Saint Gobain PAM UK Ltd Former Stanton Ironworks · Saint Gobain PAM UK Ltd Former Stanton Ironworks ... these have been restricted to a level of detail required ... taking into account

JUNE 2012

Saint Gobain PAM UK Ltd

Former Stanton Ironworks

Outline Site Wide Options Appraisal and Remediation Strategy

Project no. 300268-8(01)

hbranson

Typewritten Text

026104 Received: 30 NOV 2012

RSK GENERAL NOTES

Project No.: 300268-8(01)

Title: Outline Site Wide Options Appraisal and Remediation Strategy: Former Stanton Ironworks

Client: Saint Gobain PAM UK Ltd

Date: June 2012

Office: Derby

Status: Final

Author Melanie Rowley Technical reviewer

Lucy Thomas

Simon Jackman

Signature Signature

Date: June 2012 Date: June 2012

Project manager Neil Hutchinson

Signature

Date: June 2012

RSK Environment Limited (RSK) has prepared this report for the sole use of the client, showing reasonable skill and care, for the intended purposes as stated in the agreement under which this work was completed. The report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express agreement of the client and RSK. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report.

Where any data supplied by the client or from other sources have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct. No responsibility can be accepted by RSK for inaccuracies in the data supplied by any other party. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on the assumption that all relevant information has been supplied by those bodies from whom it was requested.

No part of this report may be copied or duplicated without the express permission of RSK and the party for whom it was prepared.

Where field investigations have been carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detail required to achieve the stated objectives of the work.

This work has been undertaken in accordance with the quality management system of RSK Environment Ltd.

Saint Gobain PAM UK Ltd i Outline Site Wide Options Appraisal and Remediation Strategy: Former Stanton Ironworks Project no. 300268-8(01)

CONTENTS

FORWARD ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Background ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Works ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Report structure............................................................................................................... 3

2 SITE SETTING................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Site Location .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Site Description...................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Future Development .............................................................................................................. 5

3 CONTAMINANT LINKAGES........................................................................................................... 6 4 REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Protection of human health ............................................................................................ 8 4.2 Protection of controlled waters............................................................................................ 8

5 REVIEW OF REMEDIAL OPTIONS................................................................................................ 9 5.1 Appraisal of options ............................................................................................................ 11

6 OUTLINE REMEDIAL STRATEGY............................................................................................... 12 6.1 Linkage 1 – Direct contact with soil by future onsite users ............................................ 12 6.2 Linkage 2 – Ingestion of homegrown fruit and vegetables by future residents............ 12 6.11 Geotechnical Issues ............................................................................................................ 14 6.12 Investigation and treatment of mineshafts and shallow workings................................. 14 6.13 Dealing with Unforeseen Conditions ................................................................................. 14 6.14 Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................... 15 6.15 Further works ....................................................................................................................... 15

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Geo-environmental Survey Zones Map

APPENDICES Appendix A Service constraints

Appendix B Options Appraisal

New Stanton – Foreword

This report forms part of a series of documents which have been prepared on behalf of Saint-

Gobain PAM UK Ltd (the Applicant) in support of an outline planning application, with all matters

(expect for access) reserved. The proposal is for a comprehensive redevelopment of

approximately 185ha of land at the former Stanton Ironworks.

This Report should be read in conjunction with the drawings and other documents submitted as

part of this application, which comprise the following:

• Development Specification

• Design and Access Statement

• Planning Statement

• Parameter Plan 1: Land Uses

• Parameter Plan 2: Scale

• Parameter Plan 3: Residential Density

• Parameter Plan 4: Access and Movement

• Parameter Plan 5: Green Infrastructure

• Parameter Plan 6: Phasing Plan

• Indicative Masterplan

• Statement of Community Involvement

• Sustainability Strategy

• Employment Land Supply Review

• Site Management Plan

• Environmental Statement

The areas covered by the Environmental Statement include:

• Landscape and Visual

• Contaminated Land, Soils and Ground Conditions

• Water Resources and Flood Risk

• Ecology and Biodiversity

• Air Quality

• Noise and Vibration

• Transport

• Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

• Socio Economic (including Retail Impact)

• Waste Management

• Interactions and Cumulative Effects

Technical Appendices to the Environmental Statement include:

Appendix 1.1

Appendix 1.2

Appendix 1.3

Copy of Scoping Opinion Request and formal response from Erewash

Council

Summary of Grove Farm Tip Application

Energy Statement

Appendix 3.1 Phasing Strategy

Appendix 4.1 Copy of Schedule 4 of EIA 2011 Regulations

Appendix 5.1

Appendix 5.2

Appendix 5.3

Appendix 5.4

Appendix 5.5

Appendix 5.6

Landscape & Visual Figures

Site Application

Visual Appraisal Methodology

Countryside Character Details

Visual Effects Table

Tree Survey

Appendix 6.1

Appendix 6.2

Appendix 6.3

Appendix 6.4

Flood Risk Assessment

Preliminary Risk Assessment (April 2012)

Preliminary Geo-Environmental Assessment Summary (June 2012)

Outline Remediation Strategy (June 2012)

• April 2010, ‘Preliminary Risk Assessment – Stanton-by-Dale,

Ilkeston’, report ref: 131027-5(01). Prepared by RSK STATS

Geoconsult Ltd on behalf Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd.

• January 2011, ‘Preliminary Geo-environmental Site Assessment –

Zone F – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-1(02).

Prepare by RSK STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-

Gobain PAM UK Ltd.

• February 2011, ‘Preliminary Geo-environmental Site Assessment

– Zone E – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-2(01).


Gobain PAM UK Ltd.


– Zone D – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-3(01).


Gobain PAM UK Ltd.


– Zone C – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-4(01).


Gobain PAM UK Ltd.


– Zone A and B – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-

5(01). Prepare by RSK STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-

Gobain PAM UK Ltd.

• February 2011, ‘Controlled Waters Site Assessment – Stanton-

by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-6(01). Prepared by RSK

STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd

Appendix 7.1

Appendix 7.2

Flood Risk Assessment

Supplementary Flooding Report

Appendix 8.1

Appendix 8.2

Appendix 8.3

Appendix 8.4

Appendix 8.5

Appendix 8.6

Appendix 8.7

Appendix 8.8

Desk Based Study

Phase 1 Survey

Bats Survey

Badger Survey and Assessment – (Confidential)

Breeding Bird Survey

Great Crested Newt Survey

Reptile Surveys

Invertebrates Survey

Appendix 9.1

Appendix 9.2

Appendix 9.3

Appendix 9.4

Appendix 9.5

Air Quality Assessment

Location of Noise Receptor

Background Noise Levels

Noise Model

Construction Phasing Works

Appendix 10.1

Appendix 10.2

Transport Assessment

Travel Plan

Appendix 11.1 Archaeology Desk Based Assessment

Appendix 11.2 Appraisal of Standing Buildings

Appendix 12.1

Appendix 12.2

Socio Economic/ Regeneration Statement

Retail Impact Assessment

The Application Site (the site)

The site comprises approximately 185 hectares of previously developed land at the former

Stanton Ironworks. The area is dominated by industrial uses including manufacturing buildings.

The two largest buildings on site were the Hallam Plant (now demolished) and the existing

Stanhope Plant. Storage and stockpiling areas associated with Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd’s

pipeline business have co-existed with manufacturing. Additional uses on the site consist of a

range of general industry, manufacturing and ancillary uses. Significant areas of the site now lay

unused.

The site is located within the Erewash Valley between Nottingham and Derby and is situated

approximately 1km to the south of Ilkeston and 0.5km to the north of Stanton-by-Dale. It is

accessed by a number of roads, which provide linkages to the strategic highway, namely the

A50, A52 and M1. The M1 motorway is located to the east of the Site. There is no direct access

between the site and the motorway.

Proposed Development

The opportunity to redevelop the Site has arisen following Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd’s decision

to cease their manufacturing business in this location. They will be retaining their administration

head quarters. In conjunction with Erewash Borough Council, statutory and non-statutory

stakeholder and local communities, they have worked together for the past five years to prepare

a new mixed use neighbourhood development – ‘New Stanton’.

Built development comprises the following:

• Mixed use neighbourhood centre – including retail, restaurants, cafe/bar/hotel uses, and

community facilities;

• Provision of 1,950 residential units;

• 150 bed accommodation for the elderly within a care village environment;

• Employment uses (Class B1, B2 and B8):

o Up to 20,000m2 of B1 employment uses;

o Up to 50,000m2 of B2 and B8 employment uses; and

• A new primary school;

• GP/Health Centre;

• Areas of formal sports pitches and open space;

• Infrastructure;

• Allotments; and

• Community Plaza.

This is an outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, except for

access. However, in order to enable a proper consideration of the issues the application raises,

the parameter plans are submitted to clearly define the limitations to the extent of development

proposed and to enable Erewash Borough Council to exercise control over any planning

permissions granted. The masterplan submitted is an indicative illustration of how the parameter

plans might be interpreted, its purpose is to guide an understanding in this respect.

Saint Gobain PAM UK Ltd 1 Outline Options Appraisal and Remedial Strategy: Former Stanton Ironworks Project no. 300268-8(01)

1 INTRODUCTION RSK STATS Geoconsult Limited (RSK) was commissioned by Saint-Gobain PAM UK Limited (Saint-Gobain) to carry out a preliminary assessment of the land at the Former Stanton Ironworks. This assessment was carried out to support an Environmental Statement as part of an outline planning application for the proposed development of the Stanton Saint-Gobain complex. Specifically, RSK was commissioned to undertake preliminary site investigation for both environmental and geotechnical purposes and subsequently to develop an outline options appraisal and remediation strategy. This document provides the outline remedial options appraisal and remediation strategy that demonstrates it is feasible to develop the Former Stanton Ironworks for the proposed end-use as detailed in the Masterplan. In line with normal practice for an outline planning application, at this stage the outline remediation strategy has been developed taking into account the preliminary investigations undertaken to date. The scope of investigation was discussed and agreed with the local authority and Environment Agency before intrusive works commenced. Subsequently, the preliminary geo-environmental reports for each zone and the controlled waters risk assessment report (listed in Section 1.1) were submitted to the regulators who agreed with the conclusions reached. The principles for this outline remedial strategy are based on the aforementioned reports and widely accepted as appropriate for the site setting and proposed end-uses. This options appraisal and remedial strategy report together with the geo-environmental zoned reports and controlled waters risk assessment and proposed layout will be used in the future as the basis for designing further investigation works to support detailed planning permission. A remedial strategy for each development phase will then be prepared following source delineation encompassing different development phases if appropriate, for example remediation of groundwater or cross boundary issues. Comments in this report are subject to RSK service constraints in Appendix A.

1.1 Project Background

This report is based on the findings of the Preliminary Risk Assessment and preliminary investigative works undertaken where risks were identified to human health and the water environment. This report should therefore be read in conjunction with the following documents:


• April 2010, ‘Preliminary Risk Assessment –Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref:

131027-5(01). Prepared by RSK STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd

• January 2011, ‘Preliminary Geo-environmental Site Assessment – Zone F – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-1(02). Prepared by RSK STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd

• February 2011, ‘Preliminary Geo-environmental Site Assessment – Zone E – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-2(01). Prepared by RSK STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd

• February 2011, ‘Preliminary Geo-environmental Site Assessment – Zone D – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-3(01). Prepared by RSK STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd

• February 2011, ‘Preliminary Geo-environmental Site Assessment – Zone C – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-4(01). Prepared by RSK STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd

• February 2011, ‘Preliminary Geo-environmental Site Assessment – Zone A and B – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-5(01). Prepared by RSK STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd

• February 2011, ‘Controlled Waters Site Assessment – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-6(01). Prepared by RSK STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd

It should be noted that further stages of detailed investigation are proposed following the gaining of outline planning consent to provide further confidence in the results obtained to date, complete data gaps and to delineate source areas to assist in assessing remedial options that may be suitable at the site. The details of the proposed works using the relevant layout at that time, can be found within the following document. The proposed layout has since changed and thus the proposed works may need alteration.

• November 2012, ‘Summary of Geo-environmental Site Assessments – Stanton-by-Dale, Ilkeston’, report ref: 300268-7 (01). Prepared by RSK STATS Geoconsult Ltd on behalf of Saint-Gobain PAM UK Ltd.

1.2 Scope of Works

This outline remedial options appraisal has been undertaken in line with current UK guidance, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11 (Environment Agency 2004a). The options appraisal comprises:

• remediation scheme objectives


• options identification and evaluation

• remediation strategy formulation

An options appraisal was completed by RSK to identify the best practicable solution for the remediation of soils and groundwater at the site based on the level of detail of the investigations undertaken as appropriate to support an outline planning application. . . The identification of remedial options and evaluation of their suitability in the context of this site is based on RSK’s experience remediating sites with similar contaminant linkages.

1.3 Report structure

Section 2 provides the site setting and proposed development plans. The contaminant linkages that have been identified as requiring remedial options are detailed within Section 3 and the site wide Outline Remedial Strategy is detailed within Section 4.


2 SITE SETTING This section summarises the site location, description and summary of published geological, hydrogeological and hydrological conditions. This information has been taken from the Preliminary Risk Assessment report, dated April 2010, 131027-5(01) by RSK, which should be consulted if further detail is required.

2.1 Site Location

The site lies in the area of New Stanton to the north and south of Lowes Lane, National Grid reference SK 469390. The site is located approximately 800m north of the village of Stanton-by-Dale and approximately 3.5km to the south of Ilkeston town centre, the site is in an edge of settlement setting with an area of industry located to the north. A site location plan is presented as Figure 1.

2.2 Site Description

The site occupies approximately 185ha and currently comprises an operational Saint-Gobain pipeline manufacturing, storage and distribution facility, including areas leased for light commercial/industrial use, a large concrete production and storage facility operated by Stanton Bonna and the cleared Hallam Plant (a former foundry, recently demolished). At the time of the RSK intrusive investigation’s (2010), the extent of the studies included areas that are now outside the application boundary, which was altered during the process of masterplanning. The site lies at an elevation of around 60m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) at the southern boundary, falling gently to the north to around 45m AOD at the northern boundary. The site was zoned by RSK during production of the PRA based on former land uses. The zones are:

• Zone A – Grove Farm Tip and agricultural land • Zone B – Stanton Bonna Concrete works, two substations, hardstanding and

disused land • Zone C – Former Stanhope plant (former foundry), reservoir, areas used for

storage and auxillary buildings including offices, a nursery and air raid shelters • Zone D – Hallam Plant (former foundry) • Zone E – Open ground, Chadwicks pond and Nutbrook canal • Zone F – Flange plant, Old tip and Nutbrook canal


2.3 Future Development

The Proposed Land Use have been annotated on the attached Figure 2 – Geo-environmental Survey Zones Maps as detailed below.

• Zone A – Grove Farm Tip to be closed under a separate planning application with a green space end use

• Zone B – Green space end-use

• Zone C – Majority residential end-use with private gardens and areas of

public open space, an area of retail development within the north of Zone C and a primary school

• Zone D – Majority residential end-use with private gardens and areas of

public open space, an area of retail development within the south of Zone D, a care home and an area of green space in the north

• Zone E – Residential end-use with private gardens and areas of public open

space in the east and an area of green space in the north

• Zone F – Mixed commercial/ light industrial in the south and green use in the north


3 CONTAMINANT LINKAGES A preliminary geo-environmental site assessment was undertaken as part of the outline planning process. This included the development of a conceptual model and identified the potentially viable contaminant linkages that might warrant remediation. These linkages form the basis of the remedial options considered technically viable.

The tables within Appendix B provide the contaminant linkages for which remediation

measures may be required (subject to further investigation and/or risk assessment) in

each zone. This section provides a site wide summary of the contaminant linkages

present. These are:

1. Direct contact with soil impacted by various contaminants including heavy

metals, polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), petroleum hydrocarbons

(TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) by future onsite users of

open space areas, residents and workers plus adjacent users

2. Ingestion of homegrown fruit and vegetables by future residents that may

be impacted by the contaminants listed in the table in Appendix B

3. Ground and soil gas migration and accumulation within future onsite

residential and commercial properties plus adjacent users potentially

giving rise to explosive conditions and/or inhalation by building occupants

adversely impacting human health

4. Direct contact with soil impacted by the contaminants listed in the table

appended by construction workers and adjacent users during the

development

5. Ground and soil gas migration and accumulation within excavations such

as service trenches giving rise to explosive conditions and/or inhalation by

construction workers during development and subsequently by

maintenance workers impacting human health

6. Leaching of contaminants listed in the appended table from soil to the

water environment (groundwater in Coal Measures and ultimately surface


water receptors including Nutbrook canal, the Nutbrook, ponds, Erewash

canal and River Erewash)

7. Percolation of perched water impacted by the contaminants in the

appended table to underlying Coal Measures (a Secondary A aquifer)

where superficial deposits are absent or through preferential pathways

such as the shafts

8. Lateral migration of contaminants within the Coal Measures aquifer to the

wider aquifer body

9. Silt run off to drainage and surface water receptors during the

groundwork’s stage of construction

10. Permeation of plastic utilities by volatile organic compounds affecting the

water supply and ultimately future residents or workers


4 REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES

The following sections detail the remedial objectives for the protection of human health, controlled water’s and the built environment.

4.1 Protection of human health

Remedial objectives related to human health are established to provide short-term protection to workers, the public and adjacent completed phases during redevelopment works, and long-term protection to the end-users of the completed development. These relate to protection from contact with contaminants, the possible effect of ground gases, utility services and those responsible for their maintenance.

4.2 Protection of controlled waters

Remedial objectives are to mitigate risks to controlled waters via the soil leaching of impacted material and currently impacted groundwater and subsequent migration to surface watercourse receptors.


5 REVIEW OF REMEDIAL OPTIONS

The following remediation methods may be appropriate to mitigate risks from the contaminant linkages identified at the site:

Simple cover system – placement of clean validated material over contaminated soils to render gardens, public open space and landscaping to be suitable use

Capping – installation of an impermeable layer across the site to manage infiltration. The layer typically comprises a capillary break, which prevents subsurface water build up and an overlying compacted clay layer. Depending upon the nature of contamination this system can be used on heavily contaminated sites where a cover system would not be appropriate Lateral containment – installation of an impermeable barrier (wall) of either bentonite and or cement, possibly including a geomembrane cut-off, into an aquifer. The wall is typically keyed into an underlying impermeable layer such as clay. Walls can extend either across the down gradient plume or around the total plume. Solidification/stabilisation – hydrocarbons/metals are immobilised and bound using either a cement, lime or clay stabilisation additive that creates a soils and/or stable matrix to bind the contaminants. The additive can be mixed into the soils using either a batching plant or by in situ mixing Soil washing – soil washing is an established technique for dealing with contaminated soil. Soils washing processes vary from the relatively simple involving a few particle separation processes, to those, which are more sophisticated and involve many more processes. Laboratory treatability test are required in order to ascertain likely application and the types of soil washing processes required, soil washing is most effective for sandy soils. Landfill disposal – bulk excavation, pre-treatment and off-site disposal of contaminated soils at a licensed landfill facility Ex situ bioremediation – including windrow turning (aeration of soil in windrows, possibly including the mixing of fertiliser and/or woodchip/compost to improve the biodegradability and structure during tilling) and biopiles (static heaps with built in pumped aeration)


In situ bioventing – uses soil vapour extraction technology to increase biodegradation within impacted ground. A series of wells are installed within the contaminated areas and airflow in the ground created by vacuum pumps In situ enhanced bioremediation – the addition of nutrients, oxygen releasing compounds or micro organisms that can metabolise specific compounds thus initiating or accelerating biodegradation. The process is undertaken through injection into boreholes within the treatment zone. Laboratory feasibility work is recommended before undertaking enhanced bioremediation In situ chemical oxidation/ reduction – an oxidant (for example, Fenton’s reagent or potassium permanganate) is injected into the target zone, fully oxidising the contaminants. The oxidant requires selection for the specific contaminant and soil conditions. The process is controlled hydraulically to maximise the radius of influence. The breakdown/end products can be recovered under vacuum where necessary. This process can be rapid and very powerful for particular contaminants. Soil vapour extraction – volatile vapours within the unsaturated ground are recovered under vacuum through vertical or horizontal wells. Recovered volatiles are treated at the surface using activated carbon and/or thermal/catalytic oxidation. In situ dual-phase/multi-phase extraction – dual/multi-phase extraction uses high vacuum (600–800 bar) recovery of vapours, free product and groundwater. The vacuum is applied through lances installed at the interface thus inducing powerful vacuum gradients across the target area. Recovered contaminants are separated at surface before disposal or treatment. Pump and treat – either surface mounted or borehole pumps are installed within the contaminated zone to abstract contaminated groundwater. Recovered groundwater is subsequently fed through an ex situ treatment plant. This process can require an extended timescale and pump and treat is therefore best employed as a means of enhancing other treatment technology. Passive in ground venting system – either a physical or permeable barrier to enable a preferential pathway to atmosphere for ground gases. Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) - Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) is the reduction of contaminants in soil and groundwater through natural, physical, chemical or biological processes. It relies on the ground conditions supporting anaerobic and aerobic biodegradation over a long period of time. It is very cost effective as no physical remediation technology is used, regular groundwater sampling with laboratory analysis


for nitrate, sulphate, dissolved Iron, carbon dioxide, methane and oxygen instead is used to monitor its success over many years.

5.1 Appraisal of options

The options available to mitigate the risk associated with each contaminant linkage are presented in Appendix B.


6 OUTLINE REMEDIAL STRATEGY

The remedial strategy is likely to consist of a number of discrete elements, some of which will be carried out as advance works and some of which will be integrated with development works. The mitigation measures appropriate to each contaminant linkage within each zone are presented in Appendix B. These are summarised below for the site wide linkages presented in section 3.

6.1 Linkage 1 – Direct contact with soil by future onsite users

Consistent with the preliminary geo-environmental zoned investigations listed in Section 1.1, the provision of a capping layer system in gardens and areas of soft landscaping is proposed to mitigate risks via the direct contact pathway.

The “simple cover system” will likely comprise of a suitable growth-supporting medium with a nominal thickness of 0.6m consisting of a minimum of 0.15m topsoil and 0.45m subsoil.

6.2 Linkage 2 – Ingestion of homegrown fruit and vegetables by future residents

This contaminant linkage would also be mitigated by the cover system proposed for linkage 1.

6.3 Linkage 3 – Ground gas and vapour migration and accumulation

A preliminary ground gas assessment was undertaken using current guidance from CIRIA, NHBC and BRE. Elevated concentrations of methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide were recorded at the site.

Based on the site concentrations of ground gases (carbon dioxide and methane) and flows, the assessment recommended gas protection measures suitable for an NHBC Amber 2 scenario to be incorporated within the ground floor slab construction of low-rise residential dwellings. For other residential buildings and for commercial properties mitigation measures in accordance with CIRIA Characteristic Situation 2 are recommended.

In addition, where required gas membranes may need to inhibit VOC migration to mitigate risks from the inhalation (indoor air) pathway.

6.4 Linkage 4 – Direct contact with soil by humans during construction


This contaminant linkage would be mitigated through the development process under the CDM regulations and by use of appropriate PPE.

6.5 Linkage 5 – Ground and soil gas accumulation in excavations during construction

This contaminant linkage would be mitigated as for linkage 4.

6.6 Linkage 6 – Leaching of contaminants to the water environment

This contaminant linkage could be mitigated by a combination of various in situ and ex situ methods, stabilisation techniques (heavy metals) bioremediation (hydrocarbons) as appropriate following source delineation and quantitative risk assessment.

6.7 Linkage 7 – Percolation of perched water to underlying Coal Measures

This contaminant linkage would be mitigated through treatment of the perched water through an in-situ pump and treat method and/or a capping and water management system as appropriate following source delineation and quantitative risk assessment.

6.8 Linkage 8 - Lateral migration of contaminants in the Coal Measures

It is envisaged that remediation of groundwater quality already present within the Coal Measures would not be necessary after quantitative risk assessment.

6.9 Linkage 9 - Silt run off to drainage and surface water receptors

This linkage would be mitigated by appropriate site management during remedial and construction works including consideration of placement of stockpiles of materials in relation to receptors, protection of drainage with straw and terram or similar.

6.10 Linkage 10 – Permeation of plastic utilities by volatile organic compounds

This linkage would be mitigated by provision of appropriate contaminant resistant supply pipe.


6.11 Geotechnical Issues

The principle requirement for remediation is to deal with risks posed by contaminants. However some of the potential remediation methods can also be used to process geotechnically unacceptable materials without incurring significant additional complexity or costs. Consequently, it is recommended to integrate the geotechnical and contaminant remediation.

The geotechnical remediation will generally involve the excavation of made ground and natural soils as part of the re-grade exercise. This will allow identification and removal/ processing of unsuitable materials and replacement of processed soils as a suitable engineered fill providing it meets with the CL:AIRE Code of Practice.

6.12 Investigation and treatment of mineshafts and shallow workings

Findings of desk based studies into the presence of mineshafts and shallow mineworking’s informed the masterplan design, i.e. amending the masterplan such that known shaft locations will be situated under roads or open space rather than individual properties. Intrusive investigation of the mineshafts and shallow mine workings is yet to be undertaken. Detailed investigation will be required under licence from the Coal Authority and will include:

• Drilling to locate the known shafts

• Investigation to determine the depth and extent of the shallow workings

Following this investigation, any workings and/or shafts in locations or at depths identified as potentially adversely affecting the development will require treatment to enable the proposed development to proceed.

The treatment of shafts may include filling and grouting and/or capping. Treatment of shallow workings may include grouting beneath the footprints of proposed buildings. Where coal outcrops in a development area, it may be removed to an appropriate depth to remove combustibility risks.

6.13 Dealing with Unforeseen Conditions

It is likely that during site redevelopment, areas of contaminant-impacted material may be identified that were unforeseen even after more detailed site investigation. Therefore, the following procedure is suggested in the event that additional contamination, currently unforeseen, is encountered or inferred from the monitoring of the remediation works:


• Inform relevant parties and agree course of action

• Identify contaminant source

• Identify any physical or operational constraints affecting delineation

• Delineate additional impact

• Review quantitative risk assessment to conceptualise the source and quantify risks with newly identified source

• Prepare addendum to remedial strategy and verification plan and agree with regulatory authorities

6.14 Regulatory Requirements

RSK has communicated regularly with Erewash Borough Council and the Environment Agency to discuss and agree the scope and findings of the preliminary investigative and risk assessment works undertaken by RSK to date. This regular consultation will continue through the detailed investigation, remediation period, verification and closure reporting.

6.15 Further works

At this outline stage, the remediation objectives have yet to be translated into specific remediation criteria or targets. However, the objectives and mitigation measures identified are widely accepted for this type of site setting and proposed end-use. Once development phases are defined, the remedial strategy will be reviewed to optimise material re-use with respect to quantities of material. Upon completion of any required source delineation and quantitative risk assessment the suitability of the material proposed for re-use can also be assessed. A material management plan will then be prepared demonstrating the quantities of material suitable for re-use in different remedial areas and, where necessary, what remedial works are required.

Remediation will be undertaken such that each phase is suitable for its proposed end use (as outlined in section 2.3.5). The decisions on whether an area is suitable for its proposed use will be based on a risk assessment approach as agreed with Erewash Borough Council and the Environment Agency.

The required standard of remediation will be achieved through a variety of techniques as outlined in previous sections. The implementation and verification of the remediation strategy will be in accordance with documented quality assurance procedures and will include the following;

Verification Plan – This document sets out the requirements for gathering data to demonstrate the effectiveness of the remediation in terms of meeting the remediation requirements. A verification plan will be submitted as part of a detailed remediation strategy produced following further detailed investigation and delineation. The verification


plan will be finalised and agreed with the local authority prior to implementation of the works.

Mobile Treatment Licence – A Mobile Treatment Licence may be required for the proposed remedial activities, the contractors involved in undertaking the remedial works will need to hold a relevant licence for the proposed activities and have this approved by the Environment Agency for the remediation proposed at the Stanton Site.

Materials Management Plan - Management of re-use of soils will be carried out following the procedure outlined in The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (DOWCOP) (CL:AIRE, 2008; Environment Agency, 2008). The MMP will provide the quantified site wide mass balance and identify, with reference to the planning consent for the development, the certainty of use for the material that is to be re-used. For each material movement, a risk assessment will be presented, appropriate to the material property, that confirms its suitability with respect to chemical and engineering properties, together with any limitations on final deposition. Demonstrating the quantity of material for re-use, certainty of re-use and suitability for use are key elements that need to be demonstrated when using the CL:AIRE Code of Practice.

Verification Report – this will provide a complete record of the remediation activities on the site and the data collected as part of the verification plan to support compliance with remediation objectives and criteria. It will also include details of the works undertaken, unforeseen conditions and how they were dealt with. In view of the size of the Stanton project, verification reports will be submitted to cover individual development phases to allow for the phased release of land and development to progress in accordance with its phasing requirements.


BIBLIOGRAPHY Environment Agency (2004a), Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land.

Contaminated Land Report Number 11 (CLR11), September (Bristol: Environment Agency).

CL:AIRE (2011), CL:AIRE Code of Practice. The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice, Version 2 (London: CL:AIRE).


FIGURES

SAINT-GOBAIN PAM UK LIMITED STANTON BY DALE, ILKESTON OUTLINE SITE WIDE OPTIONS APPRAISAL AND REMEDATION STRATEGY

Report No. 300268-8(01) FIGURE 1

Reproduced from the 1992 Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 Scale Landranger Map 129, OSGR – SK 478 387 with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. Licence No. 100014807

RSK Group PLC, 18 Frogmore Road, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, HP3 9RT.

SITE LOCATION MAP

SITE LOCATION

Saint Gobain PAM UK Ltd 1 Summary of Preliminary Geo-environmental Site Assessment: Former Stanton Ironworks Project no. 300268-8(01)

APPENDIX A SERVICE CONSTRAINTS


APPENDIX A SERVICE CONSTRAINTS

RSK ENVIRONMENT LIMITED SERVICE CONSTRAINTS 1. This report and the site investigation carried out in connection with the report (together the "Services") were compiled and carried out

by RSK Environment Limited (RSK) for Saint -Gobain PAM UK Ltd (the "client") in accordance with the terms of a contract between RSK and the "client", dated January 2010.. The Services were performed by RSK with the skill and care ordinarily exercised by a reasonable environmental consultant at the time the Services were performed. Further, and in particular, the Services were performed by RSK taking into account the limits of the scope of works required by the client, the time scale involved and the resources, including financial and manpower resources, agreed between RSK and the client.

2. Other than that expressly contained in paragraph 1 above, RSK provides no other representation or warranty whether express or implied, in relation to the Services.

3. Unless otherwise agreed the Services were performed by RSK exclusively for the purposes of the client. RSK is not aware of any interest of or reliance by any party other than the client in or on the Services. Unless expressly provided in writing, RSK does not authorise, consent or condone any party other than the client relying upon the Services. Should this report or any part of this report, or otherwise details of the Services or any part of the Services be made known to any such party, and such party relies thereon that party does so wholly at its own and sole risk and RSK disclaims any liability to such parties. Any such party would be well advised to seek independent advice from a competent environmental consultant and/or lawyer.

4. It is RSK's understanding that this report is to be used for the purpose described in the introduction to the report. That purpose was a significant factor in determining the scope and level of the Services. Should the purpose for which the report is used, or the proposed use of the site change, this report may no longer be valid and any further use of or reliance upon the report in those circumstances by the client without RSK 's review and advice shall be at the client's sole and own risk. Should RSK be requested to review the report after the date hereof, RSK shall be entitled to additional payment at the then existing rates or such other terms as agreed between RSK and the client.

5. The passage of time may result in changes in site conditions, regulatory or other legal provisions, technology or economic conditions which could render the report inaccurate or unreliable. The information and conclusions contained in this report should not be relied upon in the future without the written advice of RSK. In the absence of such written advice of RSK, reliance on the report in the future shall be at the client's own and sole risk. Should RSK be requested to review the report in the future, RSK shall be entitled to additional payment at the then existing rate or such other terms as may be agreed between RSK and the client.

6. The observations and conclusions described in this report are based solely upon the Services which were provided pursuant to the agreement between the client and RSK. RSK has not performed any observations, investigations, studies or testing not specifically set out or required by the contract between the client and RSK. RSK is not liable for the existence of any condition, the discovery of which would require performance of services not otherwise contained in the Services. For the avoidance of doubt, unless otherwise expressly referred to in the introduction to this report, RSK did not seek to evaluate the presence on or off the site of asbestos, electromagnetic fields, lead paint, heavy metals, radon gas or other radioactive or hazardous materials.

7. The Services are based upon RSK's observations of existing physical conditions at the Site gained from a walk-over survey of the site together with RSK's interpretation of information including documentation, obtained from third parties and from the client on the history and usage of the site. The Services are also based on information and/or analysis provided by independent testing and information services or laboratories upon which RSK was reasonably entitled to rely. The Services clearly are limited by the accuracy of the information, including documentation, reviewed by RSK and the observations possible at the time of the walk-over survey. Further RSK was not authorised and did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of information, documentation or materials received from the client or third parties, including laboratories and information services, during the performance of the Services. RSK is not liable for any inaccurate information or conclusions, the discovery of which inaccuracies required the doing of any act including the gathering of any information which was not reasonably available to RSK and including the doing of any independent investigation of the information provided to RSK save as otherwise provided in the terms of the contract between the client and RSK.

8. The phase II or intrusive environmental site investigation aspects of the Services is a limited sampling of the site at pre-determined borehole and soil vapour locations based on the operational configuration of the site. The conclusions given in this report are based on information gathered at the specific test locations and can only be extrapolated to an undefined limited area around those locations. The extent of the limited area depends on the soil and groundwater conditions, together with the position of any current structures and underground facilities and natural and other activities on site. In addition chemical analysis was carried out for a limited number of parameters [as stipulated in the contract between the client and RSK] [based on an understanding of the available operational and historical information,] and it should not be inferred that other chemical species are not present.

9. Any site drawing(s) provided in this report is (are) not meant to be an accurate base plan, but is (are) used to present the general relative locations of features on, and surrounding, the site.


APPENDIX B – APPRAISAL

Strata Contaminants Linkage Potential Remedial Options Relative Cost Access/Practicality Impacts to adjacent

residents and environmentTechnical Feasibility

Regulatory Acceptance

Demonstrate via QRA that volatilecontaminants do not require remediationand then import subsoil and topsoil to softlandscaped areas

Low tomedium

Given the historicnature of the site therewould be a requirementto provide a suitablegrowing medium

Low - provided considerationgiven to positioning ofstockpiles of imported materialto mitigate risk of dustgeneration and silt run off

Technically feasible

This is likely tobe accepted byRegulatory Authorities

Place cover system in soft landscapedareas to mitigate direct contact and vapourmembranes in properties to mitigate indoorair inhalation assuming DQRAdemonstrates risks via outdoor air areacceptable

Low tomedium





Remove impacted soil from site and replacewith validated material

Medium tohigh

Very large number ofvehicle movements

High - Increase in vehicles onlocal road system plus noiseand emissions

Technically feasible butconsidered leastsustainable

This is unlikely tobe accepted byRegulatory Authorities

If bio accessibility and risk assessmentdemonstrates risks from metal determinantsare acceptable, excavate and bioremediateonsite for organics to meet site specificassessment criteria (yet to be derived)

Low tomedium

Given the size andproposed timescales ofthe development it ispractical to set up atreatment area on site

Low - provided considerationgiven to positioning oftreatment area in relation tocurrent and future residents ofcompleted phases to minimisedisruption during treatmentoperation and transport ofmaterial.



Soil washing of made ground and reuse Medium tohigh


Medium - some constructiontraffic but not excessive. Maycause some noise issuesduring works

Technically feasible butdepends on PSDfractions andeconomy of scale


Excavate and dispose off site and import validated material into soft landscaping areas

Medium tohigh

very large number ofvehicle movements




Treat soil using an e-clay or lime to reduce contaminant mobility and thus reduce root uptake

Low tomedium



Technically feasible butdifficult to getcomplete mix andcontact using eclay system


Made ground(soil)

Zone A & B - Proposed Green Space End-use

Direct contact andinhalation by future siteusers

Arsenic, cadmium, lead, nickel,vanadium, cynaide , TPH C21-35, benz(a)anthrancene,benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,naphthalene.

Place cover system in soft landscaped areas to provide growing medium

Low tomedium

Given the historicnature of the site therewould be a requirementto provide a suitablegrowing medium andrisks to human healthfrom direct contact mayalso need mitigation




Soil washing of made ground and reuse

Medium tohigh

Depends on grading ofstrata. More unlikely ifpredominately clay




Monitored Natural Attenuation

Low tomedium

Given the proposedtimescale of thedevelopment it could bepracticle

Low - in situ monitoring

Technically Feasible butpotentially longterm monitoring


Capping and water management system

Medium

Given the size andnature of thedevelopment a watermanagement systemcan be accommodated


Technically Feasible


Excavate and dispose off site and import validated material

Medium tohigh





Excavate and treat onsite (dry sort) to site specific assessment criteria (yet to be derived) before re-use

Low tomedium


Low - provided considerationgiven to positioning oftreatment area in relation tocurrent and future residents ofcompleted phases.

Technically feasible butdepends on PSDfractions andeconomy of scales


Risk assessment and in-situ water management using pump and treat

Low tomedium

Difficult to treatinorganics and riskassessment forinorganics is alsodifficult

Low - in-situ system Technically feasible


Risk assessment and reduce mobility of leachable metals using stabilisation techniques

Low tomedium

Given the size andproposed timescales ofthe development it ispractical to set up atreatment area on site.Difficulties exist withrisk assessment forinorganics.


Technically difficult due toinorganic contaminants butpossible withcorrect technologyselection



Medium tohigh

Depends on grading ofmade ground




Zone A - Madeground

Plant uptake of phytotoxiccontaminantsCopper, nickel and zinc

Made groundand underlyingnatural clay

Leachable aluminium, arsenic,boron, copper, lead, manganese,mercury, selenium and zinc,already in groundwater:aluminium, boron, iron, lead,molybdenum, mercury, seleniumand vanadium.

Leaching and dissolvedphase migration tosecondary aquifer, NutBrook and River Erewash


Medium tohigh


High - Increase in vehicles onlocal road system



Excavate and treat onsite to site specific assessment criteria (yet to be derived) before re-use

Low tomedium





Risk assessment and in-situ treatment of groundwater

Low tomedium


Low - in-situ system Technically difficult



Low tomedium



Technically difficult due toinorganic contaminants andmobility offluoranthene butpossible withcorrect technologyselection



Medium tohigh






Medium





Demonstrate via QRA that concentrationsdo not require remediation Low

QRA methods do notgenerally considerimportant naturalattenuation mechanisms forinorganics

Low - Additional monitoring / in-situ hydrogeological analysisbut no heavy remediationworks required

Technically feasible butdifficult forinorganics



Low tomedium






QRA methods do notgenerally considerimportant naturalattenuation mechanisms forinorganics

Low - Additional monitoring / in-situ hydrogeological analysisbut no heavy remediationworks required

Technically feasible butdifficult forinorganics


Zone B

Zone B - Madeground

Leachable cyanide, magnesiumand manganese, already ingroundwater: boron, manganese,copper, magnesium and zinc,fluoranthene and pyrene.


Zone BGroundwater -superficial deposits

Boron, manganes, copper,magnesium, zinc, fluorantheneand pyrene

Lateral and verticalmigration to wideraquifer, Nut Brook andRiver Erewash


Medium





Groundwater -Lower CoalMeasures

Boron Lateral and verticalmigration to wider aquifer

Strata Contaminants Linkage Potential Remedial Options Relative Cost Access/Practicality Impacts to adjacent residents

and the environmentTechnical Feasibility


Demonstrate via QRA that concentrationsdo not require remediation and then importsubsoil and topsoil to soft landscaped areas

Low tomedium


Low - provided consideration givento positioning of stockpiles ofimported material to mitigate risk ofdust generation and silt run off



Place cover system in soft landscapedareas to mitigate direct contact

Low tomedium






Medium tohigh


High - Increase in vehicles on localroad system plus noise andemissions



If bio accessibility and risk assessmentdemonstrates risks from metal determinantsare acceptable, excavate and treat onsitefor organics to meet site specificassessment criteria (yet to be derived)

Low tomedium


Low - provided consideration givento positioning of treatment area inrelation to current and futureresidents of completed phases.



Soil washing of made ground and reusebelow placement of subsoil and topsoil

Medium tohigh


Medium - some construction trafficbut not excessive. May causesome noise issues during works




Medium tohigh






Low tomedium



Technically feasible difficult toget complete mixand contact usinge clay system



Low tomedium






Medium tohigh

Depends on grading ofstrata. Less practical ifpredominately clay




Made ground(soil)

Plant uptake of phytotoxiccontaminantsCopper and zinc


Zone C - Proposed residential, primary school, retail and green space end-use

Direct contact and dustinhalation by futureresidents in softlandscaped areas sincecontaminants are notconsidered volatile

Arsenic, cyanide, lead,vanadium, benzo(a)pyrene.


Medium tohigh





Excavate and bioremediate onsite before re-use (TPH)

Low tomedium





Use contaminant resistant pipe material

Low More expensivematerial

No perceived impact to adjacentresidents









Medium tohigh






Low tomedium





Risk assessment and in-situ treatment of groundwater for TPH

Low tomedium


Low - in-situ system Technically difficult

This is likely tobe accepted byRegulatory Authorities, providing that riskassessment proves that theleaching pathwayis acceptable.

Risk assessment and reduce mobility of leachable contaminants using stabilisation techniques

Low tomedium






Medium tohigh





Made ground(soil andperched water)


Leachable manganese andaresenic, already ingroundwater: sulphate,manganese, and TPH.

Made ground

Selection of plastic watersupply pipes to avoidpermeation and maintainpipe integrity

Arsenic, cadmium, mercury,sulphate, pH and TPH

Risk assessment and provision of appropriate gas/ vapour protection measures within buildings

Low tomedium

Practical althoughdesign and riskassessment mustconsider the gases thatneed mitigation

No perceived impact to adjacentresidents or the environment




Difficult to undertakeQRA for metals owingto natural attenuationprocesses

Low - no perceived impact toadjacent residents or theenvironment




Low tomedium






Low tomedium





Demonstrate via QRA that concentrationsdo not require any further action Low

Practical and feasiblegiven treatment ofcontaminants in CoalMeasures can bedifficult





High

Treatment ofcontaminants in CoalMeasures can bedifficult owing to thevariable verticalhyrdaulic conductivityvalues that affectcontaminant migration


Technically feasible butdifficult owing tovariable verticalhydraulic conductivity andthus thoroughunderstanding ofcontaminant migration required

This is likely tobe accepted byRegulatory Authorities, however morelikley to be dealtwith via sourceremoval

Practical if spaceavailable

Low tomedium


Technically feasible butdepends on PSDfractions andeconomy of scalesand bioremediation potential of

Low - depending upon location ofexcavation and providedconsideration given to positioningof treatment area in relation tocurrent and future residents ofcompleted phases.


Excavate and treat on site source of gas generating material (voc/ hydrocarbons) using bioremediation

Migration andaccumulation withinstructures plus inhalationby futureresidents/commercial workers

Carbon dioxide and VOCs


Groundwater -superficial deposits

Sulphate and manganese


TPH Lateral and verticalmigration to wider aquifer

Strata Contaminants Linkage Potential Remedial Options Relative Cost Access/Practicality

Impacts to adjacentresidents and theenvironment

Technical Feasibility



Low tomedium






Low tomedium






Medium tohigh





If bio accessibility and risk assessmentdemonstrates risks from metal determinantsare acceptable, excavate bioremediateonsite for organics to meet site specificassessment criteria (yet to be derived)

Low tomedium





Soil washing of made ground and reusewith subsoil and topsoil placed above in softlandscaped areas

Medium tohigh






Medium tohigh





Treat soil using an e-clay or lime to reduce mobility of zinc and thus reduce root uptake

Low tomedium



Technically feasible difficult toget complete mixand contact usinge caly system



Low tomedium

Likely also to bemitigated throughmanagement of directcontact pathway





Medium tohigh





Zone D - Proposed residential, retail and green space end-use

Direct contact andinhalation by futureresidents

Arsenic, cadmium, lead,vanadium, zinc, TPH aromaticC16-21, benz(a)anthrancene,benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, crysene,dibenzo(ah)anthracene, indeno(123-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, 123-trimethylbenzene, 124-trimethylbenzene

Made ground(soil)

Plant uptake of phytotoxiccontaminantsZinc


Demonstrate via QRA that concentrations do not require remediation and then import subsoil and topsoil to soft landscaped areas

Low tomedium





Place cover system in soft landscaped areas to mitigate direct contact pathways since vapour inhalation not relevant for these compounds

Low tomedium





Remove impacted soil from site and replace with validated material in soft landscaped areas

Medium tohigh






Medium tohigh






Medium tohigh





Excavate and treat onsite before re-use

Low tomedium







No perceived impact toadjacent residents or theenvironment




Depends on grading ofmade ground and waterauthorities view point





Medium tohigh






Low tomedium





Direct contact and dustinhalation by future siteworkers

Lead and benzo(a)pyreneMade ground(soil)


Arsenic, cadmium, lead,mercury, selenium, sulphate, pH,TPH and PAH



Low tomedium

Difficult to treatinorganics and also toundertake QRA forinorganics

Low - in-situ techniqueenvisaged and thus minimaldisruption

Technically feasible but mayrequire more thanone techniqueowing to differentcontaminants



Low tomedium



Technically difficult due todifferent types ofcontaminants butpossible withcorrect technologyselection


Risk assessment to demonstrate impact already in groundwater will attenuate and soil washing of made ground and reuse

Medium tohigh






Low tomedium


No perceived impact toadjacent residents or theenvironment




QRA does not takeaccount of many naturalattenuation parametersfor metals





Low tomedium






Low tomedium






QRA does not takeaccount of many naturalattenuation parametersfor sulphate


Technically feasible althoughdifficult forsulphate



High Difficult to treat sulphate






Cyanide, manganese, mercury,zinc, TPH, acenapthalene,anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,fluoranthene and pyrene.


Sulphate, TPH, fluoranthene andpyrene.

Lateral and verticalmigration to wider aquifer



Carbon dioxide and VOCs Made ground(soil andperched water)


Leachable boron, lead, seleniumand vanadium, already ingroundwater: sulphate, cyanide,manganese, mercury, zinc, TPH,various light and heavy PAHs

Made ground


Low tomedium


Technically feasible butdepends on PSDfractions and

Low - depending upon locationof excavation and providedconsideration given topositioning of treatment area


residentsTechnical Feasibility



Low tomedium






Low tomedium






Medium tohigh






Low tomedium











Medium tohigh


High - Increase in vehicles onlocal road system

Technically feasible butpossible highcarbon footprintand notsustainable



Low tomedium



Technically feasible butdifficult to getcomplete mix andcontact using eclay system



Low tomedium

Likely also to bemitigated throughmanagement of directcontact pathway





Medium tohigh





Made ground(soil)

Plant uptake of phytotoxiccontaminantsCopper, nickel and zinc


Zone E - Proposed residential, retail and green space end-use

Direct contact and inhalationby future residents

Arsenic, cadmium, lead, cyanide,lead, nickel, vanadium, zinc,benz(a)anthrancene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,dibenzo(ah)anthracene, indeno(123-cd)pyrene, naphthalene


Low tomedium





Place cover system in soft landscaped areas to mitigate direct contact pathways since vapour inhalation not relevant for these compounds

Low tomedium





Remove impacted soil from site and replace with validated material in soft landscaped areas

Medium tohigh






Medium tohigh






Medium tohigh





Excavate and bioremediate onsite before re-use (TPH/ PAHs)

Low tomedium







No perceived impact toadjacent residents orenvironment









Medium tohigh






Low tomedium





Made ground(soil)


Arsenic, cadmium, lead,selenium, sulphate, pH, TPH andPAH


Direct contact and dustinhalation by future siteworkers

Lead and benzo(a)pyrene

Risk assessment and in-situ pump and treat of groundwater

Low tomedium






Low tomedium






Medium tohigh






Low tomedium










Risk assessment and in-situ pump and treat of groundwater

Low tomedium






Low tomedium






Low tomedium


Technically feasible butdepends on PSDfractions andeconomy of scalesand bioremediation potential ofcontaminants

Low - depending uponexcavation location andprovided consideration givento positioning of treatmentarea in relation to current andfuture residents of completedphases.



Leachable manganese, alreadyin groundwater: sulphate,ammonical nitrogen, cyanide andmanganese.

Made ground

Excavate and bioremediate on site source of gas generating material (hydrocarbons) using bioremediation

Migration and accumulationwithin structures plusinhalation by futureresidents/commercial workers

Carbon dioxide and carbonmonoxide and hydrogen sulphide(one BH location)

Lateral and verticalmigration to wider aquifer,Nut Brook and RiverErewash


sulphate, cyanide, manganese,


QRA does not takeaccount of many naturalattenuation parametersfor metals plus variablevertical hydraulicconductivities pose achallenge with simplisticmodelling techniques


Technically feasible butdifficult toadequately modelinorganics



High

Difficult to treatinorganics and also toundertake QRA forinorganics plus variablevertical hydraulicconductivities pose achallenge





ammonical nitrogen Lateral and verticalmigration to wider aquifer


residentsTechnical Feasibility



Low tomedium






Low tomedium






Medium tohigh






Low tomedium











Medium tohigh





Treat soil using an e-clay or lime to reduce mobility of zinc and thus reduce root uptake

Low tomedium



Technically feasible difficult toget complete mixand contact usinge clay system



Low tomedium






Medium tohigh





Made ground(soil)

Plant uptake of phytotoxiccontaminantsZinc


Zone F - Proposed commercial/ light industrial and green space end-use

Direct contact andinhalation by site users

Arsenic, lead, vanadium, zinc,TPH aliphatic C10-16, TPHaromatic C10-35, acenapthene,benz(a)anthrancene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,dibenzo(ah)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene,indeno(123-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene,chloromethane, styrene, 123-trimethylbenzene, 124-trimethylbenzene


Low tomedium





Place cover system in soft landscaped areas to mitigate direct contact pathways provided QRA indicates remediation for vapour inhalation is not required

Low tomedium





Remove impacted soil from site and replace with validated material in soft landscaped areas provided QRA indicates remediation for vapour inhalation is not required

Medium tohigh






Medium tohigh






Medium tohigh





Excavate and bioremediate onsite before re-use (TPH)

Low tomedium
















Medium tohigh






Low tomedium





Made ground(soil)


Arsenic, cadmium, lead,selenium, sulphate, pH, TPH andPAH


Direct contact andinhalation by future siteworkers

Lead, benzo(a)pyrene,benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,dibenzo(a)anthracene, fluorene,indeno(123-cd)pyrene, naphthalene


Low tomedium






Low tomedium






Medium tohigh






Low tomedium











Low tomedium






QRA does not takeaccount of many naturalattenuation parametersfor metals plus variablevertical hydraulicconductivities pose achallenge with simplisticmodelling techniques


Technically feasible butdifficult toadequately modelinorganics



Low tomedium


Technically feasible butdepends on PSDfractions andeconomy of scalesand bioremediation potential of

Low - depending uponexcavation location andprovided consideration givento positioning of treatmentarea in relation to current andfuture residents of completedphases.



Leachable boron, lead, seleniumand vanadium, already ingroundwater: sulphate, cyanide,manganese, mercury, zinc, TPH,various light and heavy PAHs

Made ground

Lateral and verticalmigration to wider aquifer


sulphate


aluminium, cyanide, manganese,benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi) perylene chrysene



Carbon dioxide



Medium

Difficult to treatinorganics and also toundertake QRA forinorganics plus variablevertical hydraulicconductivities pose achallenge




Measures benzo(ghi) perylene, chrysene,dibenzo(a)anthrancene, fluoranthene and pyrene.

Documents

Saint Gobain PAM UK Ltd Former Stanton Ironworks · Saint Gobain PAM UK Ltd Former Stanton Ironworks ... these have been restricted to a level of detail required ... taking into account