130.64 1.80 End of Borehole at 1.80m 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Dynamic Sample Recovery Remarks: Top (m) Base (m) Dia (mm) Recovery % Remarks Service inspection pit hand excavated from GL to 1.20m. 1.20 2.00 90 Borehole terminated at 1.80m due to refusal on possible concrete. Dynamic probe carried out.
SPT Hammer: PM1 Energy Ratio: 72% Water Strikes Monitoring Installations Strike (m) Cased (m) Sealed (m) Time (mins) Rose to (m) Remarks Top (m) Base (m) Pipe Type Dia (mm)
Checked by: HH IFA DS Log status: DRAFT v01.01 Plant used: Project: Location ID: Dando Terrier Furthergate - Plot 6 Dates: Client: WS02
30/07/2019 Blackburn with Darwen Sheet 1 of 1 Dynamic Sample Location: Ground level: Logged by: Vertical scale: Project ID: Borehole Log 370139.07E 428351.45N 132.40mOD JT 1:50 42354C Samples & In Situ Testing Strata Details Groundwater Level Depth (m) Water Backfill/ Depth Sample ID Test Result Strata Description Legend (mOD) (Thickness) Strike Installation 132.30 0.10 MADE GROUND: Grass over soft, dark brown, slightly gravelly, 0.20 ES1 (0.30) very sandy SILT with abundant rootlets. Gravel is angular to 0.30 D2 132.00 0.40 subangular, fine and medium including sandstone and brick. 0.45 ES3 MADE GROUND: Dark brown, slightly gravelly, very sandy SILT. Gravel is angular to subangular, fine to coarse including brick and 0.70 D4 (0.60) sandstone. 0.90 ES5 MADE GROUND: Firm, dark brown, sandy, gravelly CLAY with 131.40 1.00 medium cobble content. Gravel is angular to subangular, fine to 1 coarse including brick, concrete, metal and glass. Cobbles are 1.20 SPT(S) N=8 (1,1/2,2,2,2) (0.50) 1.20 ES6 angular including brick and concrete. 1.30 D7 130.90 1.50 MADE GROUND: Black, slightly clayey, fine to coarse SAND. 1.60 D8 MADE GROUND: Firm, dark grey, mottled dark greyish brown, 130.70 1.70 1.80 D11 gravelly CLAY. Gravel is angular to subangular, medium and 1.80 ES9 coarse including brick, sandstone and slate. (0.60) 2 1.80 - 2.00 B10 MADE GROUND: Very soft, black, slightly gravelly, very sandy 2.00 U12 9 blows. 78% recovery CLAY black sand bands. Gravel is subangular to subrounded, fine 130.10 2.30 and medium including chalk, shell fragments and brick. Soft, dark brown mottled greyish brown, slightly sandy, slightly 2.50 D14 (0.50) 2.50 ES13 gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular to rounded, fine to coarse including sandstone. 129.60 2.80 2.90 D15 Firm, brown, slightly gravelly, sandy CLAY with occasional 3.00 SPT(S) N=4 (0,0/0,1,1,2) rootlets. Gravel is subrounded, fine and medium including 3 3.00 - 3.45 D17 sandstone. 3.00 - 4.00 B16 Below 3.00m: dark grey and rootlets absent.
(1.70)
4.00 U18 50 blows. 67% recovery At 4.00m: extra low strength. 4
127.90 4.50 4.60 D20 Stiff, brown, slightly sandy, slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is 4.60 - 5.00 B19 subangular to subrounded, fine and medium including siltstone, mudstone. 5.00 SPT(S) N=38 (5,7/9,9,9,11) (0.95) 5 5.00 - 5.45 D21
126.95 5.45 End of Borehole at 5.45m
6
7
8
9
10 Dynamic Sample Recovery Remarks: Top (m) Base (m) Dia (mm) Recovery % Remarks Service inspection pit hand excavated from GL to 1.20m. 1.20 2.00 100 Borehole continued with dynamic probe below 5.45m. 2.00 3.00 80 3.00 4.00 50 4.00 5.00 50 SPT Hammer: PM1 Energy Ratio: 72% Water Strikes Monitoring Installations Strike (m) Cased (m) Sealed (m) Time (mins) Rose to (m) Remarks Top (m) Base (m) Pipe Type Dia (mm) 1.20 20 1.20
Checked by: HH IFA DS Log status: DRAFT v01.01 Plant used: Project: Location ID: Dando Terrier Furthergate - Plot 6 Dates: Client: WS03
30/07/2019 Blackburn with Darwen Sheet 1 of 1 Dynamic Sample Location: Ground level: Logged by: Vertical scale: Project ID: Borehole Log 370127.45E 428377.31N 132.42mOD JT 1:50 42354C Samples & In Situ Testing Strata Details Groundwater Level Depth (m) Water Backfill/ Depth Sample ID Test Result Strata Description Legend (mOD) (Thickness) Strike Installation 132.32 0.10 MADE GROUND: Grass over soft, dark brown, sandy SILT with 0.20 ES1 abundant rootlets. 0.30 D2 MADE GROUND: Firm, dark brown, slightly gravelly SILT with 0.40 - 0.60 B3 high cobble content. Gravel is angular to subangular, fine to 0.60 ES4 coarse including brick, concrete, glass and sandstone. Cobbles are angular including concrete, sandstone and clay pipe. 0.90 D5 (1.50) 0.90 ES6 1
1.20 SPT(S) N=18 (2,2/5,5,4,4) At 1.20m: low strength. 1.20 - 1.65 U7 18 blows. 67% recovery
130.82 1.60 1.70 ES8 MADE GROUND: Soft and firm, brown mottled very dark brown 1.80 D9 (0.40) and dark orange, slightly gravelly, sandy CLAY. Gravel is 2.00 SPT(S) N=16 (2,2/3,3,4,6) 130.42 2.00 subangular, medium including sandstone. 2 2.00 - 2.45 D10 Firm locally soft, dark grey SILT with strong odour and low content 2.10 ES11 of wood.
(1.20) 2.70 D12
3.00 SPT(S) N=5 (6,3/2,1,1,1) 3 3.00 - 3.45 U13 50 blows. 100% recovery 129.22 3.20 Stiff, brown mottled yellowish brown, slightly sandy, slightly 3.45 - 3.75 B14 gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular to rounded, fine and medium 3.60 D15 including sandstone and mudstone.
4.00 SPT(S) N=13 (3,3/3,4,3,3) 4 4.00 - 4.35 B16 4.00 - 4.45 D17 (2.25)
5.00 SPT(S) N=35 (5,7/7,8,8,12) 5 5.00 - 5.45 D18
126.97 5.45 End of Borehole at 5.45m
6
7
8
9
10 Dynamic Sample Recovery Remarks: Top (m) Base (m) Dia (mm) Recovery % Remarks Service inspection pit hand excavated from GL to 1.20m.
SPT Hammer: PM1 Energy Ratio: 72% Water Strikes Monitoring Installations Strike (m) Cased (m) Sealed (m) Time (mins) Rose to (m) Remarks Top (m) Base (m) Pipe Type Dia (mm) 0.00 0.60 Plain 0.60 2.00 Slotted Checked by: HH IFA DS Log status: DRAFT v01.01 Plant used: Project: Location ID: Dando Terrier Furthergate - Plot 6 Dates: Client: WS04
30/07/2019 Blackburn with Darwen Sheet 1 of 1 Dynamic Sample Location: Ground level: Logged by: Vertical scale: Project ID: Borehole Log 370134.96E 428323.53N 133.30mOD JT 1:50 42354C Samples & In Situ Testing Strata Details Groundwater Level Depth (m) Water Backfill/ Depth Sample ID Test Result Strata Description Legend (mOD) (Thickness) Strike Installation MADE GROUND: Grass over soft, very dark brown, sandy CLAY 0.20 ES1 (0.30) with abundant rootlets. 133.00 0.30 0.30 - 0.80 B2 MADE GROUND: Soft, brown mottled reddish brown, slightly 0.50 ES3 (0.50) gravelly, very sandy CLAY. Gravel is angular to subangular, fine to coarse including brick, concrete and sandstone. 132.50 0.80 0.90 D4 MADE GROUND: Firm, very dark brown, slightly gravelly, sandy 1.00 ES5 (0.50) CLAY. Gravel is angular to subrounded, fine to coarse including 1 1.20 SPT(S) N=10 (12,4/3,3,2,2) brick, concrete and plastic. 132.00 1.30 1.20 - 1.65 D6 MADE GROUND: Greyish brown, slightly clayey, sandy, angular 1.40 D8 (0.50) to subangular, fine to coarse GRAVEL. Gravel includes 1.40 - 1.80 B7 sandstone, brick and concrete. 1.50 ES9 131.50 1.80 1.90 D10 Firm, brown mottled dark orange and dark yellow, slightly sandy, 2.00 - 2.45 U11 27 blows. 78% recovery slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular to rounded, fine to 2 coarse including sandstone and mudstone. At 2.00m: very low strength. 2.50 ES12 2.70 D13
3.00 SPT(S) N=19 (1,1/2,5,5,7) 3 3.00 - 3.45 D14
3.50 D15 (3.65)
4.00 U At 4.00m: low strength. 4 4.00 - 4.45 U16 37 blows. 50% recovery
5.00 SPT(S) N=34 (4,5/8,8,9,9) 5 5.00 - 5.45 D17
127.85 5.45 End of Borehole at 5.45m
6
7
8
9
10 Dynamic Sample Recovery Remarks: Top (m) Base (m) Dia (mm) Recovery % Remarks Service inspection pit hand excavated from GL to 1.20m. 1.20 2.00 100 2.45 3.00 50 3.00 4.00 25 4.45 5.00 0 SPT Hammer: PM1 Energy Ratio: 72% Water Strikes Monitoring Installations Strike (m) Cased (m) Sealed (m) Time (mins) Rose to (m) Remarks Top (m) Base (m) Pipe Type Dia (mm) 1.65 20 1.65 0.00 0.50 Plain 0.50 1.80 Slotted Checked by: HH IFA DS Log status: DRAFT v01.01 Plant used: Project: Location ID: Dando Terrier Furthergate - Plot 6 Dates: Client: WS05
31/07/2019 Blackburn with Darwen Sheet 1 of 1 Dynamic Sample Location: Ground level: Logged by: Vertical scale: Project ID: Borehole Log 370103.04E 428350.62N 133.22mOD JT 1:50 42354C Samples & In Situ Testing Strata Details Groundwater Level Depth (m) Water Backfill/ Depth Sample ID Test Result Strata Description Legend (mOD) (Thickness) Strike Installation MADE GROUND: Firm, dark brown, slightly sandy, slightly 0.20 D1 (0.40) gravelly CLAY. Gravel is angular, medium and coarse including 0.30 ES2 132.82 0.40 concrete. MADE GROUND: Dark brown, very gravelly, very clayey, fine to 0.60 B4 (0.50) coarse SAND with medium cobble content. Gravel is angular, fine 0.60 ES3 to coarse including brick and concrete. 132.32 0.90 1.00 ES5 MADE GROUND: Firm, dark brown, mottled dark yellow, slightly 1 (0.30) gravelly, very sandy CLAY. Gravel is angular to subangular, fine to 1.20 - 1.65 D6 132.02 1.20 coarse including brick, clinker, mudstone and slate. MADE GROUND: Firm, dark brown, very gravelly, sandy CLAY 1.50 ES7 with occasional sand layers. Gravel is angular to subangular, fine to coarse including brick, sandstone, clinker and ceramic. 1.90 D8 At 1.80m: layer of textile. 2 2.00 - 2.45 D9 (1.80)
2.50 ES10 2.60 - 3.00 B11
130.22 3.00 Soft, black SILT with occasional wood pieces. Strong organic 3 odour. At 3.30m: sand layer. 3.50 ES12 3.60 D13
4.00 - 4.45 D14 4 (2.45)
4.60 D15
5.00 - 5.45 D16 5
127.77 5.45 End of Borehole at 5.45m
6
7
8
9
10 Dynamic Sample Recovery Remarks: Top (m) Base (m) Dia (mm) Recovery % Remarks Service inspection pit hand excavated from GL to 1.20m. 1.20 2.00 100 Borehole collapsed from 5.45m to 4.00m. 2.00 3.00 100 3.00 4.00 60 4.00 5.00 50 Water Strikes Monitoring Installations Strike (m) Cased (m) Sealed (m) Time (mins) Rose to (m) Remarks Top (m) Base (m) Pipe Type Dia (mm) 2.10 20 2.10 0.00 3.00 Plain 3.00 4.00 Slotted Checked by: HH IFA DS Log status: DRAFT v01.01 Plant used: Project: Location ID: Dando Terrier Furthergate - Plot 6 Dates: Client: WS06
31/07/2019 Blackburn with Darwen Sheet 1 of 1 Dynamic Sample Location: Ground level: Logged by: Vertical scale: Project ID: Borehole Log 370121.52E 428333.61N 133.11mOD JT 1:50 42354C Samples & In Situ Testing Strata Details Groundwater Level Depth (m) Water Backfill/ Depth Sample ID Test Result Strata Description Legend (mOD) (Thickness) Strike Installation MADE GROUND: Dark brown, slightly gravelly, clayey SAND. (0.40) Gravel is subangular to subrounded, fine to coarse including 0.40 ES1 132.71 0.40 sandstone and brick. MADE GROUND: Dark brown, sandy, slightly clayey GRAVEL 0.60 ES2 with high cobble content. Gravel is angular to subangular, fine to 0.80 D3 (0.80) coarse including brick, sandstone, cement and tile. Cobbles are subangular to angular, including brick and tile. 1.00 ES4 1 1.20 - 1.65 U5 18 blows. 100% recovery 131.91 1.20 MADE GROUND: Soft, light brownish grey, slightly gravelly CLAY. 131.81 1.30 Gravel is subangular to angular, fine to coarse including 1.50 ES6 sandstone. 1.70 D7 (0.70) MADE GROUND; Soft, dark grey, slightly gravelly, sandy CLAY. Gravel is subangular, fine to coarse including coal and sandstone. 2.00 SPT(S) N=3 (0,0/0,0,2,1) 131.11 2.00 MADE GROUND: Soft, dark grey, slightly sandy CLAY. 2 2.00 - 2.45 D8
2.50 ES9 (1.00)
3.00 - 3.45 U10 50 blows. 50% recovery 130.11 3.00 Firm, reddish brown, gravelly CLAY. Gravel is rounded, fine to 3 coarse including sandstone.
3.50 ES11
4.00 SPT(S) N=32 (4,7/8,8,8,8) 4 4.00 - 4.45 D12 (2.45)
5.00 SPT(S) N=35 (5,5/6,9,9,11) 5 5.00 - 5.45 D13
127.66 5.45 End of Borehole at 5.45m
6
7
8
9
10 Dynamic Sample Recovery Remarks: Top (m) Base (m) Dia (mm) Recovery % Remarks Service inspection pit hand excavated from GL to 1.20m. 1.20 2.00 75 2.00 3.00 40 3.00 4.00 20 4.00 5.00 0 SPT Hammer: PM1 Energy Ratio: 72% Water Strikes Monitoring Installations Strike (m) Cased (m) Sealed (m) Time (mins) Rose to (m) Remarks Top (m) Base (m) Pipe Type Dia (mm)
Checked by: HH IFA DS Log status: DRAFT v01.01 Plant used: Project: Location ID: Dando Terrier Furthergate - Plot 6 Dates: Client: WS07
31/07/2019 Blackburn with Darwen Sheet 1 of 1 Dynamic Sample Location: Ground level: Logged by: Vertical scale: Project ID: Borehole Log 370107.47E 428313.77N 133.41mOD JT 1:50 42354C Samples & In Situ Testing Strata Details Groundwater Level Depth (m) Water Backfill/ Depth Sample ID Test Result Strata Description Legend (mOD) (Thickness) Strike Installation MADE GROUND: Brown, slightly gravelly, clayey SAND with 0.20 ES1 (0.30) abundant rootlets. Gravel is subrounded to subangular, fine to 133.11 0.30 coarse including sandstone and brick. 0.50 ES2 MADE GROUND: Dark brownish grey, clayey, angular to 0.60 D3 (0.60) subangular, fine to coarse GRAVEL including sandstone and brick. 0.90 ES4 132.51 0.90 MADE GROUND: Yellowish brown, slightly gravelly, clayey SAND. 1 132.31 1.10 Gravel is subangular to rounded, fine to coarse including 1.20 SPT(S) N=5 (2,2/1,1,1,2) sandstone. 1.20 - 1.65 D5 MADE GROUND: Soft, brownish grey, clayey, slightly sandy 1.20 - 1.80 B6 subangular, fine to coarse GRAVELS including brick and sandstone. 1.80 ES7 (1.40) 2.00 SPT(S) N=5 (0,0/0,1,1,3) 2 2.00 - 2.45 D8 2.00 - 2.50 B9 2.50 D10 130.91 2.50 Firm, yellowish brown, slightly sandy, gravelly CLAY. Gravel is rounded to subangular, fine to coarse including sandstone. 2.80 ES11 3.00 SPT(S) N=14 (2,2/3,3,3,5) 3 3.00 - 3.45 D12
4.00 SPT(S) N=28 (3,3/5,5,7,11) (2.95) 4 4.00 - 4.45 D13
5.00 SPT(S) N=35 (6,6/7,7,9,12) 5 5.00 - 5.45 D14
127.96 5.45 End of Borehole at 5.45m
6
7
8
9
10 Dynamic Sample Recovery Remarks: Top (m) Base (m) Dia (mm) Recovery % Remarks Service inspection pit hand excavated from GL to 1.20m. 1.00 2.00 85 Borehole continued with dynamic probing below 5.45. 2.00 3.00 70 3.00 4.00 30 4.00 5.00 40 SPT Hammer: PM1 Energy Ratio: 72% Water Strikes Monitoring Installations Strike (m) Cased (m) Sealed (m) Time (mins) Rose to (m) Remarks Top (m) Base (m) Pipe Type Dia (mm) 3.00 0 3.00
Checked by: HH IFA DS Log status: DRAFT v01.01 Probe No Dynamic Probe Log DPWS01B Sheet 1 of 1 Project No. Hole Type Project Name: Furthergate - Plot 6 Co-ords: 370159.93 - 428385.98 42354C DP Scale Location: Level: 132.44 1:25 Logged By Client: Blackburn with Darwen Dates: 30/07/2019
Depth Blows/100mm Torque
(m) 10 20 30 40 (Nm)
1
2 3 25 25 50
3
4
Remarks: Fall Height 750 Cone Base Diameter 50 Hammer Wt 63.5 Final Depth 2.30 Probe Type DPSH-B Probe No Dynamic Probe Log DPWS02 Sheet 1 of 2 Project No. Hole Type Project Name: Furthergate - Plot 6 Co-ords: 370139.07 - 428351.45 42354C DP Scale Location: Level: 132.40 1:25 Logged By Client: Blackburn with Darwen Dates: 30/07/2019
Depth Blows/100mm Torque
(m) 10 20 30 40 (Nm)
1
2
3
4
Remarks: Fall Height 750 Cone Base Diameter 50 Hammer Wt 63.5 Final Depth 8.20 Probe Type DPSH-B Probe No Dynamic Probe Log DPWS02 Sheet 2 of 2 Project No. Hole Type Project Name: Furthergate - Plot 6 Co-ords: 370139.07 - 428351.45 42354C DP Scale Location: Level: 132.40 1:25 Logged By Client: Blackburn with Darwen Dates: 30/07/2019
Depth Blows/100mm Torque
(m) 10 20 30 40 (Nm)
4 3 3 4 4 6 9 9 7 8 11 12 13 16 18 19 7 23 20 21 20 22 21 19 23 23 22 8 25 25 50
9
Remarks: Fall Height 750 Cone Base Diameter 50 Hammer Wt 63.5 Final Depth 8.20 Probe Type DPSH-B Probe No Dynamic Probe Log DPWS07 Sheet 1 of 2 Project No. Hole Type Project Name: Furthergate - Plot 6 Co-ords: 370107.47 - 428313.77 42354C DP Scale Location: Level: 133.41 1:25 Logged By Client: Blackburn with Darwen Dates: 31/07/2019
Depth Blows/100mm Torque
(m) 10 20 30 40 (Nm)
1
2
3
4
Remarks: Fall Height 750 Cone Base Diameter 50 Hammer Wt 63.5 Final Depth 7.40 Probe Type DPSH-B Probe No Dynamic Probe Log DPWS07 Sheet 2 of 2 Project No. Hole Type Project Name: Furthergate - Plot 6 Co-ords: 370107.47 - 428313.77 42354C DP Scale Location: Level: 133.41 1:25 Logged By Client: Blackburn with Darwen Dates: 31/07/2019
Depth Blows/100mm Torque
(m) 10 20 30 40 (Nm)
7 6 6 6 5 7 9 9 12 12 6 12 14 12 13 13 15 19 17 19 19 7 18 20 27 25 50
8
9
Remarks: Fall Height 750 Cone Base Diameter 50 Hammer Wt 63.5 Final Depth 7.40 Probe Type DPSH-B
APPENDIX 3
LABORATORY TESTS
APPENDIX 3
GENERAL NOTES ON LABORATORY TESTS ON SOILS
A3.1 GENERAL
A3.1.1 Where applicable all tests are carried out in accordance with the relevant British Standard. The laboratory test procedures are as below:
Test Name Procedures BS1377:1990 Part:Clause
Moisture Content 2:3 Liquid Limit 2:4 Plastic Limit and Plastic Index 2:5 Particle Size Distribution 9.2 Sedimentation 9.4 Mass Loss on Ignition 3.4 Sulphate content 3:5 pH Value 3:9
Compaction Test 4:3 California Bearing Ratio 4:7
Consolidation 5:3
Bulk Density 7:2* Laboratory Vane Tests 7:3* Triaxial Compression Total Stress Single-Stage 7:8 Total Stress Multi-Stage 7:9 Desiccation Note 1*
Note 1 - BRE Information paper IP4 issued February 1993 * Tests are not included in UKAS accreditation
A3.1.2 Where an external laboratory carried out testing, their report, including test methods is included in this Appendix.
A3.1.3 A summary sheet of laboratory test results undertaken by Ian Farmer Laboratories is included, however where copies of the individual test results are required these will be provided on request.
A3.1.4 Any discussion in this report is based on the values and results obtained from the appropriate tests. Due allowance should be made, when considering any result in isolation, of the possible inaccuracy of any such individual result. Details of the accuracy of results are included in this section, where applicable.
A3.2 MOISTURE CONTENT
A3.2.1 Unless stated to the contrary, the moisture content of a soil sample was determined by the standard oven drying method, BS 1377, Part 1, Test 3. The result is reported to an accuracy of 0.5%
A3.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS
A3.3.1 The Liquid Limit, LL, is the moisture content at which the soil passes from the liquid to plastic state. Unless stated to the contrary, the Liquid Limit was determined using the four point, cone penetrometer method, Test 4. The value is reported to the nearest whole number, to an accuracy of 0.5%.
A3.3.2 The Plastic Limit, PL, is the moisture content at which soil passes from the plastic to solid state and becomes too dry to remain in a plastic condition. The Plastic Limit was determined using the method described in Test 5. The value is reported to the nearest whole number, to an accuracy of 0.5%.
Appendix 3 pages iii/i-iii/iii iii/i
A3.3.3 The Plasticity Index, PI, is the numerical difference between the liquid and plastic limits, corresponding to the range of moisture contents over which a soil is in a plastic state. The determination of the Plasticity Index is covered by Test 5.
A3.4 SOIL CLASSIFICATION
A3.4.1 Classification of soils is usually undertaken by means of the Plasticity Classification Chart, sometimes called the A-Line Chart. This is graphical plot of PI against LL with the A-Line defined as PI = 0.73(LL - 20).
A3.4.2 This line is defined from experimental evidence and does not represent a well defined boundary between soil types, but forms a useful reference datum. When the values of LL and PI for inorganic clays are plotted on the chart they generally lie just above the A-Line in a narrow band parallel to it, while silts and organic clays plot below this line.
A3.4.3 Clays and silts are divided into five zones of plasticity:
Low Plasticity (L) LL less than 35
Intermediate Plasticity (I) LL between 35 and 50
High Plasticity (H) LL between 50 and 70
Very High Plasticity (V) LL between 70 and 90
Extremely High Plasticity (E) LL greater than 90
A3.4.4 In general, clays of high plasticity are likely to have a lower permeability, are more compressible and consolidate over a longer period of time under load than clays of low plasticity. Clays of high plasticity are more difficult to compact as fill material.
A3.5 SHEAR STRENGTH TESTS
A3.5.1 The shear strength tests have been carried out in accordance with the procedures given in BS1377, Part 7.
The type of test referred to is:
A3.5.2 U1(100) - Undrained triaxial compression test on single specimen of 100mm diameter at a lateral pressure approximately equal to overburden pressure.
A3.5.3 UM(100) - Multi-stage undrained triaxial compression test on a specimen of 100mm diameter. An initial low cell pressure is applied and the deviator stress increased until failure is imminent. The cell pressure is then increased and the procedure repeated until the failure stress at three different cell pressures have been determined.
A3.5.4 U1(38) - Undrained triaxial compression test on a single specimen of 38mm diameter at a lateral pressure approximately equal to overburden pressure.
A3.5.5 U(38) - Undrained triaxial compression test on set of three specimens of 38mm diameter at three differential lateral pressures.
A3.5.6 Consolidated undrained triaxial – The Effective Stress Parameters were determined in accordance with the procedure detailed in BS1377: Part 8:1990 Clause 7 and the samples were prepared in accordance with clause 4.
A3.5.7 Small shearbox – The peak, and in some cases residual, shear stress parameters were determined in accordance with the procedure detailed in BS1377: Part 7: 1990 Clause 4 and the samples were prepared in accordance with clause 4.
A3.6 CHEMICAL TESTS
Appendix 3 pages iii/i-iii/iii iii/ii
A3.6.1 The total sulphate content of soil was determined using the gravimetric method detailed in BS1377: Part 3:1990, Test 5. The results are recorded to an accuracy of 0.1%.
A3.6.2 The water soluble sulphate content of soil was determined using the gravimetric method detailed in BS1377: Part 3: 1990, Test 5. The results are recorded to an accuracy of 0.1g/l.
A3.6.3 The sulphate content of groundwater was determined using the gravimetric method detailed in BS1377: Part 3: 1990, Test 5. The results are record to an accuracy of 0.1g/l.
A3.6.4 The pH value was determined electrometrically using the procedures given in BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, Test 9. The results are recorded to an accuracy of 0.1 pH units.
A3.6.5 The total sulphur content of soil was determined using the ignition in oxygen method detailed in TRL Report 447, Test 4B.
A3.6.6 The organic content of soil was determined in accordance with the chemical method detailed in BS1377: Part 3:1990 Clause 3. The sample was prepared in accordance with Clause 3.4.2.
A3.6.7 The organic content of soil was determined in accordance with the loss on ignition method detailed in BS1377: Part 3:1990 Clause 4. The sample was prepared in accordance with Clause 4.3.2.
A3.7 COMPACTION TESTS
A3.7.1 Whenever soil is placed as fill, it is generally necessary to compact it into a dense state. Laboratory compaction tests are carried out to provide the basis for control procedures. Compaction tests provide the following information.
A3.7.2 The relationship between the dry density and moisture content for a given degree of compactive effort.
A3.7.3 The moisture content for the most efficient compaction. This is defined as the Optimum Moisture Content, OMC, being the moisture content of the soil at which a specified amount of compaction will produce the maximum dry density.
A3.7.4 The Maximum Dry Density, being the dry density obtained using a specified amount of compaction at the optimum moisture content.
A3.7.5 There are three basic laboratory compaction tests, these being as follows:
Rammer Type of test Container (BS1377:1990 Part 4) Blows mass drop No of Per (kg) (mm) Layers Layer
BS mould (1l) 2.5 300 3 27 Light compaction CBR mould 2.5 300 3 62
BS mould (1l) 4.5 450 5 27 Heavy compaction CBR mould 4.5 450 5 62
Vibrating hammer CBR mould 32 to vibro 3 (1 min)
A3.7.6 The California Bearing Ratio is determined using the penetration test procedure detailed in BS1377: Part 4: 1990 Clause 7.4. The samples are prepared in accordance with BS1377: Part 4: 1990 Clause 7.2.4.4 method 5 using a 2.5kg/4.5kg rammer / intermediate effort. The force penetration curves are given in the corresponding figures. The curves include the percentage retained on the 20mm test sieve.
Appendix 3 pages iii/i-iii/iii iii/iii
F.A.O.
Supplemental Test Report - 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6
Job Number: 42354C
Originating Client: Blackburn with Darwen
Originating Reference: 42354C
Date Sampled: Not Given
Date Scheduled: 09/08/2019
Date Testing Started: 21/08/2019
Date Testing Finished: 06/09/2019
Previous Reports Amendments Date Issued 1 Final 27/08/2019
Amendments: Results from ATN-1 added
Authorised By: Tim Robinson
Tim Robinson Quality Technician Report Issue Date: 06/09/2019
Page. 1 Laboratory Test Report 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6 Job Number: 42354C
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Page: 2 Determination of Water Content, Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit and Derivation of Plasticity and Liquidity Index
Sample Passing Natural Borehole / Trial Natural / 425 µm Sieve Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Liquidity Depth (m) Sample Water Class Description / Remarks Pit Sieved % % Index % Index Content % Percentage Water % Content %
WS02 2.00 U12 Sieved 16.2 54 26.0 26 20 6 0.97 CL Brown/Black silty, sandy, gravelly CLAY WS02 2.50 D14 Natural 23.8 100 24.0 36 20 16 0.24 CI Brown slightly gravelly, silty CLAY WS03 0.90 D5 Sieved 17.5 11 122.0 45 31 14 6.51 MI Brown slightly sandy, gravelly SILT WS03 2.70 D12 Natural 68.5 66 101.0 84 61 23 1.76 MV Brown/Black sandy, gravelly SILT (Peat) WS03 3.60 D15 Natural 17 100 17.0 36 16 20 0.05 CI Brown slightly gravelly, silty CLAY WS04 1.90 D10 Natural 28.1 82 33.0 36 22 14 0.79 CI Brown slightly gravelly, sandy, silty CLAY Brown/Black slightly gravelly, clayey SILT WS05 3.60 D13 Natural 96.5 86 111.0 118 56 62 0.89 ME (Peat) WS06 2.00 D8 Natural 39.5 75 51.0 52 29 23 0.97 CH Brown gravelly, silty CLAY WS06 3.00 U10 Natural 21.3 93 22.0 36 20 16 0.15 CI Brown slightly gravelly, silty, sandy CLAY Brown slightly sandy, slightly gravelly, silty WS06 4.00 D12 Natural 20.3 86 23.0 29 14 15 0.59 CL CLAY WS07 2.50 D10 Natural 23.1 45 45.0 44 22 22 1.04 CI Brown sandy, gravelly, silty CLAY
Method of Preparation: BS EN ISO 17892 : Part 1 : 2014 : Clause 5.1 Water content test preparation BS 1377 : Part 1 : 2016 : Clause 8.4.3 Preparation of samples for plasticity tests BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 4.2 Preparation of samples for plastic limit tests Method of Test: BS EN ISO 17892 : Part 1 : 2014 : Clause 5.2 Water content test execution BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 4.3 or 4.4 Determination of the liquid limit BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 5.3 Determination of the plastic limit and plasticity index Laboratory Test Report 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6 Job Number: 42354C
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Page: 3
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Borehole / Depth (m) Sample Testing Type Description Trial Pit
WS02 1.80 B10 Wet Sieve Brown silty, gravelly SAND
SILT SAND GRAVEL CLAY COBBLES BOULDERS Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse 100
90
æ m ö 80 ç ÷ è m 1 ø 70
60
50
40
Percentage Passing % Passing Percentage 30
20
10
0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Particle Size mm Sieving Sedimentation Particle Size Particle Size % Passing % Passing Dry Mass of sample, g 810 mm mm
Sample Proportions % dry mass Very coarse 0 Gravel 32 Sand 57
Fines <0.063mm 11
28 100 Grading Analysis 20 95 D100 mm 28 14 93 D60 mm 1.15 10 89 D30 mm 0.258 6.3 82 D10 mm 5 80 Uniformity Coefficient 3.35 75 Curvature Coefficient 2 68 1.18 61 Remarks 0.63 50 Preparation and testing in accordance with BS1377 unless noted below 0.425 42 0.3 34 0.2 24 0.15 19 0.063 11
Method of Preparation: BS 1377:Part 1:1990, clause 7 3 Initial preparation BS 1377:Part 1:1990, clause 7.4.5 Preparation of particle size tests
Method of Test: BS1377:Part 2:1990, clause 9.2 Determination of particle size distribution by wet sieving method Laboratory Test Report 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6 Job Number: 42354C
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Page: 4
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Borehole / Depth (m) Sample Testing Type Description Trial Pit
WS04 1.40 B7 Wet Sieve Brown slightly clayey, sandy GRAVEL
SILT SAND GRAVEL CLAY COBBLES BOULDERS Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse 100
90
æ m ö 80 ç ÷ è m 1 ø 70
60
50
40
Percentage Passing % Passing Percentage 30
20
10
0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Particle Size mm Sieving Sedimentation Particle Size Particle Size % Passing % Passing Dry Mass of sample, g 1344 mm mm
Sample Proportions % dry mass Very coarse 0 Gravel 58 Sand 33
Fines <0.063mm 9 37.5 100 28 97 Grading Analysis 20 87 D100 mm 37.5 14 80 D60 mm 5.97 10 72 D30 mm 0.822 6.3 61 D10 mm 0.074 5 56 Uniformity Coefficient 81 3.35 50 Curvature Coefficient 1.5 2 42 1.18 34 Remarks 0.63 27 Preparation and testing in accordance with BS1377 unless noted below 0.425 23 0.3 20 0.2 16 0.15 14 0.063 9
Method of Preparation: BS 1377:Part 1:1990, clause 7 3 Initial preparation BS 1377:Part 1:1990, clause 7.4.5 Preparation of particle size tests
Method of Test: BS1377:Part 2:1990, clause 9.2 Determination of particle size distribution by wet sieving method Laboratory Test Report 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6 Job Number: 42354C
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Page: 5
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Borehole / Depth (m) Sample Testing Type Description Trial Pit
WS05 2.60 B11 Wet Sieve Brown silty, sandy GRAVEL
SILT SAND GRAVEL CLAY COBBLES BOULDERS Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse 100
90
æ m ö 80 ç ÷ è m 1 ø 70
60
50
40
Percentage Passing % Passing Percentage 30
20
10
0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Particle Size mm Sieving Sedimentation Particle Size Particle Size % Passing % Passing Dry Mass of sample, g 2064 mm mm
Sample Proportions % dry mass Very coarse 0 Gravel 44 Sand 36 63 100 50 86 Fines <0.063mm 20 37.5 81 28 72 Grading Analysis 20 69 D100 mm 63 14 67 D60 mm 4.63 10 65 D30 mm 0.16 6.3 62 D10 mm 5 60 Uniformity Coefficient 3.35 59 Curvature Coefficient 2 56 1.18 53 Remarks 0.63 49 Preparation and testing in accordance with BS1377 unless noted below 0.425 46 0.3 41 0.2 34 0.15 29 0.063 20
Method of Preparation: BS 1377:Part 1:1990, clause 7 3 Initial preparation BS 1377:Part 1:1990, clause 7.4.5 Preparation of particle size tests
Method of Test: BS1377:Part 2:1990, clause 9.2 Determination of particle size distribution by wet sieving method Laboratory Test Report 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6 Job Number: 42354C
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Page: 6
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Borehole / Depth (m) Sample Testing Type Description Trial Pit
WS07 2.00 B9 Wet Sieve Brown slightly gravelly, silty, clayey SAND
SILT SAND GRAVEL CLAY COBBLES BOULDERS Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse 100
90
æ m ö 80 ç ÷ è m 1 ø 70
60
50
40
Percentage Passing % Passing Percentage 30
20
10
0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Particle Size mm Sieving Sedimentation Particle Size Particle Size % Passing % Passing Dry Mass of sample, g 746 mm mm
Sample Proportions % dry mass Very coarse 0 Gravel 6 Sand 56
Fines <0.063mm 38
Grading Analysis 20 100 D100 mm 14 14 100 D60 mm 0.184 10 99 D30 mm 6.3 98 D10 mm 5 97 Uniformity Coefficient 3.35 95 Curvature Coefficient 2 94 1.18 91 Remarks 0.63 86 Preparation and testing in accordance with BS1377 unless noted below 0.425 82 0.3 74 0.2 63 0.15 53 0.063 38
Method of Preparation: BS 1377:Part 1:1990, clause 7 3 Initial preparation BS 1377:Part 1:1990, clause 7.4.5 Preparation of particle size tests
Method of Test: BS1377:Part 2:1990, clause 9.2 Determination of particle size distribution by wet sieving method Laboratory Test Report 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6 Job Number: 42354C
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Page: 7
Determination of California Bearing Ratio ( CBR )
Borehole / % Passing Depth (m) Sample Description Trial Pit 20mm Sieve
WS03 0.40 B3 97.10% Brown slightly sandy, gravelly SILT (Topsoil)
Specimen Preparation Condition REMOULDED Soaking details Not soaked Details Recompacted with specified standard effort using 2.5kg Period of soaking days rammer Time to surface days Amount of swell recorded mm Initial Specimen details Bulk density 1.80 Mg/m3 Dry density after soaking Mg/m3 Dry density 1.45 Mg/m3 Moisture content 24 % Surcharge applied 4.2 kg 3 kPa
Force v Penetration Plots 1.60
1.40
1.20 Top data
1.00 Top values
Top correction 0.80 Base data
Force Applied kN Applied Force 0.60 Base values
Base Correction 0.40
0.20
0.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Penetration mm
RESULTS Curve CBR Values, % Moisture correction Content 2.5mm 5mm Highest Average applied % Approved TOP No 2.4 3.5 3.5 23
Tim Robinson BASE No 4.6 5.5 5.5 25
Method of Preparation: BS1377 : Part 4 : 1990, clause 7.2, Recompacted with specified standard effort using 2.5kg rammer
Method of Test: BS1377 : Part 4 : 1990, clause 7.4, Penetration test procedure to determine California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
Remarks: Laboratory Test Report 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6 Job Number: 42354C
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Page: 8 Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test without measurement of pore pressure - single specimen (Definitive Method) Borehole / Depth Sample Description Trial Pit (m)
WS02 4.00 U18 Brown silty, sandy, gravelly CLAY
Test Number 1 Deviator Stress v Axial Strain 18 Original Length (mm) 195.00 16 Depth from Top (mm) 35.00 14
Initial Sample Condition Undisturbed 12 Orientation Vertical 10
Length (mm) 140.72 8 6 Diameter (mm) 70.42 4 Corrected Deviator Stress kPa Stress Deviator Corrected Moisture Content (%) 21.00 2
Bulk Density (Mg/m3) 2.04 0 0 2 4 6 8
Dry Density (Mg/m3) 1.68 Axial Strain %
Membrane Thickness (mm) 0.32 Mohr Circles 100 Membrane Type Latex
Rate of Strain (%/min) 2.0
Cell Pressure (kPa) 80
50 Axial Strain (%) 5.7
Membrane Corr. (kPa) 0.69 Shear Strength kPa Strength Shear
Deviator Stress, ( σ1 - σ3 )f 17
Test Results (kPa) Undrained Shear Strength, 0 8 cu = ½( σ1 - σ3 )f (kPa) 0 50 100 Normal Stresses kPa Mode of Failure Plastic
Deviator stress corrected for Mohr circles and their interpretation is not area change and membrane covered by BS1377. effects This is provided for information only.
Method of Preparation: BS 1377:PT1:1990:8.3 Preparation of undisturbed samples for testing or BS 1377:PT1:1990:7.7.5.2 Preparation of disturbed samples for testing Method of Test: BS 1377:PT2:1990:7.2 Determination of density by linear measurement. BS 1377:PT7:1990:8.4 Determination of undrained shear strength in triaxial compression without measurement of pore pressure (Definitive method) Laboratory Test Report 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6 Job Number: 42354C
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Page: 9 Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test without measurement of pore pressure - single specimen (Definitive Method) Borehole / Depth Sample Description Trial Pit (m)
WS03 1.20 U7 Brown silty, gravelly CLAY
Test Number 1 Deviator Stress v Axial Strain 30 Original Length (mm) 185.00
Depth from Top (mm) 35.00 25
Initial Sample Condition Undisturbed 20 Orientation Vertical 15 Length (mm) 139.99 10 Diameter (mm) 70.43
Corrected Deviator Stress kPa Stress Deviator Corrected 5 Moisture Content (%) 17.00
Bulk Density (Mg/m3) 1.92 0 0 2 4 6 8
Dry Density (Mg/m3) 1.64 Axial Strain %
Membrane Thickness (mm) 0.35 Mohr Circles 50 Membrane Type Latex
Rate of Strain (%/min) 2.0
Cell Pressure (kPa) 25
Axial Strain (%) 5
Membrane Corr. (kPa) 0.7 Shear Strength kPa Strength Shear
Deviator Stress, ( σ1 - σ3 )f 25
Test Results (kPa) Undrained Shear Strength, 0 13 cu = ½( σ1 - σ3 )f (kPa) 0 50 Normal Stresses kPa Mode of Failure Plastic
Deviator stress corrected for Mohr circles and their interpretation is not area change and membrane covered by BS1377. effects This is provided for information only.
Method of Preparation: BS 1377:PT1:1990:8.3 Preparation of undisturbed samples for testing or BS 1377:PT1:1990:7.7.5.2 Preparation of disturbed samples for testing Method of Test: BS 1377:PT2:1990:7.2 Determination of density by linear measurement. BS 1377:PT7:1990:8.4 Determination of undrained shear strength in triaxial compression without measurement of pore pressure (Definitive method) Laboratory Test Report 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6 Job Number: 42354C
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Page: 10 Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test without measurement of pore pressure - single specimen (Definitive Method) Borehole / Depth Sample Description Trial Pit (m)
WS04 2.00 U11 Brown silty, sandy, gravelly CLAY
Test Number 1 Deviator Stress v Axial Strain 25 Original Length (mm) 193.00
Depth from Top (mm) 40.00 20
Initial Sample Condition Undisturbed
Orientation Vertical 15
Length (mm) 141.20 10
Diameter (mm) 70.70
Corrected Deviator Stress kPa Stress Deviator Corrected 5 Moisture Content (%) 18.30
Bulk Density (Mg/m3) 1.92 0 0 5 10 15
Dry Density (Mg/m3) 1.63 Axial Strain %
Membrane Thickness (mm) 0.34 Mohr Circles 100 Membrane Type Latex
Rate of Strain (%/min) 2.0
Cell Pressure (kPa) 40
50 Axial Strain (%) 11
Membrane Corr. (kPa) 1.12 Shear Strength kPa Strength Shear
Deviator Stress, ( σ1 - σ3 )f 22
Test Results (kPa) Undrained Shear Strength, 0 11 cu = ½( σ1 - σ3 )f (kPa) 0 50 100 Normal Stresses kPa Mode of Failure Plastic
Deviator stress corrected for Mohr circles and their interpretation is not area change and membrane covered by BS1377. effects This is provided for information only.
Method of Preparation: BS 1377:PT1:1990:8.3 Preparation of undisturbed samples for testing or BS 1377:PT1:1990:7.7.5.2 Preparation of disturbed samples for testing Method of Test: BS 1377:PT2:1990:7.2 Determination of density by linear measurement. BS 1377:PT7:1990:8.4 Determination of undrained shear strength in triaxial compression without measurement of pore pressure (Definitive method) Laboratory Test Report 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6 Job Number: 42354C
Client: Blackburn with Darwen Page: 11 Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test without measurement of pore pressure - single specimen (Definitive Method) Borehole / Depth Sample Description Trial Pit (m)
WS04 4.00 U Brown sandy, gravelly SILT
Test Number 1 Deviator Stress v Axial Strain 90 Original Length (mm) 235.10 80 Depth from Top (mm) 13.57 70
Initial Sample Condition Undisturbed 60 Orientation Vertical 50
Length (mm) 141.16 40 30 Diameter (mm) 69.65 20 Corrected Deviator Stress kPa Stress Deviator Corrected Moisture Content (%) 26.10 10
Bulk Density (Mg/m3) 2.19 0 0 5 10 15
Dry Density (Mg/m3) 1.74 Axial Strain %
Membrane Thickness (mm) 0.3 Mohr Circles 200 Membrane Type Latex
Rate of Strain (%/min) 2.8 150
Cell Pressure (kPa) 80
100 Axial Strain (%) 11
Membrane Corr. (kPa) 1 Shear Strength kPa Strength Shear 50 Deviator Stress, ( σ1 - σ3 )f 80
Test Results (kPa) Undrained Shear Strength, 0 40 cu = ½( σ1 - σ3 )f (kPa) 0 50 100 150 200 Normal Stresses kPa Mode of Failure Brittle
Deviator stress corrected for Mohr circles and their interpretation is not area change and membrane covered by BS1377. effects This is provided for information only.
Method of Preparation: BS 1377:PT1:1990:8.3 Preparation of undisturbed samples for testing or BS 1377:PT1:1990:7.7.5.2 Preparation of disturbed samples for testing Method of Test: BS 1377:PT2:1990:7.2 Determination of density by linear measurement. BS 1377:PT7:1990:8.4 Determination of undrained shear strength in triaxial compression without measurement of pore pressure (Definitive method) Supplemental Test Report - 42354C / 2
Site: Furthergate - Plot 6
Job Number: 42354C
Originating Client: Blackburn with Darwen
All opinions and interpretations contained within this report are outside of our Scope of Accreditation.
This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full and only with the written permission of Ian Farmer Associates Ltd.
Samples will be retained for 28 days from date of issue of the final test report before being disposed of, unless we receive written instruction to the contrary.
Report Issue Date: 06/09/2019
Page. 12
APPENDIX 4
CHEMICAL TESTS
Units 7 & 8 Sandpits Business Park Mottram Road, Hyde, Cheshire, SK14 3AR
FINAL ANALYTICAL TEST REPORT
Envirolab Job Number: 19/07403 Issue Number: 1 Date: 14 August, 2019
Client: Ian Farmer Associates (Warrington) 14/15 Rufford Court Hardwick Grange Warrington WA1 4RF
Project Manager: Michelle Hirst-Watson/Tim Downes Project Name: Futhergate Plot 6 Project Ref: 42354-C Order No: 46779 Date Samples Received: 01/08/19 Date Instructions Received: 06/08/19 Date Analysis Completed: 13/08/19
Prepared by: Approved by:
Melanie Marshall Danielle Brierley Laboratory Coordinator Client Manager
Page 1 of 11
Envirolab Job Number: 19/07403 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 6
Client Project Ref: 42354-C
Lab Sample ID 19/07403/1 19/07403/2 19/07403/6 19/07403/11 19/07403/12 19/07403/13 19/07403/17
Client Sample No 1 3 1 13 1 4 1
Client Sample ID WS01 WS01 WS02 WS02 WS03 WS03 WS04
Depth to Top 0.35 0.8 0.2 2.5 0.2 0.6 0.2
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19
Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES
Sample Type
Sample Matrix Code 4AE 4ABE 4AE 5AE 6AE 6AE 6AE
Units Limitof Detection Methodref
A-T-044 % Stones >10mmA 15.4 <0.1 20.9 8.2 13.5 2.9 2.5 % w/w 0.1
M# A-T-031s pHD 8.08 8.33 8.04 7.83 7.76 7.97 8.05 pH 0.01
M# A-T-026s Sulphate (water sol 2:1)D <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 g/l 0.01
M# A-T-028s Sulphate (acid soluble)D 710 230 980 <200 1000 1000 1200 mg/kg 200
A-T-024s Sulphur (total)D 489 332 642 357 617 664 566 mg/kg 50
M# A-T-042sTCN Cyanide (total)A 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 mg/kg 1
A-T-050s Phenols - Total by HPLCA <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg 0.2
M# A-T-032 OM Organic matterD 13.7 2.9 10.0 2.0 14.5 17.3 7.7 % w/w 0.1
M# A-T-024s ArsenicD 14 3 18 2 16 19 13 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-024s CadmiumD 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.7 1.0 mg/kg 0.5
M# A-T-024s CopperD 85 30 128 19 106 183 57 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-024s ChromiumD 20 17 22 24 19 27 21 mg/kg 1
A-T-040s Chromium (hexavalent)D <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-024s LeadD 184 55 194 20 210 251 174 mg/kg 1
A-T-024s MercuryD <0.17 <0.17 0.55 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 mg/kg 0.17
M# A-T-024s NickelD 31 48 28 28 26 37 20 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-024s SeleniumD <1 <1 <1 <1 2 <1 <1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-024s ZincD 209 179 164 54 253 317 144 mg/kg 5
Page 2 of 11
Envirolab Job Number: 19/07403 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 6
Client Project Ref: 42354-C
Lab Sample ID 19/07403/1 19/07403/2 19/07403/6 19/07403/11 19/07403/12 19/07403/13 19/07403/17
Client Sample No 1 3 1 13 1 4 1
Client Sample ID WS01 WS01 WS02 WS02 WS03 WS03 WS04
Depth to Top 0.35 0.8 0.2 2.5 0.2 0.6 0.2
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19
Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES
Sample Type
Sample Matrix Code 4AE 4ABE 4AE 5AE 6AE 6AE 6AE
Units Limitof Detection Methodref
Asbestos in Soil (inc. matrix)
# A-T-045 Asbestos in soilD NAD Chrysotile NAD NAD NAD NAD NAD
A-T-045 Asbestos Matrix (microscope)D - Loose Fibres - - - - -
Asbestos ACM - Suitable for Water N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Absorption Test?
Asbestos in Soil Quantification % (Hand Picking & Weighing)
Asbestos in soil % composition (hand - <0.001 - - - - - % w/w 0.001 A-T-054 picking and weighing)D
Page 3 of 11
Envirolab Job Number: 19/07403 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 6
Client Project Ref: 42354-C
Lab Sample ID 19/07403/1 19/07403/2 19/07403/6 19/07403/11 19/07403/12 19/07403/13 19/07403/17
Client Sample No 1 3 1 13 1 4 1
Client Sample ID WS01 WS01 WS02 WS02 WS03 WS03 WS04
Depth to Top 0.35 0.8 0.2 2.5 0.2 0.6 0.2
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19
Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES
Sample Type
Sample Matrix Code 4AE 4ABE 4AE 5AE 6AE 6AE 6AE
Units Limitof Detection Methodref
PAH-16MS
M# A-T-019s AcenaphtheneA 1.24 1.15 0.18 <0.01 0.27 0.72 0.21 mg/kg 0.01
M# A-T-019s AcenaphthyleneA 0.04 0.02 0.04 <0.01 0.05 0.05 0.03 mg/kg 0.01
M# A-T-019s AnthraceneA 1.70 1.36 0.35 <0.02 0.44 0.79 0.41 mg/kg 0.02
M# A-T-019s Benzo(a)anthraceneA 2.88 2.10 2.06 0.04 2.33 2.76 1.77 mg/kg 0.04
M# A-T-019s Benzo(a)pyreneA 2.01 1.50 1.78 <0.04 2.11 1.84 1.58 mg/kg 0.04
M# A-T-019s Benzo(b)fluorantheneA 2.58 1.77 2.09 0.05 2.55 3.10 2.00 mg/kg 0.05
M# A-T-019s Benzo(ghi)peryleneA 0.77 0.62 0.67 <0.05 1.06 0.67 0.80 mg/kg 0.05
M# A-T-019s Benzo(k)fluorantheneA 0.89 0.79 0.74 <0.07 1.17 1.09 0.84 mg/kg 0.07
M# A-T-019s ChryseneA 2.85 2.03 2.05 0.09 2.44 2.68 1.98 mg/kg 0.06
M# A-T-019s Dibenzo(ah)anthraceneA 0.15 0.12 0.13 <0.04 0.20 0.14 0.14 mg/kg 0.04
M# A-T-019s FluorantheneA 6.60 3.68 2.20 <0.08 3.05 6.64 2.83 mg/kg 0.08
M# A-T-019s FluoreneA 0.74 0.61 0.08 <0.01 0.12 0.30 0.09 mg/kg 0.01
M# A-T-019s Indeno(123-cd)pyreneA 0.94 0.75 0.80 <0.03 1.26 0.89 0.90 mg/kg 0.03
M# A-T-019s Naphthalene A 0.79 0.69 0.07 <0.03 0.05 0.11 <0.03 mg/kg 0.03
M# A-T-019s PhenanthreneA 6.58 5.23 1.37 0.07 1.93 3.92 1.50 mg/kg 0.03
M# A-T-019s PyreneA 5.81 3.21 2.08 <0.07 2.76 5.62 2.17 mg/kg 0.07
M# A-T-019s Total PAH-16MSA 36.6 25.6 16.7 0.25 21.8 31.3 17.2 mg/kg 0.01
Page 4 of 11
Envirolab Job Number: 19/07403 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 6
Client Project Ref: 42354-C
Lab Sample ID 19/07403/1 19/07403/2 19/07403/6 19/07403/11 19/07403/12 19/07403/13 19/07403/17
Client Sample No 1 3 1 13 1 4 1
Client Sample ID WS01 WS01 WS02 WS02 WS03 WS03 WS04
Depth to Top 0.35 0.8 0.2 2.5 0.2 0.6 0.2
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19 30-Jul-19
Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES
Sample Type
Sample Matrix Code 4AE 4ABE 4AE 5AE 6AE 6AE 6AE
Units Limitof Detection Methodref
TPH CWG
# A-T-022s Ali >C5-C6A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s Ali >C6-C8A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 mg/kg 0.01
A-T-055s Ali >C8-C10A <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Ali >C10-C12A 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Ali >C12-C16A 6 2 2 1 2 12 <1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Ali >C16-C21A 6 2 3 1 3 38 1 mg/kg 1
A-T-055s Ali >C21-C35A 21 7 28 4 29 88 18 mg/kg 1
A-T-055s Total AliphaticsA 34 11 34 7 34 139 20 mg/kg 1
# A-T-022s Aro >C5-C7A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s Aro >C7-C8A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
A-T-055s Aro >C8-C10A 2 1 3 <1 2 8 1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Aro >C10-C12A 5 1 3 <1 10 28 1 mg/kg 1
A-T-055s Aro >C12-C16A 42 7 10 2 21 394 5 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Aro >C16-C21A 145 21 37 2 50 1350 21 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Aro >C21-C35A 428 62 134 7 169 1660 87 mg/kg 1
A-T-055s Total AromaticsA 621 91 187 11 253 3450 116 mg/kg 1
A-T-055s TPH (Ali & Aro >C5-C35)A 656 102 220 18 287 3580 136 mg/kg 1
# A-T-022s BTEX - BenzeneA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s BTEX - TolueneA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s BTEX - Ethyl BenzeneA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s BTEX - m & p XyleneA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s BTEX - o XyleneA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s MTBEA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
Page 5 of 11
Envirolab Job Number: 19/07403 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 6
Client Project Ref: 42354-C
Lab Sample ID 19/07403/19 19/07403/23 19/07403/24 19/07403/28 19/07403/31 19/07403/34 19/07403/36
Client Sample No 5 3 5 1 6 1 4
Client Sample ID WS04 WS05 WS05 WS06 WS06 WS07 WS07
Depth to Top 1 0.6 1 0.4 1.5 0.20 0.90
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 30-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19
Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES
Sample Type
Sample Matrix Code 4ABE 4ABE 5A 4AE 4A 6AE 5A
Units Limitof Detection Methodref
A-T-044 % Stones >10mmA 5.4 <0.1 4.0 2.9 1.7 1.5 0.9 % w/w 0.1
M# A-T-031s pHD 8.07 8.36 8.15 6.66 7.61 7.68 8.52 pH 0.01
M# A-T-026s Sulphate (water sol 2:1)D 0.20 <0.01 0.26 <0.01 0.28 <0.01 <0.01 g/l 0.01
M# A-T-028s Sulphate (acid soluble)D 1400 800 2300 1500 2700 780 500 mg/kg 200
A-T-024s Sulphur (total)D 1200 531 2060 864 2220 433 240 mg/kg 50
M# A-T-042sTCN Cyanide (total)A <1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 mg/kg 1
A-T-050s Phenols - Total by HPLCA <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg 0.2
M# A-T-032 OM Organic matterD 7.8 10.9 10.7 12.6 11.7 9.0 4.8 % w/w 0.1
M# A-T-024s ArsenicD 19 10 15 29 36 10 7 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-024s CadmiumD 2.2 0.8 3.9 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 mg/kg 0.5
M# A-T-024s CopperD 141 57 108 363 135 44 43 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-024s ChromiumD 37 15 40 20 24 21 19 mg/kg 1
A-T-040s Chromium (hexavalent)D <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-024s LeadD 309 353 253 260 589 130 105 mg/kg 1
A-T-024s MercuryD <0.17 <0.17 0.36 <0.17 <0.17 4.31 <0.17 mg/kg 0.17
M# A-T-024s NickelD 35 34 36 46 33 23 20 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-024s SeleniumD 2 <1 <1 2 2 <1 <1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-024s ZincD 242 90 492 190 340 125 137 mg/kg 5
Page 6 of 11
Envirolab Job Number: 19/07403 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 6
Client Project Ref: 42354-C
Lab Sample ID 19/07403/19 19/07403/23 19/07403/24 19/07403/28 19/07403/31 19/07403/34 19/07403/36
Client Sample No 5 3 5 1 6 1 4
Client Sample ID WS04 WS05 WS05 WS06 WS06 WS07 WS07
Depth to Top 1 0.6 1 0.4 1.5 0.20 0.90
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 30-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19
Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES
Sample Type
Sample Matrix Code 4ABE 4ABE 5A 4AE 4A 6AE 5A
Units Limitof Detection Methodref
Asbestos in Soil (inc. matrix)
# A-T-045 Asbestos in soilD NAD Chrysotile NAD NAD NAD NAD NAD
A-T-045 Asbestos Matrix (microscope)D - Loose Fibres - - - - -
Asbestos ACM - Suitable for Water N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Absorption Test?
Asbestos in Soil Quantification % (Hand Picking & Weighing)
Asbestos in soil % composition (hand - <0.001 - - - - - % w/w 0.001 A-T-054 picking and weighing)D
Page 7 of 11
Envirolab Job Number: 19/07403 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 6
Client Project Ref: 42354-C
Lab Sample ID 19/07403/19 19/07403/23 19/07403/24 19/07403/28 19/07403/31 19/07403/34 19/07403/36
Client Sample No 5 3 5 1 6 1 4
Client Sample ID WS04 WS05 WS05 WS06 WS06 WS07 WS07
Depth to Top 1 0.6 1 0.4 1.5 0.20 0.90
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 30-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19
Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES
Sample Type
Sample Matrix Code 4ABE 4ABE 5A 4AE 4A 6AE 5A
Units Limitof Detection Methodref
PAH-16MS
M# A-T-019s AcenaphtheneA 0.07 2.85 0.65 0.05 1.91 0.76 0.05 mg/kg 0.01
M# A-T-019s AcenaphthyleneA <0.01 0.13 0.21 0.01 0.07 0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
M# A-T-019s AnthraceneA 0.07 3.98 2.15 0.12 2.51 1.01 0.10 mg/kg 0.02
M# A-T-019s Benzo(a)anthraceneA 0.14 9.85 4.94 0.54 7.06 1.83 0.35 mg/kg 0.04
M# A-T-019s Benzo(a)pyreneA 0.10 7.25 3.83 0.49 5.25 1.12 0.23 mg/kg 0.04
M# A-T-019s Benzo(b)fluorantheneA 0.11 8.99 4.86 0.65 6.68 1.39 0.27 mg/kg 0.05
M# A-T-019s Benzo(ghi)peryleneA <0.05 2.89 2.45 0.24 2.28 0.40 0.10 mg/kg 0.05
M# A-T-019s Benzo(k)fluorantheneA <0.07 3.09 1.64 0.27 2.34 0.56 0.15 mg/kg 0.07
M# A-T-019s ChryseneA 0.15 9.03 4.65 0.63 6.64 1.80 0.35 mg/kg 0.06
M# A-T-019s Dibenzo(ah)anthraceneA <0.04 0.58 0.52 <0.04 0.45 0.10 <0.04 mg/kg 0.04
M# A-T-019s FluorantheneA 0.32 22 8.90 0.89 15.2 3.94 0.72 mg/kg 0.08
M# A-T-019s FluoreneA 0.05 1.50 0.44 0.02 1.01 0.37 0.02 mg/kg 0.01
M# A-T-019s Indeno(123-cd)pyreneA 0.06 3.74 2.92 0.27 2.76 0.52 0.12 mg/kg 0.03
M# A-T-019s Naphthalene A <0.03 0.74 0.31 <0.03 0.34 0.11 <0.03 mg/kg 0.03
M# A-T-019s PhenanthreneA 0.32 18.2 4.99 0.46 10.8 3.65 0.30 mg/kg 0.03
M# A-T-019s PyreneA 0.27 21.8 7.70 0.82 13.4 3.51 0.67 mg/kg 0.07
M# A-T-019s Total PAH-16MSA 1.66 117 51.2 5.46 78.7 21.1 3.43 mg/kg 0.01
Page 8 of 11
Envirolab Job Number: 19/07403 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 6
Client Project Ref: 42354-C
Lab Sample ID 19/07403/19 19/07403/23 19/07403/24 19/07403/28 19/07403/31 19/07403/34 19/07403/36
Client Sample No 5 3 5 1 6 1 4
Client Sample ID WS04 WS05 WS05 WS06 WS06 WS07 WS07
Depth to Top 1 0.6 1 0.4 1.5 0.20 0.90
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 30-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19 31-Jul-19
Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES Soil - ES
Sample Type
Sample Matrix Code 4ABE 4ABE 5A 4AE 4A 6AE 5A
Units Limitof Detection Methodref
TPH CWG
# A-T-022s Ali >C5-C6A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s Ali >C6-C8A <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
A-T-055s Ali >C8-C10A <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Ali >C10-C12A <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Ali >C12-C16A <1 5 3 <1 3 1 1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Ali >C16-C21A <1 6 6 <1 4 3 4 mg/kg 1
A-T-055s Ali >C21-C35A 6 20 54 21 25 21 41 mg/kg 1
A-T-055s Total AliphaticsA 6 29 65 21 32 25 46 mg/kg 1
# A-T-022s Aro >C5-C7A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s Aro >C7-C8A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
A-T-055s Aro >C8-C10A <1 2 5 2 3 1 1 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Aro >C10-C12A <1 12 5 1 5 1 2 mg/kg 1
A-T-055s Aro >C12-C16A 2 75 24 5 41 8 7 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Aro >C16-C21A 4 208 97 13 138 33 24 mg/kg 1
M# A-T-055s Aro >C21-C35A 11 496 313 61 359 131 89 mg/kg 1
A-T-055s Total AromaticsA 17 793 442 82 546 175 124 mg/kg 1
A-T-055s TPH (Ali & Aro >C5-C35)A 24 823 507 102 577 200 171 mg/kg 1
# A-T-022s BTEX - BenzeneA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s BTEX - TolueneA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s BTEX - Ethyl BenzeneA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s BTEX - m & p XyleneA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s BTEX - o XyleneA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
# A-T-022s MTBEA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg 0.01
Page 9 of 11
REPORT NOTES
General This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from Envirolab. The results reported herein relate only to the material supplied to the laboratory. The residue of any samples contained within this report, and any received with the same delivery, will be disposed of six weeks after initial scheduling. For samples tested for Asbestos we will retain a portion of the dried sample for a minimum of six months after the initial Asbestos testing is completed. Analytical results reflect the quality of the sample at the time of analysis only. Opinions and interpretations expressed are outside the scope of our accreditation. If results are in italic font they are associated with an AQC failure, these are not accredited and are unreliable. A deviating samples report is appended and will indicate if samples or tests have been found to be deviating. Any test results affected may not be an accurate record of the concentration at the time of sampling and, as a result, may be invalid. The Client Sample No, Client Sample ID, Depth to Top, Depth to Bottom and Date Sampled were all provided by the client.
Soil chemical analysis: All results are reported as dry weight (<40°C). For samples with Matrix Codes 1 - 6 natural stones, brick and concrete fragments >10mm and any extraneous material (visible glass, metal or twigs) are removed and excluded from the sample prior to analysis and reported results corrected to a whole sample basis. This is reported as '% stones >10mm'. For samples with Matrix Code 7 the whole sample is dried and crushed prior to analysis and this supersedes any “A” subscripts All analysis is performed on the sample as received for soil samples which are positive for asbestos or the client has informed asbestos may be present and/or if they are from outside the European Union and this supersedes any "D" subscripts.
TPH analysis of water by method A-T-007: Free and visible oils are excluded from the sample used for analysis so that the reported result represents the dissolved phase only.
Electrical Conductivity of water by Method A-T-037: Results greater than 12900µS/cm @ 25°C / 11550µS/cm @ 20°C fall outside the calibration range and as such are unaccredited.
Asbestos: Asbestos in soil analysis is performed on a dried aliquot of the submitted sample and cannot guarantee to identify asbestos if only present in small numbers as discrete fibres/fragments in the original sample. Stones etc. are not removed from the sample prior to analysis. Quantification of asbestos is a 3 stage process including visual identification, hand picking and weighing and fibre counting by sedimentation/phase contrast optical microscopy if required. If asbestos is identified as being present but is not in a form that is suitable for analysis by hand picking and weighing (normally if the asbestos is present as free fibres) quantification by sedimentation is performed. Where ACMs are found a percentage asbestos is assigned to each with reference to 'HSG264, Asbestos: The survey guide' and the calculated asbestos content is expressed as a percentage of the dried soil sample aliquot used.
Predominant Matrix Codes: 1 = SAND, 2 = LOAM, 3 = CLAY, 4 = LOAM/SAND, 5 = SAND/CLAY, 6 = CLAY/LOAM, 7 = OTHER, 8 = Asbestos bulk ID sample. Samples with Matrix Code 7 & 8 are not predominantly a SAND/LOAM/CLAY mix and are not covered by our BSEN 17025 or MCERTS accreditations, with the exception of bulk asbestos which are BSEN 17025 accredited. Secondary Matrix Codes: A = contains stones, B = contains construction rubble, C = contains visible hydrocarbons, D = contains glass/metal, E = contains roots/twigs.
Key: IS indicates Insufficient Sample for analysis. US indicates Unsuitable Sample for analysis. NDP indicates No Determination Possible. NAD indicates No Asbestos Detected. N/A indicates Not Applicable. Superscript # indicates method accredited to ISO 17025. Superscript "M" indicates method accredited to MCERTS. Subscript "A" indicates analysis performed on the sample as received. Subscript "D" indicates analysis performed on the dried sample, crushed to pass a 2mm sieve
Please contact us if you need any further information.
Page 10 of 11
Envirolab Deviating Samples Report Units 7&8 Sandpits Business Park, Mottram Road, Hyde, SK14 3AR Tel. 0161 368 4921 email. [email protected]
Client: Ian Farmer Associates (Warrington), 14/15 Rufford Court, Hardwick Grange, Project No: 19/07403 Warrington, WA1 4RF Date Received: 06/08/2019 (am) Project: Futhergate Plot 6 Cool Box Temperatures (°C): 19.9 - 22.1 Clients Project No: 42354-C
NO DEVIATIONS IDENTIFIED If, at any point before reaching the laboratory, the temperature of the samples has breached those set in published standards, e.g. BS-EN 5667-3, ISO 18400-102:2017, then the concentration of any affected analytes may differ from that at the time of sampling.
Page 11 of 11
Units 7 & 8 Sandpits Business Park Mottram Road, Hyde, Cheshire, SK14 3AR
FINAL ANALYTICAL TEST REPORT
Envirolab Job Number: 19/08535 Issue Number: 1 Date: 20 September, 2019
Client: Ian Farmer Associates (Warrington) 14/15 Rufford Court Hardwick Grange Warrington WA1 4RF
Project Manager: Hannah Hadwin/Michelle Hirst-Watson/Olivia Gatehou Project Name: Futhergate Plot 1 Project Ref: 42354-B Order No: 46938 Date Samples Received: 06/09/19 Date Instructions Received: 12/09/19 Date Analysis Completed: 20/09/19
Prepared by: Approved by:
Melanie Marshall Danielle Brierley Laboratory Coordinator Client Manager
Page 1 of 6
Envirolab Job Number: 19/08535 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 1
Client Project Ref: 42354-B
Lab Sample ID 19/08535/1 19/08535/2 19/08535/3
Client Sample No
Client Sample ID WS05 WS03 WS04
Depth to Top
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 03-Sep-19 03-Sep-19 03-Sep-19
Water - EW Water - EW Water - EW
Sample Type
Sample Matrix Code N/A N/A N/A
Units Limitof Detection Methodref
# A-T-031w pH (w)A 7.00 7.06 7.81 pH 0.01
# A-T-026w Sulphate (w)A 29 25 44 mg/l 1
# A-T-042wTCN Cyanide (total) (w)A 0.058 0.049 0.036 mg/l 0.005
A-T-050w Phenols - Total by HPLC (w)A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l 0.01
A-T-S2-w Sulphide (w)A <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/l 0.1
# A-T-025w Arsenic (dissolved)A 2 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-025w Cadmium (dissolved)A <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 µg/l 0.2
# A-T-025w Copper (dissolved)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-025w Chromium (dissolved)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-025w Lead (dissolved)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-025w Mercury (dissolved)A <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 µg/l 0.1
# A-T-025w Nickel (dissolved)A 15 13 52 µg/l 1
# A-T-025w Selenium (dissolved)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-025w Zinc (dissolved)A 65 15 142 µg/l 1
Page 2 of 6
Envirolab Job Number: 19/08535 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 1
Client Project Ref: 42354-B
Lab Sample ID 19/08535/1 19/08535/2 19/08535/3
Client Sample No
Client Sample ID WS05 WS03 WS04
Depth to Top
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 03-Sep-19 03-Sep-19 03-Sep-19
Water - EW Water - EW Water - EW
Sample Type t of Detection t
Sample Matrix Code N/A N/A N/A
Units Limi Methodref
PAH 16MS (w)
# A-T-019w Acenaphthene (w)A 4.28 1.87 6.08 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Acenaphthylene (w)A 0.03 0.03 0.06 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Anthracene (w)A 0.37 0.66 1.13 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Benzo(a)anthracene (w)A 0.23 3.45 2.10 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Benzo(a)pyrene (w)A 0.18 3.16 1.83 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Benzo(b)fluoranthene (w)A 0.22 3.92 2.16 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Benzo(ghi)perylene (w)A 0.12 1.78 1.12 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Benzo(k)fluoranthene (w)A 0.08 1.39 0.70 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Chrysene (w)A 0.25 3.73 2.18 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Dibenzo(ah)anthracene (w)A 0.03 0.41 0.24 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Fluoranthene (w)A 1.36 9.21 5.67 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Fluorene (w)A 1.43 0.65 2.02 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Indeno(123-cd)pyrene (w)A 0.12 1.97 1.17 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Naphthalene (w)A 2.19 0.08 4.04 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Phenanthrene (w)A 2.03 1.94 5.35 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Pyrene (w)A 1.00 8.41 5.13 µg/l 0.01
# A-T-019w Total PAH 16MS (w)A 13.9 42.7 41 µg/l 0.01
Page 3 of 6
Envirolab Job Number: 19/08535 Client Project Name: Futhergate Plot 1
Client Project Ref: 42354-B
Lab Sample ID 19/08535/1 19/08535/2 19/08535/3
Client Sample No
Client Sample ID WS05 WS03 WS04
Depth to Top
Depth To Bottom
Date Sampled 03-Sep-19 03-Sep-19 03-Sep-19
Water - EW Water - EW Water - EW
Sample Type
Sample Matrix Code N/A N/A N/A
Units Limitof Detection Methodref
TPH CWG (w)
# A-T-022w Ali >C5-C6 (w)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-022w Ali >C6-C8 (w)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-055w Ali >C8-C10 (w)A <5 <5 <5 µg/l 5
# A-T-055w Ali >C10-C12 (w)A <5 <5 <5 µg/l 5
# A-T-055w Ali >C12-C16 (w)A <5 <5 <5 µg/l 5
# A-T-055w Ali >C16-C21 (w)A 6 <5 <5 µg/l 5
# A-T-055w Ali >C21-C35 (w)A 10 18 <5 µg/l 5
# A-T-055w Total Aliphatics (w)A 16 18 <5 µg/l 5
# A-T-022w Aro >C5-C7 (w)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-022w Aro >C7-C8 (w)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
A-T-055w Aro >C8-C10 (w)A 12 9 10 µg/l 5
# A-T-055w Aro >C10-C12 (w)A 19 <5 51 µg/l 5
# A-T-055w Aro >C12-C16 (w)A 57 19 70 µg/l 5
# A-T-055w Aro >C16-C21 (w)A 40 29 30 µg/l 5
# A-T-055w Aro >C21-C35 (w)A 55 35 20 µg/l 10
A-T-055w Total Aromatics (w)A 183 91 181 µg/l 10
A-T-055w TPH (Ali & Aro >C5-C35) (w)A 199 108 181 µg/l 10
# A-T-022w BTEX - Benzene (w)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-022w BTEX - Toluene (w)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-022w BTEX - Ethyl Benzene (w)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-022w BTEX - m & p Xylene (w)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-022w BTEX - o Xylene (w)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
# A-T-022w MTBE (w)A <1 <1 <1 µg/l 1
Page 4 of 6
REPORT NOTES
General This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from Envirolab. The results reported herein relate only to the material supplied to the laboratory. The residue of any samples contained within this report, and any received with the same delivery, will be disposed of six weeks after initial scheduling. For samples tested for Asbestos we will retain a portion of the dried sample for a minimum of six months after the initial Asbestos testing is completed. Analytical results reflect the quality of the sample at the time of analysis only. Opinions and interpretations expressed are outside the scope of our accreditation. If results are in italic font they are associated with an AQC failure, these are not accredited and are unreliable. A deviating samples report is appended and will indicate if samples or tests have been found to be deviating. Any test results affected may not be an accurate record of the concentration at the time of sampling and, as a result, may be invalid. The Client Sample No, Client Sample ID, Depth to Top, Depth to Bottom and Date Sampled were all provided by the client.
Soil chemical analysis: All results are reported as dry weight (<40°C). For samples with Matrix Codes 1 - 6 natural stones, brick and concrete fragments >10mm and any extraneous material (visible glass, metal or twigs) are removed and excluded from the sample prior to analysis and reported results corrected to a whole sample basis. This is reported as '% stones >10mm'. For samples with Matrix Code 7 the whole sample is dried and crushed prior to analysis and this supersedes any “A” subscripts All analysis is performed on the sample as received for soil samples which are positive for asbestos or the client has informed asbestos may be present and/or if they are from outside the European Union and this supersedes any "D" subscripts.
TPH analysis of water by method A-T-007: Free and visible oils are excluded from the sample used for analysis so that the reported result represents the dissolved phase only.
Electrical Conductivity of water by Method A-T-037: Results greater than 12900µS/cm @ 25°C / 11550µS/cm @ 20°C fall outside the calibration range and as such are unaccredited.
Asbestos: Asbestos in soil analysis is performed on a dried aliquot of the submitted sample and cannot guarantee to identify asbestos if only present in small numbers as discrete fibres/fragments in the original sample. Stones etc. are not removed from the sample prior to analysis. Quantification of asbestos is a 3 stage process including visual identification, hand picking and weighing and fibre counting by sedimentation/phase contrast optical microscopy if required. If asbestos is identified as being present but is not in a form that is suitable for analysis by hand picking and weighing (normally if the asbestos is present as free fibres) quantification by sedimentation is performed. Where ACMs are found a percentage asbestos is assigned to each with reference to 'HSG264, Asbestos: The survey guide' and the calculated asbestos content is expressed as a percentage of the dried soil sample aliquot used.
Predominant Matrix Codes: 1 = SAND, 2 = LOAM, 3 = CLAY, 4 = LOAM/SAND, 5 = SAND/CLAY, 6 = CLAY/LOAM, 7 = OTHER, 8 = Asbestos bulk ID sample. Samples with Matrix Code 7 & 8 are not predominantly a SAND/LOAM/CLAY mix and are not covered by our BSEN 17025 or MCERTS accreditations, with the exception of bulk asbestos which are BSEN 17025 accredited. Secondary Matrix Codes: A = contains stones, B = contains construction rubble, C = contains visible hydrocarbons, D = contains glass/metal, E = contains roots/twigs.
Key: IS indicates Insufficient Sample for analysis. US indicates Unsuitable Sample for analysis. NDP indicates No Determination Possible. NAD indicates No Asbestos Detected. N/A indicates Not Applicable. Superscript # indicates method accredited to ISO 17025. Superscript "M" indicates method accredited to MCERTS. Subscript "A" indicates analysis performed on the sample as received. Subscript "D" indicates analysis performed on the dried sample, crushed to pass a 2mm sieve
Please contact us if you need any further information.
Page 5 of 6
Envirolab Deviating Samples Report Units 7&8 Sandpits Business Park, Mottram Road, Hyde, SK14 3AR Tel. 0161 368 4921 email. [email protected]
Client: Ian Farmer Associates (Warrington), 14/15 Rufford Court, Hardwick Grange, Project No: 19/08535 Warrington, WA1 4RF Date Received: 12/09/2019 (am) Project: Futhergate Plot 1 Cool Box Temperatures (°C): 15.1 Clients Project No: 42354-B
Lab Sample ID 19/08535/1 19/08535/2 19/08535/3 Client Sample No Client Sample ID/Depth WS05 WS03 WS04 Date Sampled 03/09/19 03/09/19 03/09/19 Deviation Code F ✓ ✓ ✓
Key F Maximum holding time exceeded between sampling date and analysis for analytes listed below
HOLDING TIME EXCEEDANCES Lab Sample ID 19/08535/1 19/08535/2 19/08535/3 Client Sample No Client Sample ID/Depth WS05 WS03 WS04 Date Sampled 03/09/19 03/09/19 03/09/19 Cyanide (total) (w) ✓ ✓ ✓ Sulphide (w) ✓ ✓ ✓ pH (w) ✓ ✓
If, at any point before reaching the laboratory, the temperature of the samples has breached those set in published standards, e.g. BS-EN 5667-3, ISO 18400-102:2017, then the concentration of any affected analytes may differ from that at the time of sampling.
Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX 5
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
APPENDIX 5
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A5.1 ASSESSMENT OF GRANULAR SOIL CONDITION
A5.1.1 SPT ‘N’ values reported on the borehole logs are as measured in the field with no corrections applied.
A5.1.2 However for general design in sands the ‘N’ values should be normalised to 60% by the following equation:-
A5.1.3 N60 = Er/60.N where:-
N is the blow count and
Er is the energy ratio of the specific test equipment
A5.1.4 Further corrections for rod length and overburden pressure in sands may be applied in accordance with BS EN ISO 22476-3, ref 9.6.
A5.2 ASSESSMENT OF COHESIVE SOIL CONDITION
A5.2.1 In accordance with BS EN ISO 22475-1, ref. 9.10, and BS5930, ref.9.2, the thick walled U100 sample is considered as a Class B sampling technique and will only produce Class 3 to 5 quality samples in accordance with EN 1997-2:2007, ref.9.3.
A5.2.2 Laboratory strength and consolidation testing should only be carried out on Class 1 quality samples, which can be obtained from a Class A sampling technique, ref. 9.5. This is due to possible disturbance during sampling, giving a weaker strength in testing.
A5.2.3 Therefore laboratory test values for cu and mv obtained from thick walled U100 samples should only be used as guidance and not used as absolute values for the shear strength and compressibility properties of the clay and only used to provide guidance to descriptive strength on the borehole records.
A5.2.4 Work undertaken by Stroud, ref. 9.13 determined a relationship between SPT ‘N’ values, plasticity undrained shear strength and compressibility of many over-consolidated clays. Further work by Stroud and Butler, ref.9.14, in which data was analysed from sites covering a wide range of glacial deposits, confirmed there to be a correlation between the ‘N’ value plasticity undrained shear strength and compressibility.
A5.2.5 The relationship was of the form:
Cu = f1 x N
and mv = 1/(f2 x N)
Where cu = Un-drained shear strength
mv = Coefficient of compressibility
f1 and f2 = Factors
A5.2.6 It was determined by Stroud that f1 varied between 4kPa for material of high plasticity and 6kPa for material of low plasticity. Similarly f2 varied between 400kPa and 600kPa.
Appendix 5 pages v/i-v/iv v/i
A5.3 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF PILES FIRST APPROXIMATION OF WORKING LOAD
A5.3.1 PILING PARAMETERS – GENERAL
The ultimate carrying capacity, Qu, of a particular pile is taken as the sum of the ultimate shaft friction resistance, Qs, and the ultimate end bearing resistance, Qb. This may be expressed as follows:-
Qu = Qs + Qb
= f.As + q.Ab
where f = unit shaft resistance
As = embedded surface area of pile
q = unit end bearing resistance
Ab = effective cross-sectional area of pile base
A5.3.2 COHESIVE SOILS
A5.3.2.1 Shaft Resistance
The ultimate shaft resistance, f, for piles in both compression or tension in cohesive soils is determined by applying a factor to the undrained shear strength, Cs, which exists in the soils along the embedded length of the pile, and is given by:-
f = .Cs
Where is an adhesion factor, which for straight-shafted bored piles may be taken as 0.45 to 0.60.
Ultimate unit shaft friction should not exceed 100kN/m².
A5.3.2.2 End Bearing
For piles terminating in cohesive soils, the ultimate unit end bearing resistance q, is given by:-
q = Nc.Cb
where Cb is the undrained shear strength at the base of the pile
and Nc is a bearing capacity factor
The value of Nc for a cohesive material is variable, depending on the depth of the penetration of the pile into the bearing stratum. Generally, Nc could be taken to have a value of 9, except in the case of large diameter short piles where a lesser value should be used.
Appendix 5 pages v/i-v/iv v/ii
A5.3.3 COHESIONLESS SOILS
A5.3.3.1 Shaft Resistance
For piles driven in cohesionless soils the ultimate unit shaft resistance, f, may be calculated using the following method, which gives:-
f = 0.5 ' (D+d) Ks tan
where ' = average effective unit weight of soil surrounding
the pile
D = depth to the pile toe or to the base of the
granular stratum whichever is the lesser
d = depth to the top of the granular stratum
= angle of friction between pile and soil
(see below)
Ks = a coefficient (see below)
TABLE OF VALUES FOR Ks AND
Ks
Pile Type Relative Density Tension Piles Low High
Steel 20° 0.5 1.5 0.5
Concrete 0.75 1.0 2.0 0.5
The value of may be interpreted from standard penetration tests.
For bored and cast-in-place piles, = 22° and Ks = 1 should be used to allow for loosening of the soil during boring.
It has been found that the ultimate unit shaft resistance does not exceed 100kN/m² and therefore this value should not be exceeded in design.
Appendix 5 pages v/i-v/iv v/iii
A5.3.3.2 End Bearing
The unit ultimate end bearing resistance (q) of piles in cohesionless soils may be calculated as follows:-
q = '.D.Nq
where ' = average effective unit weight of soil surrounding the pile
D = depth to pile toe
Nq = bearing capacity factor
Values for Nq, where piles penetrate the bearing stratum by more than five diameters, may be taken from work carried out by Berezantsev, ref.9.22. In addition, the ultimate unit base resistance should not exceed a value of 11,000kN/m². For bored and cast-in-place piles the value of Nq used should correspond to loose soil conditions.
A5.3.4 FACTORS OF SAFETY
A5.3.4.1 Cohesive and Non-cohesive Soils
For cohesive and non-cohesive soils a factor of safety of 3 may be used to obtain the allowable or safe carrying capacity of piles from the ultimate carrying capacity.
Appendix 5 pages v/i-v/iv v/iv
APPENDIX 6
CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX 6
GENERAL NOTES ON CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT
A6.1 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND DEFINITIONS
A6.1.1 The statutory definition of contaminated land is defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, ref 9.23, which was introduced by the Environment Act 1995, ref 9.24;
‘Land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that –
(a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or
(b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused.’
A6.1.2 The UK guidance on the assessment of contaminated has developed as a direct result of the introduction of these two Acts. The technical guidance supporting the legislation was originally summarised in a number of key documents collectively known as the Contaminated Land Reports (CLRs), a proposed series of twelve documents. Seven were originally published in March 1994, four more were published in April 2002, while the final guidance document, CLR 11, ref 9.35 was published in 2004. CLR7 to 10 were withdrawn in 2008, with CLR 9 and 10 effectively replaced by the Environment Agency in the form of Science Reports SR2, ref 9.32 and SR3, ref 9.26. CLR11 remains valid and sets out the framework of the investigation process.
A6.1.3 In establishing whether a site fulfils the statutory definition of ‘contaminated land’ it is necessary to identify, whether a pollutant linkage exists in respect of the land in question and whether the pollutant linkage:
• is resulting in significant harm being caused to the receptor in the pollutant linkage,
• presents a significant possibility of significant harm being caused to that receptor,
• is resulting in the pollution of the controlled waters which constitute the receptor, or
• is likely to result in such pollution.
A6.1.4 A ‘pollutant linkage’ may be defined as the link between a contaminant ‘source’ and a ‘receptor’ by means of a ‘pathway’.
A6.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
A6.2.1 The guidance proposes a four-stage assessment process for identifying potential pollutant linkages on a site. These stages are set out in the table below:
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/viii vi/i
No. Process Description Establishing contaminant sources, pathways and receptors (the 1 Hazard Identification conceptual model). Analysing the potential for unacceptable risks (what linkages could 2 Hazard Assessment be present, what could be the effects). Trying to establish the magnitude and probability of the possible 3 Risk Estimation consequences (what degree of harm might result and to what receptors, and how likely is it). 4 Risk Evaluation Deciding whether the risk is unacceptable.
A6.2.2 Stages 1 and 2 develop a ‘conceptual model’ based upon information collated from desk based studies, and frequently a walkover of the site. The walkover survey should be conducted in general accordance with CLR 2, ref 9.37. The formation of a conceptual model is an iterative process and as such, it should be updated and refined throughout each stage of the project to reflect any additional information obtained.
A6.2.3 The extent of the desk studies and enquiries to be conducted should be in general accordance with CLR 3, ref 9.25. The information from these enquiries is presented in a desk study report with recommendations, if necessary, for further work based upon the conceptual model. In the absence of specific information on contamination anticipated to be encountered, specific DoE ‘Industry Profiles’ provide guidance on the nature of contaminants relating to a variety of industrial processes and should be used as the basis for determining which contaminants are more likely to be present on a site.
A6.2.4 If potential pollutant linkages are identified within the conceptual model, a Phase 2 site investigation and report will be recommended. The investigation should be planned in general accordance with CLR 4, ref 9.1. The number of exploratory holes and samples collected for analysis should be consistent with the size of the site and the level of risk envisaged. This will enable a generic quantitative risk assessment (GQRA) to be conducted, at which point the conceptual model can be updated and relevant pollutant linkages can be identified.
A6.2.5 A two-stage investigation may be more appropriate where time constraints are less of an issue. The first stage investigation being conducted as an initial assessment for the presence of potential sources, a second being a more refined investigation to delineate wherever possible the extent of the identified contamination.
A6.2.6 All site works should be in general accordance with the British Standards, BS 5930:2010, ref. 9.2, ISO 1997, ref 9.3 and BS 10175:2011, ref 9.5.
A6.2.7 The GQRA screens the results of the chemical analysis against generic guidance values, appropriate to the end-use of the site. Soils will be compared to Soil Guideline Values (SGV) where published, Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) developed by LQM/CIEH, ref 9.28, or internal screening values generated using the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Software, Version 1.06, ref 9.29. Toxicological and physico-chemical/fate and transport data used to generate the AC has been derived from a hierarchy of data sources as follows:
1. Environment Agency or Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) documents;
2. Other documents produced by UK Government or state organisations;
3. European institution documents;
4. International organisation documents;
5. Foreign government institutions.
A6.2.8 For many of the contaminants considered, input data has been drawn from the relevant SGV where available, or existing toxicological reports published by the Environment Agency which have not yet been withdrawn/replaced. Fate and transport data has been derived in the first instance from Environment Agency (2008), ref 9.38.
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/viii vi/ii
A6.2.9 Recommendations for tolerable intakes of lead are based on evaluation of the relationship between exposure and blood lead levels. The existing toxicological report for lead considers a health criteria value based on an uptake dose, whereas the CLEA model estimates exposure in terms of an intake dose. At present, the CLEA model is not considered appropriate for determining a screening value for lead. In the absence of a current published assessment criterion, the SGV for lead reported in R&D Publication CLR 10 ref 9.33 have been used in this assessment. This will be updated in due course in light of any further published information.
A6.2.10 Chemical laboratory test results are processed as follows. A statistical analysis of the results is conducted, as detailed in CIEH and CL:AIRE ‘Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’, ref 9.30. Individual concentrations are compared to the selected guideline values to identify concentrations of contaminants that are above the selected screening criteria.
A6.2.11 Initially the distribution of the data set is tested using the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, ref 9.31 to determine if the data set is, or is not, normally distributed. Where the distribution of the data is shown to be normal, the mean value test is applied to determine whether the mean characteristics of the selected soil unit present a significant possibility of significant harm to human health. Where the data is not normally distributed a method based on the Chebychev Theorem can be applied to test the same hypothesis. The significance of the data is further tested using the maximum value test. This determines whether the highest recorded contaminant concentrations are from the same statistical distribution or whether they may represent a ‘hot spot’.
A6.2.12 Where the risk estimation identifies significant concentrations of one or more contaminants, a further risk evaluation needs to be undertaken.
A6.2.13 The risk evaluation will address the potential pollutant linkages between an identified source of contamination and the likely receptors both on and off site.
A6.2.14 The potential receptors include:
1) Humans – current site occupants, construction workers, future site users and neighbouring site users.
2) Controlled Waters – surface water and groundwater resources
3) Plants – current and future site vegetation
4) Building materials
A6.2.15 The potential hazards to be considered in relation to contamination are:
a) Ingestion and inhalation.
b) Uptake of contaminants via cultivated vegetables.
c) Dermal contact
d) Phytotoxicity (the prevention or inhibition of plant growth)
e) Contamination of water resources
f) Chemical attack on building materials and services
g) Fire and explosion
A6.2.16 Dependent on the outcome of the initial, generic contamination risk assessment, further detailed assessment of the identified risks may be required.
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/viii vi/iii
A6.3 Generic Guidance Values Used Within Contamination Risk Assessment
Commercial End Use
Guidance Value Guidance Value Guidance Value Commercial Determinant (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Primary Data Source 1% SOM 2.5% SOM 6% SOM Acenaphthene 85000 97000 100000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Acenaphthylene 84000 97000 100000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Anthracene 520000 540000 540000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Benzo(a)anthracene 170 170 180 LQM/CIEH S4UL Benzo(a)pyrene 35 35 36 LQM/CIEH S4UL Benzo(b)fluoranthene 44 44 45 LQM/CIEH S4UL Benzo(ghi)perylene 3900 4000 400 LQM/CIEH S4UL Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1200 1200 1200 LQM/CIEH S4UL PAH Chrysene 350 350 350 LQM/CIEH S4UL Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 3.5 3.6 3.6 LQM/CIEH S4UL Fluoranthene 23000 23000 23000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Fluorene 63000 68000 71000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 500 510 510 LQM/CIEH S4UL Naphthalene 190 460 1100 LQM/CIEH S4UL Phenanthrene 22000 22000 2300 LQM/CIEH S4UL Pyrene 54000 54000 54000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Other Organics Phenol 760 1500 3200 LQM/CIEH S4UL Arsenic 640 640 640 LQM/CIEH S4UL Beryllium 12 12 12 LQM/CIEH S4UL Boron 240000 240000 240000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Cadmium 190 190 190 LQM/CIEH S4UL Chromium (III) 8600 8600 8600 LQM/CIEH S4UL Chromium (VI) 49 49 49 LQM/CIEH S4UL Metals Copper 68000 68000 68000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Lead 2330 2330 2330 EA C4SL Mercury 1100 1100 1100 LQM/CIEH S4UL Nickel 980 980 980 LQM/CIEH S4UL Selenium 12000 12000 12000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Vanadium 9000 9000 9000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Zinc 730000 730000 730000 LQM/CIEH S4UL
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/viii vi/iv
Guidance Value Guidance Value Guidance Value Commercial (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Primary Data Source 1% SOM 2.5% SOM 6% SOM Aliphatic EC 5-6 3200 (304) 5900 (558) 12000 (1150) LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >6-8 7800 (144) 17000 (322) 40000 (736) LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >8-10 2000 (78) 4800 (190) 11000 (451) LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >10-12 9700 (48) 23000 (118) 47000 (283) LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >12-16 59000 (24) 82000 (59) 90000 (142) LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >16-35 1600000 1700000 1800000 LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >35-44 1600000 1700000 1800000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Aromatic EC 5-7 (benzene) 26000 (1220) 46000 (2260) 86000 (4710) LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >7-8 (toluene) 56000 (869) 110000 (1920) 180000 (4360) LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >8-10 3500 (613) 8100 (1500) 17000 (3580) LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >10-12 16000 (364) 28000 (899) 34000 (2150) LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >12-16 36000 (169) 37000 38000 LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >16-21 28000 28000 28000 LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >21-35 28000 8000 28000 LQM/CIEH S4UL EC >35-44 28000 28000 28000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Aliphatic and Aromatic EC >44-70 28000 28000 28000 LQM/CIEH S4UL BTEX Benzene 27 47 90 LQM/CIEH S4UL Toluene 56000 110000 180000 LQM/CIEH S4UL Ethylbenzene 5700 13000 27000 LQM/CIEH S4UL m/p Xylenes 5900 14000 30000 LQM/CIEH S4UL o Xylene 17000 24000 33000 LQM/CIEH S4UL
SOM = Soil Organic Matter Values in brackets indicate the vapour saturation limit where this is exceeded by the GAC or SGV
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/viii vi/v
A6.4 Guidance Values Used For Assessment of Risk To Controlled Waters
Contaminant Units EQS Freshwater1 EQS Saltwater1 Water Supply5
Alachlor ug/l 0.7 0.7 Abamectin ug/l 0.03 0.01 Acrylamide ug/l 0.1 Aluminium ug/l 103 25 200 Ammonia (unionised) ug/l 15 212 Ammonium (as NH4) mg/l 0.5 Anthracene ug/l 0.4 0.4 Antimony ug/l 5 Arsenic ug/l 502 252 10 Atrazine ug/l 2 2 Azamethiphos ug/l 0.05 0.05 Barium ug/l 1000 Benzene ug/l 50 50 1 Benzyl-butyl-phthalate ug/l 7.52 0.752 Boron mg/l 2 7 1 Brominated Diphenylether ug/l 0.00052 0.00052 Bromine ug/l 5 10 Bromoxynil ug/l 1000 1000 Cadmium ug/l 0.453 0.22 5 Calcium mg/l 250 Carbon Tetrachloride ug/l 122 122 Carbendazin ug/l 0.152 - C10-C13 Chloroalkanes ug/l 1.4 1.4 Chlorenvinphos ug/l 0.3 0.3 Chlorpyrifos (Chlorpyrifos-ether) ug/l 0.1 0.1 Chlorothalonil ug/l 0.0352 - Cyclodiene Pesticides (aldrin, Dieldrin, Endrin, ug/l Σ=0.012 Σ=0.0052 Isodrin) Chloride mg/l 250 - 400 Chlorpropham ug/l 40 40 Chlortoluron ug/l 20 - Chromium III ug/l 4.72 - 50 Chromium VI ug/l 3.42 0.62 Cobalt ug/l 100 100 Copper ug/l 12 3.762 2 Coumaphos ug/l 0.1 0.1 Cyanide (hydrogen cyanide) ug/l 12 12 50 Cypermethrin ug/l 0.12 0.12 Cyfluthrin ug/l 0.001 0.001 1,2-Dichloroethane ug/l 3 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) ug/l 0.32 0.32 2,4-Dichlorophenol ug/l 4.22 0.0422 3,4-Dichloroaniline ug/l 0.22 0.22 DDT (total) ug/l 0.0252 0.0252 Diazinon ug/l 0.012 0.012 Dibutylphthalate (DBP) ug/l 40 40 Dichlorobenzenes (all isomers) ug/l 200 200 para, para-DDT ug/l 0.012 0.012 Diethylphthalate (DEP) ug/l 1000 1000 Dimethylphthalate (DMP) ug/l 4000 4000 Dioctylphthalate (DOP) ug/l 40 40 Dimethoate ug/l 0.482 0.482 Diflubenzuron ug/l 0.015 0.1 Doromectin ug/l 0.01 0.01 Diuron ug/l 1.8 1.8 Endosulfan ug/l 0.01 0.004 Epichlorohydrin ug/l 0.1 EDTA ug/l 4000 4000 Ethylbenzene ug/l 200 200 Fenchlorphos ug/l 0.1 0.1 Flucofuron ug/l 1 1 Fluoride mg/l 34 15 1.5 Fluoranthene ug/l 1 1 Formaldehyde ug/l 50 -
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/viii vi/vi
Contaminant Units EQS Freshwater1 EQS Saltwater1 Water Supply5
Glyphosate ug/l 1962 1962 Hexachlorobenzene ug/l 0.05 0.05 Hexachlorobutadiene ug/l 0.6 0.6 Hexachlorocyclohexane (lindane) ug/l 0.04 0.02 Hydrogen Sulphide ug/l 1 10 Ioxynil ug/l 100 100 Iron ug/l 10002 10002 200 Isoproturon ug/l 1 1 Ivermectin ug/l 0.001 0.001 Kjeldahl Nitrogen (as N) mg/l 1 Lead ug/l 7.22 7.22 10 Linuron ug/l 0.52 0.52 Malachite Green ug/l 100 100 Magnesium mg/l 50 Manganese ug/l 1232 - 50 Mecoprop ug/l 182 182 Methiocarb ug/l 0.012 - Mancozeb ug/l 20 20 Maneb ug/l 30 30 MCPA ug/l 1203 800 Methylphenols ug/l 300 300 Mevinphos ug/l 0.02 - Monochlorophenols ug/l 250 250 Mercury ug/l 0.07 0.07 1 Naphthalene ug/l 2.42 1.22 Nickel ug/l 202 202 20 NTA ug/l 10000 30000 Nitrate (as N) mg/l 50 Nitrite (as NO2) mg/l 0.5 Nonylphenol (4-nonylphenol) ug/l 2 2 Oils/hydrocarbons ug/l 10 Pendimethylin ug/l 0.32 - Permethrin ug/l 0.0012 0.00022 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) ug/l 0.1 - Benzo(a)pyrene ug/l 0.1 0.1 0.01 - Benzo(b)fluoranthene ug/l Σ=0.032 Σ=0.032 - Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/l - Benzo(ghi)perylene ug/l Σ=0.0022 Σ=0.002 - Indeno(123-cd)perylene ug/l Pentachlorobenzene ug/l 0.0072 0.00072 Pentachlorophenol ug/l 1 1 Pesticides (individual) ug/l 0.1 - Aldrin ug/l 0.03 - Dieldrin ug/l 0.03 - Heptachlor ug/l 0.03 - Heptachlor epoxide ug/l 0.03 Pesticides (total) ug/l 0.5 Phenol ug/l 7.72 7.72 0.5 PCSDs ug/l 0.05 0.05 Pirimicarb ug/l 5 5 Pendimethalin ug/l 6 6 Primaphos-methyl ug/l 0.05 0.05 Prochloraz ug/l 40 40 Propetamphos ug/l 0.1 0.1 Propyzamide ug/l 1000 1000 Phosphorous ug/l 2200 Potassium mg/l 12 Selenium ug/l 10 Silver ug/l 0.1 1 10 Simizine ug/l 4 4 Styrene ug/l 500 500 Sulcofuron ug/l 25 25 Sulphate mg/l 400 - 250 Surfactants (as lauryl sulphate) ug/l 200 Tecnazene ug/l 10 10 Tetrachloromethane (PCM) ug/l 2.52 2.52 3
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/viii vi/vii
Contaminant Units EQS Freshwater1 EQS Saltwater1 Water Supply5
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) ug/l 102 102 10 Tetrachloroethane ug/l 1402 - Trichloroethylene (TCE) ug/l 102 102 10 Thiabendazole ug/l 50 50 Tin (inorganic) ug/l 252 102 Trihalomethanes ug/l 100 Trichlorobenzenes ug/l 0.42 0.42 Toluene ug/l 742 742 Tributyl phosphate ug/l 500 500 Tributyltin ug/l 0.0015 0.0015 Trifluralin ug/l 0.032 0.032 Vanadium ug/l 204 100 Vinyl chloride ug/l 0.5 Zinc ug/l 11.92 7.92 5000 1 MAC – Maximum Allowed Concentration 2 AA – Average Annualised 3 Dependant on pH 4 Dependant on water hardness 5 For sample taken at consumers’ taps
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/viii vi/viii
APPENDIX 7
GAS GENERATION
APPENDIX 7
GENERAL NOTES ON GAS GENERATION
A7.1 GENERAL
A7.1.1 In the past, a series of guidance documents were published by CIRIA, ref. 9.39, providing advice on hazards associated with methane. This earlier guidance was consolidated in CIRIA Document C659 to provide a risk based approach to gas contaminated land. This was subsequently re-issued as CIRIA Document C665, ref 9.40. In 2007, British Standard, BS8485, ref 9.41, dealing with ground gas was published. It is recommended that guidance in C665 and BS8485 is adopted to provide a consistent approach in dealing with ground gas contamination, the principal details being as follows.
A7.1.2 This guidance is based on a similar approach to that for dealing with contaminated soil. The presence of hazardous gases could be deemed to be the ‘source’ in a ‘pollutant linkage’ that could lead to the conclusion that significant harm is or could be caused to people, buildings or the environment. In such circumstances the land could be deemed ‘contaminated’, ref. 9.23.
A7.1.3 Should a potential source of gas be identified in the conceptual model, a gas risk assessment should be carried out, sufficient to demonstrate to the local authority that the proposals mitigate any hazards associated with ground gas. The authority enforces compliance with Approved Document Part C of the Building Regulations, ref. 9.42.
A7.2 APPROACH
A7.2.1 A flow chart detailing the approach to assessing a site is given in CIRIA document C665, Figure 1.1. This may be summarised as follows.
Carry out Phase 1 desk study, including initial conceptual model
Assess site, potential presence of gas / potential unacceptable risk / identify further action, if necessary
Monitor gas concentrations
Assessment of Risk
Recommendations / remediation
Validation
A7.3 POLLUTANT LINKAGE ASSESSMENT
A7.3.1 A pollutant linkage assessment is presented in Appendix 3 of the Phase 1 Desk Study Report.
A7.3.2 Using the risk model in the desk study, the pollutant linkage can be identified and a preliminary estimate of risk undertaken. If there is no relevant pollutant linkage identified there is no risk. If there is a very low risk, it is likely that no further assessment is required. If further assessment is necessary, then gas monitoring is required.
Appendix 7 pages vii/i-vii/x vii/i
A7.4 SITE MONITORING
A7.4.1 For sites with low generation potential, giving consistently low concentrations of soil gas under the worst-case conditions, a limited programme of monitoring would be appropriate. Where high or variable concentrations are anticipated or recorded, an extended programme of monitoring would be appropriate. The following guideline has been proposed, ref. 9.44.
Table A7.1
Generation potential of source Very Very low Low Moderate High high Low 4/1 6/2 6/3 12/6 12/12 (Commercial) Moderate 6/2 6/3 9/6 12/12 24/24 (Flats) development Sensitivity of of Sensitivity High (Residential 6/3* 9/6 12/6 24/12 24/24 with gardens)
Notes
1. First number is minimum number of readings and second number is minimum period in months, for example 4/1 – Four sets of readings over 1 month.
2. At least two sets of readings must be at low and falling atmospheric pressure (but not restricted to periods below <1000mb) known as worst case conditions (see Boyle and Witherington, 2006).
3. The frequency and period stated are considered to represent typical minimum requirements. Depending on specific circumstances fewer or additional readings may be required (e.g. any such variation subject to site specific justification). * The NHBC guidance is also recommending these periods/frequency of monitoring (Boyle and Witherington, 2006)
4. Historical data can be used as part of the data set.
5. Not all sites will require gas monitoring however, this would need to be confirmed with demonstrable evidence.
6. Placing high sensitivity end use on a high hazard site is not normally acceptable unless the source is removed or treated to reduce its gassing potential. Under such circumstances long-term monitoring may not be appropriate or required.
A7.4.2 Before taking any readings, zero the instrument, record atmospheric pressure and temperature.
A7.4.3 Gas flow should be recorded, giving the range of pressures, ensuring positive or negative flow is recorded.
A7.4.4 Record gas levels, recording peak and steady. Where steady state not obtained within 3 minutes, record change in concentration, where concentrations are decreasing, always record peak value. For very high concentrations, record for longer period of up to 10 minutes.
A7.5 ASSESSMENT OF RISK AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A7.5.1 The main method of characterising a site is the method described by Wilson and Card, ref. 9.45 and is termed Situation A. This can be used for all types of development except conventional low-rise housing with suspended ground floor and ventilated underfloor void.
A7.5.2 Low rise housing, Situation B, was developed by Boyle and Witherington, ref. 9.46 and was developed for the NHBC for classifying gassing sites for houses with suspended ground floor slab with ventilated void.
Appendix 7 pages vii/i-vii/x vii/ii
A7.5.3 Although the Code of Practice, ref 9.41, assesses the characteristic gas situation as CIRIA recommend for Situation A, see Table A7.2 below, their solution for gas protection systems is different, see section A7.10.
A7.6 SITUATION A - ASSESSMENT
A7.6.1 This system proposed by Wilson and Card, ref. 9.45 was originally developed in CIRIA Report 149, ref. 9.39.
A7.6.2 The method uses both gas concentrations and borehole flow rate for methane and carbon dioxide to define a Characteristic Situation for a site.
A7.6.3 Gas Screening Value (litre/hr) = borehole flow rate (litre/hr) x gas concentration (%). The GSV is determined for methane and carbon dioxide and the worst case adopted. The Characteristic Situation can then be determined from the table below. The GSV can be exceeded if the conceptual model indicates it is safe to do so, and other factors may lead to a change in the Characteristic Situation.
Table A7.2 Gas screening Characteristic Risk Typical source of value (CH4 or Additional factors Situation Classification 1 generation CO2(1/hr) Very low risk <0.07 Typically methane Natural soils with <1% and/or carbon low organic dioxide <5%. content 1 Otherwise consider “Typical” Made increase to Ground Situation 2 2 Low risk <0.7 Borehole air flow Natural soil, high rate not to exceed peat/organic 70l/hr. content. Otherwise consider “Typical” Made increase to Ground Characteristic Situation 3 3 Moderate risk <3.5 Old landfill, inert waste, mineworking flooded 4 Moderate to <15 Quantitative risk Mineworking – high risk assessment susceptible to required to flooding, evaluate scope of completed landfill protective (WMP 26B measures criteria) 5 High risk <70 Mineworking unflooded inactive with shallow workings near surface 6 Very high risk >70 Recent landfill site
Appendix 7 pages vii/i-vii/x vii/iii
1. Site characterisation should be based on gas monitoring of concentrations and borehole flow rates for the minimum periods defined in Table A7.1 2. Source of gas and generation potential/performance must be identified.
3. If there is no detectable flow use the limit of detection of the instrument.
A7.7 SITUATION A – SOLUTION
A7.7.1 The Characteristic Situation can be used to define the scope of gas protective measures required.
A7.7.2 The CIRIA approach uses the characteristic situation to define the level of gas protection as follows:
Table A7.3 Characteristic Residential building (Not low-rise Office/commercial/industrial development situation traditional housing)
Number of Typical scope of Number of levels Typical scope of protective levels of protective measures of protection measures protection 1 None No special precautions None No special precautions 2 2 a) Reinforced concrete 1 to 2 a) Reinforced concrete cast cast in situ floor slab in-situ floor slab (suspended non- (suspended suspended or raft) with non-suspended or raft) at least 1200g DPM and with at least 1200g DPM underfloor venting b) Beam and block or pre b) Beam and block or pre- cast concrete slab and cast concrete and 2000g minimum 2000g DPM / reinforced gas DPM/reinforced gas membrane and membrane underfloor venting c) Possibly underfloor All joints and penetrations venting or pressurisation sealed in combination with a) and b) depending on use
All joints and penetrations sealed 3 2 All types of floor slab as 1 to 2 All types of floor slab as above. above. All joints and penetrations sealed. All joints and penetrations Proprietary gas resistant sealed. membrane and passively Minimum 2000g/reinforced ventilated or positively gas proof membrane and pressurised underfloor passively ventilated sub-space underfloor sub-space or positively pressurised underfloor sub-space 4 3 All types of floor slab as 2 to 3 All types of floor slab as above. above.
All joints and penetrations All joints and penetration sealed. sealed.
Proprietary gas resistant Proprietary gas resistant membrane and passively membrane and passively ventilated underfloor ventilated or positively subspace or positively pressurised underfloor sub- pressurised underfloor space with monitoring sub-space, oversite facility capping or blinding and in ground venting layer Appendix 7 pages vii/i-vii/x vii/iv
Characteristic Residential building (Not low-rise Office/commercial/industrial development situation traditional housing)
5 4 Reinforced concrete cast 3 to 4 Reinforced concrete cast in- in situ floor slab situ floor slab (suspended, (suspended, non- non-suspended or raft). suspended or raft). All joints and penetrations All joints and penetrations sealed. sealed. Proprietary gas resistant membrane and passively Proprietary gas resistant ventilated or positively membrane and ventilated pressurised underfloor sub- or positively pressurised space with monitoring underfloor sub-space, facility. oversite capping and in ground venting wells or In ground venting wells or barriers barriers 6 5 Not suitable unless gas 4 to 5 Reinforced concrete cast in- regime is reduced first and situ floor slab (suspended, quantitative risk non-suspended or raft). assessment carried out to assess design of protection All joints and penetrations measures in conjunction sealed. with foundation design Proprietary gas resistant membrane and actively ventilated or positively pressurised underfloor sub- space with monitoring facility, with monitoring. In ground venting wells and reduction of gas regime.
1. Typical scope of protective measures may be rationalised for specific developments on the basis of quantitative risk assessments.
2. Note the type of protection is given for illustration purposes only. Information on the detailing and construction of passive protection measures is given in BR414, ref. 9.43.
3. In all cases there should be minimum penetration of ground slabs by services and minimum number of confined spaces such as cupboards above the ground slab. Any confined spaces should be ventilated.
4. Foundation design must minimise differential settlement particularly between structural elements and ground-bearing slabs.
5. Commercial buildings with basement car parks, provided with ventilation in accordance with the Building Regulations, may not require gas protection for characteristic situations 3 and 4.
6. Floor slabs should provide an acceptable formation on which to lay the gas membrane. If a block and beam floor is used it should be well detailed so it has no voids in it that membranes have to span, and all holes for service penetrations should be filled. The minimum density of the blocks should be 600kg/m3 and the top surface should have a 4:1 sand cement grout brushed into all joints before placing any membrane (this is also good practice to stabilise the floor and should be carried out regardless of the need for gas membrane).
7. The gas-resistant membrane can also act as the damp-proof membrane.
A7.8 SITUATION B -ASSESSMENT
A7.8.1 The NHBC has developed a characterisation system that is similar to Situation A but is specific to low-rise housing development with a clear ventilated underfloor void. The gas emission rates are compared to generic ‘Traffic Lights’. Appendix 7 pages vii/i-vii/x vii/v
A7.8.2 The Traffic Lights include a Typical Maximum Concentration that is used for initial screening purposes. Where the Typical Maximum Concentration is exceeded the risk-based Gas Screening Value, GSV, should be adopted. The GSVs are determined for the ‘model’ low rise development and where they differ from this model, the GSV should be reassessed, ref. 9.40.
A7.8.3 The calculations should be made for both methane and carbon dioxide, and the worst case adopted. The GSV is only a guideline.
Table A7.4 Methane Carbon dioxide Typical Gas screening Typical Gas screening Traffic light maximum value (GSV)3 maximum value (GSV)1,2 concentration² (litres per concentration² (litres per (% v/v) hour) (% v/v) hour)
Green
1 0.16 5 0.78
Amber 1 5 0.63 10 1.56
Amber 2 20 1.56 30 3.13
Red
1. Generic GSVs are based on guidance contained within latest revision of Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office (2004 edition) “The Building Regulations: Approved Document C” and used a sub-floor void of 150mm thickness.
2. The Typical Maximum Concentrations can be exceeded in certain circumstances should the conceptual site model indicate it is safe to do so. This is where professional judgement will be required, based on a thorough understanding of the gas-regime identified at the site where monitoring in the worst temporal conditions has occurred.
3. The GSV thresholds should not generally be exceeded without completion of a detailed gas risk assessment taking into account site-specific conditions.
A7.9 SITUATION B – SOLUTION
A7.9.1 On the basis of this Traffic Light classification the following protection should be applied to low-rise housing.
Table A7.5 Traffic Light Protection measures required Classification
Negligible gas regime identified and gas protection measures are not Green considered necessary. Low to intermediate gas regime identified, which requires low-level gas protection measures, comprising a membrane and ventilated sub-floor void to create a permeability contrast to limit the ingress of gas into buildings. Amber 1 Gas protection measures should be as prescribed in BRE Report 414. Ventilation of the sub-floor void should facilitate a minimum of one complete volume change per 24 hours. Intermediate to high gas regime identified, which requires high-level gas protection measures, comprising a membrane and ventilated sub-floor void Amber 2 to create a permeability contrast to prevent the ingress of gas into buildings. Gas protection measures should be as prescribed in BRE Report 414. A Appendix 7 pages vii/i-vii/x vii/vi
Traffic Light Protection measures required Classification
specialist contractor should always fit membranes. As with Amber 1, ventilation of the sub-floor void should facilitate a minimum of one complete volume change per 24 hours. Certification that these passive protection measures have been installed correctly should be provided. High gas regime identified. It is considered that standard residential housing would not normally be acceptable without a further Gas Risk Assessment Red and/or possible remedial mitigation measures to reduce and/or remove the source of gas.
A7.10 CODE OF PRACTICE – SOLUTIONS
A7.10.1 The Characteristic Gas Situation is determine in a similar manner to that recommended by CIRIA, see Table A7.2 above.
A7.10.2 Having selected the Characteristic Gas Situation, the appropriate gas protection could be selected for the building. The tables below give a guide as to the relative performance of the various designs and systems.
A7.10.3 A guidance value for the required gas protection, in the range 0 to 7 should be obtained from Table A7.6 below. Then, a combination of ventilation and/or barrier system should be chosen from Table A7.7 to meet that requirement.
Appendix 7 pages vii/i-vii/x vii/vii
Table A7.6
Characteristic NHBC gas situation, Required gas protection traffic light CS Non-managed Public Commercial Industrial property, e.g. building A) buildings buildings B) private housing 1 Green 0 0 0 0 2 Amber 1 3 3 2 1C) 3 Amber 2 4 3 2 2 4 6D) 5D) 4 3 Red 6E) 5 4 7 6 NOTE: Traffic light indications are taken from NHBC Report no.: 10627-R01 (04) [3] and are mainly applicable to low-rise residential housing. These are for comparative purposes but the boundaries between the traffic light indications and CS values do not coincide. A) Public buildings include, for example, managed apartments, schools and hospitals. B) Industrial buildings are generally open and well ventilated. However, areas such as office pods might require a separate assessment and may be classified as commercial buildings and require a different scope of gas protection to the main building. C) Maximum methane concentration 20% otherwise consider an increase to CS3. D) Residential building on higher traffic light/CS sites is not recommended unless the type of construction or site circumstances allow additional levels of protection to be incorporated, e.g. high-performance ventilation or pathway intervention measures, and an associated sustainable system of management of maintenance of the gas control system, e.g. in institutional and/or fully serviced contractual situations. E) Consideration of issues such as ease of evacuation and how false alarms will be handled are needed when completing the design specification of any protection scheme.
A7.10.4 Having determined the appropriate guidance value from Table A7.6, an element or combination of elements from a), b), c) or d) in Table A7.7, should be chosen to achieve the required level of protection .
Table A7.7
PROTECTION ELEMENT/SYSTEM SCORE COMMENTS
a) Venting/dilution Passive sub floor ventilation (venting Very good 2.5 Ventilation performance in accordance layer can be a clear void or formed using performance with Annex A, ref. 9.41 gravel, geocomposites, polystyrene void formers, etc.)A) Good 1 If passive ventilation is poor this is performance generally unacceptable and some form of active system will be required Subfloor ventilation with active abstraction/pressurization 2.5 There have to be robust management (venting layer can be a clear void or formed using gravel, systems in place to ensure the geocomposites, polystyrene void formers, etc.)A) continued maintenance of any ventilation system. Active ventilation can always be designed to meet good performance. Mechanically assisted systems come in two main forms: extraction and positive pressurization.
Appendix 7 pages vii/i-vii/x vii/viii
PROTECTION ELEMENT/SYSTEM SCORE COMMENTS
Ventilated car park (basement or undercroft) 4 Assumes car park is vented to deal with car exhaust fumes, designed to Building Regulations Document F and IstructE guidance b) Barriers Floor slabs Block and beam floor slab 0 It is good practice to install ventilation in all foundation systems to effect Reinforced concrete ground bearing floor slab 0.5 pressure relief as a minimum. Reinforced concrete ground bearing foundation raft with 1.5 Breached in floor slabs such as joints limited service penetrations that are cast into slab have to be effectively sealed against Reinforced concrete cast in situ suspended slab with 1.5 gas ingress in order to maintain these minimal service penetrations and water bars around all slab performances penetrations and at joints Fully tanked basement 2 c) Membranes Taped and sealed membrane to reasonable levels of 0.5 The performance of membranes is workmanship/in line with current good practice with heavily dependent on the quality and validationB), C) design of the installation, resistance to damage after installation, and the integrity of joints Proprietary gas resistant membrane to reasonable levels of 1 workmanship/in line with current good practice under independent inspection (CQA)B), C) Proprietary gas resistant membrane installed to reasonable 2 levels of workmanship/in line with current good practice under CQA with integrity testing and independent validation d) Monitoring and detection (not applicable to non-managed property, or in isolation) Intermittent monitoring using hand held equipment 0.5 Permanent monitoring and alarm Installed in the 2 Where fitted, permanent monitoring systemA) underfloor systems ought to be installed in the venting/ underfloor venting/dilution system in dilution the first instance but can also be system provided within the occupied space as a fail safe. Installed in the 1 building e) Pathway intervention Pathway intervention - This can consist of site protection measures for off-site or on-site sources (see Annex A, ref. 9.41) NOTE: In practice the choice of materials might well rely on factors such as construction method and the risk of damage after installation. It is important to ensure that the chosen combination gives an appropriate level of protection A) It is possible to test ventilation systems by installing monitoring probes for post installation validation. B) If a 1200 g DPM material is to function as a gas barrier it should be installed according to BRE 414, ref. 9.43 being taped and sealed to all penetrations. C) Polymeric Materials >1200g can be used to improve confidence in the barrier. Remember that their gas resistance is little more than the standard 1200g (proportional to thickness) but their physical properties mean that they are more robust and resistant to site damage.
Appendix 7 pages vii/i-vii/x vii/ix
Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Results
Contract Number: 42354C Gas Monitor: GA 2000 Contract Name: Furthergate Plot 6 Readings Taken By: ML Date: 21st August 2019 Checked By: HH
Weather Conditions: Overcast O2% CO2% CH4% CO H2S Background Ground Conditions (dry / wet etc): Wet v/v v/v v/v ppm ppm Readings: Atmospheric Pressure (Start): 1009mb Atmospheric Pressure (Finish): 1009mb 20.9 0.0 0.0 0 0 Time (Start): 11:00 Time (Finish): 12:30 Rel Depth to LNAPL CO H2S Gas flow VOC O2% CO 2 % CH4% Pressure base of SWL or ppm ppm Rate (l/hr) Hole No: ppm v/v v/v v/v (mb) well DNAPL Steady Steady Steady Peak Steady Steady Steady Steady Steady mBGL mBGL mBGL WS03 0.0 20.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 -0.19 0.0 2.81 1.41 ND WS04 0.0 17.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 -0.10 0.0 1.96 DRY ND WS05 0.0 2.6 4.9 1.0 1.0 2 0 -0.10 0.0 3.04 2.10 ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>>> = Flow above detection limit of 30 l/hr, <<< = Negative flow greater than -10 l/hr. >Max = In excess of lower explosive limit. Remarks: Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Results
Contract Number: 42354C Gas Monitor: GA 2000 Contract Name: Furthergate Plot 6 Readings Taken By: ML Date: 3rd September 2019 Checked By: HH
Weather Conditions: Sunny O2% CO2% CH4% CO H2S Background Ground Conditions (dry / wet etc): Dry v/v v/v v/v ppm ppm Readings: Atmospheric Pressure (Start): 1006mb Atmospheric Pressure (Finish): 1005mb 20.9 0.2 0.0 0 0 Time (Start): 11:00 Time (Finish): 12:00 Rel Depth to LNAPL CO H2S Gas flow VOC O2% CO 2 % CH4% Pressure base of SWL or ppm ppm Rate (l/hr) Hole No: ppm v/v v/v v/v (mb) well DNAPL Steady Steady Steady Peak Steady Steady Steady Steady Steady mBGL mBGL mBGL WS03 0.6 20.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 0 -0.03 0.0 2.82 1.47 ND WS04 0.1 19.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.03 0.1 1.92 1.45 ND WS05 1.1 0.0 6.0 1.2 1.2 1 0 0.10 0.0 3.06 2.44 ND
>>>> = Flow above detection limit of 30 l/hr, <<< = Negative flow greater than -10 l/hr. >Max = In excess of lower explosive limit. Remarks: Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Results
Contract Number: 42354C Gas Monitor: GA 2000 Contract Name: Furthergate Plot 6 Readings Taken By: IB Date: 16th September 2019 Checked By: HH
Weather Conditions: Overcast O2% CO2% CH4% CO H2S Background Ground Conditions (dry / wet etc): Wet v/v v/v v/v ppm ppm Readings: Atmospheric Pressure (Start): 1009mb Atmospheric Pressure (Finish): 1009mb 20.9 0.1 0.0 0 0 Time (Start): 09:15 Time (Finish): 09:45 Rel Depth to LNAPL CO H2S Gas flow VOC O2% CO 2 % CH4% Pressure base of SWL or ppm ppm Rate (l/hr) Hole No: ppm v/v v/v v/v (mb) well DNAPL Steady Steady Steady Peak Steady Steady Steady Steady Steady mBGL mBGL mBGL WS03 0.3 20.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.01 0.0 2.72 1.60 - WS04 0.3 17.7 1.7 0.1 0.0 0 0 0.03 0.0 2.08 1.43 - WS05 1.2 2.4 5.7 0.8 0.8 1 0 0.05 0.0 3.07 2.40 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>>> = Flow above detection limit of 30 l/hr, <<< = Negative flow greater than -10 l/hr. >Max = In excess of lower explosive limit. Remarks: Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Results
Contract Number: 42354C Gas Monitor: GA 2000 Contract Name: Furthergate Plot 6 Readings Taken By: ML Date: 30th September 2019 Checked By: HH
Weather Conditions: Sunny O2% CO2% CH4% CO H2S Background Ground Conditions (dry / wet etc): Wet v/v v/v v/v ppm ppm Readings: Atmospheric Pressure (Start): 996 Atmospheric Pressure (Finish): 996 20.8 0.0 0.0 0 0 Time (Start): 10:30 Time (Finish): 10:55 Rel Depth to LNAPL CO H2S Gas flow VOC O2% CO 2 % CH4% Pressure base of SWL or ppm ppm Rate (l/hr) Hole No: ppm v/v v/v v/v (mb) well DNAPL Steady Steady Steady Peak Steady Steady Steady Steady Steady mBGL mBGL mBGL WS03 0.0 20.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0 0 -0.32 0.0 2.55 1.12 - WS04 0.0 13.6 2.9 0.0 0.0 1 0 -0.32 0.0 2.07 1.05 - WS05 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.5 0.5 1 0 -0.43 -0.6 3.03 1.71 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>>> = Flow above detection limit of 30 l/hr, <<< = Negative flow greater than -10 l/hr. >Max = In excess of lower explosive limit. Remarks: Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Results
Contract Number: 42354C Gas Monitor: GA 2000 Contract Name: Furthergate Plot 6 Readings Taken By: PN Date: 14th October 2019 Checked By: JT
Weather Conditions: Overcast O2% CO2% CH4% CO H2S Background Ground Conditions (dry / wet etc): Wet v/v v/v v/v ppm ppm Readings: Atmospheric Pressure (Start): 995 Atmospheric Pressure (Finish): 995 20.9 0.0 0.0 0 0 Time (Start): 09:35 Time (Finish): 10:05 Rel Depth to LNAPL CO H2S Gas flow VOC O2% CO 2 % CH4% Pressure base of SWL or ppm ppm Rate (l/hr) Hole No: ppm v/v v/v v/v (mb) well DNAPL Steady Steady Steady Peak Steady Steady Steady Steady Steady mBGL mBGL mBGL WS03 0.0 20.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 -0.24 0.0 2.55 1.11 - WS04 0.0 14.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 0 0 -0.30 0.0 2.07 1.02 - WS05 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.6 0.6 1 0 -0.30 -0.4 3.03 1.70 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>>> = Flow above detection limit of 30 l/hr, <<< = Negative flow greater than -10 l/hr. >Max = In excess of lower explosive limit. Remarks: Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Results
Contract Number: 42354C Gas Monitor: GA 2000 Contract Name: Furthergate Plot 6 Readings Taken By: PN Date: 28th October 2019 Checked By: JT
Weather Conditions: Sunny O2% CO2% CH4% CO H2S Background Ground Conditions (dry / wet etc): Wet v/v v/v v/v ppm ppm Readings: Atmospheric Pressure (Start): 1012 Atmospheric Pressure (Finish): 1012 20.8 0.0 0.0 0 0 Time (Start): 11:55 Time (Finish): 12:20 Rel Depth to LNAPL CO H2S Gas flow VOC O2% CO % CH4% Pressure base of SWL or 2 ppm ppm Rate (l/hr) Hole No: ppm v/v v/v v/v (mb) well DNAPL Steady Steady Steady Peak Steady Steady Steady Steady Steady mBGL mBGL mBGL WS03 0.0 20.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0 0 -0.31 0.0 2.55 1.07 - WS04 0.0 15.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 -0.21 0.0 2.07 0.99 - WS05 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.3 0.3 2 0 -0.30 -0.5 3.02 1.69 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>>> = Flow above detection limit of 30 l/hr, <<< = Negative flow greater than -10 l/hr. >Max = In excess of lower explosive limit. Remarks: