GROUND INVESTIGATION SHEEPY ROAD ATHERSTONE

GROUND INVESTIGATION SHEEPY ROAD ATHERSTONE

Prepared for: Cameron Homes Limited

ASL Report No. 079-13-020-09

June 2013

ASL Holly Farm Business Park Honiley Warwickshire CV8 1NP T: +44(0)1926485508 F: +44(0)1926485507 E: [email protected] W: www.aslenvironmental.co.uk

aharbon

Text Box

2013/0305

aharbon

Received

ASL Report No. 079-13-020-09 Report No. Page 2 of 26 June 2013


1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 4

2 THE SITE ....................................................................................................... 5

3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................ 6

4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION ........................................................................... 7 4.1. Ground Conditions and Contamination Risk Report ............................................ 7

5 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ............................................................................. 9 5.1 General ...................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Receptors ................................................................................................... 9 5.3 Pathways .................................................................................................... 9 5.4 Summary .................................................................................................. 10

6 GROUND INVESTIGATION AND TESTING ..................................................... 11 6.1 Ground Investigation .................................................................................. 11 6.2 Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Programme ................................................. 11 6.3 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................... 11 6.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ................................................................... 12

7 GROUND, GROUNDWATER AND GAS CONDITIONS ....................................... 13 7.1 Materials Encountered ................................................................................ 13 7.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................. 14 7.3 Gas .......................................................................................................... 14

8 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ...................................................................... 16 8.1 General .................................................................................................... 16 8.2 Foundation Assessment ............................................................................... 16 8.3 Floor Slabs ................................................................................................ 17 8.4 Road Pavements ........................................................................................ 17 8.5 Excavations ............................................................................................... 18 8.6 Dewatering ............................................................................................... 18 8.7 Buried Concrete Classification ...................................................................... 18 8.8 Gas Protection Measures ............................................................................. 18

9 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT – HUMAN HEALTH ...................................... 19 9.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 19 9.2 Chemical Test Results - Soils ....................................................................... 19

10 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT – CONTROLLED WATERS ........................ 21 10.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 21 10.2 Methodology.............................................................................................. 21 10.3 Summary of Results - Soils .......................................................................... 21

11 FURTHER INVESTIGATION ....................................................................... 23

12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 24

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 25


GENERAL NOTES ................................................................................................. 26 TABLES 1 Summary of Pollutant Linkages 2 Summary of Strata Encountered 3 Summary of Data with Respect to Human Health (Tier 1) 4 Summary of Soils Data with Respect to Controlled Waters (Tier 1) FIGURES 1 Site Location Plan 2 Site Layout Plan 3 Conceptual Model 4 Plot of SPT ‘N’ Value Versus Depth Below Ground Level APPENDICES I Proposed Development Plan II Field Records III Chemical Laboratory Test Results IV Geotechnical Laboratory Test Data V Qualitative Risk Assessment



1 INTRODUCTION In April 2013, ASL were instructed by Cameron Homes Limited to undertake the necessary ground investigation and consultancy services associated with the proposed development at the site known as Sheepy Road, Atherstone. A ground investigation is required in order to determine the ground conditions at the site ahead of its proposed development. It is understood that the proposed development comprises the removal of the existing onsite structures and the construction of approximately fourteen new residential properties and private gardens together with areas of soft landscaping and hardstandings for access and parking. A proposed development layout is presented as Appendix I. The scope of works for this project was set out in ASL’s proposal reference 079-13-020.elo.997 dated 22nd April 2013 which was formerly accepted by Cameron Homes Limited in their Purchase Order (Order No.: 019104) dated 30th April 2013. This report presents a review of a previous desk study report for the site, the development of a conceptual site model, the factual results from an intrusive investigation and subsequent laboratory analyses and interpretative comment in terms of contaminative status and the geotechnical properties of the ground conditions encountered at the site in relation to the proposed development. This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of the Client, Cameron Homes Limited and their representatives and agents. The report has been written based on the results of data searches and ground conditions encountered at the time of the investigation and the results of subsequent analyses and monitoring. Future changes in legislation and advances in current best practises or provision of more detailed design proposals will result in this report requiring review and possible further assessment after the date of issue. The general notes section within this report should be noted in relation to the limitations of this investigation and assessment.


2 THE SITE The site located to the immediate west of Sheepy Road approximately 0.5km to the north-west of Atherstone town centre. The site can be located approximately by National Grid Reference SP 307 981 as shown on Figure 1. The site comprises an irregularly shaped piece of land with maximum dimensions of approximately 95m by 60m with the long axis aligned approximately north to south. The site is currently occupied by a police station. The main structure comprises a one and two storey brick walled and flat roofed structure. A brick built chimney is located to the south-west of the structure that extends to approximately two storeys in height. The main structure is irregular in shape and occupies a large portion of the central part of the site. The structure encircles a courtyard area centrally in the north with access gained to the courtyard via a security gateway in the north-west. The western boundary of the courtyard is formed by single storey garage structures and bike sheds in the north-west. Two refuse skip was located within the courtyard area. A gas riser was located in the south-west of the courtyard feeding a boiler located at the base of the chimney. The north of the site comprises a parking area surfaced with tarmacadam with minor areas of managed soft landscaping. This area is located at the level of Croft Road to the north and approximately 0.75m lower than Sheepy Road to the east. The east of the site generally comprises soft landscaping with a paved path centrally giving access to the police station entrance. The site is located at the level of Sheepy Road in the east with sharp slope down to the main structure centrally to this portion of the site marking a change in level of approximately 1m. The south and south-west of the site comprises areas of soft landscaping and paved pathways. This part of the site is located at the level of Croft Road in the south and south-east and slopes down to the south-west with a change in level of approximately 1.0m. A number of manhole covers are located in this part of the site. A number of mature trees are also located in this part of the site. The site is bound to the north and south by Croft Road with residential properties beyond, to the west be residential properties, to the east by Sheepy Road with residential properties beyond and to the north-east by Sheepy Road with a depot beyond. A site layout plan is presented as Figure 2. It is understood that the proposed development comprises the removal of the existing onsite structures and the construction of approximately fourteen new residential properties and private gardens together with areas of soft landscaping and hardstandings for access and parking. A proposed development layout is presented as Appendix I.


3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The British Geological Survey (BGS) Sheet No. 155 Coalville (Solid and Drift) indicates the site to be devoid of drift geology and directly underlain by solid geology of the Mercia Mudstone group. The Mercia Mudstone Group is not described by the BGS within the vicinity of the site. The thickness of the Mercia Mudstone Group is not defined by the BGS in the vicinity of the site, however it is anticipated to extend to a significant depth beneath the site. Drift deposits comprising Glacial Sand and Gravel are indicated to be present to the immediate north and south of the site. In addition to the published geology it is considered likely that a minor thickness of Made Ground and/or Topsoil will be present at the surface or beneath hardstandings given the sites previous land-use. The site is indicated to be in an area that may be affected by coal mining. A Coal Authority Report has been obtained for the site. The Coal Authority Report indicated the site not be in the zone of influence from any past, present or future underground mining or open cast mining. The aquifer status of the Mercia Mudstone Group is defined by the Environment Agency (EA) as an Unproductive Strata. The drift deposits present to the north and south of the site are defined by the EA as Secondary Aquifers - A. The site is not indicated to be in a Source Protection Zone. The nearest surface water feature is identified as Innage Brook located approximately 250m to the west. Further from the site the River Anker is located approximately 1km to the north. The site is not indicated to be in an area susceptible to flooding from rivers or seas without defences. The site is indicated to be in an area where new homes or extensions do not require radon protection measures.


4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A Desk Study Report (Report Reference: Job number 210709-02) has been undertaken by Ove Arup and Partners on the behalf of Warwickshire Police Authority in April 2010. This report was undertaken to identify the principal ground condition issues and potential ground contamination constraints for development. The following section discusses the scope and findings of the previous investigation. 4.1. Ground Conditions and Contamination Risk Report

The site was identified as being predominantly occupied by existing police buildings, a magistrates court and associated hardstanding and car parking areas. The remainder of the site is landscaped with grass, shrubs and trees. A number of garages are present to the rear of the buildings which are understood to have been used for vehicle maintenance. Localised oil staining was noted at surface within one of these garages. A large chimney is present to the rear of the onsite building which is understood to be associated with the heating system and possible boiler room;

The site’s history dating back to 1885 was determined to comprise undeveloped land and orchards until approximately 1924, after which small structures are indicated to be present in the north and centre of the site. The police station and magistrates court are indicated to have been present since at least 1971;

A former timber yard and garage are indicated to have been present approximately 20m to the south;

The geology beneath the site was identified to comprise solid geology of the Mercia Mudstone Group. Drift deposits comprising sand and gravel are indicated to be present to the north and south;

The was identified as being within an area that may be affected by coal mining activity;

A Coal Authority Report for the site did not identify a potential risk from past, present and future underground or open cast mining;

There are no active abstractions from or discharges to groundwater located within 1.0km of the site;

The site is not indicated to be within a Source Protection Zone; The nearest surface water feature is Innage Brook located approximately 250m to

the west; There are no active abstractions from or discharges to surface water within 0.5km

of the site; The desk study report concluded that given the information regarding the historical

and current activities on the site, it is highly unlikely that the ground beneath the site is contaminated as a result of both past and current activities. Also, there is a very limited potential for contamination to enter the site from offsite sources.

It was recommended that a limited intrusive ground investigation is carried out prior to the proposed redevelopment to determine suitable foundation types and bearing pressures and to assess the potential risks to future site users.

ASL in general concur with the conclusions of the Desk Study Report with regards to the potential risk from contamination. However, it is noted that there is the potential for fuel storage to have been located at the site given the presence of a chimney associated with the boiler room in the west of the site. Further to this there is the potential for basements to be located at the site. Full access to the structure located at the site has not been gained as part of this assessment and therefore the presence of these structures cannot be confirmed at this time.


Based on the findings of the desk study it is considered that an intrusive investigation is completed before commencement of any development works to assess the actual contaminative status of the ground and groundwater at the site. It is also considered essential that the intrusive investigation should determine the geotechnical parameters of the underlying ground conditions as part of the future development of the site.


5 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 5.1 General The conceptual site model has been produced in accordance with the guidance presented in DEFRA R&D Publication CLR11 to produce this source-pathway-receptor model. The previous desk study assessment of the site’s environmental setting and the current site walkover has identified potential pollutant linkages that may pose a risk to human health and controlled waters. The potential pollutant linkages are detailed in the conceptual site model, Figure 3. The conceptual site model assumes the presence of contamination on the site in the Made Ground and/or the near surface soils and should be refined in relation to the results of the investigation as necessary. Refinement should also be made should the nature of the development result in pollutant linkages being broken. Refinements as necessary will be discussed in the qualitative risk assessment section of this report. 5.2 Receptors The receptors to any potential contamination and therefore the element actually at risk from the contamination have been identified as the following:

Human Health – Construction/maintenance workers and future site users; Service Lines – Constructed as part of the new development; Surface Water – Innage Brook located approximately 250m to the west; Groundwater beneath the site – non aquifer, minor aquifers to the immediate north

and south; Neighbouring properties and residents.

5.3 Pathways A pathway is the means by which a contamination source makes contact with the receptor creating a pollutant linkage. The three elements of an identified pollutant linkage (source-pathway-receptor) need to be present for there to be a perceived risk from any identified contamination present in soils and/or groundwater. The pathways considered in this assessment are as follows:

Direct Physical Contact – Dermal contact, ingestion, inhalation (PL1); Migration from soils to groundwater via leaching (PL2); Migration within groundwater (PL3); Migration via service lines (PL4); Volatilisation of contaminants from soils and groundwater (PL5); Migration of hazardous ground gas (PL6); Vegetable intake (PL7);

Table 1 overleaf presents a summary of the identified pollutant linkages connecting potential sources of contamination with identified receptors.


Table 1 Summary of Pollutant Linkages Potential Source of

Contamination Potential Pathway Description / Comment Potential Receptors

Incidental leaks and spills from parked vehicles

PL1, PL2, PL3, PL4, PL5, PL6,

PL7

No visual evidence of contamination noted during site walk over.

Human health - Construction/ maintenance workers, current and future site users Controlled waters – non aquifer, minor aquifers to north and south. Innage Brook approximately 250m to the west Service Lines

Areas of vehicle maintenance and boiler room and fuel storage to rear of site

Visual evidence of oil staining noted on hardstandings

Former Timber Yard 20m to the south and various former works and factories within the vicinity of the site

Potential for contamination and hazardous ground gases to migrate onto site. Presence not yet proven.

Potential Made Ground located at site

Presence not yet proven but expected.

Asbestos present within the building fabric.

PL1 Asbestos survey to be completed prior to redevelopment works.

Human health - Construction/ maintenance workers, current and future site users

5.4 Summary The potential pollutant linkages noted in Table 1 will be discussed in light of the findings of the intrusive investigation from which an assessment of the actual risks posed by any contamination to the identified receptors will be determined. From the assessment of the potential pollutant linkages the critical receptors are considered to be site end users (female child for a residential development) and groundwater hydraulically down gradient of the site in the Secondary Aquifer - A. Maintenance and construction workers, service lines and neighbouring properties may also require consideration. Given the age of the buildings present at the site there is the potential for asbestos bearing materials to be present within the existing building fabric. It is recommended that an appropriate asbestos survey is undertaken prior to any development works.


6 GROUND INVESTIGATION AND TESTING 6.1 Ground Investigation The scope of works was defined for the project by ASL and comprised six windowless sample boreholes. The intrusive investigation was designed to give general coverage of the site and to target identified potential geotechnical constraints and potential sources of contamination. This investigation was completed to obtain information relating to the contaminative status of the site and the geotechnical properties of the underlying ground conditions. The positions of exploratory holes have been taped from recognised features on the site and plotted on Figure 2 of this report. The ground investigation was carried out in general accordance with BS5930 (1999)+A2 (2010) ‘Code of Practice for Site Investigations’ and BS10175 (2011) ‘Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites’ and in accordance with current best practice. The scope of works for the ground investigation was as follows:

6 No. windowless sample boreholes (WS) to a maximum depth of 6.45m bgl; Insitu standard penetration tests (SPT) at regular intervals within all WS; Installation of a combined gas and groundwater monitoring standpipes within 3 No.

WS; Chemical and geotechnical laboratory testing; Gas and groundwater monitoring programme.

The ground investigation was undertaken on the 14th May 2013. The intrusive investigation was supervised by a suitably experienced geo-environmental engineer from ASL. The exploratory holes were logged by the supervising engineer and the logs are presented in Appendix II. 6.2 Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Programme Three monitoring events were conducted on 22nd and 29th May and 4th June 2013 and comprised level measurements of methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide, relative and atmospheric pressure, gas flow rate and groundwater level. The results of the gas and groundwater level monitoring are presented in Table IIa of Appendix II. 6.3 Laboratory Testing Selected soil samples were scheduled for chemical testing for a range of contaminants in order to determine the general contaminative status of conditions on the site. A general suite of testing was selected in order to characterise the encountered ground conditions. The samples were scheduled for chemical laboratory testing for the following determinants:

Arsenic, Boron (water soluble), Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide (free and total) Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Vanadium, Zinc, Poly-cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) (16 No. speciated), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), pH, Phenols, Sulphate (soluble), Sulphide, Total Sulphur, Total Sulphate, fraction of organic carbon, asbestos screening (Made Ground only)

The chemical testing is being undertaken by a UKAS accredited laboratory in accordance with the MCERTS accreditation where available.


A single soil sample was scheduled for the following determinants in leachate:

Arsenic, Boron, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide (free and total), Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Zinc, pH

The results of the chemical laboratory testing are presented in Appendix III. 6.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Geotechnical laboratory testing was completed on four soil samples. The samples have been scheduled for Moisture Content and Atterberg Limit testing to assess shrinkage potential and for pH and sulphate testing to assess the concrete classification for the proposed development. The results of the geotechnical laboratory testing are presented in Appendix III and IV.


7 GROUND, GROUNDWATER AND GAS CONDITIONS 7.1 Materials Encountered The BGS indicates the south of the site to be devoid of drift cover and directly underlain by solid geology of the Mercia Mudstone Group. Drift deposits comprising Glacial Sand and Gravel are indicated to be present to the south and immediate north of the site. The intrusive investigation proved the published solid geology within the south-western portion of the site, however materials assumed to represent Glacial Sand and Gravel were encountered beneath the Made Ground materials across the remainder of the site. In addition to the published geology the intrusive investigation identified variable thicknesses of Topsoil and Made Ground at surface and beneath hardstandings. Within WS3, located centrally in the eastern portion of the site, Made Ground materials were encountered to a depth of 4.2m bgl. Table 2 below presents a summary of the ground conditions encountered during the intrusive investigation. Full details of the conditions encountered are presented on the exploratory hole logs in Appendix II. Table 2 Summary of Strata Encountered

Description Top of Unit

(m bgl) Thickness of

Unit (m) SPT ‘N’ Value Min Max Min Max

Topsoil Brown slightly sandy to very sandy, locally slightly gravelly, CLAY. Gravel is subangular fine to coarse flint and flint;

0.00 0.00 0.30 0.50 None Taken

Made Ground Firm brown, dark brown and black sandy to very sandy slightly gravelly to gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular fine to coarse quartzite, concrete, brick and ash;

Firm red brown CLAY;

Very loose to loose red brown and orange brown slightly clayey to very clayey gravelly SAND. Gravel is angular to subangular fine to coarse brick, ceramic and ash;

0.30 0.50 0.55 3.70 3 - 6

Possible Former Topsoil Soft brown and grey brown sandy, locally gravelly, CLAY with frequent rootlets;

1.80 1.90 0.60 0.70 1 & 3

Possible Glacial Sand and Gravel Firm light brown and orange brown mottled red brown sandy to very sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subrounded fine to coarse quartzite;

Medium dense to very dense red brown, orange and green brown clayey slightly gravelly to gravelly SAND. Gravel is subangular to subrounded fine to coarse quartzite;

0.80 4.20 0.25 2.60* 6 - >50

Probable Mercia Mudstone Group Firm medium to very high strength red brown, locally mottled blue grey silty CLAY. Occasional angular to subangular fine to coarse mudstone gravel;

1.10 2.50 0.95* 4.35* 9 - >50

Notes: 1. * = Base not proven


In addition to the strata summarised in Table 2 tarmacadam and associated subbase materials were encountered at surface at WS4, WS5 and WS6. The subbase materials were encountered to depths between 0.80m and 1.20m bgl. Three SPTs were completed within cohesive Made Ground materials that recorded SPT ‘N’ values between 3 and 6 indicating very low strength cohesive materials and very loose to loose granular materials. Two SPTs were undertaken within the possible former Topsoil materials that recorded SPT ‘N’ values of 1 and 3 indicating typically medium to high strength cohesive materials. Eleven SPTs completed within the materials interpreted as possible Glacial Sand and Gravel, recorded SPT ‘N’ values between 6 and >50 indicating low to medium strength cohesive materials and typically medium dense to very dense granular materials. Eight SPTs were completed within the probable Mercia Mudstone Group materials that recorded SPT ‘N’ values between 9 and >50 indicating medium to very high strength cohesive materials. Three samples of the cohesive possible Glacial Sand and Gravel and a single sample of the probable Mercia Mudstone Group materials recovered from depths between 0.90m and 1.50m bgl were scheduled for Atterberg Limit determinations and moisture content analyses to determine geotechnical properties. The results of the Atterberg Limit tests indicate the materials tested to be clays of low and intermediate plasticity with liquid limits between 31% and 46%, plastic limits between 15% and 25% and plasticity indices between 16% and 21% indicating the cohesive possible Drift Deposits to have a low volume change potential and the Mercia Mudstone Group materials to have a medium volume change potential. The samples recorded moisture contents of 13% and 23% indicating that the materials are locally in a state of desiccation. The results are presented in Appendix IV. 7.2 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at all exploratory borehole during their formation, with the exception of WS1 and WS2 located in the south and south-west of the site, at depths between 1.0m and 2.50m bgl, within the Made Ground and possible drift Deposits. During the subsequent monitoring events groundwater was recorded at all monitoring installations at depths between 1.04m and 1.68m bgl. Full details are presented in Appendix II. 7.3 Gas As part of the monitoring event below ground gas levels within the monitoring standpipes were measured during three events completed on 22nd and 29th May and 4th June 2013. The results are presented in full in Table IIa of Appendix II. Methane was not recorded in excess of the relevant analytical detection limits of the apparatus used during the monitoring programme.


Carbon monoxide was recorded in excess of the analytical detection limits of the apparatus used at WS5, during the first monitoring event only, at a concentration of 178ppm. The results during subsequent monitoring events were all below analytical detection limits of the apparatus used. Hydrogen sulphide was recorded in excess of the analytical detection limits of the apparatus used at WS5, during the first monitoring event only, at a concentration of 21ppm. The results during subsequent monitoring events were all below analytical detection limits of the apparatus used. Carbon dioxide was recorded in excess of the analytical detection limits of the apparatus used at all monitoring installations during the monitoring programme at concentrations between 0.5% and 2.7% v/v. Oxygen was monitored above the analytical detection limits of the apparatus used at all monitoring installations during the monitoring programme. Oxygen was recorded at concentrations between 16.2 and 21.4% v/v. Mean downhole pressure were recorded as zero during the completed monitoring events. Mean flow rates were recorded as zero, with the exception of WS5 during the first monitoring event, where a mean average flow rate of 0.3 l/hr was recorded. The monitoring event was completed during a periods of low and high atmospheric pressure.


8 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 8.1 General It is understood that the proposed development comprises the removal of the existing onsite structures and the construction of approximately fourteen new residential properties and private gardens together with areas of soft landscaping and hardstandings for access and parking. A proposed development layout is presented as Appendix I. Made Ground was encountered within all of the exploratory holes to depths between 0.70m and 4.20m at WS5 and WS3 respectively. In addition possible former Topsoil materials were locally found to be present underlying the Made Ground materials. Within the central and northern portions of the site the Made Ground materials were found to be underlain by predominantly granular materials considered to represent Glacial Sand and Gravel. Stratum comprising the Mercia Mudstone Group was not encountered within the boreholes located within the north of the site (WS3, WS4 and WS6). Within the central and southern portions of the site (WS1, WS2 and WS5) the Made Ground materials were generally found to be underlain by only limited thicknesses of possible Glacial Sand and Gravel with solid strata of the Mercia Mudstone Group encountered at depths between 1.1m and 2.5m bgl. No drift deposits were encountered within WS1, located in the south-west of the site. Groundwater was encountered at all exploratory boreholes during their formation, with the exception of WS1 and WS2 located in the south and south-west of the site, at depths between 1.0m and 2.50m bgl, within the Made Ground and possible Glacial Sand and Gravel. During the subsequent monitoring events groundwater was recorded at all monitoring installations, namely at WS2, WS3 and WS5, at depths of between 1.04m and 1.68m bgl. 8.2 Foundation Assessment Due to their inconsistency and variability the Topsoil, Made Ground and possible former Topsoil materials are not considered suitable founding stratum in their current condition. It is considered that conventional foundations could be adopted, across the majority of the site, with foundations placed within the possible Glacial Sand and Gravel or cohesive Mercia Mudstone strata, at depths of approximately 1.5m bgl, designed to a net allowable bearing pressure of 125kN/m2 to limit total settlements to 25mm and differential settlements to acceptable levels. Where foundations span granular and cohesive deposits it is recommended that reinforcement is included at the top and bottom of foundations to reduce the effects of any differential settlement. Plasticity index results indicate the shallow cohesive strata to be of low and medium volume change potential. Therefore, where foundations lie within cohesive deposits and are within influencing distance of existing trees, foundations may need to be locally deepened in accordance with NHBC guidelines. In addition moisture content determinations indicate the shallow materials present on site are locally in a state of desiccation. Therefore, where foundations lie within cohesive deposits heave precautions in accordance with NHBC guidelines should be incorporated in the foundation design.


Within the south-west of the site (WS1) Made Ground and former Topsoil materials have been encountered to a depth of 2.50m bgl. It is thought that these Made Ground materials may be associated with a deep sewer present within this portion of the site and therefore their extent may be limited. It is considered that foundations within this portion of the site will need to be deepened through any Made Ground or former Topsoil materials, with foundations placed a minimum of 200mm into the underlying natural strata. Deeper Made Ground materials were also encountered to a depth of 4.20m bgl at WS3, located within the central eastern portion of the site. It is recommended that further investigation is undertaken within this portion of the site to fully establish the extent of the area of deep Made Ground. If following further investigation, the area of deep Made Ground does not impact on the development layout or is found be of very limited extent, the use of convention foundation may be feasible within this portion of the site. However, if the area of deeper Made Ground is found to be extensive it is likely that a piled foundation solution will need to be adopted, with piles extending through the Made Ground materials and into the deeper more competent Glacial Sand and Gravel or Mercia Mudstone strata. If a piled foundation is to be adopted, it is considered that further investigation comprising deeper boreholes would be required to provide appropriate geotechnical information on the deeper Glacial Sand and Gravel and Mercia Mudstone Group materials. The findings of the intrusive investigation indicate that the shallow granular Made Ground and natural materials are likely to be prone to collapse within excavations. In addition shallow groundwater has been encountered across the site. It is therefore considered that significant difficulties are likely to be experienced with the excavation and placement of shallow foundations and therefore the use of conventional foundations may not be economically feasible at the site. It is therefore recommended that consideration should be given to the use of piled foundations across the whole site, with piles extending into the deeper more competent Glacial Sand and Gravel or Mercia Mudstone Group materials. It is recommended that the advice of a specialist contractor is sought with regards to the design and installation of any ground improvements or piled foundation solutions employed at the site. 8.3 Floor Slabs Due to the presence of significant thicknesses of Made Ground across the majority of the site, a suspended floor slab is recommended for the proposed development. 8.4 Road Pavements For the basis of design of any areas of hardstanding or access roads design CBR values of 2% could be adopted where the formation level lies within the shallow natural possible Glacial Sand and Gravel or Mercia Mudstone Group. Where formation level lies within the Made Ground materials, it is recommended that these materials are removed and replaced with 600mm of suitable granular materials, compacted in layers. The formation should be proof rolled and any soft spots removed and replaced with suitable granular fill.


It is considered that the near surface materials may be potentially frost susceptible and therefore special precautions, including provision of 450mm of non-frost susceptible material above formation level should be included. 8.5 Excavations Excavation of the materials encountered on site is likely to be achieved using conventional plant, however, should any obstructions remain in the ground at shallow depths, such as former foundations and potential basement structures, the use of pneumatic/hydraulic breakout equipment may be required, particularly within confined excavations. Excavations are expected to be prone to collapse particularly where groundwater is encountered within granular deposits. Consequently, temporary support should be considered for all excavations where collapse is to be avoided. Heavier duty closed shoring should be provided for any excavation where man entry is necessary, in compliance with statutory requirements to ensure safe working conditions. 8.6 Dewatering Groundwater was encountered at all exploratory borehole during their formation, with the exception of WS1 and WS2 located in the south and south-west of the site, at depths between 1.0m and 2.50m bgl, within the Made Ground and possible drift Deposits. During the subsequent monitoring events groundwater was recorded at all monitoring installations, installed at WS2, WS3 and WS5, at depths between 1.04m and 1.68m bgl. Therefore, it is considered that groundwater issues are likely to occur within onsite excavations. However, it is considered that any groundwater inflows could be suitable controlled by normal sump pumping techniques. 8.7 Buried Concrete Classification Based on the results of analysis of soil samples for pH and sulphate content the ground conditions at the site are classified as Design Sulphate Class “DS-1” and an Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) site classification of “AC-1”. 8.8 Gas Protection Measures The desk study and fieldwork did not identified significant sources of ground gas. The results of the below ground gas monitoring events did not identify concentrations of hazardous gases that warrant the incorporation of specific gas protection measures in accordance with the guidance provided by BS 8485 and CIRIA 665. This conclusion should be agreed with the relevant regulatory authorities prior to the commencement of development works to confirm that the assessment completed meets with their requirements and further monitoring to verify these results is not required.


9 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT – HUMAN HEALTH 9.1 Introduction The results of the chemical laboratory testing undertaken on selected soil samples (see Section 6.3), have been compared where possible to the relevant industry guidance as detailed in the following sections. Test results have been compared where relevant to the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) guidance to assess the risk to human health (Document References SC050021/SR2, SC050021/SR3, SC050021/SR4 and SC050021/SR7). The CLEA guidance comprises a number of technical reference documents and Soil Guideline Value Reports with associated Supplementary Information Reports for use in the generic assessment of chemical test results. A number of Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) that are relevant to this assessment have been derived by the EA. The SGVs have been derived based on the proposed end use of the site. In this instance an end use of ‘residential with home-grown produce’ has been considered the most appropriate. Should the proposed development at the site change the potential risk posed by the identified contamination should be reviewed. SGVs have not been provided for the full range of determinants assessed as part of this contamination assessment. As a result Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) have been derived in accordance with current CLEA guidance and spreadsheet Version 1.06. It should be noted that the withdrawn SGV for lead was calculated using lead concentrations in blood. This methodology cannot be applied to the revised CLEA model. Whilst a revised assessment method or a new SGV has not been published it is considered appropriate to compare the recorded concentrations of lead at the site with the withdrawn SGV. It should also be noted that the SGV are calculated assuming 6% soil organic matter (SOM). Laboratory data for samples analysed at the site recorded an average result of approximately 1.66% for soil organic matter calculated using fraction or organic carbon results. The GAC for the site are therefore conservatively calculated assuming 1.66% SOM. It should also be noted that should off-site disposal of materials on site be required as part of the development, the test results within this report should be forwarded to the receiving landfill operator to confirm whether their license agreements are satisfied and to confirm disposal costs. The waste producer is responsible for ensuring that the waste is characterised in accordance with current legislation. As such Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing may be required in addition to the test results presented in this report ahead of any off-site disposal. 9.2 Chemical Test Results - Soils The results of the chemical laboratory testing undertaken on the selected soil sample are summarised in Table 3 overleaf. Only those determinants recorded in excess of their relevant laboratory detection limits are assessed here. Where total TPH has been identified this has been assessed using the GAC for the aliphatic TPH fraction >C12-C16. This fraction has been selected as it is the most stringent GAC for the assessed TPH fractions. The chemical test results on soil are presented in full in Appendix III.


Table 3 Summary of Soils Data with Respect to Human Health (Tier 1)

Contaminants Max Conc. (mg/kg)

CLEA SGVs mg/kg (Residential with home-

grown produce)

CLEA Derived GAC mg/kg (Residential with home-grown

produce)

No. of Tests

Arsenic 27 32 (0) - 3 Beryllium 3 - 78.9 (0) 3 Boron 1.1 - 4070 (0) 3 Cadmium 0.7 10 (0) - 3 Chromium 46 - 2890 (0) 3 Copper 150 - 2920 (0) 3 Lead 170 450* (0) - 3 Mercury 0.4 - 0.519 (0) 3 Nickel 70 130 (0) - 3 Vanadium 49 - 470 (0) 3 Zinc 140 - 2600 (0) 3 TPH 18 36.7 (0) 3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.73 - 5.66 (0) 3 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.42 - 0.89 (0) 3 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.49 - 8.66 (0) 3 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.34 - 9.16 (0) 3 Chrysene 0.5 - 72 (0) 3 Fluoranthene 0.95 - 1170 (0) 3 Phenanthrene 0.31 - 1310 (0) 3 Pyrene 0.82 - 809 (0) 3

Note: 1. Number in brackets represents the number of results above guideline values. 2. * Denotes withdrawn SGV taken as relevant screening criteria. 3. ^ Denotes Soil Saturation Limit for aliphatic TPH fraction >C12-C16 None of the contaminants of concern are identified in excess of their relevant GAC. No further assessment of the potential risk to human health is considered necessary. No remediation of soils to be protective of human health is considered necessary.


10 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT – CONTROLLED WATERS 10.1 Introduction To assess the potential risk to controlled waters from the recorded concentrations in soils the use of leachability is generally used to determine contaminant mobility within the ground with the results of these tests compared to the determinants respective environmental quality standards (EQS) or other applicable standards such as UK drinking water standards (DWS). For organic compounds the use of leachability testing is not considered reliable therefore screening of soil data is carried out by deriving Tier 1 values from the Remedial Targets Methodology, 2006. 10.2 Methodology The potential impact of contamination at the site on water resources has been assessed in accordance with the quantitative risk assessment (QRA) method presented in the Environment Agency’s Publication ‘Remedial Targets Methodology’ GEHO0706BLEQ-E-E, dated 2006 and the accompanying ‘Remedial Targets Worksheet, Release 3.1’ (October 2006). The methodology is a tiered approach and screening criteria can be calculated using Tier 1 derived values. In Tier 1, soil and pore water remedial targets are calculated such that the pore water concentration does not exceed the target concentration for groundwater. 10.3 Summary of Results - Soils Table 4 below presents a summary of derived Tier 1 target values and the relevant water quality standards compared with the recorded concentrations of determinants at the site. PAH has been assessed using risk driver species for which there are appropriate water quality standards namely benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k)fluoranthene and benzo(b)fluoranthene. At tier 1 TPH is assessed using half the inert WAC screening criterion. Exceedances of this criterion are considered to require further assessment. The chemical test results are presented in full in Appendix III. Table 4 Summary of Soils Data with Respect to Controlled Waters (Tier 1)

Determinant Tier 1 Value (mg/kg) Max Conc. (mg/kg) No. of Exceedances Arsenic* 0.05 0.037 0 (1) Boron* 2 0.08 0 (1) Chromium* 0.25 0.0089 0 (1) Copper* 0.028 0.0074 0 (1) Lead* 0.25 0.0011 0 (1) Nickel* 0.2 0.0038 0 (1) Vanadium* 0.06 0.0022 0 (1) Zinc* 0.5 0.014 0 (1) TPH 250 18 0 (3) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0124 0.42 1+2 (3) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0251 0.49 1+2 (3) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0355 0.34 1+2 (3)

Notes 1. Numbers in brackets denote the number of tests undertaken. 2. * Inorganic determinant concentrations in mg/l. All of the positively identified PAH species have been identified in excess of their relevant Tier 1 screening criterion in a single sample of Made Ground recovered from WS2 at 0.1m bgl.


Given the conservative nature of the calculations used to derive the Tier 1 screening criteria and the minor nature of the exceedances recorded, it is considered that the contaminants identified do not pose a significant risk to the identified receptors. No further assessment of the potential risk to controlled waters is considered necessary. No remediation to be protective of controlled waters is considered necessary.


11 FURTHER INVESTIGATION Following the completion of demolition and site clearance it is recommended that the extent of deeper Made Ground at WS1 and WS3 is determined by completing additional investigation comprising a series of trial pits. This is required to finalise the foundation assessment for the proposed development. Should the additional investigation identify more wide spread deeper Made Ground. It is recommended that deeper boreholes are constructed at the site to determine the geotechnical parameters of the deeper drifty deposits and Mercia Mudstone Group to enable the design of a piled foundation. Further to this it is recommended that the soils located beneath the chimney and boiler room are inspected to confirm that contamination is not present in this part of the site as a result of historical bulk storage of fuels.


12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A review of a previous desk study and a ground investigation has been completed at the site, to characterise the ground and groundwater conditions. A geotechnical and environmental assessment has been completed based on the results of these investigations. The conclusions of this assessment are summarised as follows: Given the age of the buildings present at the site there is the potential for asbestos bearing materials to be present within the existing building fabric. It is recommended that an appropriate asbestos survey is undertaken prior to any development works. It is considered that conventional foundations could be adopted, across the majority of the site, with foundations placed within the possible Glacial Sand and Gravel or Mercia Mudstone Group at a depth of approximately 1.5m bgl, designed to a net allowable bearing pressure of 125kN/m2. Foundations should be extended through deeper Made Ground, particularly in the vicinity of WS1 and placed a minimum of 200mm into the underlying natural strata. Where foundations lie within cohesive deposits and are within influencing distance of existing trees, foundations may need to be locally deepened in accordance with NHBC guidelines. Further to this, heave precautions in accordance with NHBC guidelines should be incorporated in the foundation design. The shallow granular Made Ground and natural materials are likely to be prone to collapse within excavations particularly where shallow groundwater is present. It is therefore considered that significant difficulties are likely to be experienced with the excavation and placement of shallow foundations and therefore the use of conventional foundations may not be economically feasible at the site and piled foundations should be considered for the proposed development. It is recommended that further investigation is required in the vicinity of WS1 and WS3 to delineate the extent of deeper Made Ground. Should this investigation identify a significant area of Made Ground, it is considered that a piled foundation solution may be required for the site. Should a piled foundation be the required or preferred foundation solution, further investigation comprising deeper boreholes would be required to determine the geotechnical ground conditions at depth. It is recommended that a suspended floor with a suitable void for low volume change potential soils could be adopted for the site. Based on the results of analysis of soil samples for pH and sulphate content the ground conditions at the site are classified as Design Sulphate Class “DS-1” and an Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) site classification of “AC-1”. The results of the below ground gas monitoring events did not identify concentrations of hazardous gases that warrant the incorporation of specific gas protection measures. The contamination assessment has not identified a potential risk to human health or controlled waters. No further assessment of the potential risk to the identified receptors is considered necessary. No remediation to be protective of the identified receptors is considered necessary. The chemical laboratory test results within this report should be forwarded to the mains water service provider to ensure that their requirements for service line construction on brownfield sites are satisfied.


REFERENCES

BGS Map Sheet No. 155 – Coalville. Solid and Drift. 1:50 000 scale

DEFRA R&D Publication CLR 11 “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination” dated September 2004.

DEFRA R&D Publication CLR 12 “‘A Quality Approach for Contaminated Land Consultancy” dated 1997.

www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Department of the Environment Industry Profiles

BS 5930:1999+A2:2010 “Code of Practice for Site Investigation”

BS10175 “Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites” : 2011

BS1377 “Method of Tests for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes” : 1991

Environment Agency’s Publication ‘Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for Soil and Groundwater to Protect Water Resources’ R&D Publication 20

Environment Agency’s ‘Remedial Targets Worksheet, Release 3.1’ (October 2007)

RIVM report 711701 025 Re-evaluation of human-toxicological maximum permissible risk levels March 2001. A.J. Baars, R.M.C. Theelen, P.J.C.M. Janssen, J.M. Hesse, M.E. van Apeldoorn, M.C.M.Meijerink, L. Werdam and M.J. Zeilmaker.

Concrete – Complementary British Standards to BS EN 206-1 Part 1: Method of specifying and guidance for the specifer (BS 8500-1:2006)

Concrete – Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1 – Part 2: Specification for constituent materials and concrete (BS 8500-2:2006)

CIRIA 665 “Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings” 2007

WHO, Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 32, “Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds” 2001

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series Volume 3 and 4, 1997

Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants in soil (Report Reference SC050021/SR2, dated January 2009);

Updated technical background to the CLEA model (Report Reference SC050021/SR3, dated January 2009);

CLEA Software (Version 1.04) Handbook (Report Reference SC050021/SR4, dated January 2009);

Compilation of Data for Priority Organic Pollutants for Derivation of Soil Guideline Values (Report Reference SC050021/SR7, dated November 2008).

BS8485 ‘Code of practice for the characterisation and remediation from ground gas in affected developments’, 2007


GENERAL NOTES The interpretation made in this report is based on the information obtained during the course of the desk study and ground investigation. It should be appreciated that any desk study information is not necessarily exhaustive and that further information relevant to the site and its proposed usage may be available. There may be conditions present on the site that have not been revealed by the ground investigation which as a result have not been addressed within this report. The accuracy of any map extracts cannot be guaranteed and it should be recognised that different conditions on site may have existed between and subsequent to the various map surveys. The qualitative assessment of risk presented in this report presents an assessment of potential pollutant linkages between sources, pathways and receptors. A level of risk is attributed to these linkages. However a low or insignificant risk does not imply that elevated concentrations of various determinants are not present on the site when compared to background or ‘greenfield’ conditions. The level of risk attributed is based on a number of factors and the interpretation of this risk may be applied in a different manner for a different end use or environmental setting. The presence of contaminants may be assessed in alternative ways by institutional bodies regardless of whether an apparent risk is present based on the identified pollutant linkages in this assessment. This report may express an opinion on possible configurations of strata underlying the site between or beyond the exploratory holes or on the possible presence of features based on either visual, verbal or published evidence, this is for guidance only and no liability can be accepted for its accuracy. Comments made on ground conditions are based on the observations made at the time of the investigation works. It should be noted that groundwater levels may vary due to seasonal fluctuation or other factors. Observations made with respect to below ground gas concentrations may also vary due to seasonal factors and atmospheric conditions. This report has been prepared in relation to the proposed development as detailed herein. Should the nature of the development change following the submission of this report a re-assessment of the conditions recorded on the site may be necessary. This report may not be used in the assessment of the conditions at any site other than the site described herein This report has been prepared for the sole use of the client and the client’s agents and advisors in relation to the proposed development as detailed herein. The issue of this report to third parties not involved in the proposed development as described herein is not permitted without the prior permission being received in writing by ASL. Reproduction of this report to include all figures, drawings and appendices is prohibited without the prior written consent of ASL.

FIGURES

OS Sheet No.140 Leicester1:50,000 Scale. Dated 2012

Reproduced under licence to ASL. Licence No. 100044800

Not to Scale

The Site

Figure 1Site Location PlanSheepy Road, AtherstoneProject No. 079-13-020-09Prepared for: Cameron Homes Limited

Figure 2Exploratory Hole Location PlanSheepy Road, AtherstoneProject No. 079-13-020-09Prepared for: Cameron Homes Limited

Not to ScaleWS4

WS3

WS2

WS1

WS6

WS5

TP1Key

WS2Windowless Sample Borehole

Figure 3Conceptual Site ModelLand at Sheepy Road, AtherstoneProject No. 079-13-020-09Prepared for: Cameron Homes Limited

SN

Proposed Residential Development

PL6

PL3

Neighbouring residential properties

PL1

PL4Service Lines

PL7

Possible Made Ground

Innage Brook approximately

250m to the west

Existing onsite structures

Possible Drift Deposits(Minor Aquifer)

Mercia Mudstone Group(Non Aquifer)

PL5

PL2PL2PL5

Neighbouring residential properties

PL2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Dep

th (

m b

gl)

SPT 'N' Value

SPT 'N' Value versus Depth

Made Ground Possible Former Topsoil

Possible Drift Deposits Probable Mercia Mudstone Group

Figure 4Plot of SPT 'N' Value Versus Depth Below Ground LevelSheepy Road, AtherstoneProject No. 079-1-020-09Prepared for: Cameron Homes Limited

APPENDIX I

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN

APPENDIX II

FIELD RECORDS

Samples and In Situ Testing

Depth (m) Type ResultsDepth(m)

Level(m AOD)

Stratum Description Legend Well

W/S

Window Sample No.

Hole Type

Scale1:25

Logged By

Co-ords:

Level:

Dates:Project No.

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

D - Disturbed SampleES - Environmental SampleB - Bulk SampleU - Undisturbed Sample

C/S - SPT/CPTW - Water Sample

NR - No RecoveryW/S - Water Strike

KeyRemarks

INV - Insitu hand shear vane test

Land at Sheepy Road, Atherstone


Cameron Homes Limited

Windowless sampling from ground level to completed depth. Backfilled with arisingson completion. Groundwater not encountered.

www.aslenvironmental.co.uk

079-13-020

-

14/05/2013

-

WS1

WS

WJP

0.20

0.50

0.80

1.40

1.85

1.95

2.60

3.00-3.45

3.60

4.00-4.45

ES1

ES2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

D10

N=4N=4 (2,1,1,1,1,1)

N=1N=1 (1,0,0,0,0,1)

N=13N=13 (2,3,3,3,3,4)

N=34N=34 (6,6,7,7,8,12)

0.40

1.80

1.90

2.50

3.10

4.45

Brown sandy and locally slightly sandy slightlygravelly CLAY with frequent rootlets in upperpart. Gravel is subangular fine to coarse flintand black amorphous organic fragments.(Topsoil)

MADE GROUND: Firm brown and black sandy andlocally very sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel issubangular fine to coarse quartzite, concrete,brick and ash.

1.20m - 1.40m: Locallysandy gravel at 1.2to1.4m bgl.

MADE GROUND: Firm red brown CLAY.

Soft brown gravelly CLAY with frequentrootlets. Gravel is angular black amorphousorganic fragments. Very sandy at base and verysoft. (Possible Former Topsoil)

Firm becoming stiff red brown mottled blue greyCLAY with occasional angular to subangularfine to coarse gravel of mudstone. (MerciaMudstone Group)

Stiff medium becoming very high strength withdepth red brown silty CLAY. (Mercia MudstoneGroup)

End of Borehole at 4.45 m

1

2

3

4

Sheet 1 of 1

http://www.aslenvironmental.co.uk/



Level(m AOD)


W/S

Window Sample No.

Hole Type

Scale1:25

Logged By

Co-ords:

Level:

Dates:Project No.

Project Name:

Location:

Client:




KeyRemarks





Windowless sampling from ground level to completed depth. No groundwaterencountered. Installed with combined gas and groundwater monitoring standpipe oncompletion.


079-13-020

-

14/05/2013

-

WS2

WS

WJP

0.10

0.50

0.90

1.30

1.80

2.00-2.45

2.50

3.00-3.45

3.60

4.00-4.45

4.60

ES1

ES2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

D10

D11

N=9N=9 (1,1,1,2,3,3)

N=12N=12 (2,2,3,3,3,3)

N=16N=16 (2,2,2,3,5,6)

N=34N=34 (5,5,6,8,9,11)

0.30

0.85

1.10

Brown very sandy CLAY with occasionalsubrounded fine to medium gravel of quartziteand occasional rootlets. (Topsoil)

Dark brown sandy and locally very sandyslightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangularfine to coarse brick and black amorphousorganic fragments.

Firm light brown sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel issubrounded fine to coarse quartzite. (PossibleSand and Gravel)

Firm becoming stiff with depth medium becomingvery high strength with depth red brown CLAYwith occasional subrounded fine to coarsegravel of quartzite in upper part. (ProbableMercia Mudstone Group)

2.60m - 4.20m: Locallymottled green greybelow 2.6m bgl.

4.20m - 5.00m: Gravelof mudstone below 4.2mbgl.


1

2

3

4

Sheet 1 of 1




Level(m AOD)


W/S

Window Sample No.

Hole Type

Scale1:25

Logged By

Co-ords:

Level:

Dates:Project No.

Project Name:

Location:

Client:




KeyRemarks





Windowliss sampling from ground level to completed depth. Terminated at 6.0m bgldue to collapse. Groundwater encountered at 2.5m bgl. Installed with combined gasand groundwater monitoring standpipe on completion.


079-13-020

-

14/05/2013

-

WS3

WS

WJP

0.30

0.80

1.00-1.45

1.90

2.00-2.45

2.60

3.00-3.45

3.60

4.50

D1

ES2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

N=3(1,1/

1,1,0,1)

N=3(0,0/

0,0,0,3)

N=6(0,0/

0,2,2,2)

N=6(0,2/

3,2,1,0)

0.50

1.80

2.50

4.20

Dark brown sandy CLAY with occasionalsubangular fine to coarse gravel of blackamorphous organic fragments and occasionalrootlets. (Topsoil)

MADE GROUND: Very loose orange brown slightlyclayey and locally clayey gravelly SAND. Gravelis angular to subangular fine to coarse brickof ash.

Soft grey brown sandy CLAY. Slight organicodour. (Former Topsoil)

MADE GROUND: Loose red brown very clayey SANDand locally very sandy CLAY with occasionalsubangular gravel of brick and ceramic.

Medium dense red brown clayey slightly gravellySAND. Gravel is subrounded fine to coarsequartzite. (Possible Sand and Gravel)

Continued next sheet

1

2

3

4

Sheet 1 of 2




Level(m AOD)


W/S

Window Sample No.

Hole Type

Scale1:25

Logged By

Co-ords:

Level:

Dates:Project No.

Project Name:

Location:

Client:




KeyRemarks





Windowliss sampling from ground level to completed depth. Terminated at 6.0m bgldue to collapse. Groundwater encountered at 2.5m bgl. Installed with combined gasand groundwater monitoring standpipe on completion.


079-13-020

-

14/05/2013

-

WS3

WS

WJP

N=13(3,3/

3,3,3,4)

N=17(5,4/

5,5,3,4)

6.00

Medium dense red brown clayey slightly gravellySAND. Gravel is subrounded fine to coarsequartzite. (Possible Sand and Gravel)

End of Borehole at 6.00 m6

7

8

9

Sheet 2 of 2




Level(m AOD)


W/S

Window Sample No.

Hole Type

Scale1:25

Logged By

Co-ords:

Level:

Dates:Project No.

Project Name:

Location:

Client:




KeyRemarks





Windowless sampling from 0.2m bgl to completed depth. Backfilled with arisings.Groundwater encountered at 2.0m bgl.


079-13-020

-

14/05/2013

-

WS4

WS

WJP

0.50

0.90

1.50

1.90

2.50

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

N=13(2,2/

3,3,3,4)

N=40(8,8/

9,9,10,12)

50(7,9/

15,15,15,5 for 40mm)

0.10

0.80

1.80

3.40

TARMACADAM

HARDCORE (Granite)

Firm medium strength orange brown mottled redbrown very sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel issubrounded fine to coarse quartzite. (PossibleSand and Gravel)

Orange and green brown clayey gravelly SAND.Gravel is subangular to subrounded fine tocoarse quartzite. (Possible Sand and Gravel)


1

2

3

4

Sheet 1 of 1




Level(m AOD)


W/S

Window Sample No.

Hole Type

Scale1:25

Logged By

Co-ords:

Level:

Dates:Project No.

Project Name:

Location:

Client:




KeyRemarks





Windowless sampling from ground level to completed depth. Groundwaterencountered at 1.3m bgl. Installed with gas and groundwater monitoring.


079-13-020

-

14/05/2013

-

WS5

WS

WJP

0.40

0.90

1.50

2.00

2.80

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

N=44(1,5/

9,10,12,13)

N=10(2,3/

2,3,3,2)

N=13(2,1/

2,3,4,4)

0.10

0.70

1.20

2.50

3.45

TARMACADAM

HARDCORE (Granite)

Firm orange brown mottled red brown very sandygravelly CLAY. Gravel is subrounded fine tocoarse quarzite. (Possible Sand and Gravel)

Very dense orange and green brown clayeygravelly SAND. Gravel is subangular tosubrounded fine to coarse quartzite. (PossibleSand and Gravel)

Firm medium strength red brown CLAY withoccasional subangular fine to coarse gravel ofmudstone. (Probable Mercia Mudstone Group)


1

2

3

4

Sheet 1 of 1




Level(m AOD)


W/S

Window Sample No.

Hole Type

Scale1:25

Logged By

Co-ords:

Level:

Dates:Project No.

Project Name:

Location:

Client:




KeyRemarks





Windowless sampling from ground level to completed depth. Backfilled witharisings. Groundwater encountered at 1.0m bgl. Terminated due to collapse.


079-13-020

-

14/05/2013

-

WS6

WS

WJP

0.50

1.30

1.80

2.20

2.65

D1

D2

D4

D5

D6

N=6(1,0/

1,1,1,3)

N=28(2,5/

6,6,7,9)

N=39(7,7/

8,11,11,9)

0.10

1.20

2.05

3.15

TARMACADAM

HARDCORE (Granite)

Firm orange brown mottled red brown very sandygravelly CLAY. Gravel is subrounded fine tocoarse quarzite. (Possible Sand and Gravel)

Medium dense becoming dense with depth brownbecoming red brown below 2.6m clayey gravellySAND. Gravel is subrounded fine to coarsequartzite. (Possible Sand and Gravel)


1

2

3

4

Sheet 1 of 1


Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Results Site Name: Sheepy Road, Atherstone. Project No. 079-13-020 Prepared for: Cameron Homes Limited

Hole ID GW Level (m bgl)

Borehole Depth (m bgl)

CH4 (% v/v)

CO2 (% v/v)

O2 (% v/v)

CO (ppm)

H2S (ppm)

Downhole Pressure (Pa)

Average Flow Rate (l/hr)

WS2 - - <0.1 2.0 18.4 <1 <1 0 0.0 WS2R 1.68 3.03 <0.1 2.0 18.4 <1 <1 - - WS3 - - <0.1 1.8 19.1 <1 <1 0 0.0 WS3R 1.47 3.02 <0.1 1.8 19.1 <1 <1 - - WS5 - - <0.1 0.9 18.8 168 17 0 0.0 WS5R 1.16 2.08 <0.1 0.9 18.8 173 21 - - WS101 1.37 2.85 <0.1 0.5 20.5 <1 <1 0 0.0 WS102 - - <0.1 1.8 19.3 <1 <1 # # WS102R 2.23 4.00 <0.1 0.4 20.4 <1 <1 - -

R=Repeat Notes: Monitoring Event No. 1 Date: 22/05/13 Atmospheric Pressure: 1009mb-1010mb Weather Conditions: 16°C, gentle breeze (moderate gusts), dry, cloudy, dry ground. Engineer: P Brennan Gas concentrations recorded in either parts per million (ppm) or as a percentage of the total volume of gas recorded by the testing apparatus.




CH4 (% v/v)

CO2 (% v/v)

O2 (% v/v)

CO (ppm)

H2S (ppm)



WS2 - - <0.1 2.3 18.7 <1 <1 0 0.0 WS2R 1.55 3.02 <0.1 2.3 18.6 <1 <1 - - WS3 - - <0.1 1.8 18.5 <1 <1 0 0.0 WS3R 1.43 3.03 <0.1 1.8 18.5 <1 <1 - - WS5 1.04 2.08 <0.1 0.7 19.7 <1 <1 Peak = 428

Mean = 0 Peak = 38.5 Mean = 0.3

WS101 1.22 2.65 <0.1 0.5 20.2 <1 <1 Peak = -1 Mean = 0

Peak = -0.6 Mean = 0.0

WS102 2.24 4.00 <0.1 0.3 20.5 <1 <1 # #

R=Repeat Notes: Monitoring Event No. 2 Date: 29/05/13 Atmospheric Pressure: 993mb-994mb. Weather Conditions: 9°C, gentle breeze, drizzle, overcast, wet ground. Engineer: P Brennan Gas concentrations recorded in either parts per million (ppm) or as a percentage of the total volume of gas recorded by the testing apparatus.




CH4 (% v/v)

CO2 (% v/v)

O2 (% v/v)

CO (ppm)

H2S (ppm)



WS2 - - <0.1 2.7 16.2 <1 <1 0 0.0 WS2R 1.53 3.02 <0.1 2.7 16.2 <1 <1 - - WS3 - - <0.1 1.7 18.8 <1 <1 0 0.0 WS3R 1.38 3.01 <0.1 1.7 18.7 <1 <1 - - WS5 1.15 2.07 <0.1 0.5 20.4 <1 <1 0 0.0

WS101 1.28 2.64 <0.1 0.4 20.7 <1 <1 0 0.0 WS102 2.12 3.99 <0.1 0.7 20.2 <1 <1 # #

R=Repeat Notes: Monitoring Event No. 3 Date: 04/06/13 Atmospheric Pressure: 1018mb-1021mb. Weather Conditions: 19°C, light breeze, dry, light thin high level cloud, dry ground. Engineer: P Brennan Gas concentrations recorded in either parts per million (ppm) or as a percentage of the total volume of gas recorded by the testing apparatus.

APPENDIX III

CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST DATA

Will Prior

t: 01926 485 508 t: 01923 67 00 20f: 01926 485 507 f: 01923 67 00 30e: [email protected] e:

Project / Site name: Samples received on: 17/05/2013

Your job number: 079-13-020 Samples instructed on: 17/05/2013

Your order number: Analysis completed by: 28/05/2013

Report Issue Number: 1 Report issued on: 28/05/2013

Samples Analysed:

Signed: Signed:

Quality Manager Customer Services ManagerFor & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd. For & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.

Other office located at: ul. Pionierów 39, 41 -711 Ruda Śląska, Poland

Standard sample disposal times, unless otherwise agreed with the laboratory, are : soils - 4 weeks from reportingleachates - 2 weeks from reportingwaters - 2 weeks from reportingasbestos - 6 months from reporting

Excel copies of reports are only valid when accompanied by this PDF certificate.

ASL EnvironmentalHolly Farm Business ParkHonileyWarwickshireCV8 1NP

i2 Analytical Ltd.Building 19,BRE,Garston, Watford, WD25 9XX

Analytical Report Number : 13-42618

Dr Claire Stone

[email protected]

Rexona Rahman

1 leachate sample - 6 soil samples

Sheepy Road , Atherstone

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory.

The results included within the report are representative of the samples submitted for analysis.

Iss No 13-42618-1

Page 1 of 9

Analytical Report Number: 13-42618

Project / Site name: Sheepy Road , Atherstone

Lab Sample Number 263894 263895 263896 263897 263898Sample Reference WS2 ES1 WS3 ES2 WS5 ES2 WS2 D3 WS5 D3Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 0.10 0.80 0.90 0.90 1.50

Date Sampled 14/05/2013 14/05/2013 14/05/2013 14/05/2013 14/05/2013Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Analytical Parameter

(Soil Analysis)

Units

Lim

it of

detectio

n

Accredita

tion

Status

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1Moisture Content % N/A NONE 8.5 16 16 12 12Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 0.43 0.47 0.50 1.1 0.84Asbestos in Soil Screen P/A N/A ISO 17025 Absent Absent - - -

General Inorganics

pH pH Units N/A MCERTS 6.9 7.7 7.8 7.6 7.7Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1 2 < 1 - -Free Cyanide mg/kg 1 NONE < 1 < 1 < 1 - -Water Soluble Sulphate (Soil Equivalent) g/l 0.0025 MCERTS 0.047 0.18 0.12 0.017 0.027Water Soluble Sulphate as SO4 (2:1) mg/kg 2.5 MCERTS 47 180 120 17 27

Water Soluble Sulphate (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS - - - 0.0086 0.013Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 10 < 1.0 - -Elemental Sulphur mg/kg 20 NONE 30 21 < 20 - -Total Sulphur mg/kg 100 NONE 720 660 130 - -Fraction Organic Carbon (FOC) N/A 0.00001 NONE 0.023 0.0052 0.0006 - -

Total Phenols

Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 - -

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 - -Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 - -Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 - -Fluorene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 - -Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.31 < 0.20 < 0.20 - -Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 - -Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.95 0.47 < 0.20 - -Pyrene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.82 0.46 < 0.20 - -Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.73 < 0.20 < 0.20 - -Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.50 < 0.05 < 0.05 - -Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS 0.49 < 0.10 < 0.10 - -Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.34 < 0.20 < 0.20 - -Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS 0.42 < 0.10 < 0.10 - -Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 - -Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 - -Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 - -

Total PAH

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 1.6 MCERTS 4.6 < 1.6 < 1.6 - -



Iss No 13-42618-1

Page 2 of 9



Lab Sample Number 263894 263895 263896 263897 263898Sample Reference WS2 ES1 WS3 ES2 WS5 ES2 WS2 D3 WS5 D3Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 0.10 0.80 0.90 0.90 1.50

Date Sampled 14/05/2013 14/05/2013 14/05/2013 14/05/2013 14/05/2013Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Soil Analysis)

Units

Lim

it of

detectio

n

Accredita

tion

Status

Heavy Metals / Metalloids

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 14 27 7.0 - -Beryllium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.06 MCERTS 1.2 3.0 1.1 - -Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.2 1.1 0.3 - -Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.7 < 0.2 < 0.2 - -Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 - -Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 21 46 46 - -Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 55 150 20 - -Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 2 MCERTS 170 140 11 - -Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS 0.4 < 0.3 < 0.3 - -Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 2 MCERTS 25 70 42 - -Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 - -Vanadium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 27 49 40 - -Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 2 MCERTS 140 130 60 - -

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH1 (C10 - C40) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 13 11 18 - -



Iss No 13-42618-1

Page 3 of 9



Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Units

Lim

it of

detectio

n

Accredita

tion

Status

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE

Moisture Content % N/A NONE

Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE

Asbestos in Soil Screen P/A N/A ISO 17025

General Inorganics

pH pH Units N/A MCERTS

Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Free Cyanide mg/kg 1 NONE

Water Soluble Sulphate (Soil Equivalent) g/l 0.0025 MCERTSWater Soluble Sulphate as SO4 (2:1) mg/kg 2.5 MCERTS

Water Soluble Sulphate (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS

Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Elemental Sulphur mg/kg 20 NONE

Total Sulphur mg/kg 100 NONE

Fraction Organic Carbon (FOC) N/A 0.00001 NONE

Total Phenols

Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 2 MCERTS

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Fluorene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Pyrene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Total PAH

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 1.6 MCERTS

263899

WS2 D5None Supplied

1.8014/05/2013None Supplied

< 0.1160.75-

7.7--

0.07373

0.036----

-

----------------

-



Iss No 13-42618-1

Page 4 of 9



Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Units

Lim

it of

detectio

n

Accredita

tion

Status


Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Beryllium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.06 MCERTS

Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS

Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 2 MCERTS

Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS

Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 2 MCERTS

Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Vanadium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTSZinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 2 MCERTS

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH1 (C10 - C40) mg/kg 10 MCERTS

263899

WS2 D5None Supplied

1.8014/05/2013None Supplied

-------------

-



Iss No 13-42618-1

Page 5 of 9



Lab Sample Number 263900Sample Reference WS3 ES2Sample Number None Supplied

Depth (m) 0.80

Date Sampled 14/05/2013Time Taken None Supplied


(Leachate Analysis)

Units

Lim

it of

detectio

n

Accredita

tion

Status

General Inorganics

pH pH Units N/A ISO 17025 7.5Total Cyanide µg/l 10 ISO 17025 < 10Free Cyanide (Low Level) µg/l 10 NONE < 10


Arsenic (dissolved) µg/l 1.1 ISO 17025 37Beryllium (dissolved) µg/l 0.2 ISO 17025 < 0.2Boron (dissolved) µg/l 10 ISO 17025 80Cadmium (dissolved) µg/l 0.1 ISO 17025 < 0.10Chromium (hexavalent) µg/l 5 NONE < 5.0Chromium (dissolved) µg/l 0.4 ISO 17025 8.9Copper (dissolved) µg/l 0.7 ISO 17025 7.4Lead (dissolved) µg/l 1 ISO 17025 11Mercury (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 ISO 17025 < 0.5Nickel (dissolved) µg/l 0.3 ISO 17025 3.8Selenium (dissolved) µg/l 4 ISO 17025 < 4.0Vanadium (dissolved) µg/l 1.7 ISO 17025 2.2Zinc (dissolved) µg/l 0.4 ISO 17025 14



Iss No 13-42618-1

Page 6 of 9



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample

NumberDepth (m) Sample Description *

263894 WS2 ES1 None Supplied 0.10 Brown sandy topsoil with gravel and vegetation.263895 WS3 ES2 None Supplied 0.80 Brown clay and topsoil with gravel.263896 WS5 ES2 None Supplied 0.90 Light brown clay and sand with gravel.263897 WS2 D3 None Supplied 0.90 Light brown clay and sand with gravel.263898 WS5 D3 None Supplied 1.50 Light brown sand.263899 WS2 D5 None Supplied 1.80 Red clay.

* These descriptions are only intended to act as a cross check if sample identities are questioned. The major constituent of the sample is intended to act with respect to MCERTS validation. The laboratory is accredited for sand, clay and topsoil/loam soil types. Data for unaccredited types of solid should be interpreted with care. ========================================================================================================= Stone content of a sample is calculated as the % weight of the stones not passing a 2 mm sieve. Results are not corrected for stone content.



Iss No 13-42618-1

Page 7 of 9



Water matrix abbreviations: Surface Water (SW) Potable Water (PW) Ground Water (GW)

Analytical Test Name Analytical Method Description Analytical Method ReferenceMethod

number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Asbestos Screening in Soil Screening of samples for Asbestos in Soil. Standard practice is to screen a representative 100 g of the sample provided for the presence/absence of asbestos and identification.

In-house method based on HSG 248. All samples are screened by optical microscopy and identification is carried out using dispersion staining and polarised light microscopy. This method is applicable to

A001-UK W ISO 17025

Boron in leachate Determination of boron by acidification followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on MEWAM L039-PL W ISO 17025

Boron, water soluble, in soil Determination of water soluble boron in soil by hot water extract followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on Second Site Properties version 3

L038-PL D MCERTS

Elemental sulphur in soil Determination of elemental sulphur in soil by extraction in dichloromethane followed by HPLC.

In-house method based on Secondsite Property Holdings Guidance for Assessing and Managing Potential

L021-PL D NONE

Fraction of Organic Carbon in soil Determination of fraction of organic carbon in soil by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by titration with iron (II) sulphate.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests

L023-PL D NONE

Free cyanide in leachate Determination of free cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)

L080-PL W NONE

Hexavalent chromium in leachate Determination of hexavalent chromium in leachate by acidification, addition of 1,5 diphenylcarbazide followed by colorimetry.

In-house method L080-PL W NONE

Hexavalent chromium in soil Determination of hexavalent chromium in soil by extraction in water then by acidification, addition of 1,5 diphenylcarbazide followed by colorimetry.

In-house method L080-PL D MCERTS

Metals by ICP-OES in leachate Determination of metals in leachate by acidification followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on MEWAM 2006 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil.

L039-PL W ISO 17025

Metals in soil by ICP-OES Determination of metals in soil by aqua-regia digestion followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on MEWAM 2006 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil.

L038-PL D MCERTS

Moisture Content Moisture content, determined gravimetrically. In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests

L019-UK/PL W NONE

Monohydric phenols in soil Determination of phenols in soil by extraction with sodium hydroxide followed by distillation followed by colorimetry.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (skalar)

L080-PL W MCERTS

pH in leachate Determination of pH in leachate by electrometric measurement.


L005-PL W ISO 17025

pH in soil Determination of pH in soil by addition of water followed by electrometric measurement.


L005-PL W MCERTS

Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in soil Determination of PAH compounds in soil by extraction in dichloromethane and hexane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards.

In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L064-PL D MCERTS



Iss No 13-42618-1

Page 8 of 9



Water matrix abbreviations: Surface Water (SW) Potable Water (PW) Ground Water (GW)

Analytical Test Name Analytical Method Description Analytical Method ReferenceMethod

number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Stones content of soil Standard preparation for all samples unless otherwise detailed. Stones not passing through a 10 mm sieve is determined gravimetrically and reported as a percentage of the dry weight. Sample results are not corrected for the stone content of the

In-house method based on British Standard Methods and MCERTS requirements.

L019-UK/PL D NONE

Sulphate, water soluble, in soil Determination of water soluble sulphate by extraction with water followed by ICP-OES. Results reported corrected for extraction ratio (soil equivalent) as g/l and mg/kg; and upon the 2:1 leachate (g/l).


L038-PL D MCERTS

Sulphide in soil Determination of sulphide in soil by acidification and heating to liberate hydrogen sulphide, trapped in an alkaline solution then assayed by ion selective electrode.


Total cyanide in leachate Determination of total cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)

L080-PL W ISO 17025

Total Sulphur in soil Determination of total sulphur in soil by extraction with aqua-regia, potassium bromide/bromate followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, and MEWAM 2006 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil

L038-PL D NONE

TPH1 (Soil) Determination of dichloromethane/hexane extractable hydrocarbons in soil by GC-MS.


For method numbers ending in 'UK' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in the United Kingdom.

For method numbers ending in 'PL' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in Poland.

Soil analytical results are expressed on a dry weight basis. Where analysis is carried out on as-received the results obtained are multiplied by a moisture

correction factor that is determined gravimetrically using the moisture content which is carried out at a maximum of 30oC.



Iss No 13-42618-1

Page 9 of 9

APPENDIX IV

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST DATA

LaboratoryReport

Contract Number: 19541Client's Reference: 079-13-020 Report Date: 04-06-2013

Client Name: ASL

Contract Title: Sheepy Road, AtherstoneFor the attention of: Will Prior

Date Received: 20-05-2013Date Commenced: 20-05-2013

Date Completed: 04-06-2013

Test Description Quantity Checked Approved

Moisture Content

1377 : 1990 Part 2 : 3.2 *

4

4 Point Liquid & Plastic Limit (LL/PL)

Part 2 : 4.3 & 5.3 *

4

Notes: Observations and Interpretations are outside the UKAS Accreditation* - Denotes test included in laboratory scope of accreditation# - Denotes test carried out by approved contractor

This certificate is issued in accordance with the accreditation requirements of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The results reported hereinrelate only to the material supplied to the laboratory. This certificate shall not be reproduced in full, without the prior written approval of the laboratory.

Approved Signatories:Paul Evans (Quality Manager), Emma Williams (Office Manager),Benjamin Sharp (Laboratory Coordinator), Alex Wynn (Business Development Manager).

GEO Site & Testing Services Ltd, Unit 4, Heol Aur, Dafen Ind Estate, Dafen, Llanelli, Carmarthenshire SA15 8QNTelephone: 01554 784 040 | Fax: 01554 784 041 | Email: [email protected] | Website: http://geo.uk.com

Client ref: 079-13-020

Location:

Contract Number: 19541-200513

Hole Sample Number Number

WS2 4 D 1.40 Brown slightly fine gravelly silty CLAY.WS4 5 D 1.50 Brown fine to medium gravelly sandy CLAY.WS5 2 D 0.90 Brown fine gravelly sandy CLAY.WS6 2 D 1.30 Brown fine to medium sandy CLAY.

Sheepy Road, Atherstone

Type

Depth (m)

Description of Sample*

Checked By Approved By:

Date Approved: 4.6.13

Note: Results on this table are in summary format and may not meet the requirements of the relevant standards, additional information is held by the laboratory

Test Report: Method of the Determination of the plastic limit and plasticity indexBS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 Method 5

Client ref: 079-13-020

Location:

Contract Number: 19541-200513

Hole/ Moisture Liquid Plastic Plasticity %

Sample Sample Content Limit Limit Index Passing Remarks

Number Type % % % % .425mm

Cl. 3.2 Cl. 4.3/4.4 Cl. 5. Cl. 6.

WS2/4 D 1.40 28 46 25 21 96 CI Intermediate Plasticity

WS4/5 D 1.50 13 34 17 17 80 CL Low Plasticity

WS5/2 D 0.90 13 31 15 16 88 CL Low Plasticity

WS6/2 D 1.30 23 36 20 16 90 CI Intermediate Plasticity

Sheepy Road, Atherstone

Depth

m

Symbols: NP : Non Plastic # : Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit Wet Sieved

Checked By Approved By:

Date Approved: 4.6.13

PLASTICITY CHART FOR CASAGRANDE CLASSIFICATION.

BS 5930:1999+A2:2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Pla

stic

ity

Inde

x (%

)

Liquid Limit (%)

CECHCI CVCL

MEMVMHMIML

GEO/005

APPENDIX V

QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

SELECT LAND USE Residential with homegrown produce RATIO MODE FALSE

LAND USE OPTIONS

RECEPTOR Female (res)

BUILDING Small terraced house START AC 1 END AC 6

SOIL TYPE Sandy clay loam pH 7 SOM (%) 1.66

EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

ORAL ROUTES DERMAL ROUTES INHALATION ROUTESTRUE indoor TRUE TRUETRUE outdoor TRUE TRUETRUE TRUE

TRUE

STEP 2: BASIC SETTINGS Apply Settings to Model

direct soil and dust ingestionconsumption of homegrown producesoil attached to homegrown produce

indooroutdoor

indoor dustoutdoor dustindoor vapouroutdoor vapour

Sandy clay loam

Small terraced house

Female (res)

Residential with homegrown produce

Back to Guide

Ratio of ADE to relevant Health Criteria Value Soil Assessment Criteria

oral HCV inhal HCV Combined oral HCV inhal HCV Combined

Number Chemical (dimensionless) (dimensionless) (dimensionless) mg kg-1 mg kg-1 mg kg-1

1 Beryllium 0.45 0.55 1.00 1.75E+02 1.44E+02 7.89E+012 Boron 0.99 0.01 1.00 4.09E+03 7.18E+05 4.07E+033 Chromium 0.02 0.98 1.00 1.19E+05 2.96E+03 2.89E+034 Copper 0.31 0.69 1.00 6.11E+03 3.59E+03 2.92E+035 Mercury, elemental NR 1.00 NR NR 5.19E-01 NR6 Mercury, inorganic 0.93 0.07 1.00 1.81E+02 2.55E+03 1.69E+027 Mercury, methyl 0.62 0.38 1.00 1.39E+01 2.28E+01 8.62E+008 Vanadium 0.93 0.07 1.00 5.05E+02 3.64E+03 4.70E+029 Zinc 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.60E+03 2.12E+07 2.60E+03101112131415161718192021222324

STEP 5: RESULTS Find AC Print Reports Back to Guide

Ratio of ADE to relevant Health Criteria Value Soil Assessment Criteria Soil Saturation Limit


Number Chemical (dimensionless) (dimensionless) (dimensionless) mg kg-1 mg kg-1 mg kg-1 mg kg-1

1 Benz[a]anthracene 0.48 0.52 1.00 1.19E+01 1.08E+01 5.66E+00 2.84E+002 Benzo[a]pyrene 0.67 0.33 1.00 1.34E+00 2.73E+00 8.98E-01 1.51E+003 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.67 0.33 1.00 1.28E+01 2.65E+01 8.66E+00 2.02E+004 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.67 0.33 1.00 1.37E+01 2.76E+01 9.16E+00 1.14E+005 Chrysene 0.68 0.32 1.00 1.06E+02 2.24E+02 7.20E+01 7.30E-016 Fluoranthene 0.99 0.01 1.00 1.18E+03 1.25E+05 1.17E+03 3.14E+017 Phenanthrene 0.98 0.02 1.00 1.33E+03 7.08E+04 1.31E+03 1.84E+028 Pyrene 0.99 0.01 1.00 8.16E+02 9.01E+04 8.09E+02 3.65E+009

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930


Ratio of ADE to relevant Health Criteria Value Soil Assessment Criteria Soil Saturation Limit


Number Chemical (dimensionless) (dimensionless) (dimensionless) mg kg-1 mg kg-1 mg kg-1 mg kg-1

1 Aliphatic >C5-C6 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.23E+05 5.46E+01 5.46E+01 3.93E+022 Aliphatic >C6-C8 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.23E+05 1.85E+02 1.85E+02 2.30E+023 Aliphatic >C8-C10 0.01 0.99 1.00 4.45E+03 6.93E+01 6.90E+01 1.33E+024 Aliphatic >C10-C12 0.06 0.94 1.00 4.45E+03 5.14E+02 4.98E+02 8.24E+015 Aliphatic >C12-C16 0.46 0.54 1.00 4.45E+03 3.95E+03 2.79E+03 3.67E+016 Aliphatic >C16-C21 1.00 NR NR 8.91E+04 NR NR 1.52E+017 Aliphatic >C21-C35 1.00 NR NR 8.91E+04 NR NR 1.52E+018 Aromatic >C6-C7 0.02 0.98 1.00 1.98E+04 3.62E+02 3.55E+02 1.68E+039 Aromatic >C7-C8 0.05 0.95 1.00 1.98E+04 9.57E+02 9.13E+02 1.33E+0310 Aromatic >C8-C10 0.34 0.66 1.00 1.78E+03 1.14E+03 9.08E+02 1.15E+0211 Aromatic >C10-C12 0.98 0.02 1.00 1.78E+03 4.15E+04 1.76E+03 2.81E+0212 Aromatic >C12-C16 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.78E+03 5.90E+05 1.78E+03 2.33E+0113 Aromatic >C16-C21 1.00 NR NR 1.34E+03 NR NR 7.00E-0214 Aromatic >C21-C35 1.00 NR NR 1.34E+03 NR NR 8.85E-0215161718192021222324252627282930


Date of Workbook Issue: October 2006

Details to be completed for each assessment

Site Name:Site Address:

Completed by:Date: 11-Jun-13 Version: 1

Contaminant Benzo(a)pyreneTarget Concentration (CT) 1.00E-05 mg/l Origin of CT:

Data carried forward from an earlier worksheet are identified by a light green background

The spreadsheet also includes a porosity calculation worksheet, a soil impact calculation worksheet and a worksheet that performs some simple hydrogeological calculations.

Hydrogeological risk assessment for land contamination

EQS

SEJ

This worksheet has been produced in combination with the document 'Remedial Targets Methodology: Hydrogeological risk assessment for land contamination ( Environment Agency 2006).

Users of this worksheet should always refer to the User Manual to the Remedial Targets Methodology and to relevant guidance on UK legislation and policy, in order to understand how this procedure should be applied in an appropriate context.

© Environment Agency, 2006. (Produced by the Environment Agency's Science Group)

The calculation of equations in this worksheet has been independently checked by Entec (UK) Ltd on behalf of the Environment Agency.All rights reserved. You will not modify, reverse compile or otherwise dis-assemble the worksheet.

It is recommended that a copy of the original worksheet is saved (all data fields in the original copy are blank).

Data origin / justification should be noted in cells coloured yellow and fully documented in subsequent reports.

Liability: The Environment Agency does not promise that the worksheet will provide any particular facilities or functions. You must ensure that the worksheet meets your needs and you remain solely responsible for the competent use of the worksheet. You are entirely responsible for the consequences of any use of the worksheet and the Agency provides no warranty about the fitness for purpose or performance of any part of the worksheet. We do not promise that the media will always be free from defects, computer viruses, software locks or other similar code or that the operation of the worksheet will be uninterrupted or error free. You should carry out all necessary virus checks prior to installing on your computing system.

AtherstoneAtherstone

IMPORTANT: To enable MS Excel worksheet, click Tools, Add -Ins, Analysis Tool Pak and Analysis Tool Pak-VBA (to calculate error functions)

Remedial Targets Worksheet , Release 3.1

This worksheet can be used to determine remedial targets for soils (Worksheets Level 1 Soil, Level 2 and Level 3 Soil) or to determine remedial targets for groundwater (Level 3 Groundwater). For Level 3, parameter values must be entered separately dependent on whether the assessment is for soil or groundwater. For soil, remedial targets are calculated as either mg/kg (for comparision with soil measurements) or mg/l (for comparison with leaching tests or pore water concentrations). Site details entered on this page are automatically copied to Level 1, 2 and 3 Worksheets.Worksheet options are identified by brown background and employ a pull-down menus. Data entry are identified as blue background.

Environment Agency Publication 20, Remedial Targets worksheet v3.114/06/2013, 12:26

Benzo(a)pyrene - 079-13Introduction

Level 1 - Soil

0

Contaminant User specified value for partition coefficient 1

Target concentration CT 0.00001 mg/l Calculate for non-polar organic chemicals 0

Calculate for ionic organic chemicals (acids)

Input Parameters Variable Value Unit Source of parameter valueStandard entry

Water filled soil porosity W 3.70E-01 fraction CLEA Guidance for Sandy Clay LoamAir filled soil porosity a 1.60E-01 fraction CLEA Guidance for Sandy Clay Loam

Bulk density of soil zone material 1.20E+00 g/cm3 CLEA Guidance for Sandy Clay LoamHenry's Law constant H 1.76E-06 dimensionless Science Report – SC050021/SR7

Entry if specify partition coefficient (option)

Soil water partition coefficient Kd 0.00E+00 l/kgEntry for non-polar organic chemicals (option)

Fraction of organic carbon (in soil) foc 9.60E-03 fraction Site Data

Organic carbon partition coefficient Koc 1.29E+05 l/kg Science Report – SC050021/SR7Entry for ionic organic chemicals (option)

Sorption coefficient for neutral species Koc,n 0.00E+00 l/kgSorption coefficient for ionised species Koc,i 0.00E+00 l/kg

pH value pH 0.00E+00 pH unitsAcid dissociation constant pKa 0.00E+00

Fraction of organic carbon (in soil) foc 0.00E+00 fraction

Soil water partition coefficient used in Level Assessment Kd 1.24E+03 l/kg Calculated value

Level 1 Remedial Target Site being assessed: AtherstoneLevel 1 Remedial Target 1.24E-02 mg/kg (for comparison with soil analyses) Completed by: SEJ

or Date: 11-Jun-130.00001 mg/l (for comparison with leachate test results) Version: 1


Benzo(a)pyrene

This sheet calculates the Level 1 remedial target for soils(mg/kg) based on a selected target concentration and theoretical calculation of soil water partitioning. Three options are included for determining the partition coefficient.The measured soil concentration as mg/kg should be compared with the Level 1 remedial target to determine the need for further action.

Select the method of calculating the soil water Partition Co-efficient by using the pull down menu

belowCalculate for non-polar organic chemicals

Remedial targets worksheet v3.1 14/06/2013, 12:26Benzo(a)pyrene - 079-13Level1 Soil





Contaminant Benzo(b)fluorantheneTarget Concentration (CT) 2.50E-05 mg/l Origin of CT:

Data carried forward from an earlier worksheet are identified by a light green backgroundData origin / justification should be noted in cells coloured yellow and fully documented in subsequent reports.





This worksheet can be used to determine remedial targets for soils (Worksheets Level 1 Soil, Level 2 and Level 3 Soil) or to determine remedial targets for groundwater (Level 3 Groundwater). For Level 3, parameter values must be entered separately dependent on whether the assessment is for soil or groundwater. For soil, remedial targets are calculated as either mg/kg (for comparision with soil measurements) or mg/l (for comparison with leaching tests or pore water concentrations). Site details entered on this page are automatically copied to Level 1, 2 and 3 Worksheets.Worksheet options are identified by brown background and employ a pull-down menus. Data entry are identified as blue background.



DWS

SEJ







Benzo(b)fluoranthene - 079-13Introduction

Level 1 - Soil

0





Water filled soil porosity W 3.70E-01 fraction CLEA Guidance for Sandy LoamAir filled soil porosity a 1.60E-01 fraction CLEA Guidance for Sandy Loam

Bulk density of soil zone material 1.20E+00 g/cm3 CLEA Guidance for Sandy LoamHenry's Law constant H 2.05E-06 dimensionless Science Report – SC050021/SR7












Benzo(b)fluoranthene




Remedial targets worksheet v3.1 14/06/2013, 12:25Benzo(b)fluoranthene - 079-13Level1 Soil





Contaminant Benzo(k)fluorantheneTarget Concentration (CT) 2.50E-05 mg/l Origin of CT:

Data carried forward from an earlier worksheet are identified by a light green background


This worksheet can be used to determine remedial targets for soils (Worksheets Level 1 Soil, Level 2 and Level 3 Soil) or to determine remedial targets for groundwater (Level 3 Groundwater). For Level 3, parameter values must be entered separately dependent on whether the assessment is for soil or groundwater. For soil, remedial targets are calculated as either mg/kg (for comparision with soil measurements) or mg/l (for comparison with leaching tests or pore water concentrations). Site details entered on this page are automatically copied to Level 1, 2 and 3 Worksheets.Worksheet options are identified by brown background and employ a pull-down menus. Data entry are identified as blue background.Data origin / justification should be noted in cells coloured yellow and fully documented in subsequent reports.






DWS

SEJ







Benzo(k)fluoranthene - 079-13Introduction

Level 1 - Soil

0





Water filled soil porosity W 3.70E-01 fraction CLEA Guidance for Sandy LoamAir filled soil porosity a 1.60E-01 fraction CLEA Guidance for Sandy Loam

Bulk density of soil zone material 1.20E+00 g/cm3 CLEA Guidance for Sandy LoamHenry's Law constant H 1.74E-06 dimensionless Science Report – SC050021/SR7












Benzo(k)fluoranthene




Remedial targets worksheet v3.1 14/06/2013, 12:26Benzo(k)fluoranthene - 079-13Level1 Soil

Documents

GROUND INVESTIGATION SHEEPY ROAD ATHERSTONE