Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited
1 Riverside House, Heron Way,
Newham, Truro, TR1 2XN.
Tel: 01872 261775
Fax: 01872 261883
HAYLE COMMUNITY RUGBY FACILITIES LIMITED
CARWIN RISE
LOGGANS MOOR HAYLE CORNWALL TR27 5DG
REPORT ON PHASE II SITE INVESTIGATION
Contract: C6559
Date: March 2010
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited
1 Riverside House, Heron Way,
Newham, Truro, TR1 2XN.
Tel: 01872 261775
Fax: 01872 261883
REPORT ON PHASE II SITE INVESTIGATION
Carried out at
CARWIN RISE
LOGGANS MOOR HAYLE CORNWALL TR27 5DG
Prepared for
HAYLE COMMUNITY RUGBY FACILITIES LIMITED
Hendra Croft
Scotland Road
Newquay
CORNWALL
TR8 5QR
Contract No: C6559
Date: March 2010
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On the instructions of Hayle Community Rugby Facilities Limited, a ground
investigation was undertaken to determine ground conditions to enable foundation and
road/hard standing design to be carried out, together with a contamination risk
assessment and a review of gas emissions.
The site is situated on Carwin Rise, approximately 2km to the north east of the town
centre of Hayle, Cornwall and may be located by National Grid Reference
SW579389. The site is underlain by the Mylor Slate Formation of the Devonian
period.
The site work was carried out on the 18th
September 2009 and 22nd
February 2010.
Twenty one trial pits, designated TP1 to TP21, were dug by mechanical excavator at
the positions shown on the site plan. Representative disturbed samples were taken at
the depths shown on the trial pit records and despatched to the laboratory. Samples for
environmental purposes were collected in amber glass jars and kept in a cool box.
Soak-away permeability tests were carried out in trial pits TP1, TP2 and TP3, in line
with guidelines given in BRE Digest 365. Ten in-situ CBR tests were also carried out
across the site.
It is recommended that consideration could be given to the adoption of shallow spread
foundations to support the proposed structures. Foundations should be taken through
any topsoil and placed in the underlying natural strata at a minimum depth of
1.00mBGL.
Spread foundations may be designed to an allowable bearing pressure of 90kPa, a
figure which would provide an adequate factor of safety against shear failure.
It may be considered that the underlying less weathered Mylor Slate may give a
greater bearing strength and consideration may be given to extending the foundation
depths.
It is unlikely that foundation depths would exceed 3.0mBGL and this would allow for
spread foundations installed upon trench fill. An allowable bearing pressure of at least
175kPa can be assumed at this depth.
For the purposes of this contamination risk assessment, the results of the soil analyses
have been compared to the Assessment Criteria (AC) derived in-house using the
CLEA Software Version 1.06, CLEA SGVs published in Environment Agency
Science Reports SCR050021 and SC050021/SR3, where available, and Generic
Assessment Criteria (GAC), determined by LQM and CIEH, in accordance with
current legislation and guidance.
The risk assessment identifies that a ‘source – pathway – receptor’ linkage potentially
occurs with radon impacting upon the identified receptors.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 1 of 17
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
2.0 SITE SETTING 3
2.1 Site Location 3
2.2 Geological Setting 3
3.0 SITE WORK 4
4.0 LABORATORY TESTS 4
4.1 Geotechnical Testing 4
4.2 Chemical Testing 5
5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED 6
5.1 Sequence 6
5.2 Topsoil 6
5.3 Mylor Slate Formation 6
5.4 Groundwater 6
6.0 EARTHWORKS ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7
7.1 Structural Details 7
7.2 Assessment of Soil Condition 7
7.3 Foundation Design 8
7.4 Ground Floor Slabs 8
7.5 Excavations 9
7.6 Road and Hard Standing Design 9
7.7 Soak-away 9
7.8 Chemical Attack on Buried Concrete 9
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT IN
RELATION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 10
8.1 Contaminated Land 10
8.2 Risk Assessment 10
8.3 Pollutant Linkage 10
8.4 Risk Assessment – Human Health 11
8.5 Risk Assessment - Controlled Waters 12
8.6 Gas Generation 12
8.7 Protection Of Services 13
8.8 Risk Evaluation 13
8.9 Summary of Risk Evaluation 13
9.0 MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATION 13
9.1 Remediation and Verification 13
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 2 of 17
9.2 Management of Unidentified Sources of Contamination 14
9.3 Consultation 14
9.4 Risk Management During Site Works 15
10.0 REFERENCES 15
APPENDIX 1 - DRAWINGS
Figure A1.1 - Site Plan
Figure A1.2 - Exploratory Hole Location Plan
APPENDIX 2 - SITE WORK
General Notes on Site Work Figures A2.1–A2.21 - Trial Pit Records
Figures A2.22-A2.25 - Results of Soak-away Permeability Tests
Figure A2.26-A2.36 - Results of In-situ CBRs
APPENDIX 3 - LABORATORY TESTS
General Notes on Laboratory Tests on Soils iii/i-iii/iii Test Report C6559/1 - Results of Laboratory Tests
- Plasticity Classification Chart
APPENDIX 4 - CHEMICAL TESTS
Report No 10-35960 - Certificate of Analysis, Sample Description
- Results of Chemical Tests on Soils
APPENDIX 5 - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Figure A5.1 - Determination of Water Demand/Mature Height of Trees
Figure A5.2 - Foundation Depths – Medium Volume Change Soils
Figure A5.3 - Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC)
APPENDIX 6 - CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT
General Notes on Chemical Contamination vi/i-vi/iv Figure A6.1 - Summary Table for Statistical Tests
Figure A6.2-A6.7 - CLEA v1.06 Site Specific Assessment Criteria
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 3 of 17
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 It is understood that the proposed development comprises of a new rugby
ground with associated facilities and car parking.
1.1.2 On the instructions of Hayle Community Rugby Facilities Limited, a site
investigation was undertaken to determine ground conditions to enable
foundation and road/hard standing design to be carried out, together with a
contamination risk assessment and a review of gas emissions.
1.1.3 This report should be read in conjunction with the Phase I Desk Study which
was reported under reference C6559 in September 2009.
1.1.4 It is recommended that a copy of this report be submitted to the relevant
authorities to enable them to carry out their own site assessments and provide
any comments.
1.1.5 This report has been prepared for the sole use of the Client for the purpose
described and no extended duty of care to any third party is implied or offered.
Third parties using any information contained within this report do so at their
own risk.
1.1.6 The comments given in this report and the opinions expressed herein are based
on the information received, the conditions encountered during site works, and
on the results of tests made in the field and laboratory. However, there may be
conditions prevailing at the site which have not been disclosed by the
investigation and which have not been taken into account in the report.
1.1.7 The comments on groundwater conditions are based on observations made at
the time the site work was carried out. It should be noted that groundwater
levels vary owing to seasonal or other effects.
2.0 SITE SETTING
2.1 Site Location
2.1.1 The site is situated on Carwin Rise, approximately 2km to the north east of the
town centre of Hayle, Cornwall and may be located by National Grid
Reference SW579389.
2.1.2 A site plan is included in Appendix 1, Figure A1.1.
2.2 Geological Setting
2.2.1 Details of the geology underlying the site have been obtained from the British
Geological Survey map, Sheet No. 351/358, ‘Penzance’, solid and drift
edition, 1:50000 scale, published 1984.
2.2.2 The site is underlain by the Mylor Slate Formation of the Devonian period.
2.2.3 The geological map indicates the site to adjoin an area of Alluvium.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 4 of 17
3.0 SITE WORK
3.1.1 The site work was carried out on the 18th
September 2009 and 22nd
February
2010. The locations of exploratory holes have been planned, where possible,
in general accordance with CLR 4, ref. 10.1 and the site work carried out on
the basis of the practices set out in BS 10175:2001, ref. 10.2, BS 5930:1999
ref. 10.3 and ISO 1997:2007, ref 10.4.
3.1.2 Twenty one trial pits, designated TP1 to TP21, were dug by mechanical
excavator at the positions shown on the site plan, Appendix 1, Figure A1.2.
The depths of trial pits, descriptions of strata encountered and comments on
groundwater conditions are given in the trial pit records, Appendix 2, Figures
A2.1 to A2.21.
3.1.3 Representative disturbed samples were taken at the depths shown on the trial
pit records and despatched to the laboratory.
3.1.4 Samples for environmental purposes were collected in amber glass jars and
kept in a cool box.
3.1.5 The ground levels at the trial pit locations were not determined.
3.1.6 Soak-away permeability tests were carried out in trial pits TP1, TP2 and TP3,
in line with guidelines given in BRE Digest 365, ref 10.6. The results are
included in Figures A2.22 – A2.25.
3.1.7 Ten in-situ CBR tests were carried out across the site. The results are included
in Figures A2.26-A2.36.
4.0 LABORATORY TESTS
4.1 Geotechnical Testing
4.1.1 All soil samples were prepared in accordance with BS1377: Part One: 1990
and representative subsamples were taken for testing. The following
geotechnical analyses was carried out as detailed below:
No. Test British Standard Reference Notes
24 Moisture
Content
BS 1377: Part 2: Clause 3.2 For comparison with Atterberg limits (if
required) the measured moisture content
would have to be corrected to give the
equivalent moisture content of the
fraction passing the 425 micron sieve.
9
Atterberg
Limits
BS 1377: Part 2: Clause 4.3 The plastic limit was determined for the
same samples using the definitive method
detailed in Clause 5.3. The samples were
wet sieved in accordance with Clause 4.2.4
(marked with‘s’ in Table 1 of the results).
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 5 of 17
No. Test British Standard Reference Notes
11 Particle Size
Distribution
BS 1377: Part 2: Clause 9.2 Samples prepared in accordance with
Clause 7.3 and 7.4.5. (wet sieve)
9 Sedimentation BS 1377: Part 2: Clause 9 Results were directly linked to the particle
size distribution curve.
1 Compactions BS 1377: Part 4: Clause 3.5
and 3.6
Samples prepared in accordance with
Clause 3.2A (2.5kg rammer)
5 pH BS 1377: Part 3: Clause 9.5 Samples prepared in accordance with
Clause 9.4.
5 Water Soluble
Sulphate
BS 1377: Part 3: Clause 5.5 The samples prepared in accordance with
Clause 5.3.
4.1.2 Ten compactions were attempted but nine failed due to reasons stipulated in
the following chapters.
4.1.3 The results of the geotechnical laboratory testing report C6559/1, together
with a Plasticity Classification Chart can be found in Appendix 3.
4.2 Chemical Testing
4.2.1 The suite of chemical analyses has been based upon the findings of the desk
study, along with any on-site observations, to investigate the potential sources
of contamination identified in the conceptual model. The chemical analyses
were carried out on fifteen samples of soil. The nature of the analyses is
detailed below:
4.2.2 Metals Suite - arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, copper,
nickel and zinc.
4.2.3 Others - pH, organic matter content, water soluble sulphate.
4.2.4 The results of these tests are shown in Appendix 4, Report No 10-35960.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 6 of 17
5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED
5.1 Sequence
5.1.1 The sequence of the strata encountered during the investigation generally
confirms the anticipated geology as interpreted from the geological map.
5.1.2 The sequence and indicative thicknesses of strata are provided below:
Strata Encountered Depth Encountered (m) Strata Thickness
(m) From To
Topsoil 0.00 0.20 to 0.80 0.20 to 0.80
Completely Weathered
Mylor Slate Formation 0.20 to 0.80 1.10 to 3.10 0.50 to 2.50
Weathered Mylor Slate
Formation 0.50 to 3.10 1.90 to 4.10
At least 2.60
Base Unproven
5.2 Topsoil
5.2.1 Topsoil was encountered in every exploratory hole excavated across the site
and was found to vary in thickness from 0.20m to 0.80m.
5.3 Mylor Slate Formation
5.3.1 Completely Weathered Mylor Slate Formation was encountered across the
majority of the site with the exception of TP2, TP12, and TP14-TP16, and was
recovered as a principally cohesive material with varying amounts of granular
material.
5.3.2 Every exploratory hole was terminated within the Weathered Mylor Slate
Formation, which was principally recovered as a granular material.
5.4 Groundwater
5.4.1 Groundwater was encountered at depths of varying from 2.80m to 4.00mBGL.
6.0 EARTHWORKS ASSESSMENT IN RELATION
TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
6.1 General
6.1.1 Compaction and classification tests were carried out on samples from the trial
pits carried out in the area to be cut. It is proposed to utilise this cut material
for raising the levels of the lower parts of the site.
6.2 Topsoil
6.2.1 All topsoil should be stripped prior to any earthworks taking place.
6.2.2 Particle Size Distributions indicated 43 to 64% silt/clay, 12 to 38% sand and
18 to 30% gravel.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 7 of 17
6.2.3 Completely Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
6.3.1 The Completely Weathered Mylor Slate Formation was found to vary in
thickness across the site. It was principally recovered as a cohesive material
ranging from clay of low plasticity to silt of intermediate to very high
plasticity.
6.3.2 The ratios of the natural moisture content (NMC) to the plastic limit (PL) of
the samples was found to be above the generally acceptable limit of 1.2,
however in the majority of instances were found to be +/- 4% from the plastic
limit and may be deemed acceptable for use as a fill material. Some clay was
found too dry with moisture contents of 18%.
6.2 Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
6.3.1 Particle size distributions were carried out on four samples of the Weathered
Mylor Slate Formation indicated 4 to 46% silt/clay, 5 to 21% sand, 40 to 72%
gravel and 2% cobble content, suggesting silty sandy gravel soil with low
cobble content.
6.3.2 Nine samples were subject to 2.5kg compaction testing to determine
maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC).
6.3.3 Out of the nine samples tested only one test was fully complete as the eight
samples were aborted due to the material being ‘crushable’.
6.3.4 The MDD of the Weathered Mylor Slate Formation was determined to be
1.68Mg/m3 with an OMC of 11%.
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
7.1 Structural Details
7.1.1 It is understood that the proposed development is to consist of developing a
new rugby facility with associated pitches and areas of hard-standing. A new
building will be central to the development and a considerable ‘cut and fill’
programme is required to level the site.
7.1.2 Precise structural details were not available at the time of preparation of this
report.
7.2 Assessment of Soil Condition
7.2.1 The Completely Weathered Mylor Slate Formation encountered on the site
was principally cohesive in nature but contained differing proportions of
granular material varying in size from sand to gravel.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 8 of 17
7.3 Foundation Design
7.3.1 The results of laboratory tests indicate the Completely Weathered Mylor Slate
Formation is of intermediate plasticity and of medium volume change
potential as defined by the National House Building Council, ref 10.7 and
other published data, refs 10.8 and 10.9. Changes in moisture content will
result in small changes in volume, seasonal changes being exacerbated by the
presence of trees. It is recommended that for design purposes, medium
volume change potential should be adopted.
7.3.2 On the basis of observations made on site together with results of in-situ and
laboratory tests, it is recommended that consideration could be given to the
adoption of shallow spread foundations to support the proposed structures.
7.3.3 Outside the zone of influence of existing and proposed trees, it is
recommended that conventional shallow spread footings should be taken
through any topsoil and placed in the underlying natural strata at a minimum
depth of 1.00mBGL.
7.3.4 Within the zone of influence of recently removed, existing or proposed trees,
foundations should be taken through the topsoil and placed at depths
recommended by the NHBC for soils of medium volume change potential.
The relevant sections of the NHBC Standard are included in Appendix 5,
Figures A5.1 and A5.2. Compressible material should be placed on the inside
faces of foundations as specified by the NHBC.
7.3.5 Plasticity Index Testing indicated clay consistency to varying between stiff
and very stiff.
7.3.6 It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that spread foundations may be
designed to an allowable bearing pressure of 90kPa, a figure which would
provide an adequate factor of safety against shear failure.
7.3.7 It may be considered that the underlying less weathered Mylor Slate may give
a greater bearing strength and consideration may be given to extending the
foundation depths. It is unlikely that foundation depths would exceed
3.0mBGL and this would allow for spread foundations installed upon trench
fill. An allowable bearing pressure of at least 175kPa can be assumed.
7.3.8 It is possible that shallow foundations within the same structure could be
supported on different strata, in this instance between the weathering profiles
from cohesive to granular material, resulting in possible differential
settlements developing due to the different settlement characteristics of these
strata. In these circumstances it is recommended that nominal reinforcement
be included within the foundations to minimise differential settlement.
7.4 Ground Floor Slabs
7.4.1 On the basis of the details of the proposed site, it is envisaged that the ground
floor slab will be cast upon suitably engineered fill.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 9 of 17
7.4.2 Should the floor slab be cast upon an area of natural ground and within the
influence of trees, the floor slab should be suspended over a void. This would
also take into account any minor heave from the unloading of the cut area.
7.5 Excavations
7.5.1 On the basis of observations on site, together with the results of in-situ and
laboratory tests, it is considered that excavations to less than 1.20mBGL
should stand unsupported in the short term. Side support for safety purposes
should of course be provided to all excavations which appear unstable, and
those in excess of 1.20m deep, in accordance with Health and Safety
Regulations, ref. 10.10.
7.5.2 Groundwater could be expected in excavations taken to depths in excess of
2.80mBGL.
7.6 Road and Hard Standing Design
7.6.1 The structural design of a road or hard standing is based on the strength of the
sub-grade, which is assessed on the California Bearing Ratio, CBR, scale.
7.6.2 On the basis of in-situ and laboratory classification tests it is recommended
that for formation prepared in the Weathered Mylor Slate Formation, a sub-
grade CBR value of 3.5% be adopted for design purposes.
7.6.3 Any areas of soft or deleterious material should be excavated and replaced
with a properly compacted granular fill.
7.6.4 For routine cases, all material within 450mm of the road surface should be non
frost-susceptible.
7.7 Soak-away
7.7.1 The results of in-situ soak-away permeability tests ref: 10.6 in trial pit TP2
gave soil infiltration rates (f), for the Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
deposits of between 1.81x10-5
m/s and 1.46x10-5
m/s.
7.7.2 Tests undertaken in trial pits TP1 and TP3, showed no decrease in head over a
period of five hours. Locally the results indicate the underlying natural
material to vary between poor drainage characteristics and practically
impervious, ref 10.11.
7.7.3 It is suggested that the site may not be suitable for a soak-away sustainable
urban drainage (SUDS) scheme.
7.8 Chemical Attack on Buried Concrete
7.8.1 The site has been classified in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1, ref.
10.12, as natural ground without the presence of pyrite and laboratory testing
undertaken accordingly. It is recommended that the guidelines given in BRE
Special Digest 1, ref. 10.12, be adopted. Relevant details of this digest are
included in Appendix 5, Figure A5.3.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 10 of 17
7.8.2 The results of chemical tests in the non-pyritic soils indicate a sulphate
concentration in the soil of less than 100mg/l as a 2:1 water/soil extract, with
pH values in the range of 7.0 to 7.9.
7.8.3 It is recommended that for conventional shallow foundations the groundwater
should be regarded as mobile.
7.8.4 On the basis of the laboratory test results it is considered that a Design
Sulphate Class for this material may be taken as DS-1. The site conditions
would suggest that an ACEC class for the site of AC-1 would be appropriate.
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT IN
RELATION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
8.1 Contaminated Land
8.1.1 The statutory definition of contaminated land is defined in the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, ref 10.13, which was introduced by the Environment Act
1995, ref 10.14, as;
• ‘Land which appears to the Local Authority in whose area it is situated to
be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land,
that –
• significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of
such harm being caused; or
• significant pollution of controlled waters is being caused, or there is a
significant possibility of such pollution being caused.’
8.2 Risk Assessment
8.2.1 The definition of contaminated land is based on the principles of risk
assessment. Risk is defined as a combination of:
• The probability, or frequency of exposure to a substance with the
potential to cause harm, and:
• The seriousness of the consequence.
8.3 Pollutant Linkage
8.3.1 The basis of an environmental risk assessment involves identifying a ‘source’
of contamination, a ‘pathway’ along which the contamination may migrate
and a ‘receptor’ at risk from the contamination.
8.3.2 Current legislation defines the various elements of the pollution linkage as:
• A contaminant is a substance, which is in or under the ground and which
has the potential to cause harm or to cause pollution of controlled waters.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 11 of 17
• A pathway is one or more routes through which a receptor is being
exposed to, or affected by, a contaminant, or could be so affected.
• A receptor is either a living organism, an ecological system, a piece of
land or property, or controlled water.
8.3.3 A pollutant linkage indicates that all three elements have been identified. The
site can only be defined as ‘Contaminated Land’ if a pollutant linkage exists
and the contamination meets the criteria in Section 7.1 above.
8.3.4 The guidance proposes a four-stage approach for the assessment of
contamination and the associated risks. The four stages are listed below:
• Hazard Identification
• Hazard Assessment
• Risk Assessment
• Risk Evaluation
8.3.5 The hazard identification and hazard assessment have been based upon the
Phase I Desk Study and formed the conceptual site model; detailed in our
report, reference C6559, dated September 2009.
8.3.6 The risk assessment and evaluation stages are presented in this phase II
interpretive report, after an intrusive ground investigation has taken place.
8.4 Risk Assessment – Human Health
8.4.1 The proposed development consists of a new rugby ground with associated
facilities and car parking. Should the proposed development be changed in the
future then further risk assessment may be required.
8.4.2 The results of the soil analyses have been compared to CLEA SGVs published
in Environment Agency Science Reports SC050021/SR3, ref 10.15 and
SC050021, ref 10.16, where available, and Generic Assessment Criteria
(GAC), determined by LQM and CIEH, ref 10.17, as well as Assessment
Criteria (AC) derived in-house using the CLEA Software Version 1.06, ref
10.18. The CLEA AC has been derived by Ian Farmer Associates in
accordance with current legislation and guidance, as detailed in Appendix 6.
8.4.3 The results of chemical analyses have been processed in accordance with
recommendations set out in the CIEH and CL:AIRE document ‘Guidance on
Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’, ref 10.19.
8.4.4 Where the concentrations determined on site are at or below the most sensitive
(residential) Guidance Level, they are considered not to pose a risk and are
removed from further consideration, unless otherwise stated.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 12 of 17
8.4.5 Arsenic levels were observed to be above the residential Guidance Level, and
as such a risk assessment based on guidelines for a female worker at the rugby
ground has been undertaken.
8.4.6 The CLEA guidance values used within this contamination assessment have
been based upon the following assumptions regarding the receptor. A female
worker at the rugby ground has been used as the most sensitive receptor, as
this type of receptor could potentially be present on site most days over a
working lifetime of 49 years.
8.4.7 This type of receptor, is likely to be on site for 260 days a year and on site 9
hours a day. The exposure duration used allows for the receptor being outside
for 185 days per year (good weather).
8.4.8 In addition the skin adherence factors used are dependant on the type of
clothing worn and the amount of skin exposed; in this instance we have based
it upon a female worker in work wear.
8.4.9 The resultant site specific assessment criteria has been calculated as 500mg/kg
for arsenic, all samples analysed on site fall below this criteria, and as such no
remediation of the site will be required.
8.5 Risk Assessment - Controlled Waters
8.5.1 The site is located on a variably permeable minor aquifer, but is not located
within a groundwater source protection zone. There twelve groundwater
abstraction wells within 1km of the site. The nearest is located 353m to the
north east of the site and is for general farming and domestic use.
8.5.2 The nearest surface watercourse is surface watercourse is an unnamed stream
located adjacent to the south western boundary of the site.
8.5.3 Given the ground conditions encountered at the site and the results of this
contamination assessment, it is considered unlikely that further assessment of
the risks to controlled waters may be required.
8.6 Gas Generation
8.6.1 On the basis of the Phase I desk study, other than from radon, no pollutant
linkage was suggested from other natural or anthropogenic sources of gas. No
special precautions need be adopted within the proposed structures to prevent
the ingress of toxic gases.
8.6.2 The National Radiological Protection Board indicates the site to lie within an
area where there is a probability of more than 30% of present or future homes
being above the action level of 200Bq/m3. As such, the site is classified as a
Radon Affected Area. This is confirmed by the Building Research
Establishment, Report 211.
8.6.3 Therefore, full radon protective measures will be required in the proposed
development.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 13 of 17
8.7 Protection Of Services
8.7.1 Due to the increasing number of developments being undertaken on
potentially contaminated land, the Water Supply Industry has identified the
need to protect newly laid water supply pipes. They are likely to impose
constraints on the nature of water supply pipes that are to be laid in
contaminated land. Guidance on the selection of materials for water pipes is
provided by the Water Regulations Advisory Scheme, ref 10.23.
8.8 Risk Evaluation
8.8.1 The conceptual model formed within the Phase I Desk Study has been updated
to reflect the findings of the contamination risk assessment and the revised
conceptual model, detailing the relevant pollutant linkages, is tabulated below:
Source Potential Pathways Receptor Group
Radon
• Migration
• Ingression
Humans and buildings
• Gas ingress into
building/s
• Site occupants
1 – Assumes no remediation is undertaken
2 – Pathway exists only during the construction period
8.9 Summary of Risk Evaluation
8.9.1 The above assessment identifies that the ‘source – pathway – receptor’ linkage
potentially occurs with radon impacting upon the identified receptors.
Therefore, it would be necessary to manage the risk at this location by either
eliminating one of the links or by minimising the potential effects.
9.0 MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATION
9.1 Remediation and Verification
9.1.1 The risk management framework set out in the Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11, ref. 10.24, is applicable to the
redevelopment of sites that may be affected by contamination.
9.1.2 The risk management process set out in the Model Procedures has three main
components:
• Risk assessment
• Options appraisal
• Implementation
9.1.3 This initial risk assessment has identified the presence of elevated radon
concentrations across the site. Relevant pollutant linkages have been
identified, as demonstrated in the updated conceptual model.
9.1.4 An important part of the risk management process is identifying and informing
all stakeholders with an interest in the outcome of the risk management
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 14 of 17
project. To this end, if the regulators have not yet been contacted with regard
to the redevelopment of this site, it is recommended that they be supplied with
a copy of both the Phase I Desk Study and this Phase II Site Investigation
report in order to enable liaison to be undertaken with them.
9.1.5 Although no gas monitoring was undertaken, based upon the desk study and
the ground conditions encountered on site, it is considered that full radon
protective measures should be installed in the proposed development, in line
with BRE guidelines, to prevent the ingress of radon.
9.1.6 No other remedial measures will be necessary on the site.
9.2 Management of Unidentified Sources of
Contamination
9.2.1 There is the possibility that other sources of contamination may be present on
the site, which was not detected during the investigation. Should such
contamination be identified or suspected during the site clearance or ground
works, these should be dealt with accordingly. A number of options are
available for handling this material, which include:
• The removal from site and disposal to a suitably licensed tip of all
material suspected of being contaminated. The material would need to
be classified prior to disposal.
• Short-term storage of the suspected material while undertaking
verification testing for potential contamination. The storage area should
be a contained area to ensure that contamination does not migrate and
affect other areas of the site. Depending upon the amounts of material
under consideration, this could be either a skip or a lined area.
• Having a suitably experienced environmental engineer either on-call or
with a watching brief for the visual and olfactory assessment of the
material, and sampling for verification purposes.
9.3 Consultation
9.3.1 During the development of a contaminated site, consultation may be required
for a number of reasons with a number of regulatory Authorities. The
following provides an indication as to the most likely Authorities with which
consultation may be required.
• Local Authority. There may be a planning condition regarding
contamination and consultation will be required with a designated
Contaminated Land Officer within the Environmental Health
Department. The Local Authority is generally concerned with human
health risks. Some Authorities now require ‘Completion Certificates’ to
be signed off following remediation works.
9.3.2 Based on the results of any consultation, there may be specific remediation
requirements imposed by one or more of the Authorities.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 15 of 17
9.4 Risk Management During Site Works
9.4.1 During ground works, some simple measures may have to be put in place to
mitigate the risk of contamination affecting the site workers and the environs.
The majority of the proposed measures represent good practice for the
construction industry and include:
• Informing the site workers of the contamination on site and the potential
health effects from exposure.
• Where appropriate, the provision of suitable Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) for workers who may be potentially impacted by
working in areas of the contamination.
• Ensuring good hygiene is enforced on site and washing facilities are
maintained on the site. Workers are discouraged from smoking, eating or
drinking without washing their hands first.
• Dust monitoring, and if necessary, suppression measures should be put
into practice where contamination is becoming airborne.
9.4.2 Where contaminated materials are being removed from the site they should be
disposed of at a suitably licensed landfill, with a ‘duty of care’ system in place
and maintained throughout the disposal operations.
10.0 REFERENCES
10.1 CLR 4, ‘Sampling strategies for contaminated land’. Report by The Centre for
Research into the Built Environment, the Nottingham Trent University, DoE, 1994.
10.2 British Standards Institute: BS 10175 ‘Code of practice for the investigation of
potentially contaminated sites’, BSI 2001.
10.3 British Standards Institute: BS 5930 ‘Code of practice for site investigations’, BSi
1999.
10.4 ISO 1997, Part 2:2007, ‘Euro-code 7 – Geotechnical Design – Part 2, Ground
Investigation and Design’
10.5 British Standard 1377:1990, Part 9, ‘Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes’.
10.6 Building Research Establishment, Digest 365, Soak-away Design, 2003.
10.7 National House-Building Council, Standards, Chapter 4.2, 2003 ‘Building Near
Trees’.
10.8 BRE Digest 240, ‘Low-rise buildings on shrinkable clay soils: Part 1’. September
1993
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 16 of 17
10.9 Geotechnique, June 1983.
10.10 Health and Safety Executive, ‘Health and Safety in Excavations’, HSG 185, 1999.
10.11 British Code of Practice for Foundations, BS 8004:1986
10.12 Building Research Establishment, Special Digest 1, ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’,
2005.
10.13 The Environmental Protection Act, Part IIA, Section 78, 1990.
10.14 Environment Act 1995, Section 57, DoE 1995.
10.15 Environment Agency Science Report SC050021/SR3, 2008, ‘Updated technical
background to the CLEA model’
10.16 Environment Agency Science Report SC050021, 2009, ‘Contaminants in Soil:
Updated Collation of Toxicological Data and Intake Values for Humans’
10.17 Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment (2nd
Edition),
Nathanial P, McCaffery C, Ashmore M, Cheng Y, Gillett A, Ogden R, and Scott D,
Land Quality Press, Nottingham, published July 2009.
10.18 CLEA Software Version 1.06 (downloaded from the Environment Agency website,
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk January 2010)
10.19 ‘Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’,
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and Contaminated Land:
Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE) May 2008.
10.20 An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality, Shapiro, S. S. and Wilk, M. B. 1965
10.21 Environment Agency Science Report SC050021/SR2 ‘Human health toxicological
assessment of contaminants in soil’
10.22 Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment, Nathanial CP,
McCaffery C, Ashmore M, Cheng Y, Gillett A, Hooker P and Ogden RC, Land
Quality Press, Nottingham, published November 2006.
10.23 Water Regulations Advisory Scheme, Information and Guidance Note, October 2002,
‘The Selection of Materials for Water Supply Pipes to be laid in Contaminated Land’.
10.24 CLR 11, ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land’, DEFRA
and Environment Agency, 2004.
10.25 ISO 22475-1:2006, ‘Geotechnical Investigation and Testing – Sampling Methods and
Groundwater Measurements’ Part 1: Technical Principles for Execution.
10.26 ISO 14688 Part 1:2002 and Part 2:2004, ‘Geotechnical Investigation and Testing –
Identification and Classification of Soil’.
Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG
Contract No. C6559 Page 17 of 17
10.27 CLR 2, ‘Guidance on preliminary site inspection of contaminated land’, Report by
Applied Environmental, DoE 1994.
10.28 CLR 3 ‘Documentary Research on Industrial Sites’, Report by RPS Consultants Ltd.,
DOE, 1994
10.29 CLR 8, ‘Potential contaminants for the assessment of contaminated land’.
DEFRA/EA, March 2002.
10.30 Environment Agency, 2003, ‘Review of the Fate and Transport of Selected
Contaminants in the Soil Environment’. Draft Technical Report P5-079/TR1.
Bristol: Environment Agency
10.31 CLR 10, ‘The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA): Technical
basis and algorithms’. DEFRA/EA, March 2002.
For and on behalf of Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited
Lucy Quick Michael Austin
BSc (Hons) ACSM AIEMA BEng ACSM FGS
GeoEnvironmental Engineer Engineering Geologist
APPENDIX 1
DRAWINGS
Title:Scale:Date Drawn: 11-09-2009 As Shown
Site Location Plan
Project: Job No.: C6559
Figure Number: A1.1
Hayle RFC Relocation
Client: Hayle Community Rugby Facilities Ltd
Trial Pits
Trial Pits with TP3
TP20TP21
soakaways
TP7
TP9TP10 TP11
TP12 TP18
TP19
TP1 TP6
TP8
TP12
TP16
TP17TP18
TP2
TP4
TP5
TP14
TP15
Title: Trial Pit Location PlanScale: NTSDate Drawn: 24 02 10
TP13
Project: Hayle RFC Relocation Job No.: C6559
Title: Trial Pit Location PlanScale: NTSDate Drawn: 24-02-10
Figure Number: A1.1
Client: Hayle Community Rugby Facilities Ltd
APPENDIX 2
SITE WORK
Appendix 2 pages ii/i-ii/ii ii/i
APPENDIX 2
GENERAL NOTES ON SITE WORKS
A2.1 SITE WORK
A2.1.1 General
Site work is carried out in general accordance with the guidelines given in ISO 1997, 10.4
and BS 5930, ref 10.3.
A2.1.2 Trial Pits
Shallow trial pits are generally dug by mechanical excavator, however, in difficult access
locations or adjacent to structures, such pits may be hand dug. Pits are best used where
the ground will stand unsupported and generally, the maximum depth of machine dug pits
is 4m to 5m. Where personnel are required to enter pits, it is essential that side support is
provided. Entry by personnel into unsupported pits deeper than 1.2m is not allowed for
health and safety reasons.
Trial pits allow the in-situ condition of the ground to be examined both laterally and
vertically and also allow discontinuities to be recorded. The field record should give the
orientation of the pit with details of which face was logged, assessment of stability of
sides of pit and groundwater as well as the strata encountered. Photographs of the pit
should also be taken.
In-situ testing, such as hand penetrometer, hand vane, Macintosh probe, or similar, can be
undertaken in the sides or base of pits while both disturbed and undisturbed samples
recovered.
It is generally advisable to backfill the pits as soon as possible, open pits should not be
left unattended.
A2.2 IN-SITU TESTS
A2.2.1 California Bearing Ratio, CBR
The California Bearing Ratio test is used to evaluate the strength of subgrade by
measuring the load required to cause a plunger of standard size (50mm diameter) into the
ground at a standard rate (1.00mm/min) and comparing the result with a standard
material, ref 10.5.
The test is arbitrary in that the results cannot be accurately related to any of the
fundamental properties governing soil strength. However, in that the deformation is
predominantly shear, the CBR can be regarded as an indirect measurement of shear
strength and modulus of subgrade reaction.
Alternative methods of determining the equivalent CBR by cone penetrometer can be
undertaken. The Mexicone consists of a 30° cone of 129mm² cross-section that is pushed
into the ground at a steady rate. The load is determined through a compression spring that
deflects under load and is calibrated to give a direct reading of CBR on a dial. The
instrument is best suited in cohesive or fine granular soil, but in gravelly soil it should not
be used.
Appendix 2 pages ii/i-ii/ii ii/ii
A2.3 SAMPLES
A2.3.1 General
Samples have been recovered and stored in accordance with the guidelines given in ISO
22475-1:2006, ref 10.25 and BS 5930, ref 10.3.
J represents sample recovered in an amber jar, generally for environmental analysis
CBR represents California Bearing Ratio test
B represents large bulk disturbed samples
D represents small disturbed sample
W represents water sample
represents water strike
represents level to which water rose
A2.4 DESCRIPTION OF SOILS
A2.4.1 General
The procedures and principles given in ISO 14688 Parts 1 and 2, ref 10.26, supplemented
by section 6 of BS 5930, ref. 10.3 have been used in the soil descriptions contained within
this report.
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.1
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP1
C6559
SW 579 38918/09/2009
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 1.80 x 0.5
Refusal at 3.30mBackfilled with arisings.No groundwater encountered.All sides stable.Soakaway test undertaken
0.30 D1
(0.50)
0.50
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.00 B2
(0.60)
1.10
Orange brown silty gravelly CLAY with occasional cobbles of subangular to subrounded quartz.
(2.20)
3.30
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey firm silty slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is angular to subangular of very weak mudstone. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
Complete at 3.30m
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.10
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP10
C6559
SW 579 38922/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.30 x 0.5
Groundwater encountered at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.Terminated at 4.0m
0.20 B1
All sides stable.
(0.50)
0.50
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
0.50 D2
1.50 B3
(1.60)
2.10
Grey locally mottled orange gravelly soft to firm CLAY with occasional cobbles of quartz. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.50 B4 (0.90)
3.00
Whitish grey slightly gravelly silty soft to firm CLAY with occasional cobbles of quartz. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
3.80 B5
(1.00)
4.00
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Yellow grey silty fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.11
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP11
C6559
SW 579 38922/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.30 x 0.50
1
All sides stable.Groundwater encountered at 3.80mBackfilled with arisings.Terminated at 4.0m
0.30 D1
(0.50)
0.50
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.50 B2
(1.30)
1.80
Orange locally mottled grey sandy gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.50 B3
(1.70)
3.50
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Yellow grey silty slightly clayey fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
3.50 B4
fast(1) at 3.80m.
(0.50)
4.00
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Dark brown grey sandy slightly fine to medium, angular to subangular GRAVEL of weak to very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.2
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP12
C6559
SW 579 38918/09/2009
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 1.80 x 0.5
Refusal at 1.90mBackfilled with arisings.No groundwater encountered.All sides stable.
0.30 D1
(0.50)
0.50
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.60 B2
(1.40)
1.90
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Brown locally grey slightly clayey sandy fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded Gravel with occasional cobbles of mudstone.
Complete at 1.90m
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.13
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP13
C6559
SW 579 38923/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.20 x 0.5
1
All sides stable.Terminated at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.Groundwater encountered at 2.80m.
0.30 D1
(0.50)
0.50
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.00 B2
(0.60)
1.10
Grey locally mottled orange gravelly soft to firm CLAY with occasional cobbles of quartz. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.00 B3
(1.40)
2.50
Grey slightly silty gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
fast(1) at 2.80m.
3.00 B4
(1.50)
4.00
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Orange brown clayey silty fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.14
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP14
C6559
SW 579 38923/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.30 x 0.5
All sides stable.Refused at 2.80mBackfilled with arisings.No Groundwater encountered
0.50 D1
(0.60)
0.60
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.20 B2 (1.20)
1.80
Yellow grey silty slightly clayey fine to medium angular to subrounded GRAVEL of Mudstone. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.50 B3
(1.00)
2.80
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey silty fine to coarse angular and tabular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
Complete at 2.80m
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.15
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP15
C6559
SW 579 38923/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.20 x 0.5
All sides stable.Refused at 2.80mBackfilled with arisings.No Groundwater encountered
0.30 D1(0.60)
0.60
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
0.80 B2
(0.80)
1.40
Yellow grey silty slightly clayey fine to medium angular to subrounded GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone with occasional cobbles of quartz. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
1.40 B3
2.00 B4(1.40)
2.80
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Orange brown fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
Complete at 2.80m
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.16
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP16
C6559
SW 579 38922/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.10 x 0.5
All sides stable.Refused at 3.1mBackfilled with arisings.No Groundwater encountered
(0.60)
0.60
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
0.60 D1
1.20 B2 (1.20)
1.80
Grey silty slightly clayey fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL and occasional COBBLES of weak to very weak Mudstone. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.00 B3
3.00 B4
(1.30)
3.10
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Yellow grey silty fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone with occasional quartz veining. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
Complete at 3.10m
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.17
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP17
C6559
SW 579 38923/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.10 x 0.5
All sides stable.Terminated at 3.2mBackfilled with arisings.
0.20 D1
No Groundwater encountered.
(0.40)
0.40
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.00 B2
1.60 B3
(1.40)
1.80
Grey locally mottled orange gravelly soft to firm CLAY with occasional cobbles of quartz. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.50 B4(1.40)
3.20
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Brown silty sandy fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
Complete at 3.20m
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.18
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP18
C6559
SW 579 38923/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.40 x 0.5
All sides stable.Terminated at 3.20m
0.10 B1
Backfilled with arisings.No Groundwater encountered.
(0.30)
0.30
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
0.30 D2
1.50 B3
(1.50)
1.80
Grey locally mottled orange silty gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.00 B4
3.00 B5
(1.40)
3.20
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Yellow grey silty clayey fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
4.00 B6
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.19
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP19
C6559
SW 579 38923/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.2. x 0.5
1
All sides stable.Terminated at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.
0.20 D1
Groundwater encountered at 3.80m.
(0.40)
0.40
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.00 B2
(0.80)
1.20
Orange locally mottled grey silty gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.00 B3
(1.20)
2.40
Grey silty slightly gravelly CLAY. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
3.50 B4
moderate (1) at 3.80m.
(1.60)
4.00
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey silty slightly clayey fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.2
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP2
C6559
SW 579 38918/09/2009
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 1.80 x 0.5
Refusal at 2.30mBackfilled with arisings.No groundwater encountered.
0.20 D1
All sides stable.Soakaway test undertaken
(0.50)
0.50
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.50 B2
(1.80)
2.30
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Brown locally grey silty slightly clayey medium to coarse, subangular to subrounded Gravel with occasional cobbles of mudstone.
Complete at 2.30m
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.20
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP20
C6559
SW 579 38923/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.30 x 0.5
1
All sides stable.Terminated at 4.1m
0.10 B1
Backfilled with arisings.
(0.20) 0.20
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
0.20 D2
No Groundwater encountered.
1.50 B3
(2.20)
2.40
Grey silty slightly gravelly CLAY. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
(1.70)
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey silty slightly clayey fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
3.00 B4
moderate (1) at 3.80m.
1/2
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.20
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP20
C6559
SW 579 38923/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.30 x 0.5
(1.70) 4.10
Complete at 4.10m
2/2
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.21
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP21
C6559
SW 579 38923/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.10 x 0.5
1
All sides stable.Terminated at 3.5mBackfilled with arisings.Groundwater encountered at 2.80m.
(0.30)
0.30
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
0.30 D1
0.90 B2
(0.90)
1.20
Orange locally mottled grey silty gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
1.80 B3
(0.90)
2.10
Grey silty slightly gravelly CLAY. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation
fast(1) at 2.80m.
3.00 B4
(1.40)
3.50
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey silty fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
Complete at 3.50m
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.3
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP3
C6559
SW 579 38918/09/2009
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 1.80 x 0.5
Soakaway test undertakenAll sides stable.No groundwater encountered.Backfilled with arisings.Refusal at 2.90m
0.40 D1
(0.50)
0.50
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
0.80 B2
(0.50)
1.00
Orange brown silty gravelly CLAY with occasional cobbles of subangular to subrounded quartz.
2.00 B3(1.90)
2.90
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey firm silty slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is angular to subangular of very weak mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
Complete at 2.90m
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.4
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP4
C6559
SW 579 38922/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 1.90 x 0.5
1
All sides stable.Groundwater encountered at 2.80m.Backfilled with arisings.Terminated at 2.90m
0.40 D1
(0.50)
0.50
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.00 B2
(0.60)
1.10
Grey locally mottled orange silty soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.00 B3
2.50 B4
very fast(1) at 2.80m.
(1.80)
2.90
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Orange Brown silty clayey fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
Complete at 2.90m
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.5
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP5
C6559
SW 579 38922/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.10 x 0.50
1
All sides stable.Groundwater encountered at 3.7mBackfilled with arisings.Terminated at 4.00m
0.30 B1
0.60 D2
(0.80)
0.80
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.50 B3
(1.80)
2.60
Grey locally mottled orange silty CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
3.00 B4
fast(1) at 3.70m.
(1.40)
4.00
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey locally mottled orange firm silty clayey fine to medium GRAVEL of very weak mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.6
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP6
C6559
SW 579 38922/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.20 x 0.5
Terminated at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.No groundwater encounteredAll sides stable.
0.40 D1
(0.60)
0.60
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.40 B2
(0.90)
1.50
Grey locally mottled orange silty slightly gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
(2.50)
4.00
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey locally orange silty clayey fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.7
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP7
C6559
SW 579 38922/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.30 x 0.5
Terminated at 4.1mBackfilled with arisings.No groundwater encounteredAll sides stable.
0.40 D1
(0.60)
0.60
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.40 B2
(0.90)
1.50
Grey locally mottled orange silty slightly gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
(2.60)
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Dark grey soft slightly silty CLAY. Completetely weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
1/2
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.7
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP7
C6559
SW 579 38922/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.30 x 0.5
(2.60) 4.10
Complete at 4.10m
2/2
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.8
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP8
C6559
SW 579 38922/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.20 x 0.5
1
Terminated at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.Point seepages from 3.60mAll sides stable.
0.30 B1
0.50 D2
(0.60)
0.60
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.00 B3 (0.90)
1.50
Cream locally mottled orange silty slightly gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.20 B4
3.50 B5
Water strike(1) at 3.60m.
(2.50)
4.00
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Cream locally mottled orange fine to coarse, angular to subangular GRAVEL of weak Mudstone with occasional cobbles of quartz. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
1/1
Location
Ground Level (mOD)
Dates
Site
Client
Engineer
Number
JobNumber
Sheet
Wat
er
LegendDescriptionDepth
(m)(Thickness)
Depth(m)
Level(mOD)Sample / Tests
1:25 LVQ A2.9
Hayle RFC Relocation
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Ocean Architects
TP9
C6559
SW 579 38922/02/2010
Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Excavation Method Dimensions
Trial Pit
WaterDepth(m)
Field Records
Remarks
Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.
Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.10 x 0.5
All sides stable.Terminated at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.No Groundwater encountered.
0.40 D1
(0.50)
0.50
Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.
1.00 B2
(1.30)
1.80
Grey locally mottled orange gravelly soft to firm CLAY with occasional cobbles of quartz. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
2.00 B3
(0.80)
2.60
Whitish grey slightly gravelly silty soft to firm CLAY with occasional cobbles of quartz. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation
3.00 B4
(1.40)
4.00
MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Yellow grey silty fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.
4.00 B5
1/1
Client:Site:
Job No: Test No:
Time (min) Depth (mm) Length (m) = 1.800 800 Width (m) = 0.501 800 Depth (m) = 3.302 8003 800 800mm4 800 800mm5 800 800mm
10 800 800mm20 800 800mm30 80060 800 0.90090 800 12.400120 800 0.000180 800210 800240 800 n/a300 800 n/a
n/a normal testpit with stone
Input by: LVQ Date: 18/09/2009Checked by: MJA Date: 22/09/2009
No decrease in head over a period of 5 hours, unable to determine permeability.
CALCULATION OF SOIL INFILTRATION RATE
tp 75 (min) =tp 25 (min) =
Soil infiltration rate, f, (m/s) =Soil infiltration rate, f, (m/s) =
Volume outflow 75 - 25% (m3) =
Depth to water at start of test =Depth to water at end of test =
Depth to water at 50% level =
Notes
From the graph:
Size of Soakaway
TP1 test 1
Base area of pit (m2) =Eff area of loss 75 - 25% (m2) =
Depth to water at 75% level =
SOAKAWAY DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH BRE DIGEST 365: 1991BRE Digest 365, Figure 2, Page 5
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities LtdHayle RFC Relocation
Depth to water at 25% level =
C6559
700
900
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Dep
th (m
m)
Time (mins)
Client:Site:
Job No: Test No:
Time (min) Depth (mm) Length (m) = 1.800 750 Width (m) = 0.501 800 Depth (m) = 2.302 8503 870 750mm4 890 2300mm5 900 1138mm
10 1000 1525mm20 1200 1913mm30 121060 1530 0.90090 1600 4.465120 1670 0.698180 2040210 2200240 2300 14
158
1.81E-05 normal testpit with stone
Input by: LVQ Date: 18/09/2009Checked by: MJA Date: 22/09/2009
CALCULATION OF SOIL INFILTRATION RATE
tp 75 (min) =tp 25 (min) =
Soil infiltration rate, f, (m/s) =Soil infiltration rate, f, (m/s) =
Volume outflow 75 - 25% (m3) =
Depth to water at start of test =Depth to water at end of test =
Depth to water at 50% level =
Notes
From the graph:
Size of Soakaway
TP2 test 1
Base area of pit (m2) =Eff area of loss 75 - 25% (m2) =
Depth to water at 75% level =
SOAKAWAY DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH BRE DIGEST 365: 1991BRE Digest 365, Figure 2, Page 5
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities LtdHayle RFC Relocation
Depth to water at 25% level =
C6559
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Dep
th (m
m)
Time (mins)
Client:Site:
Job No: Test No:
Time (min) Depth (mm) Length (m) = 1.800 900 Width (m) = 0.501 900 Depth (m) = 2.302 9203 940 900mm4 980 2300mm5 1000 1250mm
10 1070 1600mm20 1180 1950mm30 124060 1400 0.90090 1510 4.120120 1600 0.630180 1840210 1970240 2140 32300 2300 206
1.46E-05 normal testpit with stone
Input by: LVQ Date: 18/09/2009Checked by: MJA Date: 22/09/2009
CALCULATION OF SOIL INFILTRATION RATE
tp 75 (min) =tp 25 (min) =
Soil infiltration rate, f, (m/s) =Soil infiltration rate, f, (m/s) =
Volume outflow 75 - 25% (m3) =
Depth to water at start of test =Depth to water at end of test =
Depth to water at 50% level =
Notes
From the graph:
Size of Soakaway
TP2 test 2
Base area of pit (m2) =Eff area of loss 75 - 25% (m2) =
Depth to water at 75% level =
SOAKAWAY DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH BRE DIGEST 365: 1991BRE Digest 365, Figure 2, Page 5
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities LtdHayle RFC Relocation
Depth to water at 25% level =
C6559
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Dep
th (m
m)
Time (mins)
Client:Site:
Job No: Test No:
Time (min) Depth (mm) Length (m) = 1.800 600 Width (m) = 0.501 600 Depth (m) = 2.902 6003 600 600mm4 600 600mm5 600 600mm
10 600 600mm20 600 600mm30 60060 600 0.90090 600 11.480120 600 0.000180 600210 600240 600 n/a300 600 n/a
n/a normal testpit with stone
Input by: LVQ Date: 18/09/2009Checked by: MJA Date: 22/09/2009
TP3 test 1
Base area of pit (m2) =Eff area of loss 75 - 25% (m2) =
Depth to water at 75% level =
SOAKAWAY DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH BRE DIGEST 365: 1991BRE Digest 365, Figure 2, Page 5
Hayle Community Rugby Facilities LtdHayle RFC Relocation
Depth to water at 25% level =
C6559
No decrease in head over a period of 5 hours, unable to determine permeability.
CALCULATION OF SOIL INFILTRATION RATE
tp 75 (min) =tp 25 (min) =
Soil infiltration rate, f, (m/s) =Soil infiltration rate, f, (m/s) =
Volume outflow 75 - 25% (m3) =
Depth to water at start of test =Depth to water at end of test =
Depth to water at 50% level =
Notes
From the graph:
Size of Soakaway
500
700
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Dep
th (m
m)
Time (mins)
IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House
Office 1Heron Way
NewhamTruro
CornwallTR1 2XN
Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883
PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559
Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm
Force (kN) 0.42 0.61Value 3.2 3.1CBR
MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW
3.2
CONTENT (%)
CBR VALUELOCATION
CBR 1/ TP4 1 20
DEPTH (m)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forc
e (k
N)
Penetration (mm)
Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990
Page 2 of 2
IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House
Office 1Heron Way
NewhamTruro
CornwallTR1 2XN
Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883
PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559
Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm
Force (kN) 0.53 0.76Value 4.0 3.8CBR
MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW
4
CONTENT (%)
CBR VALUELOCATION
CBR 2/ TP8 1 28
DEPTH (m)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forc
e (k
N)
Penetration (mm)
Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990
Page 2 of 2
IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House
Office 1Heron Way
NewhamTruro
CornwallTR1 2XN
Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883
PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559
Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm
Force (kN) 0.46 0.68Value 3.5 3.4CBR
MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW
3.5
CONTENT (%)
CBR VALUELOCATION
CBR 3/ TP9 1 30
DEPTH (m)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forc
e (k
N)
Penetration (mm)
Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990
Page 2 of 2
IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House
Office 1Heron Way
NewhamTruro
CornwallTR1 2XN
Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883
PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559
Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm
Force (kN) 0.53 0.76Value 4.0 3.8CBR
MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW
4
CONTENT (%)
CBR VALUELOCATION
CBR 4/ TP10 0.5 32
DEPTH (m)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forc
e (k
N)
Penetration (mm)
Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990
Page 2 of 2
IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House
Office 1Heron Way
NewhamTruro
CornwallTR1 2XN
Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883
PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559
Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm
Force (kN) 0.55 0.82Value 4.2 4.1CBR
MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW
4.2
CONTENT (%)
CBR VALUELOCATION
CBR 5/ TP13 1 18
DEPTH (m)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forc
e (k
N)
Penetration (mm)
Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990
Page 2 of 2
IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House
Office 1Heron Way
NewhamTruro
CornwallTR1 2XN
Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883
PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559
Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm
Force (kN) 0.65 1.18Value 5.0 5.9CBR
MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW
5.9
CONTENT (%)
CBR VALUELOCATION
CBR 6/ TP15 0.8 20
DEPTH (m)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forc
e (k
N)
Penetration (mm)
Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990
Page 2 of 2
IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House
Office 1Heron Way
NewhamTruro
CornwallTR1 2XN
Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883
PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559
Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm
Force (kN) 0.53 0.76Value 4.0 3.8CBR
MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW
4
CONTENT (%)
CBR VALUELOCATION
CBR 7/ TP17 1 18
DEPTH (m)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forc
e (k
N)
Penetration (mm)
Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990
Page 2 of 2
IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House
Office 1Heron Way
NewhamTruro
CornwallTR1 2XN
Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883
PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559
Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm
Force (kN) 0.44 0.70Value 3.4 3.5CBR
MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW
3.5
CONTENT (%)
CBR VALUELOCATION
CBR 8/ TP18 0.3 21
DEPTH (m)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forc
e (k
N)
Penetration (mm)
Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990
Page 2 of 2
IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House
Office 1Heron Way
NewhamTruro
CornwallTR1 2XN
Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883
PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559
Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm
Force (kN) 0.49 0.70Value 3.7 3.5CBR
MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW
3.7
CONTENT (%)
CBR VALUELOCATION
CBR 9/ TP19 1 23
DEPTH (m)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forc
e (k
N)
Penetration (mm)
Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990
Page 2 of 2
IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House
Office 1Heron Way
NewhamTruro
CornwallTR1 2XN
Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883
PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559
Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm
Force (kN) 0.40 0.70Value 3.0 3.5CBR
MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW
3.5
CONTENT (%)
CBR VALUELOCATION
CBR 10/ TP20 0.2 45
DEPTH (m)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Forc
e (k
N)
Penetration (mm)
Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990
Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX 3
LABORATORY TESTS
Appendix 3 pages iii/i-iii/iii iii/i
APPENDIX 3
GENERAL NOTES ON LABORATORY TESTS ON SOILS
A3.1 GENERAL
A3.1.1 Where applicable all tests are carried out in accordance with the relevant British Standard.
The laboratory test procedures are as below:
Test Name Procedures
BS1377:1990
Part:Clause
Moisture Content 2:3
Liquid Limit 2:4
Plastic Limit and Plastic Index 2:5
Particle Size Distribution 9.2
Sedimentation 9.4
Sulphate content 3:5
pH Value 3:9
Compaction Test 4:3
A3.1.2 Where an external laboratory carried out testing, their report, including test methods is
included in this Appendix.
A3.1.3 A summary sheet of laboratory test results undertaken by Ian Farmer Laboratories is
included, however where copies of the individual test results are required these will be
provided on request.
A3.1.4 Any discussion in this report is based on the values and results obtained from the
appropriate tests. Due allowance should be made, when considering any result in
isolation, of the possible inaccuracy of any such individual result. Details of the accuracy
of results are included in this section, where applicable.
A3.2 MOISTURE CONTENT
A3.2.1 Unless stated to the contrary, the moisture content of a soil sample was determined by the
standard oven drying method, BS 1377, Part 1, Test 3. The result is reported to an
accuracy of ±0.5%
A3.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS
A3.3.1 The Liquid Limit, LL, is the moisture content at which the soil passes from the liquid to
plastic state. Unless stated to the contrary, the Liquid Limit was determined using the
four point, cone penetrometer method, Test 4. The value is reported to the nearest whole
number, to an accuracy of ±0.5%.
A3.3.2 The Plastic Limit, PL, is the moisture content at which soil passes from the plastic to
solid state and becomes too dry to remain in a plastic condition. The Plastic Limit was
determined using the method described in Test 5. The value is reported to the nearest
whole number, to an accuracy of ±0.5%.
A3.3.3 The Plasticity Index, PI, is the numerical difference between the liquid and plastic limits,
corresponding to the range of moisture contents over which a soil is in a plastic state. The
determination of the Plasticity Index is covered by Test 5.
Appendix 3 pages iii/i-iii/iii iii/ii
A3.4 SOIL CLASSIFICATION
A3.4.1 Classification of soils is usually undertaken by means of the Plasticity Classification
Chart, sometimes called the A-Line Chart. This is graphical plot of PI against LL with
the A-Line defined as PI = 0.73(LL - 20).
A3.4.2 This line is defined from experimental evidence and does not represent a well defined
boundary between soil types, but forms a useful reference datum. When the values of LL
and PI for inorganic clays are plotted on the chart they generally lie just above the A-Line
in a narrow band parallel to it, while silts and organic clays plot below this line.
A3.4.3 Clays and silts are divided into five zones of plasticity:
Low Plasticity (L) LL less than 35
Intermediate Plasticity (I) LL between 35 and 50
High Plasticity (H) LL between 50 and 70
Very High Plasticity (V) LL between 70 and 90
Extremely High Plasticity (E) LL greater than 90
A3.4.4 In general, clays of high plasticity are likely to have a lower permeability, are more
compressible and consolidate over a longer period of time under load than clays of low
plasticity. Clays of high plasticity are more difficult to compact as fill material.
A3.5 CHEMICAL TESTS
A3.5.1 The total sulphate content of soil was determined using the gravimetric method detailed in
BS1377: Part 3:1990, Test 5. The results are recorded to an accuracy of ±0.1%.
A3.5.2 The water soluble sulphate content of soil was determined using the gravimetric method
detailed in BS1377: Part 3: 1990, Test 5. The results are recorded to an accuracy of
±0.1g/l.
A3.5.3 The sulphate content of groundwater was determined using the gravimetric method
detailed in BS1377: Part 3: 1990, Test 5. The results are record to an accuracy of ±0.1g/l.
A3.5.4 The pH value was determined electrometrically using the procedures given in BS 1377:
Part 3: 1990, Test 9. The results are recorded to an accuracy of ±0.1 pH units.
A3.5.5 The total sulphur content of soil was determined using the ignition in oxygen method
detailed in TRL Report 447, Test 4B.
A3.6 COMPACTION TESTS
A3.6.1 Whenever soil is placed as fill, it is generally necessary to compact it into a dense state.
Laboratory compaction tests are carried out to provide the basis for control procedures.
Compaction tests provide the following information.
A3.6.2 The relationship between the dry density and moisture content for a given degree of
compactive effort.
A3.6.3 The moisture content for the most efficient compaction. This is defined as the Optimum
Moisture Content, OMC, being the moisture content of the soil at which a specified
amount of compaction will produce the maximum dry density.
Appendix 3 pages iii/i-iii/iii iii/iii
A3.6.4 The Maximum Dry Density, being the dry density obtained using a specified amount of
compaction at the optimum moisture content.
A3.6.5 There are three basic laboratory compaction tests, these being as follows:
Type of test
(BS1377:1990 Part 4) Container
Rammer
mass
(kg)
drop
(mm)
No of
Layers
Blows
Per
Layer
Light compaction BS mould (1l)
CBR mould
2.5
2.5
300
300
3
3
27
62
Heavy compaction BS mould (1l)
CBR mould
4.5
4.5
450
450
5
5
27
62
Vibrating hammer CBR mould 32 to vibro 3 (1 min)
14 Faraday Close, District 15, Pattinson North Industrial Estate, Washington, Tyne & Wear, NE38 8QJ.Tel. 0191 4166375 Fax. 0191 4191578 Email. [email protected] Internet.www.ianfarmerassociates.co.uk
Ian Farmer Associates (1998) LtdRiverside HouseOffice 1, Heron WayNewham, TruroCornwall, TR1 2XN
TEST REPORT - C6559/1
F.A.O. Mr M Austin
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Job Number : C6559
Originating Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Originating Reference : C6559
Date Sampled : Not Given
Date Scheduled : 25/02/10
Date Testing Started : 04/03/10
Date Testing Finished : 12/03/10
Remarks : First Report for above Job Number••Samples will be disposed of 28 days after the report is issue unlessotherwise agreed
•This report may contain results from tests which are not included withinthe scope of the UKAS accreditation. Please see final sheet for details.
Craig LilleyAuthorised By:
Position : Laboratory Manager Date : 12/03/10
Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 3661447Registered Office: Unit 1, Bamburgh Court, TVTE, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, NE11 0TX
Offices in: Coventry (02476) 456565. Harpenden, Herts. (01582) 460018. Truro (01827) 261775Warrington (01925) 855440. Newcastle upon Tyne (0191) 4828500. Motherwell (01698) 230231.
1464
Page 1 of 16
DETERMINATION OF MOISTURE CONTENT, LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTIC LIMITAND DERIVATION OF PLASTICITY AND LIQUIDITY INDEX
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Borehole/Trial Pit
Depth(m) Sample
Natural/
Sieved
NaturalMoistureContent
%
Sample Passing425µm Sieve
Percentage%
MoistureContent
%
LiquidLimit
%
PlasticLimit
%
PlasticityIndex
%Liquidity
Index Class Description / Remarks
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.4 Preparation of samples for classification tests BS 1377:PART 2:1990:4.2 & 5.2 Sample preparations
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:3.2 Determination of moisture content 4.3 Determination of the liquid limit 5.3 Determination of the plastic limit and plasticity index
TP10 0.50 D2 Natural 32 100 32 46 28 18 0.22 MI Brown SILT / CLAY
TP12 1.60 B2 Natural 12 Brown slightly clayey slightly silty sandy GRAVEL
TP13 1.00 B2 Natural 18 100 18 48 29 19 -0.58 MI Brown SILT / CLAY
TP13 2.00 B3 Natural 27 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL
TP14 1.20 B2 Natural 15 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL
TP14 2.50 B3 Natural 20 Brown slightly sandy slightly silty slightly clayey GRAVEL includes cobbles
TP15 0.80 B2 Natural 20 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL
TP15 1.40 B3 Natural 20 Brown gravelly CLAY
TP15 2.00 B4 Natural 18 Brown gravelly CLAY
TP16 1.20 B2 Natural 18 Grey CLAY
TP16 2.00 B3 Natural 16 Grey CLAY
TP17 1.00 B2 Natural 18 89 20 39 26 13 -0.46 MI Grey SILT / CLAY
TP17 1.60 B3 Natural 18 Grey CLAY
TP17 2.50 B4 Natural 12 Brown gravelly CLAY
TP18 0.30 D2 Natural 21 Brown CLAY
TP18 1.50 B3 Natural 30 100 30 47 26 21 0.19 CI Brown CLAY
TP18 2.00 B4 Natural 16 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL
TP19 1.00 B2 Natural 23 93 25 40 26 14 -0.07 MI Brown slightly gravelly SILT / CLAY
TP20 0.20 D2 Natural 45 100 45 76 51 25 -0.24 MV Brown SILT / CLAY
TP4 1.00 B2 Natural 20 100 20 34 22 12 -0.17 CL Grey slightly gravelly CLAY
TP5 1.50 B3 Natural 25 100 25 46 29 17 -0.24 MI Brown SILT / CLAY
TP6 1.40 B2 Natural 15 Brown CLAY
TP8 1.00 B3 Natural 28 100 28 48 32 16 -0.25 MI Brown SILT / CLAY
TP9 1.00 B2 Natural 30 Brown CLAY
2 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
PipetteTP10 0.20 B1 Brown slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy SILT
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 100
28 mm 100
20 mm 100
14 mm 92
10 mm 91
6.3 mm 89
5 mm 88
3.35 mm 87
2 mm 86
1.18 mm 84
600 µm 81
425 µm 76
300 µm 64
212 µm 55
150 µm 52
63 µm 49
20 µm 41
6 µm 23
2 µm 6
1.6 mm
260.2 µm
3.0 µm
92.9
0%
14%
38%
42%
6%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
3 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
PipetteTP12 1.60 B2 Brown slightly clayey slightly silty sandy GRAVEL
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 73
28 mm 71
20 mm 65
14 mm 57
10 mm 53
6.3 mm 49
5 mm 47
3.35 mm 45
2 mm 42
1.18 mm 39
600 µm 34
425 µm 32
300 µm 27
212 µm 25
150 µm 23
63 µm 21
20 µm 18
6 µm 12
2 µm 5
42.9 mm
16.5 mm
5.0 µm
3431.3
0%
58%
21%
15%
5%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
4 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
PipetteTP13 2.00 B3 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 100
28 mm 85
20 mm 78
14 mm 76
10 mm 69
6.3 mm 64
5 mm 62
3.35 mm 59
2 mm 56
1.18 mm 53
600 µm 50
425 µm 49
300 µm 47
212 µm 46
150 µm 45
63 µm 43
20 µm 38
6 µm 24
2 µm 10
28.2 mm
3.9 mm
-
-
0%
44%
13%
33%
10%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
5 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
PipetteTP14 1.20 B2 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 92
28 mm 78
20 mm 66
14 mm 58
10 mm 54
6.3 mm 50
5 mm 47
3.35 mm 45
2 mm 42
1.18 mm 40
600 µm 37
425 µm 35
300 µm 32
212 µm 30
150 µm 28
63 µm 27
20 µm 23
6 µm 12
2 µm 4
32.8 mm
15.2 mm
5.0 µm
3041.3
0%
58%
16%
22%
4%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
6 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt/Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
N/ATP14 2.50 B3 Brown slightly sandy slightly silty slightly clayey GRAVEL includes cobbles
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 91
37.5 mm 84
28 mm 73
20 mm 54
14 mm 46
10 mm 39
6.3 mm 33
5 mm 31
3.35 mm 28
2 mm 26
1.18 mm 24
600 µm 23
425 µm 22
300 µm 22
212 µm 22
150 µm 21
63 µm 21
40.0 mm
22.5 mm
-
-
2%
72%
5%
21%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
7 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
PipetteTP15 0.80 B2 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 100
28 mm 89
20 mm 82
14 mm 75
10 mm 71
6.3 mm 67
5 mm 65
3.35 mm 63
2 mm 60
1.18 mm 57
600 µm 54
425 µm 53
300 µm 51
212 µm 50
150 µm 48
63 µm 47
20 µm 39
6 µm 23
2 µm 9
23.1 mm
2.2 mm
2.0 µm
953.2
0%
40%
13%
37%
9%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
8 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
PipetteTP18 0.10 B1 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy gravelly SILT
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 100
28 mm 86
20 mm 86
14 mm 81
10 mm 77
6.3 mm 74
5 mm 73
3.35 mm 72
2 mm 70
1.18 mm 68
600 µm 65
425 µm 62
300 µm 51
212 µm 47
150 µm 45
63 µm 44
20 µm 38
6 µm 19
2 µm 8
19.1 mm
406.8 µm
3.0 µm
150.7
0%
30%
27%
35%
8%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
9 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
PipetteTP18 2.00 B4 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 100
28 mm 94
20 mm 91
14 mm 83
10 mm 79
6.3 mm 73
5 mm 69
3.35 mm 64
2 mm 59
1.18 mm 53
600 µm 48
425 µm 46
300 µm 45
212 µm 44
150 µm 44
63 µm 43
20 µm 37
6 µm 19
2 µm 5
15.4 mm
2.3 mm
3.0 µm
683.9
0%
41%
16%
37%
5%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
10 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
PipetteTP20 0.10 B1 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy gravelly SILT
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 100
28 mm 87
20 mm 85
14 mm 82
10 mm 80
6.3 mm 79
5 mm 78
3.35 mm 78
2 mm 77
1.18 mm 76
600 µm 74
425 µm 73
300 µm 72
212 µm 69
150 µm 67
63 µm 65
20 µm 56
6 µm 25
2 µm 6
21.3 mm
39.1 µm
3.0 µm
14.0
0%
23%
12%
58%
6%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
11 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
PipetteTP5 0.30 B1 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy gravelly SILT
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 100
28 mm 100
20 mm 93
14 mm 89
10 mm 84
6.3 mm 79
5 mm 77
3.35 mm 75
2 mm 71
1.18 mm 66
600 µm 62
425 µm 61
300 µm 57
212 µm 54
150 µm 53
63 µm 50
20 µm 44
6 µm 27
2 µm 11
11.0 mm
405.4 µm
-
-
0%
29%
21%
39%
11%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
12 / 16
Grading Analysis
D85
D60
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
Particle Proportions
Cobbles + Boulders
Gravel
Sand
Silt/Clay
Sieve /Particle
Size
%Passing
DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests
Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution
Remarks :
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Pipette/
HydrometerDescription
N/ATP8 0.30 B1 Brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly SILT / CLAY
200 mm 100
150 mm 100
125 mm 100
90 mm 100
75 mm 100
63 mm 100
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 100
28 mm 100
20 mm 93
14 mm 89
10 mm 85
6.3 mm 82
5 mm 80
3.35 mm 77
2 mm 74
1.18 mm 70
600 µm 66
425 µm 65
300 µm 59
212 µm 55
150 µm 52
63 µm 50
9.6 mm
328.5 µm
-
-
0%
26%
24%
50%
0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY
SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS
13 / 16
DETERMINATION OF THE pH VALUE AND THE SULPHATE CONTENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Borehole/Trial Pit
Depth(m) Sample
Concentration of Soluble Sulphate
%
SoilS04 in 2:1Total S04water:soil
g /l
Groundwaterg /l
Percentageof samplepassing
2mm Sieve%
pH Description / Remarks
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.5 Preparation of soil for chemical tests BS 1377:PART 3:1990:5.2, 5.3, 5.4 & 9.4
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 3:1990:5 Determination of the sulphate content of soil and ground water BS 1377:PART 3:1990:9 Determination of the pH value
TP12 1.60 B2 <0.1 75 7.7 Brown slightly clayey slightly silty sandy GRAVEL
TP13 2.00 B3 <0.1 84 7.6 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL
TP15 0.80 B2 <0.1 81 7.8 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL
TP16 2.00 B3 <0.1 78 7.0 Grey CLAY
TP8 1.00 B3 <0.1 95 7.9 Brown SILT / CLAY
14 / 16
DETERMINATION OF DRY DENSITY/MOISTURE CONTENT RELATIONSHIP
Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1
Job Number
C6559
Page
Site : Hayle RFC Relocation
Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:7.6, BS 1377:PART 4:1990:3.2 Preparation of samples for compaction tests
Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 4:1990:3.4/3.4 Determination using 2.5 kg rammer or 3.5/3.6 Determination using 4.5kg rammer: PART 2:1990:8.2 Determination of particle density
Remarks :
Description
Percentage retained 37.5 mm
Percentage retained 20.0 mm
Grading Zone
Mould Type
MAX DRY DENSITY Mg/m³
Single or separate samples
Particle density
Method of compaction
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT %
Borehole /
Trial Pit
Depth
(m)Sample
Job Number
TP13 1.00 B2 Brown SILT / CLAY
0 %
4 %
2
1 Litre/proctor
Max size of cohesive lumps 20 mm
Single
2.65 Assumed
2.5kg Rammer
1.68 11
3.50 5.50 7.50 9.50 11.50 13.50 15.50 17.50
DryDensityMg/m³
Moisture Content %
5%10%1.72
1.70
1.68
1.66
1.64
1.62
1.60
15 / 16
Test Report : C6559/1
Site : Hayle RFC RelocationJob Number : C6559Originating Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities
All opinions and interpretations contained within this report are outside of our Scope ofAccreditation.
The following tests contained within this report are not UKAS Accredited.
Date of Issue : 12/03/10
Page 16 of 16
APPENDIX 4
CHEMICAL TESTS
Date: 12/03/2010
2139 Certificate Number: 10-35960
Client: Ian Farmer Associates
1 Riverside House
Heron Way
Newham
Truro
TR1 2XN
Our Reference: 10-35960
Client Reference: C6559
Contract Title: Hayle RFC Relocation
Description: 15 soil samples
Date Received: 26/02/2010
Date Started: 26/02/2010
Date Completed: 12/03/2010
Test Procedures: Identified by prefix DETSn, details available upon request.
Notes: Observations and interpretations are outside the scope of UKAS accreditation
* denotes test not included in laboratory scope of accreditation
# denotes test that holds MCERT accreditation, however, MCERTS
accreditation is only implied if the report carries the MCERTS logo
$ denotes tests completed by an approved subcontractor
I/S denotes insufficient sample to carry out test
U/S denotes that the sample is not suitable for testing
DETSM denotes tests carried out by DETS Midlands laboratory
Solid samples will be disposed 1 month and liquids 2 weeks
after the date of issue of this test certificate
Asbestos subsamples will be kept for 6 months
Approved By:
Authorised Signatories: Rob Brown
Business Manager
Certificate of Analysis
This certificate is issued in accordance with the accreditation requirements of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The results reported herein
relate only to the material supplied to the laboratory. This certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the prior written approval of the
laboratory.
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Limited
Unit 2, Park Road Industrial Estate South, Consett, Co Durham, DH8 5PY
Tel: 01207 582333 • Fax 01207 582444 • email: [email protected] • www.dets.co.uk
Page 1 of 4
Soil SamplesOur Ref: 10-35960
Client Ref: C6559
244718 244719 244720 244721 244722
TP1 TP3 TP4 TP6 TP7
0.30 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
22/02/2010 22/02/2010 22/02/2010 22/02/2010 22/02/2010
Test Units DETSxx
Arsenic mg/kg DETS 042# 77 120 94 86 92
Cadmium mg/kg DETS 042# 1.0 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.0
Chromium mg/kg DETS 042# 27 27 37 37 28
Copper mg/kg DETS 042# 49 110 74 68 75
Lead mg/kg DETS 042# 51 78 41 44 40
Mercury mg/kg DETS 081# < 0.05 0.38 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.06
Nickel mg/kg DETS 042# 26 26 25 25 19
Selenium mg/kg DETS 042# < 0.5 0.6 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5
Zinc mg/kg DETS 042# 220 430 210 210 190
Organic matter % DETS 002# 1.9 3.2 3.3 3.7 4.3
Sulphate Aqueous Extract as SO4 mg/l DETS 076# 30 46 35 26 44
pH DETS 008# 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3
Depth
Other Ref
Sample Type
Summary of Chemical Analysis
Contract Title: Hayle RFC Relocation
Lab No.
Sample Ref
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Ltd Page 2 of 4
Soil SamplesOur Ref: 10-35960
Client Ref: C6559
Test Units DETSxx
Arsenic mg/kg DETS 042#
Cadmium mg/kg DETS 042#
Chromium mg/kg DETS 042#
Copper mg/kg DETS 042#
Lead mg/kg DETS 042#
Mercury mg/kg DETS 081#
Nickel mg/kg DETS 042#
Selenium mg/kg DETS 042#
Zinc mg/kg DETS 042#
Organic matter % DETS 002#
Sulphate Aqueous Extract as SO4 mg/l DETS 076#
pH DETS 008#
Depth
Other Ref
Sample Type
Summary of Chemical Analysis
Contract Title: Hayle RFC Relocation
Lab No.
Sample Ref
244723 244724 244725 244726 244727
TP8 TP9 TP11 TP12 TP13
0.50 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.30
22/02/2010 22/02/2010 22/02/2010 23/02/2010 23/02/2010
52 99 91 100 80
0.9 1.1 0.9 1.3 1
33 31 24 38 49
37 61 61 55 63
34 40 38 110 41
< 0.05 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05
22 24 18 26 28
< 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5
180 230 190 230 220
3.3 3.9 4.4 2.9 3.0
24 31 37 26 27
8.4 8.3 8.2 8.3 8.4
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Ltd Page 3 of 4
Soil SamplesOur Ref: 10-35960
Client Ref: C6559
Test Units DETSxx
Arsenic mg/kg DETS 042#
Cadmium mg/kg DETS 042#
Chromium mg/kg DETS 042#
Copper mg/kg DETS 042#
Lead mg/kg DETS 042#
Mercury mg/kg DETS 081#
Nickel mg/kg DETS 042#
Selenium mg/kg DETS 042#
Zinc mg/kg DETS 042#
Organic matter % DETS 002#
Sulphate Aqueous Extract as SO4 mg/l DETS 076#
pH DETS 008#
Depth
Other Ref
Sample Type
Summary of Chemical Analysis
Contract Title: Hayle RFC Relocation
Lab No.
Sample Ref
244728 244729 244730 244731 244732
TP14 TP15 TP17 TP19 TP21
0.50 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.30
23/02/2010 23/02/2010 23/02/2010 23/02/2010 23/02/2010
130 61 110 90 110
1.2 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.9
44 51 27 27 26
97 38 86 44 35
45 34 65 56 260
< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05
26 28 17 21 21
< 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5
300 200 210 190 170
4.1 1.7 4.7 5.7 3.6
27 51 34 27 41
8.3 8.3 8.3 8.1 8.2
Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Ltd Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX 5
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Depth
of
Sig
nific
ant T
ree Influence (
m)
D/H
Minimum Depth 0.9m
2
2.5
Low water demand Moderate water demand Moderate water demand
High water demand High water demand
Reproduced from National House Building Council, Standards 2003 Chapter 4.2, 'Building Near Trees'
Broad Leaf
Conifers
D = Distance between tree and foundation
H = Height of Tree
Foundations greater than 2.5m deep to be Engineer designed
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
CL
AS
SIF
ICA
TIO
N C
HA
RT
Site: C
arw
in R
ise, Loggan
s Moor, H
ayle, C
orn
wall
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pla
stic
ity I
nd
ex (
%)
L LOWI
INTERMEDIATE H HIGH V VERY HIGH E EXTREMELY HIGH
CH
CV
CE
A-LineCI
PL
AS
TIC
ITY
CL
AS
SIF
ICA
TIO
N C
HA
RT
Site: C
arw
in R
ise, Loggan
s Moor, H
ayle, C
orn
wall
C6559
Job
no
.
Fig
no
.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Pla
stic
ity I
nd
ex (
%)
Liquid Limit (%)
L LOWI
INTERMEDIATE H HIGH V VERY HIGH E EXTREMELY HIGH
6
SILTS generally plot below A Line
CLAYS generally plot above A Line
CL
CH
CV
CE
A-Line
PI = 0.73 (LL-20)
ML MI MH
MV
ME
CI
Job no.
Fig.
Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification for brownfield locationsa
Sulphate and magnesium Groundwater
ACEC
Class for
location
Design
Sulphate
Class for
Location
2:1 water/soil extract b Groundwater
Total
potential
sulphate
Static
water
Mobile
water
(SO4
mg/l) (Mg mg/l)
(SO4
mg/l)
(Mg
mg/l) (SO4%) (pH)
d (pH)
d
DS-1 <500 <400 <0.24 ≥2.5 AC-1s
>6.5d AC-1
5.5-6.5 AC-2z
4.5-5.5 AC-3z
2.5-4.5 AC-4z
DS-2 500-1500 400-1400 0.24-0.6 >5.5 AC-1s
>6.5 AC-2
2.5-5.5 AC-2s
5.5-6.5 AC-3z
4.5-5.5 AC-4z
2.5-5.5 AC-5z
DS-3 1600-
3000
1500-
3000
0.7-1.2 >5.5 AC-2s
>6.5 AC-3
2.5-5.5 AC-3s
5.5-6.5 AC-4
2.5-5.5 AC-5
DS-4 3100-
6000
≤1200 3100-
6000
≤1000 1.3-2.4 >5.5 AC-3s
>6.5 AC-4
2.5-5.5 AC-4s
2.5-6.5 AC-5
DS-4m 3100-
6000
>1200e
3100-
6000
>1000e 1.3-2.4 >5.5 AC-3s
>6.5 AC-4m
2.5-5.5 AC-4ms
2.5-6.5 AC-5m
DS-5 >6000 ≤1200 >6000 ≤1000 >2.4 >5.5 AC-4s
2.5-5.5 ≥2.5 AC-5
DS-5m >6000 >1200e >6000 >1000
e >2.4 >5.5 Ac-4ms
2.5-5.5 ≥2.5 AC-5m
Notes
a Brownfield locations are those sites, or parts of sites, that might contain chemical residues produced or associated with industrial
production
b The limits of Design Sulphate Classes based on 2:1 water/soil extracts have been lowered from previous Digests
c Applies only to locations where concrete will be exposed to sulphate ions (SO4), which may result from the oxidation of sulphides
such as pyrite, following ground disturbance
d An additional account is taken of hydrochloric and nitric acids by adjustment to sulphate content
e The limit on water-soluble magnesium does not apply to brackish groundwater (chloride content between 12000mg/l and 17000mg/l).
This allows ‘m’ to be omitted from the relevant ACEC classification. Seawater (chloride content about 18000mg/l) and stronger
brines are not covered by this table.
Explanation of suffix symbols to ACEC class
• Suffix ‘s’ indicates that the water has been classified as static
• Concrete placed in ACEC Classes that include the suffix ‘z’ have primarily to resist acid conditions and may be made with any of the
cements in Digest
• Suffix ‘m’ relates to the higher levels of magnesium in Design Sulphate Classes 4 and 5
AGGRESSIVE CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR CONCRETE (ACEC) C6559
Hayle RFC A5.3
APPENDIX 6
CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/iv vi/i
APPENDIX 6
GENERAL NOTES ON CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT
A6.1 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND DEFINITIONS
A6.1.1 The statutory definition of contaminated land is defined in the Environmental Protection
Act 1990, ref 10.13, which was introduced by the Environment Act 1995, ref 10.14;
‘Land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a
condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that –
(a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm
being caused; or
(b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused.’
A6.1.2 The UK guidance on the assessment of contaminated has developed as a direct result of
the introduction of these two Acts. The technical guidance supporting the new legislation
has been summarised in a number of key documents collectively known as the
Contaminated Land Reports (CLRs), a proposed series of twelve documents. Seven were
originally published in March 1994, four more were published in April 2002, while the
last remaining guidance document, CLR 11, ref 10.24 was published in 2004. In 2008
CLR reports 7 to 10 were withdrawn by DEFRA and the Environment Agency and
updated version of CLR 9 and 10 were produced in the form of Science Reports SR2, ref
10.21 and SR3, ref 10.15.
A6.1.3 In establishing whether a site fulfils the statutory definition of ‘contaminated land’ it is
necessary to identify, whether a pollutant linkage exists in respect of the land in question
and whether the pollutant linkage:
• is resulting in significant harm being caused to the receptor in the pollutant linkage,
• presents a significant possibility of significant harm being caused to that receptor,
• is resulting in the pollution of the controlled waters which constitute the receptor, or
• is likely to result in such pollution.
A6.1.4 A ‘pollutant linkage’ may be defined as the link between a contaminant ‘source’ and a
‘receptor’ by means of a ‘pathway’.
A6.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
A6.2.1 The guidance proposes a four-stage assessment process for identifying potential pollutant
linkages on a site. These stages are set out in the table below:
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/iv vi/ii
No. Process Description
1 Hazard
Identification
Establishing contaminant sources, pathways and receptors
(the conceptual model).
2 Hazard Assessment Analysing the potential for unacceptable risks (what linkages
could be present, what could be the effects).
3 Risk Estimation
Trying to establish the magnitude and probability of the
possible consequences (what degree of harm might result and
to what receptors, and how likely is it).
4 Risk Evaluation Deciding whether the risk is unacceptable.
A6.2.2 Stages 1 and 2 develop a ‘conceptual model’ based upon information collated from desk
based studies, and frequently a walkover of the site. The walkover survey should be
conducted in general accordance with CLR 2, ref 10.27. The formation of a conceptual
model is an iterative process and as such, it should be updated and refined throughout
each stage of the project to reflect any additional information obtained.
A6.2.3 The extent of the desk studies and enquiries to be conducted should be in general
accordance with CLR 3, ref 10.28. The information from these enquiries is presented in a
desk study report with recommendations, if necessary, for further work based upon the
conceptual model. CLR 8, ref. 10.29, together with specific DoE ‘Industry Profiles’
provides guidance on the nature of contaminants relating to specific industrial processes.
Although CLR 8 has been withdrawn, no replacement guidance has been published that
lists the contaminants likely to be present on contaminated sites and as such the guidance
relating to this issue of CLR 8 is considered to still be relevant.
A6.2.4 If potential pollutant linkages are identified within the conceptual model, a Phase 2 site
investigation and report will be recommended. The investigation should be planned in
general accordance with CLR 4, ref 10.1. The number of exploratory holes and samples
collected for analysis should be consistent with the size of the site and the level of risk
envisaged. This will enable a contamination risk assessment to be conducted, at which
point the conceptual model can be updated and relevant pollutant linkages can be
identified.
A6.2.5 A two-stage investigation may be more appropriate where time constraints are less of an
issue. The first stage investigation being conducted as an initial assessment for the
presence of potential sources, a second being a more refined investigation to delineate
wherever possible the extent of the identified contamination.
A6.2.6 All site works should be in general accordance with the British Standards, BS 5930:1999,
ref. 10.3, ISO 1997, ref 10.4 and BS 10175:2001, ref 10.2.
A6.2.7 The generic contamination risk assessment screens the results of the chemical analysis
against generic guidance values. Soils will be compared to Assessment Criteria (AC)
generated using the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Software Version
1.04 beta, ref 10.17. Toxicological and physico-chemical/fate and transport data used to
generate the AC has been derived from a hierarchy of data sources as follows:
1. Environment Agency or Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) documents;
2. Other documents produced by UK Government or state organisations;
3. European institution documents;
4. International organisation documents;
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/iv vi/iii
5. Foreign government institutions.
A6.2.8 In the case of the majority of contaminants considered, the toxicological data has been
drawn from the relevant CLR 9 TOX report, or updated toxicological data published by
the Environment Agency (2009), ref. 10.16, where available. Where no TOX report is
available reference has been made to the health criteria values, derived for use in Land
Quality Press (2006), ref 10.22, as this is considered to represent a peer reviewed data
source. Similarly, fate and transport data has been derived in the first instance from
Environment Agency (2003), ref 10.30 and for contaminants not considered in this
document the fate and transport data used in previous versions of the CLEA model has
been used.
A6.2.9 Recommendations for tolerable intakes of lead are based on evaluation of the relationship
between exposure and blood lead levels. Consequently the Tox report for lead considers a
health criteria value based on an uptake dose, whereas the CLEA model estimates
exposure in terms of an intake dose, therefore, the CLEA model is not considered
appropriate for determining an assessment criteria for lead. In the absence of a current
published assessment criterion, the SGVs for lead reported in R&D Publication CLR 10
ref 10.31 have been used in this assessment.
A6.2.10 Chemical laboratory test results are processed as follows. A statistical analysis of the
results is conducted, as detailed in CIEH and CL:AIRE ‘Guidance on Comparing Soil
Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’, ref 10.17. Individual concentrations
are compared to the selected guideline values to identify concentrations of contaminants
that are above the selected screening criteria.
A6.2.11 Initially the distribution of the data set is tested using the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, ref
10.20 to determine if the data set is, or is not, normally distributed. Where the distribution
of the data is shown to be normal, the mean value test is applied to determine whether the
mean characteristics of the selected soil unit present a significant possibility of significant
harm to human health. Where the data is not normally distributed a method based on the
Chebychev Theorem can be applied to test the same hypothesis. The significance of the
data is further tested using the maximum value test. This determines whether the highest
recorded contaminant concentrations are from the same statistical distribution or whether
they may represent a ‘hot spot’.
A6.2.12 Where the risk estimation identifies significant concentrations of one or more
contaminants, a further risk evaluation needs to be undertaken.
A6.2.13 The risk evaluation will address the potential pollutant linkages between an identified
source of contamination and the likely receptors both on and off site.
A6.2.14 The potential receptors include:
1) Humans – current site occupants, construction workers, future site users and
neighbouring site users.
2) Controlled Waters – surface water and groundwater resources
3) Plants – current and future site vegetation
4) Building materials
A6.2.15 The potential hazards to be considered in relation to contamination are:
a) Ingestion and inhalation.
b) Uptake of contaminants via cultivated vegetables.
c) Dermal contact
Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/iv vi/iv
d) Phytotoxicity (the prevention or inhibition of plant growth)
e) Contamination of water resources
f) Chemical attack on building materials and services
g) Fire and explosion
A6.2.16 Dependent on the outcome of the initial, generic contamination risk assessment, further
detailed assessment of the identified risks may be required.
A6.3 Generic Guidance Values Used Within Contamination Risk Assessment
Residential End Use
Determinant
Guidance Value
(mg/kg) Primary Data Source
2.5% SOM
Metals
Arsenic 32 EA 2009
Beryllium 51 LQM CIEH GAC
Boron 291 LQM CIEH GAC
Cadmium 10 EA 2009
Chromium (III) 3000 LQM CIEH GAC
Chromium (VI) 4.3 LQM CIEH GAC
Copper 2330 LQM CIEH GAC
Lead 450 CLEA SGV 10
Inorganic Mercury 169 EA 2009
Nickel 130 EA 2009
Selenium 350 EA 2009
Vanadium 75 LQM CIEH GAC
Zinc 3750 LQM CIEH GAC
1 SOM – Soil Organic Matter
User
Company
Contact number
Report title
Job Number
Notes
Ian Farmer Associates
C6559
Hayle RFC Relocation
STEP 1: REPORT DETAILS Back to GuideClear All Details
SELECT LAND USE Residential without homegrown produce RATIO MODE FALSE
LAND USE OPTIONS
RECEPTOR Female (res)
BUILDING Office (post 1970) START AC 17 END AC 17
STEP 2: BASIC SETTINGS Apply Settings to Model
Office (post 1970)
Female (res)
Residential without homegrown produce
Back to Guide
BUILDING Office (post 1970) START AC 17 END AC 17
SOIL TYPE Sandy loam pH 8 SOM (%) 3.5
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
ORAL ROUTES DERMAL ROUTES INHALATION ROUTES
TRUE indoor TRUE TRUE
FALSE outdoor TRUE TRUE
FALSE TRUE
TRUE
Apply Settings to Model
direct soil and dust ingestion
consumption of homegrown produce
soil attached to homegrown produce
indoor
outdoor
indoor dust
outdoor dust
indoor vapour
outdoor vapour
Sandy loam
Office (post 1970)
Female (res)
Residential without homegrown produce
Back to GuideApply Settings to
Model
direct soil and dust ingestion
consumption of homegrown produce
soil attached to homegrown produce
indoor
outdoor
indoor dust
outdoor dust
indoor vapour
outdoor vapour
Sandy loam
Office (post 1970)
Female (res)
Residential without homegrown produce
Back to Guide
Oral HCV Inhalation HCVAir-water partition
coefficient (Kaw)
Diffusion
coefficient
in air
Diffusion
coefficient in
water
Relative
molecular
mass
Vapour
pressure
Water
solubilityKoc Kow Kd
Dermal
absorption
fraction
Soil - plant
availability
correction
Root - shoot
correction factor
Root - root store
correction factor
Root - tuber
correction factor
Root - fruit
correction
factor
Soil-to-plant concentration factor
(green vegetables)
Soil-to-plant concentration factor
(root vegetables)
Soil-to-plant concentration factor
(tuber vegetables)
Soil-to-plant concentration factor
(herbaceous fruit)
Soil-to-plant concentration factor
(shrub fruit)
Soil-to-plant concentration factor
(tree fruit)Relative bioavailability (RBAsoil,tox)
Compare with Compare with
Chem
ical ty
pe
Type
µg k
g-1
BW
day
-1
Ora
l exposure
Derm
al exposure
Inhala
tion
exposure
Type
µg k
g-1
BW
day
-1
Ora
l exposure
Derm
al exposure
Inhala
tion
exposure
Com
bin
e o
ral and
inhala
tion A
C
µg d
ay
-1
µg d
ay
-1
cm
3 c
m-3
m2
s-1
m2
s-1
g m
ol-1
Pa
mg L
-1
Log (
cm
3 g
-1)
Log (
dim
ensio
nle
ss)
cm
3 g
-1
dim
ensio
nle
ss
dim
ensio
nle
ss
dim
ensio
nle
ss
dim
ensio
nle
ss
dim
ensio
nle
ss
dim
ensio
nle
ss
mg g
-1 p
lant
(DW
or
FW
basis
) over
mg g
-1 D
W s
oil
Type
mg g
-1 p
lant
(DW
or
FW
basis
) over
mg g
-1 D
W s
oil
Type
mg g
-1 p
lant
(DW
or
FW
basis
) over
mg g
-1 D
W s
oil
Type
mg g
-1 p
lant
(DW
or
FW
basis
) over
mg g
-1 D
W s
oil
Type
mg g
-1 p
lant
(DW
or
FW
basis
) over
mg g
-1 D
W s
oil
Type
mg g
-1 p
lant
(DW
or
FW
basis
) over
mg g
-1 D
W s
oil
Type
Soil
Airborn
e d
ust
Arsenic inorganic ID 3.00E-01 Yes Yes No ID 2.00E-03 No No No No NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1.25E+06 NR NR 5.00E+02 3.00E-02 NR NR NR NR NR 4.30E-04 numeric fw 4.00E-04 numeric fw 2.30E-04 numeric fw 3.30E-04 numeric fw 2.00E-04 numeric fw 1.10E-03 numeric fw 0.50 1.0 1.00 1.00
Chemical Name
Inhalation
MDI for
adults
Oral MDI
for adults
Sub-s
urf
ace s
oil
to indoor
air
corr
ection f
acto
r
(dim
ensio
nle
ss)
Soil-
to-d
ust
transport
facto
r
(g g
-1 D
W)
ADVANCED SETTINGS Restore Defaults Back to MenuRestore Defaults Back to MenuRestore Defaults Back to Menu
Ratio of ADE to relevant Health Criteria Value Soil Assessment Criteria Soil Saturation Limit Pathway Contributions (%)
oral HCV inhal HCV Combined oral HCV inhal HCV Combineddirect soil
ingestion
sum of consumption
of homegrown
produce and attached
dermal contact
(indoor)
dermal contact
(outdoor)
inhalation of dust
(indoor)
inhalation of dust
(outdoor)
inhalation of
vapour (indoor)
inhalation of vapour
(outdoor)
oral
background
inhalation
backgroundTotal
Number Chemical (dimensionless) (dimensionless) (dimensionless) mg kg-1
mg kg-1
mg kg-1
mg kg-1 % % % % % % % % % % %
1 Arsenic 1.00 0.00 NR 5.00E+02 NR NR NR 84.85 0.00 7.00 8.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
STEP 5: RESULTS Find AC Print Reports Back to GuideFind AC Print Reports Back to Guide