aldi stores ltd · 2016-10-07 · • desk study assessment report referenced lc/c2861/5241 issued...

ALDI STORES LTD Murdishaw Avenue, Runcorn

Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment Report

LC/C2861/6243

July 2016

William Smith House,

173-183 Witton Street,

Northwich, Cheshire CW9 5LP

Tel: +44 (0) 1606 334 844

Fax:

brownfield-solutions.com

LC/C2861/6243

Brownfield Solutions Limited ii Aldi Stores Ltd

Murdishaw Avenue, Runcorn

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - MURDISHAW

Location The site is located to the east of Stockham Lane which is accessed via Murdishaw

Avenue to the west or north, lying approximately 5km to the southeast of Runcorn

Town Centre. The site is centred on National Grid Reference SJ 55431 80184.

Site History The site is predominantly greenfield and has been used as sports fields since the

1980’s. Two ponds have exisited on the site historically, one was backfilled prior to

1908 and the second between 1982 and 1987.

Ground

Conditions

Made ground was encountered within two exploratory holes to a maximum depth of

0.10m and consisted of limestone gravel from hardcore playing pitches. Made ground

was also encountered in one exploratory hole in the north of the site to a depth of

0.50m and consisted of ash within the topsoil.

Beneath the made ground the natural deposits in the south of the site were generally

sandy clays with sand bands also present. In the far south, clays encountered were

representative of completely weathered mudstone. Mudstone bedrock was

encountered within all of the exploratory holes in the south of the site at depths of

between 1.20m and 2.60m.

In the north of the site, superficial sand deposits were present beneath the topsoil or

made ground. Sands were medium dense and were clayey or silty. No bedrock was

encountered in the north of the site.

Foundations and

Floor Slabs

For Option A, strip/trench fill foundations founding in the stiff clay at approximately

1.00m bgl are considered to be the most suitable foundations.

For Option B, strip/trench fill foundations are also considered to be the most suitable

foundations founding in medium dense sand at a minimum depth of 600mm bgl.

Foundations may need to be deepened within option A due to the presence of trees,

which may be removed.

At present a ground bearing floor slab can be adopted for both Option A and Option

B at the site, however a full assessment will be made upon completion of the ground

gas monitoring programme.

Soil

Contamination

No contaminants above residential screening values were identified at the site.

Groundwater

Contamination

There is no considered risk to groundwater as no sources of contamination were

identified at the site.

Ground Gases Concentrations of carbon dioxide above 5%v/v have been recorded at the site on the

first two monitoring visits meaning basic ground gas precautionary measures are

required at the site. Ground gas monitoring is ongoing and a full assessment will be

made upon completion of the gas monitoring programme.

Soakaways Soakaways are not considered feasible at the site due to relatively impermeable strata

being present.

Highways A CBR value of 2-5% is likely to be achieved in undisturbed natural clay soils and >5%

for the natural sand deposits for pavement design purposes, and should be proven by

in-situ testing at sub base level by a specialist geotechnical engineer in the vicinity of

the proposed car park.

Further Work Completion of gas monitoring and issue ground gas assessment.

LC/C2861/6243

Brownfield Solutions Limited iii Aldi Stores Ltd


PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL DATA SHEET

Site Name: Murdishaw Avenue, Runcorn

Report Name: Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment Report

Report Number: LC/C2861/6243

Date: 21st July 2016

Status: Final

Revision:

Client: Aldi Stores Ltd Engineer: SWF Consulting Ltd

Neston Region

Chester High Road

Neston

Cheshire

CH64 3TS

Unit 4 Millbank House

Riverside House

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 1BJ

Contact: Mr George Brown Contact: Mr Phil Sarbutts

Written by: Checked by: Approved by:

L Crawford R Wyatt J M Jacob BSc (Hons) FGS MEng FGS BSc(Hons) CGeol FGS

LC/C2861/6243

Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment iv Aldi Stores Ltd


CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................1 1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................1 1.3 LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................................1

2.0 THE SITE ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 LOCATION & ACCESS ................................................................................................................2 2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE .........................................................................................................2 2.3 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................2

3.0 PREVIOUS REPORT SUMMARIES ....................................................................................... 3

3.1 DESK STUDY ...........................................................................................................................3 3.2 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................................3

4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................ 4

4.1 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................4 4.2 SITE WORKS ...........................................................................................................................4 4.3 SAMPLING ..............................................................................................................................4 4.4 LABORATORY TESTING ..............................................................................................................5 4.5 MONITORING .........................................................................................................................5

5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 7

5.1 MADE GROUND ......................................................................................................................7 5.2 NATURAL GROUND ..................................................................................................................7 5.3 BEDROCK ...............................................................................................................................7 5.4 GROUNDWATER ......................................................................................................................7 5.5 OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................................................................8

6.0 TEST RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 9

6.1 CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS - SOILS ................................................................................................9 6.2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING ...........................................................................................................9 6.3 WASTE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (WAC) RESULTS ............................................................................9 6.4 GAS MONITORING RESULTS .....................................................................................................10 6.5 SOIL PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS .............................................................................................10

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 12

7.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................12 7.2 OPTION A ............................................................................................................................12 7.3 OPTION B ............................................................................................................................13 7.4 CONSTRUCTION .....................................................................................................................13 7.5 HIGHWAYS ...........................................................................................................................14 7.6 SOAKAWAYS .........................................................................................................................14

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT...................................................................................... 15

8.1 CONTAMINATION ..................................................................................................................15 8.2 QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................................15 8.3 REMEDIAL MEASURES ............................................................................................................16 8.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES .....................................................................................................17 8.5 WASTE ................................................................................................................................18 8.6 COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................................................18

LC/C2861/6243

Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment v Aldi Stores Ltd


9.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 19

9.1 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................19 9.2 FURTHER WORK ....................................................................................................................19

10.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 20

DRAWINGS

Drawing Number Rev Title

C2861/04 - Runcorn Linnets Site Location Plan

C2861/05 - Pertinent Site Features Plan

C2861/06 - Exploratory Hole Location Plan

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Exploratory Hole Logs

APPENDIX B Chemical Testing Results

APPENDIX C Geotechnical Testing Results

APPENDIX D Interim Gas Monitoring Results

APPENDIX E Contaminated Land Screening Values

APPENDIX F Soakaway Testing Results

APPENDIX G Risk Assessment Methodology

APPENDIX H Waste Disposal Guidance Note

APPENDIX I CL:AIRE CoP Guidance Note

APPENDIX J Contaminated Land Legislative Background

APPENDIX K Limitations

LC/C2861/6243

Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment 1 Aldi Stores Ltd


SUPPLEMENTARY GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR A SITE AT

MURDISHAW AVENUE, RUNCORN

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives

1.1.1 This report describes a Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment carried out

by Brownfield Solutions Limited (BSL) for Aldi Stores Limited as instructed by SWF

Consulting Engineers on a site off Murdishaw Avenue, Runcorn.

1.1.2 The objectives of the assessment were to investigate the area around Runcorn

Linnets Football Stadium in the east of the site.

1.1.3 The report has been completed to fulfil the requirements of a preliminary risk

assessment in accordance with CLR11 “Model Procedures for the Management of

Land Contamination”.

1.1.4 This report should be read in conjunction with the following reports.

• Desk Study Assessment Report referenced LC/C2861/5241 issued May 2015.

• Geo-Environmental Assessment Report referenced LC/C2861/5573 issued

September 2015.

1.2 Proposed Development

1.2.1 The proposed development in the area of the supplementary investigation

comprises a new football club house and new car parking facility. This development

is to the east of the original site within Halton Sports.

1.3 Limitations

1.3.1 There may be other conditions prevailing on the site which are outside the scope of

work and have not been highlighted by this assessment and therefore not been

taken into account by this report. Responsibility cannot be accepted for such site

conditions not revealed by the assessment.

1.3.2 This report has been prepared for the sole use of the client. No other third parties

may rely upon or reproduce the contents of this report without the written

permission of Brownfield Solutions Ltd (BSL). If any unauthorised third party comes

into possession of this report they rely on it at their own risk and BSL do not owe

them any Duty of Care.

LC/C2861/6243



2.0 THE SITE

2.1 Location & Access

2.1.1 The site is located to the east of Stockham Lane which is accessed via Murdishaw

Avenue to the west or north, lying approximately 5km to the southeast of Runcorn

Town Centre.

2.1.2 The site is centred on National Grid Reference SJ 55431 80184 as shown on the Site

Location Plan, Drawing No. C2861/04.

2.2 Surrounding Land Use

2.2.1 The site is bordered by The Halton Arms Public House and car parking areas to the

west, previously investigated by BSL in 2015.

2.2.2 To on site sports fields extend off site to the east, beyond which lie Murdishaw

Woods.

2.3 Site Description

2.3.1 A walkover survey was carried out on the site on the 01st July 2016. The main site

features and potential issues identified during this survey are detailed below.

2.3.2 The site is occupied by sports fields and predominantly covered in grassed playing

fields.

2.3.3 The south of the site is situated at a lower elevation than the north of the site with

a slope present. A gravelled sports pitch is present in the south of the site.

2.3.4 Runcorn Linnets football ground is present in the centre of the site. The football

ground is surrounded by palisade fencing which is approximately 3m high.

2.3.5 In the north of the site is a brick changing rooms and shipping container.

2.3.6 Several trees are present along the western boundary of the site with the northern

boundary being densely vegetated.

2.3.7 Pertinent site features are shown on the Site Features Plan, Drawing No C2861/05.

LC/C2861/6243



3.0 PREVIOUS REPORT SUMMARIES

3.1 Desk Study

3.1.1 The Desk Study Assessment Report undertaken by BSL in 2015 was for the

neighbouring site to the west of the study site.

3.1.2 This identified two ponds to be present on what is now the Runcorn Linnets site.

3.1.3 The first pond which was located along the western site boundary in the centre was

backfilled before 1908.

3.1.4 The second pond which was also located on the western boundary towards the

south of the site was backfilled between 1982 and 1987 as part of the development

of the recreation ground which now occupies the site.

3.1.5 In addition, a culvert runs through the southern area running from east to west.

3.1.6 The desk study identified the backfilled ponds to be a potential source of ground

gas.

3.2 Geo-Environmental Assessment

3.2.1 The previous Geo-Environmental Assessment carried out in September 2015

included two trial pits (SA1 and SA2) within the south of the Runcorn Linnets site.

3.2.2 The trial pits encountered made ground to 0.10m in SA1 and to a depth of 1.10m in

SA2. The made ground in SA2 consisted of a slightly gravelly slightly sandy clay with

gravel consisting of brick and concrete.

3.2.3 Weathered mudstone bedrock was encountered within both SA1 and SA2 beneath

the made ground.

3.2.4 Soakaway testing was undertaken within SA1 and SA2 and indicated that the strata

was relatively impermeable and that soakaways were not feasible in this area.

LC/C2861/6243



4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

4.1 Objectives

4.1.1 The aim of the fieldwork was to:

• Investigate ground conditions on the east of the site within the area surrounding

the Runcorn Linnets football ground.

• Assess the suitability for soakaways at the site.

• Give an assessment of the geo-environmental risks associated with redeveloping

the football club.

4.2 Site Works

4.2.1 Two soakaways (SA03 and SA04) were excavated to depths of between 1.27m and

1.47m in the north of the site using a wheeled excavator on 1st June 2016.

4.2.2 Eight window sample boreholes (WS201 to WS208) were drilled to depths of

between 2.00m and 4.45m using a Dando Terrier drilling rig on 2nd July 2016.

4.2.3 The approximate locations of the exploratory holes are indicated on the Exploratory

Hole Location Plan, Drawing No C2861/06. The exploratory hole logs are presented

in Appendix A.

4.2.4 The exploratory holes were positioned to establish general ground conditions within

the sports field and to investigate areas of specific interest such the area of the

proposed club house. The exploratory holes were logged by an experienced geo-

environmental engineer in general accordance with BS 5930 ‘Code of Practice for

Site Investigations’ 2015, BS EN 14688-1:2002 ‘Geotechnical Investigation and

Testing – Identification and classification of soil’ and BS EN ISO 14689:2002

‘Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification and classification of rock’.

4.3 Sampling

4.3.1 During the excavation/drilling of the exploratory holes, representative samples were

taken at regular intervals to assist in the identification of the soils and to allow

subsequent laboratory testing.

4.3.2 A summary of the samples taken is presented in the table below:

Type Number

Environmental 15

Disturbed 18

Undisturbed 2

4.3.3 The type of sample taken was dependent upon the stratum and the purpose of

analysis in accordance with current environmental and geotechnical guidance.

4.3.4 Disturbed samples of soil for chemical testing were placed in plastic tubs and amber

jars as required by the UKAS accredited laboratory, and transported under secure

refrigerated conditions.

LC/C2861/6243



4.3.5 The distribution of samples taken across the site is recorded on the exploratory logs.

4.4 Laboratory Testing

4.4.1 As part of the assessment for potential contamination of the site, selected samples

were taken for the purpose of chemical contamination testing.

4.4.2 The following suites of determinands were scheduled at a UKAS approved

laboratory.

Determinand Matrix Number

Soil Suite comprising: arsenic, cadmium, chromium

(total and hexavalent), copper, lead, mercury, nickel,

selenium, zinc, speciated PAHs, total phenols, water

soluble sulphate, total cyanide, organic matter and pH

value

Soil 9

Asbestos Soil 4

Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) Soil and Eluate 3

4.4.3 The Chemical Laboratory Testing Results are presented in Appendix B.

4.4.4 Representative disturbed samples were obtained for all soil types encountered.

Selected samples were scheduled for testing at an approved laboratory in

accordance with BS 1377 ‘Method of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes’

1990. The following tests were scheduled:

BS Test

Number

Description No of Samples

Part 2: Natural Moisture Content 5

Part 2: Plasticity Index Analysis 5

Part 3: pH Value 6

Part 3: Water Soluble Sulphate Content 6

Part 7: Determination of Undrained Shear Strength in

Triaxial Compression

2

Part 7: One Dimensional Consolidation Testing by

Oedometer

2

4.4.5 The Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results are presented in Appendix C.

4.5 Monitoring

4.5.1 Ground gas and groundwater monitoring standpipes were installed in three

boreholes and subsequently two monitoring visits have been undertaken to date.

All gas monitoring has been undertaken using GA5000 infrared gas meter with

integral electronic flow analyser.

4.5.2 Measurements of the percentage volume in air (%v/v) of oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide

(CO2) and methane (CH4) were recorded in addition to the percentage Lower

Explosive Limit (%LEL) of methane and the atmospheric pressure. Flow

measurements on each standpipe (l/hr) were also taken. (Note: 100% LEL equates

to 5% by volume).

LC/C2861/6243



4.5.3 The standpipes consisted of 35mm internal diameter PVC pipe. A bentonite seal was

made around the plain pipe and a clean gravel pack was placed around the slotted

pipe. A summary of the installation construction is presented in the table below.

Location Depth

(m)

Response

Zone (m bgl)

Targeted Strata Reason

WS201 2.70 0.50 – 2.70 Natural Ground Ground Gas

WS202 3.00 0.50 – 3.00 Natural Ground Ground Gas

WS205 4.00 1.00 – 4.00 Natural Ground Ground Gas/Groundwater

4.5.4 The results monitored peak and steady state conditions. Peak results are those that

occur on opening the valve on the borehole tap. Steady state conditions are those

that occur a period of time afterwards when the initial (accumulated) gases have

been purged from the borehole.

4.5.5 Interim gas monitoring results are presented in Appendix D of this report.

LC/C2861/6243



5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS

5.1 Made Ground

5.1.1 Made ground was encountered in three of the ten exploratory holes that were

excavated at the site.

5.1.2 In the south of the site within the hardstanding playing pitch, made ground was

encountered within WS203 to 0.30m and in WS207 to 0.10m and consisted of a

coarse sand and gravel of limestone.

5.1.3 In the north of the site, made ground was encountered within WS204 to a depth of

0.50m and comprised topsoil with some ash.

5.2 Natural Ground

5.2.1 Where made ground was not encountered at the site grass over sandy clayey topsoil

was encountered to depths of between 0.30m and 0.65m.

5.2.2 In the north of the site the dominant stratum was medium dense sand and was

encountered to depths of between 1.20m and up to 4.45m. The sand was observed

as being clayey or slightly silty.

5.2.3 Within WS206 sand was encountered to a depth of 1.20m and was underlain by a

soft to firm slightly sandy clay which became stiff below 1.80m.

5.2.4 In the centre of the site, WS201 also encountered sand beneath the topsoil at 0.40m

to a depth of 0.95m. This was underlain by a stiff brown sandy clay to 2.60m.

5.2.5 Clay was also observed in WS202 beneath the topsoil to 2.20m. A sand band was

present between in 1.60m and 2.00m. The clay in WS202 was described as being

friable and desiccated.

5.2.6 Within WS203 no sand was encountered with a red brown sandy clay present

beneath the made ground to the base of the natural ground.

5.2.7 In the far south of the site, within WS207 and WS208, a stiff red brown laminated

clay with green grey clay bands was encountered beneath the topsoil or made

ground with this likely representing residual bedrock.

5.3 Bedrock

5.3.1 Bedrock was encountered within WS201, WS202, WS203, WS207 and WS208 at a

depth of between 1.20m and 2.60m bgl with the bedrock consisting of a very weak

red brown mudstone which was recovered as very stiff laminated clay with fine

mudstone gravel.

5.4 Groundwater

5.4.1 Groundwater was encountered at 2.00m within WS204 and WS205.

LC/C2861/6243



5.4.2 No groundwater was encountered in the remaining exploratory holes.

5.5 Observations

5.5.1 During the works undertaken by BSL observations for both visual and olfactory

evidence of contamination were made.

5.5.2 With the exception of ash within the topsoil in WS204 no evidence of gross visual or

olfactory contamination was noted at the site.

LC/C2861/6243



6.0 TEST RESULTS

6.1 Chemical Test Results - Soils

6.1.1 The samples were tested for an assessment of the chemical contamination and

results were examined with reference to a selection of guidance documents as

detailed in Appendix E.

6.1.2 Due to the site being used for junior football, residential screening values have been

assigned to the site as these are the most stringent. The apparent exceedance of

the relevant Tier 1 generic screening value for residential end use is taken as

indicating further detailed assessment or remedial action is required.

6.1.3 All metals (with the exception of lead) and PAHs were screened against the

LQM/CIEH S4ULS and SGVs for a residential use. Lead was screened against a final

C4SL value of 200mg/kg based on residential end use.

• Metals

No elevated concentrations of metals were identified at the site.

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

No elevated levels of PAHs were identified at the site.

• Asbestos

No asbestos fibres were identified within the four samples tested.

6.2 Geotechnical Testing

6.2.1 Water soluble sulphate testing was undertaken on nine samples of the natural

strata. The results revealed soluble sulphate (SO4) contents of between <0.0015g/l

and 0.0396g/l. Associated pH values were obtained which ranged between 6.21 and

7.99 indicating slightly acidic to slightly alkaline conditions.

6.2.2 Plasticity index results ranged between 12% and 19% across the site indicating the

clays to be of low to intermediate plasticity and low volume change potential.

6.2.3 One dimensional consolidation testing was undertaken on two samples of clay

obtained from WS201 at 2.00m and WS202 at 1.00m. The clays beneath the site to

have a coefficient of compressibility (Mv) of between 0.088MN/m2 at 1.00m and of

0.142MN/m2 at 2.00m under the pressure range for the proposed development.

This indicates the clays to be medium to low compressibility.

6.2.4 The results of undrained shear strength testing within WS201 at 2.00m and WS202

at 1.00m show a Cu of 45kPa at 1.00m and of 69kPa at 2.00m and indicate the clay

at these depths to be of medium strength.

6.3 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) Results

6.3.1 The Landfill Directive (Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfilling of waste) led to the

establishment of a methodology for classifying wastes. Wastes can only be accepted

LC/C2861/6243



at a landfill if they meet the relevant Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for that type

of landfill. There are three different WAC, these are for:

• Inert waste

• Non–hazardous waste

• Hazardous waste

6.3.2 Wastes should first be classified based on their total concentrations, WAC testing is

then required if the end disposal route is a landfill.

6.3.3 Solid and eluate WAC analysis was undertaken on six samples, the findings of which

are presented in the table below.

Location Depth (m) Strata Type WAC Analysis

WS201 0.20 Topsoil Inert

WS202 0.50 Clay Inert

WS205 0.50 Sand Inert

6.4 Gas Monitoring Results

6.4.1 Two gas monitoring visits have been undertaken to date.

6.4.2 Peak carbon dioxide has been recorded at concentrations between 3.9%v/v and

7.1%v/v with steady state concentrations ranging between 2.3%v/v and 7.0%v/v.

The higher concentrations of carbon dioxide have so far been recorded in WS201

and WS205.

6.4.3 No methane has been recorded within the boreholes to date.

6.4.4 Oxygen concentrations of between 11.4%v/v and 16.3%v/v have been recorded

during the monitoring programme. Steady state concentrations have ranged

between 11.9%v/v and 19.0%v/v.

6.4.5 A maximum positive gas flow of 0.2l/hr has been detected within the boreholes to

date.

6.4.6 Atmospheric pressure has ranged between 1004mb and 1012mb.

6.4.7 Groundwater levels of between 1.40m and 2.07m bgl have been recorded in the

standpipes to date.

6.5 Soil Percolation Test Results

6.5.1 The results of soakaway testing undertaken are summarised in the table below.

Location Test Soil Infiltration Rate (m/sec) BRE 365 Compliant

SA03 1 1.08E-06 No

SA04 1 -1.86E-06 No

LC/C2861/6243



6.5.2 The result of the soakaway test carried out in SA03 is indicative of poor drainage

conditions at the site.

6.5.3 The test carried out in SA04 had a negative infiltration rate. This relates to either

groundwater entering the trial pit during the test or material collapsing into the pit

forcing levels of water in the pit to rise.

6.5.4 The full results are presented in Appendix F.

LC/C2861/6243



7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

7.1 General

7.1.1 The site is currently occupied by Runcorn Linnetts FC Stadium and associated junior

and second team football pitches.

7.1.2 It is proposed to develop the site with a new club house in one of two possible

locations and with additional car parking in the north of the site.

7.1.3 Made ground was encountered within two exploratory holes to a maximum depth

of 0.10m and consisted of limestone gravel from hardcore playing pitches. Made

ground was also encountered in one exploratory hole in the north of the site to a

depth of 0.50m and consisted of ash within the topsoil.

7.1.4 Beneath the made ground the natural deposits in the south of the site were

generally sandy clays with sand bands also present. In the far south, clays

encountered were representative of completely weathered mudstone. Mudstone

bedrock was encountered within all of the exploratory holes in the south of the site

at depths of between 1.20m and 2.60m.

7.1.5 In the north of the site, superficial sand deposits were present beneath the topsoil

or made ground. Sands were medium dense and were clayey or silty. No bedrock

was encountered in the north of the site.

7.1.6 Groundwater was encountered within WS204 and WS205 at 2.00m bgl.

7.1.7 The foundation recommendations made for the proposed clubhouse are based on

the current proposed development layout for Option A (Preferred Option) and

Option B (Alternative Option).

7.2 Option A

Foundations

7.2.1 Boreholes WS201 and WS202 were advanced in the Option A area for the proposed

club house.

7.2.2 The most suitable foundations for the proposed club house if situated on Option A

are strip/trench fill foundations founding on stiff clay at approximately 1.00m bgl.

7.2.3 Foundations will need to be taken to the underside of any made ground, topsoil and

desiccated clays to found on undisturbed natural ground, which is at approximately

1.00m on this part of the site. For a strip foundation 0.60m wide constructed at

1.00m depth, a nett allowable bearing pressure not exceeding 100KN/m2 should be

assumed.

7.2.4 Total and differential settlement will not be an issue providing foundations are cast

on consistent bearing strata in the form of stiff clay.

LC/C2861/6243



Building Near Trees

7.2.5 A survey of all trees and hedges on the site and within 30m of the site boundary

should be undertaken to identify tree species, locations and heights. This

information will be required in order to assess the effects of trees on the cohesive

strata.

7.2.6 Based on the current development plan it is proposed to remove a large number of

trees from the east of the site. Where foundation excavations encounter cohesive

strata in the vicinity of existing, proposed or recently removed trees, foundations

should be adjusted in accordance with appropriate guidance. Geotechnical testing

indicates the clays to be of low volume change potential. All foundations should be

deepened below roots of greater than 5mm diameter during excavations for

footings.

Floor Slabs

7.2.7 If required a ground bearing floor slab may generally be adopted in the area of the

site provided that once finished levels have been established, less than 600mm of

suitable, appropriately compacted granular material exists beneath the slab.

7.2.8 However, ground gas precautionary measures may be required at the site and

therefore a suspended floor slab may be required. A full assessment will be made

upon completion of the ground gas monitoring programme.

7.3 Option B

Foundations

7.3.1 Boreholes WS204 and WS205 were advanced in this area with medium dense sands

encountered from depths of 0.50m bgl.

7.3.2 Again, the most suitable foundations for the proposed club house if situated on

Option B are strip/trench fill foundations constructed within the natural medium

dense sands.

7.3.3 Foundations will need to be taken to the underside of any made ground and topsoil

to found on undisturbed natural sand at a minimum depth of 600mm on this part of

the site. A nett allowable bearing pressure not exceeding 135kN/m2 should be

assumed for the medium dense deposits.

7.3.4 Total and differential settlement will not be an issue providing foundations are cast

on consistent medium dense sand bearing strata.

Floor Slabs

7.3.5 Again, a ground bearing floor slab may be adopted in the north of the site however

ground gas precautionary measures may be required at the site and therefore a

suspended floor slab may be required. A full assessment will be made upon

completion of the ground gas monitoring programme.

7.4 Construction

7.4.1 Instability of excavations through natural soils is not anticipated provided they are

not exposed to adverse weather conditions for any substantial period of time.

LC/C2861/6243



Instability of the made ground should be allowed for. All excavations should be

carried out in accordance with CIRIA Report 97 ‘Trenching Practice’.

7.4.2 Excavation depths should generally be readily achieved using conventional plant

(JCB or similar).

7.4.3 The results of laboratory pH and sulphate content indicate that ACEC Class AC-1 for

the mobile water within the sand and AC-1s for the static water within the

weathered bedrock in the south of the site and sulphate class DS-1 conditions across

the whole site prevail in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1 “Concrete in

aggressive ground” 2005. The specific concrete mixes (the Design Concrete Class)

to be used on site will be determined by the site specific concrete requirements in

terms of the durability and structural performance. These are assessed in terms of

the Structural Performance Level (SPL) and any need for Additional Protective

Measures (APM) detailed in Part D of BRE Special Digest 1 with further guidance in

Pt E and F.

7.5 Highways

7.5.1 A CBR value of 2-5% is likely to be achieved in undisturbed natural clay soils and >5%

for the natural sand deposits for pavement design purposes, and should be proven

by in-situ testing at sub base level by a specialist geotechnical engineer in the vicinity

of the proposed car park.

7.5.2 Highway construction should be a minimum of 450mm to mitigate against frost

heave.

7.6 Soakaways

7.6.1 One soakaway was undertaken in the north of the site and one to the west of

Stockham Lane within the main site area at depths of 1.27m and 1.47m.

7.6.2 The use of soakaways within the natural ground are not considered feasible as the

results indicate poor drainage conditions.

7.6.3 The results of soakaway testing undertaken as part of this investigation support the

findings of previous soakaways testing undertaken in 2015 as part of the main site

investigation which also concluded that soakaways were unfeasible in the south due

to poor drainage conditions and relatively impermeable strata beneath the site.

LC/C2861/6243



8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

8.1 Contamination

Soils

8.1.1 Made ground was not prevalent across the site with pockets present in the south

where the hardstanding playing pitches are present and in the north within the

topsoil at one location.

8.1.2 On the basis of the testing undertaken no elevated levels of metals or PAHs were

identified at the site.

8.1.3 In addition, no asbestos fibres have been detected in the four samples screened for

fibres.

Ground Gas

8.1.4 In order to assess the ground gas situation and the requirement for ground gas

precautions guidance was taken from CIRIA C665 ‘Assessing risks posed by

hazardous ground gases to buildings’.

8.1.5 The proposed end use dictates that the gas monitoring results should be assessed in

accordance with Wilson and Card (1999) as stated in CIRIA C665.

8.1.6 Based on the initial monitoring, typical carbon dioxide concentrations in excess of

5%v/v have been encountered both of the proposed club house locations and as

such fall into Gas Characteristic Situation 2. Based on these results, gas protection

measures will be required.

8.1.7 These are however preliminary recommendations and a full ground gas assessment

will be issued on completion of the monitoring programme.

8.2 Qualitative Risk Assessment

8.2.1 The risk assessment methodology used in this instance is based on Source – Pathway

– Receptor (SPR) philosophy. The source is the presence of contamination, or

substance/event likely to cause harm. The receptor is the target that may be

detrimentally affected by the source. The pathway is the means of the

contamination to move from the source to the receptor. Where any of these three

factors are removed there is deemed to be no risk.

8.2.2 The CSM has been revised based on the findings of the supplementary site

investigation and laboratory testing results in accordance with the methodology set

out in Appendix G.

LC/C2861/6243



Human Health

Potential Source Potential Pathway Potential

Receptor

Likelihood Severity Level of Risk

ON-SITE

Made Ground

Ingestion, direct contact,

inhalation of dusts.

End-users

Unlikely

Mild

Very Low

Ground gases/vapours Migration into confined

spaces

End-users

Likely to Low

Likelihood

Medium to

Severe

Moderate / High

Asbestos



End-users

Unlikely

Medium

Low

Human Health Justification

8.2.3 No determinands above residential screening values have been identified at the site

therefore no source of contamination which may adversely affect human health is

present at the site and the risk to human health is considered to be negligible.

8.2.4 In addition, no asbestos fibres were found to be present at the site and therefore

the risk from asbestos is considered to be low.

8.2.5 Initial ground gas monitoring has revealed elevated concentrations of carbon

dioxide are present at the site. Monitoring is ongoing, at present the risk is assessed

as moderate to high. A full assessment will be made upon completion of the ground


Controlled Waters


Receptor


ON-SITE

Made Ground

Migration through

groundwater or granular

soils

Controlled

waters

Unlikely

Mild

Very Low

Controlled Waters Justification

8.2.6 No sources of contamination were identified at the site therefore the risk to

controlled water is considered to be very low.

8.3 Remedial Measures

8.3.1 No sources of contamination have been identified at the site therefore no remedial

measures with regards to soils are required at the site. Areas of existing soft

landscaping at the site are to remain largely unchanged.

8.3.2 At present, gas precautionary measures complaint with Characteristic Situation 2 in

accordance with CIRIA C665 are recommended within the proposed club house

structure at either location.

LC/C2861/6243



8.3.3 For a commercial development placed within Characteristic Situation 2 the following

protective measures are required as a minimum.

a) Reinforced concrete cast in situ floor slab (suspended, non-suspended or raft) with at least a

1200 gauge DPM across the entire footprint.

b) Beam and block or precast concrete slab and minimum 2000 gauge DPM/reinforced gas

membrane across the entire footprint.

c) Possibly underfloor venting or pressurisation in combination with a) or b)

With any of these methods all joints between DPM sheets and penetrations through the DPM

sheets must be sealed.

8.3.4 A watching brief should be in place during the construction phase for any evidence

of any contamination previously unseen. If any contamination is encountered, work

should cease in that area and advice sought from BSL immediately.

8.4 Health and Safety Issues

8.4.1 During the reclamation and construction phases of the site development it will be

necessary to protect the health and safety of site personnel. The risk to construction

and ground workers is assessed in the table below.


Receptor


ON-SITE

Made Ground



Construction

Workers

Unlikely

Mild

Very Low

Asbestos Ingestion, direct contact,


Construction

Workers

Unlikely

Medium

Low

Discussion

8.4.2 There is no considered risk to construction workers from potential contaminants at

the site however appropriate PPE should be worn in line with good site practice.

8.4.3 General guidance on these matters is given in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

document “Protection of Workers and the General Public during the Redevelopment

of Contaminated Land”. In summary, the following measures are suggested to

provide a minimum level of protection:

• All ground workers should be issued with the relevant protective clothing,

footwear and gloves. These protective items should not be removed from the

site and personnel should be instructed as to why and how they are to be used.

• Hand-washing and boot-washing facilities should be provided.

• Care should be taken to minimise the potential for off-site migration of

contamination by the provision of dust suppression control and wheel cleaning

equipment during the construction works.

• Good practices relating to personal hygiene should be adopted on the site.

• The contractor shall satisfy the Health and Safety Executive with regard to any

other matters concerning the health, safety and welfare of persons on the site.

LC/C2861/6243



8.5 Waste

8.5.1 Details of how material should be classified for waste disposal are presented in

Appendix H.

Total Concentrations

8.5.2 No determinands above residential screening values were identified within soils at

the site therefore based on total concentrations all strata types are considered to be

non-hazardous.

WAC Results

8.5.3 WAC testing undertaken on three samples indicates that both the natural and made

ground would be classified as below the limits for an inert waste landfill.

8.5.4 Where it is necessary to dispose material off site it is recommended that materials

are segregated and where necessary sufficient time is allowed to further classify the

material properly, including discussion with landfill sites and waste transfer stations

to find the best disposal route.

8.5.5 As the soils likely to be generated on site are clean it is recommended that where

possible the soils could be recycled at a suitable local waste treatment plant or

transfer station rather than a landfill disposal route.

8.5.6 If the reuse of soils is proposed on the site this should be done in accordance with

the CL:AIRE “Development Industry Code of Practice for the Definition of Waste”

(CL:AIRE CoP). Further guidance is provided on this in Appendix I. Any re-use

scheme should be designed to minimise disposal costs.

8.6 Compliance

8.6.1 It is recommended that the approval of the Local Authority is obtained for the

proposed remedial scheme prior to any irrevocable action being taken.

LC/C2861/6243



9.0 CONCLUSIONS

9.1 Summary

Environmental

9.1.1 No determinands in excess of residential screening guideline values were identified

within soils tested at the site, therefore the risk to site end users is considered to be

negligible.

9.1.2 As no contamination exists at the site there is no considered risk to controlled

waters.

9.1.3 The made ground and natural ground are considered to be non-hazardous and

suitable for inert waste disposal. As soils generated at the site are clean, where

disposal is necessary soils should be sent to a recycling plant rather than landfill.

9.1.4 Two ground gas monitoring visits have been undertaken to date with elevated levels

of carbon dioxide being recorded. At present, the site would be placed into CS2 in

accordance with CIRIA C665 meaning basic ground gas precautionary measures are

required. A full assessment will be made upon completion of the ground gas

monitoring programme.

Geotechnical

9.1.5 For Option A, strip/trench fill foundations founding in the stiff clay at approximately

1.00m bgl are considered to be the most suitable foundations.

9.1.6 For Option B, strip/trench fill foundations are also considered to be the most

suitable foundations founding in medium dense sand at a minimum depth of 600mm

bgl.

9.1.7 Foundations may need to be deepened within option A due to the presence of trees,

which may be removed.

9.1.8 At present a ground bearing floor slab can be adopted for both Option A and Option

B at the site, however a full assessment will be made upon completion of the ground


9.1.9 Soakaways are not considered feasible at the site due to relatively impermeable

strata being present.

9.2 Further Work

9.2.1 The following further work is considered necessary to progress the site to

construction phase:

• Completion of gas monitoring programme and ground gas risk assessment.

LC/C2861/6243



10.0 REFERENCES

1. British Standards Institution. Investigation of Potentially Contaminated sites - code

of practice. BS 10175:2011 (2nd Ed).

2. British Standards Institution ‘Code of Practice for Site Investigations’ BS 5930:1999

3. British Standards Institution “Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification

and classification of soil” BS EN ISO 14688:2002.

4. British Standards Institution “Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification

and classification of rock” BS EN ISO 14689:2002.

5. BRE Special Digest 1: “Concrete in Aggressive Ground” 3rd Ed 2005.

6. CIRIA 149 “Protecting development from methane” 1995.

7. CIRIA 150 “Methane Investigation Strategies” 1995.

8. CIRIA 151 “Interpreting measurements of gas in the ground” 1995.

9. CIRIA 152 “Risk assessment for methane and other gases from the ground” 1995.

10. CIRIA 552 “Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – A guide to good practice” 2001.

11. CIRIA C665 “Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings” 2007.

12. Wilson & Card “Proposed method classifying gassing sites” Ground Engineering

1999.

13. Card & Steve Wilson in “A pragmatic approach to ground gas risk assessment for

the 21st Century” - CIRIA/Environmental Protection UK Ground gas seminar 2011

14. BS 8576:2013 ‘Guidance on investigations for ground gas – Permanent gases and

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)’

15. BS 8485:2015 ‘Code of practise for the design of protective measures for methane

and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings’

16. The Hazardous Waste (England) Regulations 2005.

17. Environment Agency Hazardous Waste: “IGuidance on the classification and

assessment of waste” WM3 ver 1 May 2015.

18. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012

19. DETR. Circular 02/2000 Contaminated Land.

20. Environment Agency, 2009 ‘Using Soil Guideline Values’.

21. Environment Agency, 2009 ‘Updated Technical Background to the CLEA model’.

22. Environment Agency, 2009 ‘Human health toxicological assessment of

contaminants in soil’.

23. Department of the Environment, 1994, CLR Report No 1 ‘A framework for assessing

the impact of contaminated land on groundwater and surface water’.

24. Department of the Environment, 1994, CLR Report No 2 ‘Guidance on Preliminary

Site Inspection of Contaminated Land’.

25. Department of the Environment, 1994, CLR Report No 3 ‘Documentary research on

Industrial Sites’.

LC/C2861/6243



26. Department of the Environment, 1994, CLR Report No 4 ‘Sampling Strategies for

Contaminated Land’.

27. DEFRA and the Environment Agency, 2002-2004, CLR10 ‘Soil Guideline Value

Reports for Individual Soil Contaminants’.

28. DEFRA and the Environment Agency, 2004, CLR Report No 11 ‘Model Procedures for

the Management of Contaminated Land’.

29. Nathanail, C. P., McCaffrey, C., Gillett, A., Ogden, R. C. and Nathanail, J.F. 2015. The

LQM/CIEH S4ULs for Human Health Risk Assessment. Land Quality Press,

Nottingham.

30. CL:AIRE, 2014 ‘Development of Category 4 Screening Levels for Assessment of Land

Affected by Contamination’.

31. Water Framework Directive.

32. Environmental Quality Standards.

33. UK Drinking Water Standards: Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (SI

1989/1147) and Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations

34. UKWIR Report 10/WM/03/21 2010 “Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply

Pipes to be used in Brownfield Sites”

35. Health & Safety Executive, 1991. ‘Protection of Workers & the General Public during

the Development of Contaminated Land’.

36. Environment Agency & NHBC, 2000. R&D Publication 66. Guidance for the Safe

Development of Housing on Land Affected by Contamination.

37. Environment Agency “Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste (1st

edition 2015) Technical Guidance WM3”

38. CL:AIRE “The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice” Version

2 March 2011.

39. CIRIA “Asbestos in soil and made ground: a guide to understanding and managing

risks” C733 2014

40. BRE Report 465 “Cover Systems for Land Regeneration” 2004.

41. Privett, K D, Matthews, S C, & Hodges, R, A, ‘Barriers, liners and cover systems for

containment and control of land contamination’ 1996. CIRIA Special Publication 124.

42. BRE Digest 365 “Soakaway Design” 2007.

43. Environment Agency. R&D Publication 20. Methodology for the Derivation of

Remedial Targets for Soil and Groundwater to Protect Water Resources. 1999.

44. Specification for Highways Works – Series 600 Earthworks November 2006.

LC/C2861/6243

Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment Report Aldi Stores Ltd


DRAWINGS

Drawn By: LC Checked By: RW

ALDI STORES LTD

Supplementary

Investigation Site Location

Plan

SITE

Drawing Number C2861/04

Scale: NTS

Murdishaw Avenue,

Runcorn

PT

PT

TP

LP

CB

BIN

RIDGEEAVES

DOOR

LP

LP

G

LP

DOOR

MH

MH

G

G

KOKO

EIC

LIGHT

MH

KOKO

KO

KO

LIGHT

KO

EIC

BT

RS

LP

LP

RS

LP

G

NP

CTV

G

IC

G

RS

G

G

G

RS

LP

CB

ICG

RSRS

NP

MH

G

EIC

TP

EIC

EIC

LP

LP

TP

TB

LP

MH

RS

RS

RS

RS

LP

EIC

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

NP

RSG

G

NP

WSV

WSV

WSV

RS

G

IC

FH

WSV

LP

OT

OT

OT

OT

OT

SAP

LP

LP

G

G

LP

G

G

LP

BT

LP

LP

CB

TP

NP

RS

G

MH

G

G

SP

SP

MH

G

BS

G

SP

G

IC

GRS

RS

RS

RS

LP

BT

LP

RSNP

CTV

LP

LP

DOOR

SP

G

G

G

MH

G

G

G

G

G

G

LP

LP

G

BOLBOL

G

LP

BT

G

G

G

MH

MH

G

G

LP

MH

LP

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BIN

SPSP

TP

G

G

G

DOOR

SP

SP

DR

IC

DOOR

GST

BOL

G

RIDGE

RIDGE

RIDGE

EAVES

EAVES

EAVES

DOOR

MHDR

DOOR

MH

DR

DR

DOOR

SP

SP

PT

BOL

BOL

PT

LP

LPCB

BEN

CH

EIC

CB

LP

RWP

DOOR

DOOR

DOOR

DOOR

DR

RE

ICDR

DR

DOOR

DR

IC

DOOR

IC

RWPDR

PT

PT

PT

PT

PT

IC

RWP

DRDOOR

DOOR

DR

LP

EAVES

EAVES

EAVES

SO1

SO2

SO3

SO4

SO5

SO6

SO7

SO8

SO9

OT

OT

DOOR

DOORDR

G

MH

FH

SP

OT

TARMAC

TAC

W\M

GRASS

TARMAC

C\I

C\I

W\M

2.4

mH

GRASS

TARMAC

GRASS

CONC

GRAVEL

C\I

CO

NC

GRASS

GRASS

C\I

GRASS

TARMAC

GRASS

GRAVEL

CONC

1.2

mH

1.2

mH

GRASS

TARMAC

GRASS

GRASS

1.0

mH

I\ R

TA

C

TARMAC

GRASS

GRASS

TAR

MAC

TARMAC

TARMAC

GRASS

P/W

TAC

TARMAC

GRASS

GRASS

C\ B

P\R

C\B

C\B

PA

VIN

G

TARMAC

PA

VI N

G

GR

AS

S

GR

AS

ST

AR

MA

C

PAVIORS

GRASS

GRASS

TA

RM

AC

SPEED

TA

C

TARMAC

C\B

TARM

AC

TAC

GRASS

TAC

TAC

TA

RM

AC

TA

RM

AC

GR

ASS

GR

AS

S

GRASS

GRASS

TARMAC

P\R

I\R

TARMAC

1.6

mH

CH\L

CH

\L

TARMAC

TAC

TARMAC

GRASS

PAVIORS

GRASS

TARMAC

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

TARMAC

PAVIORS

CO

NC

PAVIORS

GRASS

W\M

CONC

PAVING

BW

I\R

PAVING

TA

RM

AC

TARMAC

CO

NC

BW

GRASS

2.4mH

C\B

C/B

C\B

C\B

0.9

mH

C\ B

GRASS

TAR

MA

C

CONC

GRASS

W\M

CONC

PA

VIN

G

CONC

BW

BRIC

K W

ALL

PAVING

CO

NC

W\ M

RAMP

SPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMPSPEED

RAMPSPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMPSPEED

RAMPSPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMPSPEED

RAMPSPEEDRAMP

BOWLING GREEN

BW

TARMAC

GR

AS

S

TAC

TAC

0.5

mH

2.4mH

CH

\L

1.8m

H

2.4

mH

2.4mH

1.8

mH

1.8

mH

1.0

mH

1.8

mH

1.8

mH

1.8

mH

P\ R

1. 8

mH

1.8

mH

1.8

mH

GA

S TAN

K

NO ACCESS

2.4mH

I \R

I \R

1.2mH

I\ R

1. 0

mH

TA

C

W\M

W\M

2.4

mH

CONTAINER

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

TREES

WHITEHOUSE EXPRESSWAY

MU

RD

I SH

AW

AV

EN

UE

RUNCORN FOOTBALL

CLUB

EXISTING

BUILDING

BRAMBLES

PLAYING FIELDS

TEMPORARY

BUILDING

ELEC SUB

STATION

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

UNABLE TO FULLY SURVEY

NO ACCESS

AT TIME OF SUVERY

RUNCORN

THE HALTON ARMS

P.H

EXISTING

GARAGE

2.4

mH

2.4mH

BUSHES

ST

EP

S

DR

AIN

AG

E C

HA

NN

EL

TARMAC

CAR PARK

PA

VIN

G

TREES

TARMAC

TAR

MA

C

CONC

TAR

MAC

DENSE

TREES/BUSHES

MURDIS

HAW

AVENUE

SALTWOOD DRIVE

TURNSTILE

LINNETS F.C

TE

MPO

RA

RY F

EN

CE

TA

RM

AC

DENSE BUSHES

ST

OC

KH

AM

LA

NE

DENSETREES/BUSHES

TARMAC

NORTHWICH ROAD

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

TREES

/BUSHES

TREES

/BUSHES

TREES

/BUSHES

CAR PARK

TARMAC

CAR PARK

GRASS

FLOOD LIGHT

TREES

/BUSHES

TREES

/BUSHES

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

FLOOD LIGHT

BASE

CONC

FLOOD LIGHT

BASE

FLOOD LIGHT

CONC

BASE

ELB

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

CONCBASE

RS

CONCBASE

RS

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

GRASS

Ac

ce

ss t

oe

xte

rna

l a

rea

Pub/Restaurant10,947sqft Gross

(1,017sqm)7,976sqft (741sqm) Ground Floor

2,971sqft (276sqm) First Floor

Entrance /

Exit

Yard

Proposed Drive Thru

/ Fast Food Restaurant

Entrance

/Exit

Arctic Plant

Enclosure

Pro

po

sed

ALD

I Foo

dsto

re

22800

55000

12499

FREEZ

ER STO

RE

NIG

HT C

HIL

LER

7000

5No. Cycle

Hoops

EX

IT LOBB

YEN

TRA

NC

E

LOB

BY

WC

MA

NA

GER

SO

FFIC

E

PLAN

T RO

OM

LOB

BY

CU

STOM

ER

DISA

BLED

WC

WC

ME

ETING

RO

OM

STAF

F RO

OM

CL

EAN

ER'S

CU

PB

OA

RD

CONTAINER

RUNCORN LINNETS FIRST XI PITCH

GRAVELLED PLAYING PITCH

PLAYING FIELDS

PT

PT

TP

LP

CB

BIN

RIDGE EAVES

DOOR

LP

LP

G

LP

DOOR

MH

MH

G

G

KOKO

EIC

LIGHT

MH

KOKO

KO

KO

LIGHT

KO

EIC

BT

RS

LP

LP

RS

LP

G

NP

CTV

G

IC

G

RS

G

G

G

RS

LP

CB

ICG

RSRS

NP

MH

G

EIC

TP

EIC

EIC

LP

LP

TP

TB

LP

MH

RS

RS

RS

RS

LP

EIC

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

NP

RSG

G

NP

WSV

WSV

WSV

RS

G

IC

FH

WSV

LP

OT

OT

OT

OT

OT

SAP

LP

LP

G

G

LP

G

G

LP

BT

LP

LP

CB

TP

NP

RS

G

MH

G

G

SP

SP

MH

G

BS

G

SP

G

IC

GRS

RS

RS

RS

LP

BT

LP

RSNP

CTV

LP

LP

DOOR

SP

G

G

G

MH

G

G

G

G

G

G

LP

LP

G

BOLBOL

G

LP

BT

G

G

G

MH

MH

G

G

LP

MH

LP

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BOL

BIN

SPSP

TP

G

G

G

DOOR

SP

SP

DR

IC

DOOR

GST

BOL

G

RIDGE

RIDGE

RIDGE

EAVES

EAVES

EAVES

DOOR

MHDR

DOOR

MH

DR

DR

DOOR

SP

SP

PT

BOL

BOL

PT

LP

LPCB

BEN

CH

EIC

CB

LP

RWP

DOOR

DOOR

DOOR

DOOR

DR

RE

ICDR

DR

DOOR

DR

IC

DOOR

IC

RWPDR

PT

PT

PT

PT

PT

IC

RWP

DRDOOR

DOOR

DR

LP

EAVES

EAVES

EAVES

SO1

SO2

SO3

SO4

SO5

SO6

SO7

SO8

SO9

OT

OT

DOOR

DOORDR

G

MH

FH

SP

OT

TARMAC

TAC

W\M

GRASS

TARMAC

C\I

C\I

W\M

2.4

mH

GRASS

TARMAC

GRASS

CONC

GRAVEL

C\I

CO

NC

GRASS

GRASS

C\I

GRASS

TARMAC

GRASS

GRAVEL

CONC

1.2

mH

1.2

mH

GRASS

TARMAC

GRASS

GRASS

1.0

mH

I\R

TA

C

TARMAC

GRASS

GRASS

TA

RM

AC

TARMAC

TARMAC

GRASS

P/W

TAC

TARMAC

GRASS

GRASS

C\B

P\R

C\B

C\B

PA

VIN

G

TARMAC

PA

VIN

G

GR

AS

S

GR

AS

ST

AR

MA

C

PAVIORS

GRASS

GRASS

TA

RM

AC

SPEED

TA

C

TARMAC

C\B

TAR

MAC

TAC

GRASS

TAC

TAC

TA

RM

AC

TAR

MA

C

GR

AS

S

GR

AS

S

GRASS

GRASS

TARMAC

P\R

I\R

TARMAC

1.6

mH

CH\L

CH

\L

TARMAC

TAC

TARMAC

GRASS

PAVIORS

GRASS

TARMAC

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

TARMAC

PAVIORS

CO

NC

PAVIORS

GRASS

W\M

CONC

PAVING

BW

I\R

PAVING

TAR

MAC

TARMAC

CO

NC

BW

GRASS

2.4mH

C\B

C/ B

C\B

C\ B

0. 9

mH

C\B

GRASS

TAR

MAC

CONC

GRASS

W\M

CONC

PA

VIN

G

CONC

BW

BR

ICK

WALL

PAVING

CO

NC

W\M

RAMP

SPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMPSPEED

RAMPSPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMPSPEED

RAMPSPEEDRAMP

SPEEDRAMPSPEED

RAMPSPEEDRAMP

BOWLING GREEN

BW

TARMAC

GR

AS

S

TAC

TAC

0.5

mH

2.4mH

CH

\L

1.8

mH

2.4

mH

2.4mH

1. 8

mH

1.8

mH

1.0

mH

1.8

mH

1. 8

mH

1. 8

mH

P\R

1.8

mH

1. 8

mH

1.8

mH

GAS T

AN

K

NO ACCESS

2.4mH

I \R

I \R

1.2mH

I\R

1.0

mH

TA

C

W\M

W\M

2.4

mH

CONTAINER

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

TREES

WHITEHOUSE EXPRESSWAY

MU

RD

ISH

AW

AV

EN

UE

RUNCORN FOOTBALL

CLUB

EXISTING

BUILDING

BRAMBLES

PLAYING FIELDS

TEMPORARY

BUILDING

ELEC SUB

STATION

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

UNABLE TO FULLY SURVEY

NO ACCESS

AT TIME OF SUVERY

RUNCORN

THE HALTON ARMS

P.H

EXISTING

GARAGE

2.4

mH

2.4m

H

BUSHES

ST

EP

S

DRA

INAG

E C

HAN

NEL

TARMAC

CAR PARK

PAV

ING

TREES

TARMAC

TAR

MAC

CONC

TA

RM

AC

DENSE

TREES/BUSHES

MURDIS

HAW

AVENUE

SALTWOOD DRIVE

TURN

STILE

LINNETS F.C

TEM

PO

RAR

Y FE

NCE

TAR

MAC

DENSE BUSHES

ST

OC

KH

AM

LA

NE

DENSETREES/BUSHES

TARMAC

NORTHWICH ROAD

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

TREES

/BUSHES

TREES

/BUSHES

TREES

/BUSHES

CAR PARK

TARMAC

CAR PARK

GRASS

FLOOD LIGHT

TREES

/BUSHES

TREES

/BUSHES

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

FLOOD LIGHT

BASE

CONC

FLOOD LIGHT

BASE

FLOOD LIGHT

CONC

BASE

ELB

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

CONC

BASE

RS

CONC

BASE

RS

DENSE TREES/BUSHES

GRASS

Ac

ce

ss to

ex

tern

al a

rea

Pub/Restaurant10,947sqft Gross

(1,017sqm)7,976sqft (741sqm) Ground Floor

2,971sqft (276sqm) First Floor

Entrance /

Exit

Yard

Proposed Drive Thru

/ Fast Food Restaurant

Entrance

/Exit

Arctic Plant

Enclosure

Pro

po

sed

ALD

I Fo

od

store

22800

5500

0

12499

FRE

EZER STO

RE

NIG

HT C

HILLE

R

7000

5No. Cycle

Hoops

EXIT LO

BBY

EN

TRA

NC

E

LOB

BY

WC

MA

NA

GE

RSO

FFICE

PLA

NT R

OO

M

LOB

BY

CU

STOM

ER

DIS

AB

LED

WC

WC

ME

ETING

RO

OM

STAFF

RO

OM

CLE

AN

ER

'S

CU

PBO

ARD

B

A

WS204

WS205

WS206

SA03

SA04

WS202

WS201

WS203

WS207

WS208

LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX A

Exploratory Hole Logs

Borehole LogBorehole No.

WS201Sheet 1 of 1

Project Name: MURDISHAW AVENUEProject No.C2861

Co-ords: -Hole Type

WS

Location: RUNCORN Level:Scale1:25

Client: ALDI STORES LTD Dates: 02/06/2016 -Logged By

LC

Remarks1. Hand excavated pit to 1.00m.2. No Groundwater encountered. 3. Hole terminated at 3.25m due to refusal on bedrock.4. Installation: Plain pipe from ground level to 0.50m, slotted pipe from 0.50m to 2.70m.

Well Water Strikes

Samples and In Situ Testing

Depth (m) Type ResultsDepth

(m)

0.40

0.95

2.60

3.25

Level(m) Legend Stratum Description

Grass over dark brown clayey sandy TOPSOIL.

Orange brown slightly clayey fine to coarse SAND.

Stiff brown sandy CLAY with rare subrounded fine gravel of mixed lithologies.

Very sandy between 1.10m and 1.50m.

Clay is of medium strength at 2.00m.

Very weak red brown MUDSTONE highly weathered (recovered as very stiff laminated clay with fine mudstone gravel).

End of borehole at 3.25 m

1

2

3

4

5

0.20 ES

0.50 ES

1.00 N=18 (2,3/4,4,4,6)1.00 D

1.50 D

2.00 U Ublow=40

2.70 D2.80 N=64

(7,9/12,14,17,21)


WS202Sheet 1 of 1


Co-ords: -Hole Type

WS



LC

Remarks1. Hand excavated pit to 1.00m.2. No Groundwater encountered. 3. Hole terminated at 3.45m due to refusal on bedrock.4. Installation: Plain pipe from ground level to 0.50m, slotted pipe from 0.50m to 3.00m.

Well Water Strikes



(m)

0.25

1.60

2.00

2.20

3.45


Grass over dark brown clayey sandy TOPSOIL.

Brown friable sandy CLAY of medium strength.

Dessicated above 1.00m.

Brown damp slightly clayey fine to coarse SAND.

Stiff brown slightly sandy CLAY.


Mottled grey below 2.85m.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ES

0.80 D

1.00 U Ublow=11

1.65 ES

2.00 N=13 (1,1/2,3,3,5)

2.25 D

3.00 N=68 (6,9/14,14,18,22)


WS203Sheet 1 of 1


Co-ords: -Hole Type

WS



LC

Remarks1. Hand excavated pit to 1.00m.2. No Groundwater encountered. 3. Hole terminated at 2.45m due to refusal on bedrock.4. Hole backfilled with arising upon completion.

Well Water Strikes



(m)

0.10

1.40

2.45


MADE GROUND: Grey fine to coarse sand and angular to subangular fine to coarse gravel of limestone and other mixed lithologies. Firm red brown sandy CLAY with rare subrounded fine gravel of mixed lithologies.

Firm between 0.90m and 1.40m.



1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ES

1.00 N=15 (1,2/3,3,4,5)1.00 D

1.55 D

2.00 N=59 (7,10/14,14,14,17)


WS204Sheet 1 of 1


Co-ords: -Hole Type

WS



LC

Remarks1. Hand excavated pit to 1.00m.2. Groundwater encountered at 2.00m. 3. Hole collapsed to 3.20m.4. Hole backfilled with arising upon completion.

Well Water Strikes



(m)

0.50

1.25

4.45


MADE GROUND: Grass over sandy clayey topsoil.

Slightly ashy below 0.30m.

Medium dense orange fine to coarse SAND.

Medium dense grey slightly clayey fine to medium SAND.

Saturated at 2.00m.Silty between 2.00m and 2.05m

Silty between 3.05m and 3.10m.


1

2

3

4

5

0.35 ES

0.60 ES

1.00 N=25 (4,5/5,6,7,7)

1.50 D

2.00 N=13 (1,1/2,3,4,4)

3.00 N=19 (3,3/4,5,5,5)3.00 D

4.00 N=24 (4,5/6,6,6,6)


WS205Sheet 1 of 1


Co-ords: -Hole Type

WS



LC

Remarks1. Hand excavated pit to 1.00m.2. Groundwater encountered at 2.00m. 3. Hole collapsed to 3.30m, redrilled for installation. 4. Installation: Plain pipe from ground level to 1.00m, slotted pipe from 1.00m to 4.00m.

Well Water Strikes



(m)

0.40

0.95

1.60

4.45


Grass over clayey sandy TOPSOIL.

Medium dense grey slightly silty fine to medium SAND.

Rare subangular coarse gravel of mudstone at 0.80m.

Medium dense brown fine to coarse SAND.Saturated below 1.05m.

Medium dense very light cream slightly silty fine SAND. Saturated throughout.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 D0.50 ES

1.00 N=23 (2,3/4,6,6,7)1.00 ES

1.70 D

2.00 N=19 (2,3/4,3,5,7)

2.70 D

3.00 N=22 (2,5/4,5,6,7)

4.00 N=20 (4,6/4,4,5,7)


WS206Sheet 1 of 1


Co-ords: -Hole Type

WS



LC

Remarks1. Hand excavated pit to 1.00m.2. No groundwater encountered. 3. Hole backfilled with arisings upon completion.

Well Water Strikes



(m)

0.60

1.20

3.00



Orange brown clayey fine to coarse SAND.

Saturated between 1.00m and 1.20m.

Soft to firm brown slightly sandy CLAY.

Sand band between 1.70m and 1.72m

Stiff below 1.80m.


1

2

3

4

5

0.60 ES

1.25 D

2.00 D


WS207Sheet 1 of 1


Co-ords: -Hole Type

WS



LC

Remarks1. Hand excavated pit to 1.00m.2. No groundwater encountered. 3. Hole terminated at 2.00m on bedrock. 4. Hole backfilled with arisings upon completion.

Well Water Strikes



(m)

0.10

0.40

1.20

2.00


MADE GROUND: Grey fine to coarse sand and angular to subangular fine to coarse gravel of limestone and other mixed lithologies. Firm to stiff brown sandy CLAY.

Stiff red brown laminated CLAY with green grey clay bands (residual bedrock).



1

2

3

4

5

0.20 ES

1.00 D

2.00 D


WS208Sheet 1 of 1


Co-ords: -Hole Type

WS



LC

Remarks1. Hand excavated pit to 1.00m.2. No groundwater encountered. 3. Hole terminated at 2.00m on bedrock. 4. Hole backfilled with arisings upon completion.

Well Water Strikes



(m)

0.30

0.50

1.50

2.00



Very stiff slightly sandy CLAY with rare subrounded fine gravel of mixed lithologies.

Stiff red brown laminated CLAY with green grey clay bands (residual bedrock).



1

2

3

4

5

0.30 ES

0.50 D

1.50 D

Trial Pit LogTrialpit No

SA03Sheet 1 of 1

Project Name: MURDISHAW AVENUE

Project No.C2861

Co-ords:Level:

- Date01/06/2016

Location:

Client:

RUNCORN

ALDI STORES LTD

Dimensions (m):

Depth1.47

Scale1:25

LoggedLC

Remarks:

Stability:

1. No groundwater encountered. 2. Soakaway carried out at 1.47m for 2 hours.3. Sides stable throughout.4. Hole backfilled with arisings upon completion.

Wat

erSt

rike Samples and In Situ Testing

Depth Type ResultsDepth

(m)

0.65

1.47



Orange brown very clayey fine to coarse SAND.

Pockets of friable sandy clay below 1.20m.

End of pit at 1.47 m

1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ES

0.70 ES

Trial Pit LogTrialpit No

SA04Sheet 1 of 1

Project Name: MURDISHAW AVENUE

Project No.C2861

Co-ords:Level:

- Date01/06/2016

Location:

Client:

RUNCORN

ALDI STORES LTD

Dimensions (m):

Depth1.27

Scale1:25

LoggedLC

Remarks:

Stability:

1. No groundwater encountered. 2. Soakaway carried out at 1.27m for 2 hours.3. Sides stable throughout.4. Hole backfilled with arisings upon completion.

Wat

erSt

rike Samples and In Situ Testing

Depth Type ResultsDepth

(m)

0.50

1.27



Orange brown mottled grey sandy CLAY with rare subrounded fine to medium gravel of mixed lithologies.

Pockets of sand below 1.10m.

End of pit at 1.27 m

1

2

3

4

5

0.00 - 0.50 ES

LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX B

Chemical Laboratory Testing Results

Unit 3 Deeside Point

Zone 3

Deeside Industrial Park

Deeside

Brownfield Solutions Limited

Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :

Date samples received :

Status :

Issue :

Twelve samples were received for analysis on 7th June, 2016 of which eleven were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report

which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the

scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.

All analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.

Phil Sommerton BSc

Project Manager

21st June, 2016

C2861

Murdishaw Avenue

7th June, 2016

Final report

Compiled By:

Test Report 16/9929 Batch 1

1

Jones Environmental Laboratory

CH5 2UA

Tel: +44 (0) 1244 833780

Fax: +44 (0) 1244 833781

Lucy Crawford

173-183 Witton Street

Northwich

Cheshire

CW9 5LP

Registered Address : Unit 3 Deeside Point, Zone 3, Deeside Industrial Park, Deeside, CH5 2UA. UK

QF-PM 3.1.1 v16

Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced

All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 1 of 16

Client Name: Report : Solid

Reference:

Location: Solids: V=60g VOC jar, J=250g glass jar, T=plastic tub

Contact:

JE Job No.: 16/9929

J E Sample No. 1-3 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30 31-33

Sample ID WS201 WS202 WS202 WS203 WS204 WS204 WS205 WS205 WS206 WS207

Depth 0.20 0.50 1.65 0.50 0.35 0.60 0.50 1.00 0.60 0.20

COC No / misc

Containers V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Sample Date 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016

Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016

Arsenic # 9.2 4.5 - 5.6 4.2 2.5 1.0 - 4.5 4.2 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Cadmium # 0.2 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Chromium # 40.9 43.2 - 45.8 32.8 10.2 2.6 - 35.0 46.0 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Copper # 22 17 - 14 3 5 4 - 4 6 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Lead # 38 14 - 5 9 <5 <5 - <5 5 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Mercury # <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Nickel # 16.5 21.2 - 32.8 5.2 8.8 2.1 - 19.1 33.4 <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Selenium # 1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Zinc # 75 57 - 38 11 13 <5 - 20 60 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

PAH MS

Naphthalene # <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthylene <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthene # <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluorene # <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Phenanthrene # 0.05 0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Anthracene # <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluoranthene # 0.15 0.10 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Pyrene # 0.14 0.09 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)anthracene # 0.08 0.07 - <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 - <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Chrysene # 0.11 0.08 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene # 0.16 0.11 - <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 - <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)pyrene # 0.09 0.07 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Indeno(123cd)pyrene # 0.05 0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(ghi)perylene # <0.04 0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Coronene <0.04 <0.04 - - - - <0.04 - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 16 Total 0.8 0.6 - <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 - <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 17 Total 0.83 <0.64 - - - - <0.64 - - - <0.64 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.12 0.08 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.04 0.03 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH Surrogate % Recovery 93 112 - 96 92 98 104 - 94 104 <0 % TM4/PM8

Mineral Oil (C10-C40) <30 <30 - - - - <30 - - - <30 mg/kg TM5/PM16

MTBE # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

Benzene # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

Toluene # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

Ethylbenzene # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

m/p-Xylene # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

o-Xylene # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

PCB 28 # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

PCB 52 # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

Murdishaw Avenue

Lucy Crawford

Please see attached notes for all

abbreviations and acronyms

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C2861

QF-PM 3.1.2 v11




Reference:


Contact:

JE Job No.: 16/9929

J E Sample No. 1-3 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30 31-33

Sample ID WS201 WS202 WS202 WS203 WS204 WS204 WS205 WS205 WS206 WS207

Depth 0.20 0.50 1.65 0.50 0.35 0.60 0.50 1.00 0.60 0.20

COC No / misc

Containers V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Sample Date 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 02/06/2016

Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016

PCB 101 # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

PCB 118 # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

PCB 138 # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

PCB 153 # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

PCB 180 # <5 <5 - - - - <5 - - - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

Total 7 PCBs # <35 <35 - - - - <35 - - - <35 ug/kg TM17/PM8

Total Phenols HPLC 0.18 <0.15 - <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 - <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 mg/kg TM26/PM21

Natural Moisture Content 21.3 10.6 - 13.4 12.4 10.1 7.2 - 12.6 18.6 <0.1 % PM4/PM0

Hexavalent Chromium # <0.3 <0.3 - <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 - <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 mg/kg TM38/PM20

Sulphate as SO4 (2:1 Ext) # <0.0015 0.0155 0.0070 0.0396 <0.0015 0.0023 <0.0015 0.0017 0.0023 <0.0015 <0.0015 g/l TM38/PM20

Total Cyanide # <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Total Organic Carbon # 1.76 0.14 - - - - 0.35 - - - <0.02 % TM21/PM24

Organic Matter 3.0 0.2 - <0.2 1.3 <0.2 0.6 - <0.2 0.2 <0.2 % TM21/PM24

ANC at pH4 0.03 <0.03 - - - - <0.03 - - - <0.03 mol/kg TM77/PM0

ANC at pH7 NDP <0.03 - - - - NDP - - - <0.03 mol/kg TM77/PM0

Loss on Ignition # 6.2 1.9 - - - - 1.0 - - - <1.0 % TM22/PM0

pH # 6.21 7.99 7.42 7.54 6.79 7.00 6.93 6.89 6.98 7.99 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C2861

Murdishaw Avenue

Lucy Crawford



QF-PM 3.1.2 v11




Reference:


Contact:

JE Job No.: 16/9929

J E Sample No. 34-36

Sample ID WS208

Depth 0.30

COC No / misc

Containers V J T

Sample Date 02/06/2016

Sample Type Soil

Batch Number 1

Date of Receipt 07/06/2016

Arsenic # 5.0 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Cadmium # <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Chromium # 43.7 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Copper # 6 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Lead # 6 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Mercury # <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Nickel # 24.8 <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Selenium # <1 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Zinc # 48 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

PAH MS

Naphthalene # <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthylene <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthene # <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluorene # <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Phenanthrene # <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Anthracene # <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluoranthene # <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Pyrene # <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)anthracene # <0.06 <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Chrysene # <0.02 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene # <0.07 <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)pyrene # <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Indeno(123cd)pyrene # <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(ghi)perylene # <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Coronene - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 16 Total <0.6 <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 17 Total - <0.64 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(k)fluoranthene <0.02 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH Surrogate % Recovery 95 <0 % TM4/PM8

Mineral Oil (C10-C40) - <30 mg/kg TM5/PM16

MTBE # - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

Benzene # - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

Toluene # - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

Ethylbenzene # - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

m/p-Xylene # - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

o-Xylene # - <5 ug/kg TM31/PM12

PCB 28 # - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

PCB 52 # - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

Murdishaw Avenue

Lucy Crawford



LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C2861

QF-PM 3.1.2 v11




Reference:


Contact:

JE Job No.: 16/9929

J E Sample No. 34-36

Sample ID WS208

Depth 0.30

COC No / misc

Containers V J T

Sample Date 02/06/2016

Sample Type Soil

Batch Number 1

Date of Receipt 07/06/2016

PCB 101 # - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

PCB 118 # - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

PCB 138 # - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

PCB 153 # - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

PCB 180 # - <5 ug/kg TM17/PM8

Total 7 PCBs # - <35 ug/kg TM17/PM8

Total Phenols HPLC <0.15 <0.15 mg/kg TM26/PM21

Natural Moisture Content 16.4 <0.1 % PM4/PM0

Hexavalent Chromium # <0.3 <0.3 mg/kg TM38/PM20

Sulphate as SO4 (2:1 Ext) # 0.0025 <0.0015 g/l TM38/PM20

Total Cyanide # <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Total Organic Carbon # - <0.02 % TM21/PM24

Organic Matter 0.2 <0.2 % TM21/PM24

ANC at pH4 - <0.03 mol/kg TM77/PM0

ANC at pH7 - <0.03 mol/kg TM77/PM0

Loss on Ignition # - <1.0 % TM22/PM0

pH # 7.44 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C2861

Murdishaw Avenue

Lucy Crawford



QF-PM 3.1.2 v11



Mass of sample taken (kg) - Moisture Content Ratio (%) = 29.8

Mass of dry sample (kg) = 0.09 Dry Matter Content Ratio (%) = 77.1

Particle Size <4mm = >95%

JEFL Job No

Sample No

Client Sample No

Depth/Other

Sample Date

Batch No

Solid Waste Analysis

Total Organic Carbon (%) 1.76 3 5 6

Loss on Ignition (%) 6.2 - - 10

Sum of BTEX (mg/kg) <0.025 6 - -

Sum of 7 PCBs (mg/kg) <0.035 1 - -

Mineral Oil (mg/kg) <30 500 - -

PAH Sum of 17(mg/kg) 0.83 100 - -

pH (pH Units) 6.21 - >6 -

ANC to pH 7 (mol/kg) NDP - to be evaluated to be evaluated

ANC to pH 4 (mol/kg) 0.03 - to be evaluated to be evaluated

C10 A10

mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic <0.0025 <0.025 0.5 2 25

Barium 0.010 0.10 20 100 300

Cadmium <0.0005 <0.005 0.04 1 5

Chromium <0.0015 <0.015 0.5 10 70

Copper 0.011 0.11 2 50 100

Mercury <0.001 <0.01 0.01 0.2 2

Molybdenum <0.002 <0.02 0.5 10 30

Nickel <0.002 <0.02 0.4 10 40

Lead <0.005 <0.05 0.5 10 50

Antimony 0.003 0.03 0.06 0.7 5

Selenium <0.003 <0.03 0.1 0.5 7

Zinc 0.009 0.09 4 50 200

Chloride 1.2 12 800 15000 25000

Fluoride <0.3 <3 10 150 500

Sulphate as SO4 1.05 10.5 1000 20000 50000

Total Dissolved Solids 340 3399 4000 60000 100000

Phenol <0.01 <0.1 1 - -

Dissolved Organic Carbon 17 170 500 800 1000

02/06/2016

1

Eluate Analysis

10:1 concn

leached

Limit values for compliance

leaching test using

BS EN 12457-2 at L/S 10 l/kg

mg/kg

Jones Environmental Laboratory CEN 10:1 LEACHATE RESULTS PrEN 12547-2

16/9929 Landfill Waste Acceptance

Criteria Limits 3

WS201

Inert

Waste

Landfill

Stable

Non-reactive

Hazardous

Waste in Non-

Hazardous

Landfill

Hazardous

Waste

Landfill

0.20

QF-PM 3.1.14 v5






JEFL Job No

Sample No

Client Sample No

Depth/Other

Sample Date

Batch No





Sum of 7 PCBs (mg/kg) <0.035 1 - -


PAH Sum of 17(mg/kg) <0.64 100 - -

pH (pH Units) 7.99 - >6 -

ANC to pH 7 (mol/kg) <0.03 - to be evaluated to be evaluated


C10 A10

mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic <0.0025 <0.025 0.5 2 25

Barium 0.008 0.08 20 100 300

Cadmium <0.0005 <0.005 0.04 1 5

Chromium <0.0015 <0.015 0.5 10 70

Copper <0.007 <0.07 2 50 100

Mercury <0.001 <0.01 0.01 0.2 2

Molybdenum <0.002 <0.02 0.5 10 30

Nickel <0.002 <0.02 0.4 10 40

Lead <0.005 <0.05 0.5 10 50

Antimony <0.002 <0.02 0.06 0.7 5

Selenium <0.003 <0.03 0.1 0.5 7

Zinc 0.004 0.04 4 50 200

Chloride <0.3 <3 800 15000 25000

Fluoride <0.3 <3 10 150 500

Sulphate as SO4 1.47 14.7 1000 20000 50000


Phenol <0.01 <0.1 1 - -


02/06/2016

1

Eluate Analysis

10:1 concn

leached


leaching test using

BS EN 12457-2 at L/S 10 l/kg

mg/kg



Criteria Limits 9

WS202

Inert

Waste

Landfill

Stable

Non-reactive

Hazardous

Waste in Non-

Hazardous

Landfill

Hazardous

Waste

Landfill

0.50

QF-PM 3.1.14 v5






JEFL Job No

Sample No

Client Sample No

Depth/Other

Sample Date

Batch No





Sum of 7 PCBs (mg/kg) <0.035 1 - -


PAH Sum of 17(mg/kg) <0.64 100 - -

pH (pH Units) 6.93 - >6 -

ANC to pH 7 (mol/kg) NDP - to be evaluated to be evaluated


C10 A10

mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic <0.0025 <0.025 0.5 2 25

Barium <0.003 <0.03 20 100 300

Cadmium <0.0005 <0.005 0.04 1 5

Chromium <0.0015 <0.015 0.5 10 70

Copper <0.007 <0.07 2 50 100

Mercury <0.001 <0.01 0.01 0.2 2

Molybdenum <0.002 <0.02 0.5 10 30

Nickel <0.002 <0.02 0.4 10 40

Lead <0.005 <0.05 0.5 10 50

Antimony <0.002 <0.02 0.06 0.7 5

Selenium <0.003 <0.03 0.1 0.5 7

Zinc <0.003 <0.03 4 50 200

Chloride <0.3 <3 800 15000 25000

Fluoride 0.5 5 10 150 500

Sulphate as SO4 1.34 13.4 1000 20000 50000


Phenol <0.01 <0.1 1 - -


02/06/2016

1

Eluate Analysis

10:1 concn

leached


leaching test using

BS EN 12457-2 at L/S 10 l/kg

mg/kg



Criteria Limits 24

WS205

Inert

Waste

Landfill

Stable

Non-reactive

Hazardous

Waste in Non-

Hazardous

Landfill

Hazardous

Waste

Landfill

0.50

QF-PM 3.1.14 v5



Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

J E

Job

No.

Batch Depth

J E

Sample

No.

Date Of

AnalysisAnalysis Result

16/9929 1 0.20 2 16/06/2016 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil/stones

16/06/2016 Asbestos Fibres NAD

16/06/2016 Asbestos Fibres (2) NAD

16/06/2016 Asbestos ACM NAD

16/06/2016 Asbestos ACM (2) NAD

16/06/2016 Asbestos Type NAD

16/06/2016 Asbestos Type (2) NAD

16/06/2016 Asbestos Level Screen NAD

16/9929 1 0.35 17 16/06/2016 General Description (Bulk Analysis) Soil-Silt/Clay/Brick/Stone
























WS208

WS207

WS204

Ryan Butterworth

Asbestos Team Leader

Sample ID

WS201

Analysis was carried out in accordance with our documented in-house methods PM042 and TM065 and HSG 248 by Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy using Dispersion

Staining Techniques and is covered by our UKAS accreditation. Samples are retained for not less than 6 months from the date of analysis unless specifically requested.

Opinions lie outside the scope of our UKAS accreditation.

Where the sample is not taken by a Jones Environmental Laboratory consultant, Jones Environmental Laboratory cannot be responsible for inaccurate or unrepresentative

sampling.

Signed on behalf of Jones Environmental Laboratory:

Jones Environmental Laboratory Asbestos Analysis


C2861

Murdishaw Avenue

Lucy Crawford

QF-PM 3.1.15 v9 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 9 of 16

NDP Reason Report

Matrix : Solid

J E

Job

No.

Batch Depth J E Sample

No.NDP Reason

16/9929 1 0.20 1-3 Sample received is below pH7

16/9929 1 0.50 22-24 Sample received is below pH7

Contact: Lucy Crawford

Sample ID

WS201

WS205

Client Name: Brownfield Solutions Limited

Reference: C2861

Location: Murdishaw Avenue



Notification of Deviating Samples

Matrix : Solid

J E

Job

No.

Batch Depth J E Sample

No.Analysis Reason

16/9929 1 0.20 1-3 GRO Solid Samples were received at a temperature above 9°C.



Please note that only samples that are deviating are mentioned in this report. If no samples are listed it is because none were deviating.

Only analyses which are accredited are recorded as deviating if set criteria are not met.

WS202

WS205

Location: Murdishaw Avenue

Contact: Lucy Crawford

Sample ID

WS201


Client Name: Brownfield Solutions Limited

Reference: C2861


JE Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

NOTE

It is assumed that you have taken representative samples on site and require analysis on a representative subsample. Stones will generally be

included unless we are requested to remove them.

ISO17025 (UKAS) accreditation applies to surface water and groundwater and one other matrix which is analysis specific, any other liquids are

outside our scope of accreditation.

As surface waters require different sample preparation to groundwaters the laboratory must be informed of the water type when submitting samples.

Where appropriate please make sure that our detection limits are suitable for your needs, if they are not, please notify us immediately.

Surrogate compounds are added during the preparation process to monitor recovery of analytes. However low recovery in soils is often due to peat,

clay or other organic rich matrices. For waters this can be due to oxidants, surfactants, organic rich sediments or remediation fluids. Acceptable

limits for most organic methods are 70 - 130% and for VOCs are 50 - 150%. When surrogate recoveries are outside the performance criteria but

the associated AQC passes this is assumed to be due to matrix effect. Results are not surrogate corrected.

A dilution suffix indicates a dilution has been performed and the reported result takes this into account. No further calculation is required.

If you have not already done so, please send us a purchase order if this is required by your company.

NOTES TO ACCOMPANY ALL SCHEDULES AND REPORTS

Please note we are only MCERTS accredited (UK soils only) for sand, loam and clay and any other matrix is outside our scope of accreditation.

Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.

16/9929

WATERS

Data is only reported if the laboratory is confident that the data is a true reflection of the samples analysed. Data is only reported as accredited when

all the requirements of our Quality System have been met. In certain circumstances where all the requirements of the Quality System have not been

met, for instance if the associated AQC has failed, the reason is fully investigated and documented. The sample data is then evaluated alongside

the other quality control checks performed during analysis to determine its suitability. Following this evaluation, provided the sample results have not

been effected, the data is reported but accreditation is removed. It is a UKAS requirement for data not reported as accredited to be considered

indicative only, but this does not mean the data is not valid.

Where possible, and if requested, samples will be re-extracted and a revised report issued with accredited results. Please do not hesitate to contact

the laboratory if further details are required of the circumstances which have led to the removal of accreditation.

Where an MCERTS report has been requested, you will be notified within 48 hours of any samples that have been identified as being outside our

MCERTS scope. As validation has been performed on clay, sand and loam, only samples that are predominantly these matrices, or combinations

of them will be within our MCERTS scope. If samples are not one of a combination of the above matrices they will not be marked as MCERTS

accredited.

Negative Neutralization Potential (NP) values are obtained when the volume of NaOH (0.1N) titrated (pH 8.3) is greater than the volume of HCl (1N)

to reduce the pH of the sample to 2.0 - 2.5. Any negative NP values are corrected to 0.

Where a CEN 10:1 ZERO Headspace VOC test has been carried out, a 10:1 ratio of water to wet (as received) soil has been used.

All samples will be discarded one month after the date of reporting, unless we are instructed to the contrary.

% Asbestos in Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) is determined by reference to HSG 264 The Survey Guide - Appendix 2 : ACMs in buildings

listed in order of ease of fibre release.

All analysis is reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected. Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C unless

otherwise stated. Moisture content for CEN Leachate tests are dried at 105°C ±5°C.

Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.

Please note we are not a UK Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) Approved Laboratory .

Samples must be received in a condition appropriate to the requested analyses. All samples should be submitted to the laboratory in suitable

containers with sufficient ice packs to sustain an appropriate temperature for the requested analysis. If this is not the case you will be informed and

any test results that may be compromised highlighted on your deviating samples report.

QF-PM 3.1.9 v32



JE Job No.:

#

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

++

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C

Dilution required.

ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS USED

Outside Calibration Range

No Fibres Detected

Result outside calibration range, results should be considered as indicative only and are not accredited.

Results expressed on as received basis.

Surrogate recovery outside performance criteria. This may be due to a matrix effect.

MCERTS accredited.

ISO17025 (UKAS) accredited - UK.

16/9929

AQC failure, accreditation has been removed from this result, if appropriate, see 'Note' on previous page.

Calibrated against a single substance

Not applicable

No Asbestos Detected.

No Determination Possible

Indicates analyte found in associated method blank.

None Detected (usually refers to VOC and/SVOC TICs).

Analysis subcontracted to a Jones Environmental approved laboratory.

Matrix Effect

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample

AQC Sample

Suspected carry over

Limit of Detection (Limit of Reporting) in line with ISO 17025 and MCERTS

QF-PM 3.1.9 v32



JE Job No: 16/9929

Test Method No. Description

Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

DescriptionISO

17025

(UKAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

PM4Gravimetric measurement of Natural Moisture Content and % Moisture Content at either

35°C or 105°C. Calculation based on ISO 11465 and BS1377.PM0 No preparation is required.

PM4Gravimetric measurement of Natural Moisture Content and % Moisture Content at either

35°C or 105°C. Calculation based on ISO 11465 and BS1377.PM0 No preparation is required. AR

TM4Modified USEPA 8270 method for the solvent extraction and determination of 16 PAHs

by GC-MS. PM8

End over end extraction of solid samples for organic analysis. The solvent mix varies

depending on analysis required.AR Yes

TM4Modified USEPA 8270 method for the solvent extraction and determination of 16 PAHs

by GC-MS. PM8


depending on analysis required.Yes AR Yes

TM5Modified USEPA 8015B method for the determination of solvent Extractable Petroleum

Hydrocarbons (EPH) with carbon banding within the range C8-C40 GC-FID. PM16 Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a Rapid Trace SPE. AR Yes

TM17Modified US EPA method 8270. Determination of specific Polychlorinated Biphenyl

congeners by GC-MS.PM8


depending on analysis required.Yes AR Yes

TM20 Modified USEPA 8163. Gravimetric determination of Total Dissolved Solids/Total Solids PM0 No preparation is required. AR Yes

TM21

Modified USEPA 415.1. Determination of Total Organic Carbon or Total Carbon by

combustion in an Eltra TOC furnace/analyser in the presence of oxygen. The CO2

generated is quantified using infra-red detection.

PM24Dried and ground solid samples are washed with hydrochloric acid, then rinsed with

deionised water to remove the mineral carbon before TOC analysis.AD Yes

TM21

Modified USEPA 415.1. Determination of Total Organic Carbon or Total Carbon by

combustion in an Eltra TOC furnace/analyser in the presence of oxygen. The CO2

generated is quantified using infra-red detection.

PM24Dried and ground solid samples are washed with hydrochloric acid, then rinsed with

deionised water to remove the mineral carbon before TOC analysis.Yes AD Yes

TM22Modified USEPA 160.4. Gravimetric determination of Loss on Ignition by temperature

controlled Muffle Furnace (450°C)PM0 No preparation is required. Yes AD Yes

Jones Environmental Laboratory Method Code Appendix


JE Job No: 16/9929


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

DescriptionISO

17025

(UKAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM26Determination of phenols by Reversed Phased High Performance Liquid

Chromatography and Electro-Chemical Detection.PM0 No preparation is required. AR Yes

TM26Determination of phenols by Reversed Phased High Performance Liquid

Chromatography and Electro-Chemical Detection.PM21

As received solid or water samples are extracted in Methanol: Sodium Hydroxide (0.1M

NaOH) (60:40) by orbital shaker.AR Yes

TM27Modified US EPA method 9056.Determination of water soluble anions using Dionex (Ion-

Chromatography).PM0 No preparation is required. AR Yes

TM30Determination of Trace Metal elements by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma -

Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7PM15

Acid digestion of dried and ground solid samples using Aqua Regia refluxed at 112.5 °C.

Samples containing asbestos are not dried and ground.Yes AD Yes

TM30Determination of Trace Metal elements by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma -

Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7PM17

Modified method EN12457-2 As received solid samples are leached with water in a 10:1

water to soil ratio for 24 hours, the moisture content of the sample is included in the ratio.Yes AR Yes

TM31Modified USEPA 8015B. Determination of Methyltertbutylether, Benzene, Toluene,

Ethylbenzene and Xylene by headspace GC-FID.PM12

Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC

headspace analysis. AR Yes

TM31Modified USEPA 8015B. Determination of Methyltertbutylether, Benzene, Toluene,

Ethylbenzene and Xylene by headspace GC-FID.PM12

Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC

headspace analysis. Yes AR Yes

TM38Soluble Ion analysis using the Thermo Aquakem Photometric Automatic Analyser.

Modified US EPA methods 325.2, 375.4, 365.2, 353.1, 354.1PM0 No preparation is required. Yes AR Yes


Modified US EPA methods 325.2, 375.4, 365.2, 353.1, 354.1PM20

Extraction of dried and ground samples with deionised water in a 2:1 water to solid ratio

for anions. Extraction of as received samples with deionised water in a 2:1 water to solid

ratio for ammoniacal nitrogen. Samples are extracted using an orbital shaker.

Yes AD Yes


Modified US EPA methods 325.2, 375.4, 365.2, 353.1, 354.1PM20

Extraction of dried and ground samples with deionised water in a 2:1 water to solid ratio

for anions. Extraction of as received samples with deionised water in a 2:1 water to solid

ratio for ammoniacal nitrogen. Samples are extracted using an orbital shaker.

Yes AR Yes



JE Job No: 16/9929


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

DescriptionISO

17025

(UKAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM60

Modified USEPA 9060. Determination of TOC by calculation from Total Carbon and

Inorganic Carbon using a TOC analyser, the carbon in the sample is converted to CO2

and then passed through a non-dispersive infrared gas analyser (NDIR).

PM0 No preparation is required. AR Yes

TM65 Asbestos Bulk Identification method based on HSG 248. PM42Solid samples undergo a thorough visual inspection for asbestos fibres prior to asbestos

identification using TM065.AR

TM65 Asbestos Bulk Identification method based on HSG 248. PM42Solid samples undergo a thorough visual inspection for asbestos fibres prior to asbestos

identification using TM065.Yes AR

TM73Modified US EPA methods 150.1 and 9045D. Determination of pH by Metrohm

automated probe analyser.PM11 Extraction of as received solid samples using one part solid to 2.5 parts deionised water. Yes AR No

TM77Modified DDCEN/TS method 15364:2006. Determination of Acid Neutralization Capacity

by Metrohm automated probe analyser.PM0 No preparation is required. AR No

TM89

Modified USEPA method OIA-1667. Determination of cyanide by Flow Injection Analyser.

Where WAD cyanides are required a Ligand displacement step is carried out before

analysis.

PM45As received solid samples are extracted with 1M NaOH by orbital shaker for Cyanide and

Thiocyanate analysis.Yes AR Yes

NONE No Method Code PM4Gravimetric measurement of Natural Moisture Content and % Moisture Content at either

35°C or 105°C. Calculation based on ISO 11465 and BS1377.AR



LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX C

Geotechnical Testing Results

5 – 7 Hexthorpe Road, Hexthorpe,

Doncaster DN4 0AR

tel: +44 (0)844 815 6641

fax: +44 (0)844 815 6642

e-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

A copy of the Laboratory Schedule of accredited tests as issued by UKAS is attached to this report. 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 in full, without the prior written approval of the laboratory.

Checked and Approved Signatories:

R Gunson A Watkins R Berriman

(Director) (Director) (Quality Manager)

D Lambe S Royle W Allen

(Senior Technician) (Senior Technician) (Senior Technician)

Page 1 of

LABORATORY REPORT

4043

Contract Number: PSL16/2676

Report Date: 18 July 2016

Client’s Reference: C2861

Client Name: Brownfield Solutions

Wychwood House

1 Queens Street

Northwich Cheshire

CW9 5JL

For the attention of: Lucy Crawford

Contract Title: Muridshaw Avenue

Date Received: 9/6/2016 Date Commenced: 9/6/2016

Date Completed: 24/6/2016

Notes: Opinions and Interpretations are outside the UKAS Accreditation

* Denotes test not included in laboratory scope of accreditation $ Denotes test carried out by approved contractor

PSL001 Issue 2 Nov 15 Page of .

Hole Sample Sample Top Base

Number Number Type Depth Depth

m m

WS201 D 1.00 Reddish brown slightly gravelly very sandy CLAY.

WS201 U 2.00 2.50 Firm reddish brown sandy CLAY.


WS202 U 1.00 Firm reddish brown slightly gravelly very sandy CLAY.

WS202 D 2.25 Reddish brown sandy CLAY.

WS203 D 1.00 Reddish brown slightly gravelly sandy CLAY.


Checked / Approved Date Contract No:

PSL16/2676

Client Ref:

4043 C2861

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY SOIL DESCRIPTIONS

Description of Sample

Murdishaw Avenue


(BS1377 : PART 2 : 1990)

Moisture Linear Particle Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing

Hole Sample Sample Top Base Content Shrinkage Density Limit Limit Index .425mm Remarks

Number Number Type Depth Depth % % Mg/m3

% % % %

m m Clause 3.2 Clause 6.5 Clause 8.2 Clause 4.3/4 Clause 5.3 Clause 5.4

WS201 D 1.00 13 32 17 15 97

WS202 D 0.80 12 28 16 12 95

WS202 D 2.25 19 39 20 19 100

WS203 D 1.00 21 38 20 18 98

WS207 D 1.00 14 33 17 16 94

SYMBOLS : NP : Non Plastic * : Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit Wet Sieved.

Date 24/06/16

4043

SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION TESTS

Intermediate plasticity CI.

Low plasticity CL.

Low plasticity CL.

Intermediate plasticity CI.

Low plasticity CL.

Contract No:

PSL16/2676

Checked / Approved

Murdishaw Avenue Client Ref:

C2861


(BS5930 :2015)

Date 24/06/16

4043 C2861

Murdishaw Avenue

Checked /Approved Contract No:

PSL16/2676

Client Ref:

PLASTICITY CHART FOR CASAGRANDE CLASSIFICATION.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex (

PI%

).

Liquid Limit (LL%).

CL CI CH CV CE

ML MI MH MV ME

PSL025 Issue 2 Nov 15 Page of

WS201 Top Depth (m):

Base Depth (m) :

Initial Conditions

Moisture Content (%):

Bulk Density (Mg/m3):

Dry Density (Mg/m3):

Voids Ratio:

Degree of saturation:

Height (mm):

Diameter (mm)

Particle Density (Mg/m3):

Assumed

C2861

Checked / Approved

Murdishaw Avenue

Date 24/06/16

Client Ref:

Contract No:

PSL16/2676

ONE DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TESTBS 1377: Part 5: 1990: Clause 3

Sample Type:

0

40

Sample Number:

Hole Number:

UT

2.00

Specimen location

m2/yr

T90

Pressure Range Mv

4043

16092.7

19.942

2.65

50.02 See summary of soils description.

0.173

0.186

18 kPa

160

80 4.297

15.24040

0.117

80 5.395

4.334

Cv

2.50

8.349

during test ' C:

Remarks:

20

within tube: Top

Method used to

determine CV:

Nominal temperature

1.75

2.06

m2/MN

320 0.036

320

40

0.1420.514

0.440

0.450

0.460

0.470

0.480

0.490

0.500

0.510

10 100 1000

Void

s R

atio

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

10 100 1000

Cv -

m2

/yr

Pressure -kPa

PSL025 Issue 2 Nov 15 Page of

WS202 Top Depth (m):

Base Depth (m) :

Initial Conditions

Moisture Content (%):

Bulk Density (Mg/m3):

Dry Density (Mg/m3):

Voids Ratio:

Degree of saturation:

Height (mm):

Diameter (mm)

Particle Density (Mg/m3):

Assumed

C2861

Checked / Approved

Murdishaw Avenue

Date 24/06/16

Client Ref:

Contract No:

PSL16/2676

ONE DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TESTBS 1377: Part 5: 1990: Clause 3

Sample Type:

0

20

Sample Number:

Hole Number:

UT

1.00

Specimen location

m2/yr

T90

Pressure Range Mv

4043

8082.2

19.946

2.65

50.018 See summary of soils description.

0.174

0.253

15 kPa

80

40 9.364

10.60320

0.088

40 12.487

14.619

Cv

20.075

during test ' C:

Remarks:

20

within tube: Top

Method used to

determine CV:

Nominal temperature

1.78

2.05

m2/MN

160 0.021

160

20

0.1260.486

0.450

0.460

0.470

0.480

10 100 1000

Void

s R

atio

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

10 100 1000

Cv -

m2

/yr

Pressure -kPa

PSLR031 Issue 2 Nov 15 Page of .

Top Depth (m):

Base Depth (m):

70.0 140.0 Test:

Specimen Moisture Bulk Dry Cell Corr. Max. Shear Failure Mode

Content Density Density Pressure Deviator Strength Strain of Sample taken from top of tube

(%) (Mg/m3) (Mg/m3) (kPa) Stress Cu (%) Failure Rate of strain = 2 %/min

(kPa) (kPa) Latex Membrane used 0.2 mm thick,

θ3 (θ1−θ3)f 1/2(θ1−θ3)f Correction applied 0.51

1 18 2.07 1.75 40 137 69 8.0 Plastic

Date 24/06/16

4043

Checked / Approved

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH IN TRIAXIAL COMPRESSIONWITHOUT MEASUREMENT OF PORE PRESSURE

BS1377 : Part7 : 1990: Clause 8

Diameter (mm):

Undisturbed Sample

Hole Number:

Sample Number: 2.50

Sample Type

Height (mm): Remarks

C2861

Contract No:

Murdishaw Avenue

2.00

Client Ref:

U

See summary of soil descriptions.

WS201

PSL16/2676

UU Single Stage

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s k

Pa

Axial Strain %

PSLR031 Issue 2 Nov 15 Page of .

Top Depth (m):

Base Depth (m):

70.0 140.0 Test:

Specimen Moisture Bulk Dry Cell Corr. Max. Shear Failure Mode

Content Density Density Pressure Deviator Strength Strain of Sample taken from top of tube

(%) (Mg/m3) (Mg/m3) (kPa) Stress Cu (%) Failure Rate of strain = 2 %/min

(kPa) (kPa) Latex Membrane used 0.2 mm thick,

θ3 (θ1−θ3)f 1/2(θ1−θ3)f Correction applied 0.51

1 15 2.09 1.82 20 89 45 9.0 Plastic

Date 24/06/16

4043

Checked / Approved

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH IN TRIAXIAL COMPRESSIONWITHOUT MEASUREMENT OF PORE PRESSURE

BS1377 : Part7 : 1990: Clause 8

Diameter (mm):

Undisturbed Sample

Hole Number:

Sample Number:

Sample Type

Height (mm): Remarks

C2861

Contract No:

Murdishaw Avenue

1.00

Client Ref:

U

See summary of soil descriptions.

WS202

PSL16/2676

UU Single Stage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Dev

iato

r S

tres

s k

Pa

Axial Strain %

LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX D

Interim Gas Monitoring Results

ALDI

MURDISHAW AVE, RUNCORN

C2861 Ground Gas Monitoring Results

28/06/2016 ND Not Detected

NA Not Available

NGW No Groundwater

mb

AmbientOxygen

(O2)

Carbon

Dioxide

(CO2)

Methane

(CH4)LEL

Hydrogen

Sulphide

(H2S)

Carbon

Monoxide

(CO)

Atm

PressureMonitored by Pressure Trend

Start 20.8 0.2 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 1004

Finish 21.1 0.2 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 1005

m bgl litres/hour mb litres/hour litres/hour

LocationState

(Peak/Steady)

Oxygen

(O2)

Carbon

Dioxide

(CO2)

Methane

(CH4)LEL

Hydrogen

Sulphide

(H2S)

Carbon

Monoxide

(CO)

Water Level FlowRelative

Pressure

Sheen

(Y/N)Qhg CO2 Qhg CH4

Peak 11.8 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Steady 11.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Peak 16.3 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Steady 18.3 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Peak 11.8 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Steady 15.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0No

0.0

-0.1

GA 5000

WS201

WS202

Percentage Concentrations Parts per Million

0.22.07 No

WS205 1.71 0.1 0.0

Key

Falling

Notes

1.44 0.2

Equipment

Percentage Concentrations Parts Per Million

No

BJM

Weather

Cloudy

NA 0.00

0.000.01

0.01 0.00

ALDI

MURDISHAW AVE, RUNCORN

C2861 Ground Gas Monitoring Results

05/07/2016 ND Not Detected

NA Not Available

NGW No Groundwater

mb

AmbientOxygen

(O2)

Carbon

Dioxide

(CO2)

Methane

(CH4)LEL

Hydrogen

Sulphide

(H2S)

Carbon

Monoxide

(CO)

Atm

PressureMonitored by Pressure Trend

Start 20.7 0.1 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 1012

Finish 20.7 0.1 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 1013

m bgl litres/hour mb litres/hour litres/hour

LocationState

(Peak/Steady)

Oxygen

(O2)

Carbon

Dioxide

(CO2)

Methane

(CH4)LEL

Hydrogen

Sulphide

(H2S)

Carbon

Monoxide

(CO)

Water Level FlowRelative

Pressure

Sheen

(Y/N)Qhg CO2 Qhg CH4

Peak 11.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Steady 12.5 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Peak 17.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Steady 19.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Peak 12.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Steady 12.4 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

BJM GA 5000 Cloudy Rising

Key

Percentage Concentrations Parts per Million

Equipment Weather

Percentage Concentrations Parts Per Million

Notes

WS201 1.62 0.0 0.1 No NA 0.00

WS202 2.05 0.0 0.0 No 0.00 0.00

WS205 1.40 0.0 -0.1 No 0.01 0.00

LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX E

Contaminated Land Screening Values

LC/C2861/6243



Contaminated Land Screening Values

In assessing the potential for contamination Brownfield Solutions Limited (BSL) follows UK

guidance and current best practice.

General

The current recommended method for assessing contamination is on the basis of:

Source-Pathway-Receptor

Where any one of these “pollution linkages” is absent there is deemed to be no risk.

Fundamentally receptors can be considered as humans and controlled waters (surface and

ground waters).

The purpose of using Tier 1 screening levels is to have a simple means of assessing the

potential contamination of a site and to inform decisions on whether further investigation is

warranted or whether an option to undertake clean up based on the data to hand is cost

effective.

Human Health

Current UK guidance is provided by DEFRA and the Environment Agency (EA). Publications

forming part of the guidance include; CLEA Model, toxicological reports and soil guideline

values (SGV), collectively referred to as the CLEA Guidance. The CLEA Guidance has included

a number of publications which have provided initial screening values for soil contamination

based on standard land uses and soil assumptions.

CLEA guidance has gone through a number of revisions, all of the original SGV’s that were

published have been withdrawn and publication of new SGV’s commenced in 2009.

For determinands where no SGVs are available, S4UL values have been published using the

CLEA 1.06 Model. These are the third set of generic assessment criteria generated by CIEH,

and replace the previous two sets of GACs. The revised S4UL values are based on greater

knowledge of relevant toxicology and further consideration of exposure frequencies.

No SGV or S4UL is available for lead as this is derived based on blood lead levels. C4SL values

for six determinands including lead was published by DEFRA/CL:AIRE in December 2014 and

they represent a low risk as opposed to minimal risk. The C4SL values are based on a sandy

loam with 6% Soil Organic Matter. These screening values were published by DEFRA for Part

2A use, although with the dual purpose for use under planning. However these have not been

officially accepted by Local Government for use under planning. S4ULs remain the first

reference due to the broader range of end uses and soil organic content.

The preference from the EA is that site specific screening levels are used wherever Possible.

Due to possible. Due to numerous factors it is not always possible to utilise site specific

values. In these instances the following data sources are used in the order of preference given

below:

LC/C2861/6243



• Current UK SGV’s

• CIEH S4UL values (derived by CIEH/LQM)

• DEFRA/CL:AIRE C4SL’s

• CL:AIRE GAC values

• Guidance from other European countries

• Guidance from the outside Europe.

Controlled Waters

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) became UK law in December 2003. It was

created to ensure that European countries manage their rivers, groundwater and lakes so that

they stay healthy for people and for wildlife.

This is achieved by the use of chemical standards for surface waters and groundwater. These

values describe concentrations of chemicals that are not expected to cause harm to

environmental organisms or human health, provided they are not exceeded. The same

chemical may have several standards for different environmental regimes, and for different

protection objectives.

Statutory Standards are set in legislation and if exceeded, this constitutes non-compliance

with statutory obligations. European Directives are implemented in England and Wales by

corresponding statutory instruments (i.e. regulations). The statutory instruments can be the

exact same standards as they appear in the Directive or be more stringent.

A number of non-statutory standards also exist, these are set by various organisations

(including the EA) for chemicals that are considered to be of concern, but are not covered by

any specific legislation.

The chemical standards used in the UK to control impaction of contamination on controlled

waters are Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). The EQS’s cover a large number of

compounds.

Where certain compounds are not covered by the EQS these are commonly compared to the

UK Drinking Water Standards (DWS).

Further Assessment

When screening values are exceeded then further consideration is required. This could

include the use of simple measures to break the pollution pathway and mitigate the risk,

further more detailed investigation, including the deriving of site specific values to better

define the risk and to design appropriate remedial measures.

LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX F

Soakaway Testing Results


C2861Date: Logged: Checked:

LC

Dimensions of Pit (mm)

Pit Depth: 1470 mm

Pit Details:

Time

(mins)

Depth to

water

(mm)

Time

(mins)

Depth to water

(mm)

0 820 60 845

1 830 75 850

2 830 90 850

3 830 105 850

4 830 120 850

5 840

10 840

15 840

20 845

25 845

30 845

45 845

Percolation Test

SA03

Test 1

19/07/2016

ALDI STORES LTD

RW

Open with no stone filling

1280mm

1280mm

1470mm

680mm

680mm



LC

Percolation Test

SA03

Test 1

19/07/2016

ALDI STORES LTD

RW

Volume of Pit (m3) 1.279488 Void Ratio of Infill 1

Volume of Infill (m3) N/A 0.56576

Compliancy Check

Water Level at 75% effective depth (mm) 487.5


NOT compliant with BRE 365 - does not drain past 25% depth

650

Water Level 2 620

Time to Drain from Level 1 to Level 2 (mins) 120

Volume of water discharged (m3) 0.026112

Discharge Area (m2) 3.3596

Soil Infiltration Rate (m/min) 6.47696E-05

Soil Infiltration Rate (m/sec) 1.08E-06

Percolation Rate Calculation

Water Level 1

Volume of Water in Pit (m3)

615

620

625

630

635

640

645

650

655

0 50 100 150

De

pth

(m

m)

Time (mins)

Depth vs Time



LC

Dimensions of Pit (mm)

Pit Depth: 1270 mm

Pit Details:

Time

(mins)

Depth to

water

(mm)

Time

(mins)

Depth to water

(mm)

0 720 60 690

1 730 75 690

2 730

3 730

4 730

5 730

10 730

15 730

20 720

25 720

30 720

45 700

Percolation Test

SA04

Test 1

01/06/2016

ALDI STORES LTD

RW

Open with no stone filling

1430mm

1430mm

1270mm

630mm

630mm



LC

Percolation Test

SA04

Test 1

01/06/2016

ALDI STORES LTD

RW

Volume of Pit (m3) 1.144143 Void Ratio of Infill 1

Volume of Infill (m3) N/A 0.4955

Compliancy Check



NOT compliant with BRE 365 - does not drain past 25% depth

550

Water Level 2 580

Time to Drain from Level 1 to Level 2 (mins) 75

Volume of water discharged (m3) -0.027027

Discharge Area (m2) 3.2287

Soil Infiltration Rate (m/min) -0.000111611

Soil Infiltration Rate (m/sec) -1.86E-06

Percolation Rate Calculation

Water Level 1

Volume of Water in Pit (m3)

650

750

850

950

1050

1150

1250

1350

0 50 100

De

pth

(m

m)

Time (mins)

Depth vs Time

LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX G

CIRIA Risk Assessment Methodology

LC/C2861/6243



Contaminated Land Risk Assessment

Contaminated Land Risk Assessment is a technique that identifies and considers the

associated risk, determines whether the risks are significant and whether action needs to be

taken. The four main stages of risk assessment are:

Hazard Identification Hazard Assessment Risk Estimation Risk Evaluation

CLR11 outlines the framework to be followed for risk assessment in the UK. The framework is

designed to be consistent with UK legislation and policies including planning. The starting

point of the risk assessment is to identify the context of the problem and the objectives of the

process. Under CLR11, three tiers of risk assessment exist - Preliminary, Generic Quantitative

and Detailed Quantitative.

Formulating and developing a conceptual model for the site is an important requirement of

risk assessment, this supports the identification and assessment of pollutant linkages.

Development of the conceptual model forms the main part of preliminary risk assessment,

and the model is subsequently refined or revised as more information and understanding is

obtained through the risk assessment process.

Risk is a combination of the likelihood of an event occurring and the magnitude of its

consequences. Therefore, both the likelihood and the consequences of an event must be

taken into account when assessing risk.

The risk assessment process needs to take into account the degree of confidence required in

decisions. Identification of uncertainties is an essential step in risk assessment.

The likelihood of an event is classified on a four-point system using the following terms and

definitions from CIRIA C552:

� High likelihood: There is a pollution linkage and an event appears very likely in the

short term and almost inevitable over the long term, or there is evidence at the

receptor of harm or pollution;

� Likely: There is a pollution linkage and all the elements are present and in the right

place, which means it is probable that an event will occur. Circumstances are such that

the event is not inevitable, but possible in the short term and likely over the long term;

� Low likelihood: There is a pollution linkage and circumstances are possible under

which an event could occur. However, it is by no means certain even over a longer

period such event would take place, and is less likely in the short term;

� Unlikely: There is a pollution linkage but circumstances are such that it is improbable

the event would occur even in the long term.

The severity is also classified using a system based on CIRIA C552. The terms and definitions

are:

LC/C2861/6243



� Severe: Short term (acute) risk to human health likely to result in ‘significant harm’ as

defined by the Environment Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. Short-term risk of pollution

of sensitive water resources. Catastrophic damage to buildings or property. A short-

term risk to a particular ecosystem or organism forming part of that ecosystem (note

definition of ecosystem in ‘Draft Circular on Contaminated Land’, DETR 2000);

Examples – High concentrations of contaminant on surface of recreation area, major

spillage of contaminants from site into controlled waters, explosion causing building

to collapse;

� Medium: Chronic damage to human health (‘significant harm’ as defined in DETR

2000). Pollution of sensitive water resources. A significant change in a particular

ecosystem or organism forming part of that ecosystem (note definition of ecosystem

in ‘Draft Circular on Contaminated Land’, DETR 2000);

Examples - Concentrations of contaminants exceed the generic assessment criteria,

leaching of contaminants from a site to a Principal or Secondary Aquifer, death of

species within a designated nature reserve;

� Mild: Pollution of non-sensitive water resources. Significant damage to crops,

buildings, structures and services (‘significant harm’ as defined in ‘Draft Circular on

Contaminated Land’, DETR 2000). Damage to sensitive buildings, structures, services

or the environment;

Examples – Pollution of non-classified groundwater or damage to buildings rendering

it unsafe to occupy.

� Minor: harm, not necessarily significant harm, which may result in financial loss or

expenditure to resolve. Non-permanent health effects to human health (easily

prevented by use of personal protective clothing etc). Easily repairable effects of

damage to buildings, structures and services.

Examples – Presence of contaminants at such concentrations PPE is required during site

work, loss of plants in landscaping scheme or discolouration of concrete.

Once the likelihood and severity have been determined, a risk category can be assigned using

the table below.

Consequences

Severe Medium Mild Minor

Pro

ba

bil

ity

Highly likely Very high High Moderate Moderate/low

Likely High Moderate Moderate/low Low

Low likelihood Moderate Moderate/low Low Very low

Unlikely Moderate/low Low Very Low Very low

LC/C2861/6243



Definitions of the risk categories obtained from the above table are as follows together with

an assessment of the further work that might be required:

• Very high: There is a high probability that severe harm could arise to a designated

receptor from an identified hazard or there is evidence that severe harm is currently

happening. This risk, if realised, could result in substantial liability. Urgent

investigation and remediation are likely to be required;

• High: Harm is likely to arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard.

Realisation of the risk is likely to present a substantial liability. Urgent investigation is

required and remedial works may be necessary in the short term and are likely over

the longer term;

• Moderate: It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an

identified hazard. However, it is either relatively unlikely that any such harm would

be severe, or if any harm were to occur it would be more likely to be relatively mild.

Investigation is normally required to clarify the risk and determine the liability. Some

remedial works may be required in the longer term;

• Low: It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified

hazard, but it is likely that this harm, if realised, would at worst normally be mild;

• Very Low: There is a low possibility that harm could arise to a receptor. In the event

of such harm being realised, it is not likely to be severe.

LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX H

Waste Disposal Guidance Note

WASTE CLASSIFICATION FOR SOILS

Introduction

Waste producers have a duty of care classify the waste they are producing:

• before it is collected, disposed of or recovered.

• to identify the controls that apply to the movement of the waste.

• to complete waste documents and records.

• to identify suitably authorised waste management options.

• to prevent harm to people and the environment.

The most sustainable and economic method of dealing with waste soil is usually the retention and re-use on site.

Where this is not possible there are three main options for the disposal of soils:

1. Disposal to a permitted waste recycling facility.

2. Re-use on another site (subject to the suitability).

3. Disposal to a landfill site.

The disposal to a permitted facility will be subject to the specific conditions of the permits for each of individual

facility and will vary dependent on location and environmental sensitivity of the receiving site. Re-use on

another site with also be subject to the acceptability criteria of that site.

The guidance below relates to disposal to landfill sites only.

Background for Landfill Disposal

In July 2005 the United Kingdom implemented the European Directive 1999/31/EC (The Landfill Directive), this

introduced the current regime for waste and waste disposal to landfill. The Landfill Directive places controls on

waste disposal. These controls include requirements to follow the waste acceptance procedures and criteria that

have been agreed by the Council of the European Union and are laid out in Council Decision 2003/33/EC.

Before a waste can be accepted at a landfill site, the landfill operator must be satisfied that the waste meets his

permit conditions, the waste acceptance procedures (WAP) and waste acceptance criteria (WAC).

If disposal to landfill is the best management option for the waste soils, these procedures must be followed or

the operator may refuse to accept the waste.

Key Points

• Not all waste can be landfilled

• Landfills are classified according to whether they can accept hazardous, non-hazardous or inert wastes.

• Wastes can only be accepted at a landfill if they meet the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for that class

of landfill.

• Most wastes must be treated before you can send them to landfill.

• There are formal processes for identifying and checking wastes that must be followed before wastes can

be accepted at a landfill site.

Classification

Wastes are listed in the European Waste Catalogue (EWC 2002) and grouped according to generic industry,

process or waste types. Wastes within the EWC are either hazardous or non-hazardous. Some of these wastes

are hazardous without further assessment (absolute entries) or are ‘mirror’ entries that require further

assessment of their hazardous properties in order to determine whether they are hazardous waste.

Waste soil has mirror entries on the EW

determining if the waste is hazardous

related to soil are:

17 05 soil (including excava

17 05 03* soil and stones contai

17 05 04 soil and stones other

Soils may contain certain contaminant

that if breached will render the materi

risks such as carcinogenicity, flammabil

In the first instance the concentrations

should be classified based on their tota

Waste Definitions

Inert • Will not undergo any

• Will not dissolve.

• Will not burn.

• Will not physically or

• Will not biodegrade.

• Will not adversely

environmental pollut

• Has insignificant tota

• Produces a leachate

Non-Hazardous Is not inert (see above)

Is not hazardous (see belo

Hazardous Soil has hazardous prop

edition 2015)- Technical G

Stable Non-reactive

hazardous waste#

Hazardous wa

landfill design

under the imp

constraints); b

# This option allows hazardous waste that has been

consistent with non-hazardous wastes.

WAC Testing

The purpose of WAC analysis is to co

landfill. The WAC limits cannot be used

does however define if a non-hazardou

Was

www.brownfield-solutions.com

e EWC and as such the first phase of the waste classificat

ous or not ie the hazard assessment. The most comm

cavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging spoil

ntaining dangerous substances

her than those mentioned in 17 05 03

nants (eg asbestos, diesel) which have prescribed conc

terial hazardous waste. These are based on “risk phrase

ability or toxicity.

ions of plausible contaminants within the soil should be

total concentrations.

any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations.

ly or chemically react.

de.

ely affect other matter with which it comes into contact in a w

ollution or harm to human health.

total leachability and pollutant content.

ate with an ecotoxicity that is insignificant (if it produces leachate).

below)

roperties as defined in WM3 (.Guidance on the classification and a

ical Guidance)

waste, the leaching behaviour of which will not change adversely

sign conditions or foreseeable accidents: in the waste alone (for exam

impact of long-term ambient conditions (for example, water, air, tem

s); by the impact of other wastes (including waste products such as lea

een stabilised and thus has a low leaching potential to be deposited in cells with

o confirm that the waste complies with the relevant W

used to make an assessment of whether a waste is haz

dous waste is suitable for an inert landfill.

Waste Classification for Soil

September 2015

ification process is that of

mmon EWC waste codes

oil

oncentration thresholds,

rases” which can include

be identified and wastes

a way likely to give rise to

nd assessment of waste (1st

sely in the long-term, under

example, by biodegradation);

r, temperature or mechanical

s leachate and gas).

with a standard of containment

t WAC for the receiving

hazardous. WAC testing


Page 3 www.brownfield-solutions.com September 2015

Hydrocarbons in Soils

WM3 uses the term Oil or Waste Oil to cover hydrocarbons products such as fuel oil, petrol or diesel. These are

defined by WM3 as hazardous under an absolute entry in the List of Wastes. However hydrocarbons in soils are

a mixture rather than a pure product and absolute entries are not relevant.

Known Oils

The simplest scenario is where the identity of the contaminating oil is known, or can be identified. If the oil is

known the manufacturer’s or supplier’s REACH compliant safety data sheet for the specific oil can be obtained

and the hazard statement codes on that Safety Data Sheet can be used for the hazardous waste assessment.

Where the identity of the oil can only be identified down to a petroleum group level (i.e. the contaminating oil is

known to be diesel, but the specific type/brand is unknown), then the classification of that petroleum group

should be used in the assessment. The marker compounds associated with that petroleum group may be used to

confirm carcinogenicity.

Oils may contain a range of hydrocarbons, so the presence of for instance Diesel Range Organics (DRO) does not

enable the assessor to conclude that diesel is present. These hydrocarbons may have arisen from other oils, the

laboratory needs to provide an interpretation that the chromatograph is consistent with diesel or weathered

diesel as a whole.

The concentration of known oils should be determined using a method that as a minimum spans the range in

which the carbon numbers for that known oil fall.

Unknown Oils

Where hydrocarbons are contaminating soils it is likely that the oil will be unknown or cannot be determined.

WM3 states that:

For contaminated land specific consideration must be given to the following before proceeding;

• The presence of other organic contaminants, for example solvents or coal tar that could be detected as

hydrocarbons. Coal Tar is not an oil and is considered separately in example 2. Where the site history or

investigation indicates the presence of hydrocarbons from oil and other sources (e.g. coal tar), and the origin of

the hydrocarbons cannot reliably be assigned to either, then a worst case approach of considering the

hydrocarbons both as, waste oil (in accordance with this example) and from other sources, for example coal tar

should be taken.

• The presence of diesel, or weathered diesel, should be specifically considered by the laboratory and where this is

confirmed by the hydrocarbon profile the oil should be assessed as a known or identified oil (diesel).

The use of marker compounds is optional; however it is recommended that where possible the marker

compounds should be used.

WM3 states:

If the identity of the oil is unknown, and the petroleum group cannot be established, then the oil contaminating the waste

can be classified as non-carcinogenic/mutagenic due to the presence of oil if all three of the following criteria are met:

• The waste contains benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) at a concentration of less than 0.01% (1/10,000th) of the TPH

concentration (This is the carcinogenic limit specified in table 3.1 of the CLP for BaP)

• This has been determined by an appropriate and representative sampling approach in accordance with the

principles set out in Appendix D, and

• The analysis clearly demonstrates, for example by carbon bands or chromatograph, and the laboratory has

reasonably concluded that the hydrocarbons present have not arisen from petrol or diesel.


Page 4 www.brownfield-solutions.com September 2015

For example:

TPH Concentration

(mg/kg) Petrol or Diesel BaP (mg/kg) Classification

10,000 No 0.9 Non- Hazardous

1,000 No Not available Hazardous

1,000 Yes Not relevant Hazardous

References

1. Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended) (EP Regulations), the Landfill Directive

(1999/31/EC) and the Council Decision (2003/33/EC).

2. Environment Agency Environmental Permitting Regulations: “Inert Waste Guidance- Standards and Measures for the

Deposit of Inert Waste on Land” 2009.

3. Environment Agency “Waste acceptance at landfills - Guidance on waste acceptance procedures and criteria” Nov 2010.

4. Environment Agency “Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste (Technical Guidance WM3)” 1st edition

May 2015.

5. Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances Regulation (EC 1272/2008) (CLP).

LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX I

CL:AIRE CoP Guidance Note

RE-US

Definition of Waste:

The Environment Agency considers waste to be

trenches, footing, site strip etc. It is no longer

Re-use of Waste

Previously large scale earthworks and remedia

in 2010 the Environment Agency in England

restricted the quantity of materials available fo

For purposes of earthworks and remediation, th

commonly referred to as a “Materials Managem

CL:AIRE: Code of Practice

Where materials are excavated for constructio

they are suitable for use. The developer/cont

Practice for the Definition of Waste” (CL:AIRE C

Potential scenarios where soils may be able to b

• Material capable of being used in ano




The Code of Practice requires 4 No. Factors to b

1. Protection of human health an

2. Suitability of use, without furth

3. Certainty of use.

4. Quantity of material.

In order to satisfy these requirements the follow

i) Consultation/approval with Loc

use of waste soils, or the risk as

ii) Risk Assessments to demonstra

iii) Remediation Strategy for conta

iv) Materials Management Plan (M

v) Volume calculations.

vi) Planning permission for the dev

vii) Contractual details to be clear

The use of the CoP is effectively industry regula

the requirements have been met and register

involvement with the preparing of the risk asse

Soils which require treatment on site (eg biore

justification and validation to prove, once treat

Site management procedures need to be in pl

remediation processes. Should the process of

excavated materials may be considered non-wa

www.brownfield-solutions.com

USE OF WASTE - GUIDANCE NOTE

o be “...any material that is discarded, or intended to be discarded

ger required in its original location, therefore it is considered to be

edial schemes relied on waste management exemptions to allow t

and and Wales removed many of the waste management licen

le for other exemptions.

n, the previous exemptions available have been replaced by CL:AIR

agement Plan”.

ction purposes, wherever possible these should be retained on si

contractor is advised to complete all works under the CL:AIRE “

RE CoP).

to be re-used:

another place on the same site without treatment;

another place on the same site following ex-situ treatment on site

another development site without treatment (Direct Transfer);

another development site following ex-situ treatment on another

to be addressed:

h and protection of the environment.

further treatment.

ollowing are required:

Local Authority & Environment Agency to confirm they have no o

k assessments for the site.

strate that the site does not present an Environmental Hazard.

ntaminated sites (or Design Statement for non-contaminated sites

n (MMP) which details material generated stockpiles and the end u

development.

ar, regarding who steps in is a contractor goes into administration

gulated, there is a requirement to appoint an independent Qualifi

isters the documentation with the Environment Agency. This pe

assessments or remedial strategy on the site.

ioremediation, stabilisation) will require an Environmental Permit

reated, this material is suitable for use.

in place to ensure that material is tracked through from excavati

of material tracking be considered non-robust, or not adhered to,

waste.

March 2013

ded...” This includes any soil from

o be waste.

ow the re-use of waste. However

licence exemptions and severely

L:AIRE Code of Practice (CoP), also

n site for engineering purposes if

“Development Industry Code of

n site;

ther site eg Hub site;

no objections to the proposed re-

sites).

nd use.

tion/liquidation.

alified Person (QP) who checks all

is person must not have had any

rmit for treatment, together with

vation stockpiling, treatment and

d to, this may fail the test whether

LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX J

Legislative Background

LC/C2861/6243



Legislative Background

Environmental liabilities and risks have been evaluated in terms of a source -pathway - target relationship in accordance

with the approach set out in:

• The 1995 Environment Act;

• The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2000;

• The DETR circular 02/2000 Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land.

Contaminated land is defined within the legislative framework as land which is in such condition by reason of substances

in, on or under the land that:

1) Significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused;

2) Significant pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused.

The potential for harm is based on the presence of three factors:

� Source - substances that are potential contaminants or pollutants that may cause harm;

� Pathway - a potential route by which contaminants can move from the source to the receptor;

� Receptor - a receptor that may be harmed, for example the water environment, humans and water.

Where a source, pathway and target are all present a pollutant linkage exists and there is potential for harm to be caused.

The presence of a source does not automatically imply that a contamination problem exists, since contamination must be

defined in terms of pollutant linkages and unacceptable risk of harm. The nature and importance of both pathways and

receptors are site specific and will vary according to the intended end use of the site, its characteristics and its

surroundings.

The key principle which supports the SPR approach is ‘suitable for use’ criteria. This requires remedial action only where

contamination is considered to pose unacceptable actual or potential risks to health or the environment and, taking into

account the proposed use of the site.

Relevant Guidance Documents

This report has been prepared in accordance with the list of guidance below however the list is not exhaustive:

� CLR11 – Model Procedures;

� Contamination and Environmental Matters - Their implications for Property Professionals (2nd Edition RICS Nov

2003);

� Brownfields – Managing the development of previously developed land – A client’s guide, CIRIA 2002;

� DEFRA and Environment Agency publications CLR7 – 10, supported by the TOX guides and SGV guides, dated

March 2002;

� DETR Circular 02/2000, Contaminated Land: Implementation of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act

1990;

� Environment Agency technical advice to third parties on Pollution of Controlled Waters for Part IIA of the

EPA1990, May 2002;

Relevant Legislative Documents

The following is a non-exhaustive list of legislative framework documents that has been considered in the production of

this report:

• The Environment Act (1995);

• The Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance (2012);

• The Environment Protection Act (1990);

• The Contaminated Land (England) Act (2000);

• Contaminated Land (England) Regulations (2012);

• The Water Resources Act (1991);

• The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations (2000);

• The Landfill Regulations (England and Wales) Regulations (2002);

• The Landfill (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations (2004);

• Health and Safety at Work Act;

LC/C2861/6243



APPENDIX K

Limitations

LC/C2861/6243



Standard Limitations

This ground investigation was conducted and has been prepared for the sole internal use and reliance

of the Client, Aldi Stores Ltd as instructed SWF consulting engineers. This report shall not be relied upon

or transferred to any other parties without the express written authorisation of BSL. If an unauthorised

third party comes into possession of this report they rely on it at their risk and the authors owe them

no duty of care or skill.

The findings and opinions conveyed via the desk study within this report are based on information

obtained from a variety of sources as detailed within this report, which BSL believes are reliable. In

addition if information has been used from third parties and in particular other investigations and

reports this information has been used in good faith. BSL cannot and does not guarantee the

authenticity or reliability of third party information it has relied upon.

The investigation carried out on the site has been conducted to provide the best information and

assessment on the ground conditions within site access and budgetary constraints. Exploratory holes

only investigate a small area in relation to the overall site area and can therefore only provide a general

indication of overall site conditions. Therefore the findings, opinions, geotechnical and environmental

recommendations within this report are based on the ground conditions encountered at each location.

It should be noted that different ground conditions may exist that have not been identified within this

investigation.

The occurrence of and depths to groundwater may vary seasonally due to changes in weather, it should

be noted that any observations and recommendations made on groundwater within this report are

based on a select number of site visits over a limited period of time and may not be fully representative

of groundwater conditions on the site.

Current UK guidance and legislation has been used in the geotechnical and environmental assessment

of the site, BSL is not liable for any subsequent changes in the guidance and legislation.

The recommendations within this report are based upon the proposed site end use provided to BSL at

the time of the investigation. If the end use or development layout changes from the proposal then

the recommendations may change or become invalid.

Although every effort has been made to position exploratory holes in the least sensitive areas of the

site, exploratory hole positions were located approximately as part of this investigation and no

guarantee can be given as to their accuracy. Consideration should be given to the possibility that

exploratory holes excavated as part of this investigation and indeed any previous ground investigation

work by others may be encountered beneath or within the influence of individual foundations. BSL

cannot be held responsible for structural failures caused by the location of foundations of any form of

structure within the influence of exploratory holes.

No existing manhole covers were lifted or drainage runs inspected during the course of this ground

investigation. The site plans enclosed in this report should not be scaled off.