MRS DEBORAH MARSHALL PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL …

MRS DEBORAH MARSHALL

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

AT 5B HOPE TERRACE

EDINBURGH

REPORT ON GROUND INVESTIGATION

Client:

Mrs Deborah Marshall CONTRACT NO: 25085

Consulting Engineers:

Create Engineering LLP Date of Issue: 12 June 2019

15 Old Fishmarket Close Report Issue: Final

Edinburgh Report Type: Interpretative

EH1 1RW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

2. LOCATION OF SITE ............................................................................................... 2

3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF SITE .................................................................. 2

3.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................. 2

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SITE............................................................................................ 2

3.3 GEOLOGY OF SITE ................................................................................................. 3

4. GROUND INVESTIGATION .................................................................................... 3

4.1 SITE WORK ........................................................................................................... 3

4.2 LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................................... 4

5. GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED ............................................................. 5

6. COMMENTS ON THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .................................................... 6

7. GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................... 8

7.1 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 8

7.2 SAMPLE SELECTION ............................................................................................ 10

7.3 END USER RISK ANALYSES .................................................................................. 11

7.4 CHEMICAL ATTACK ON BURIED CONCRETE ........................................................... 16

7.5 GROUND GAS ..................................................................................................... 17

7.6 RADON ............................................................................................................... 18

7.7 CONSTRUCTION WORKERS .................................................................................. 18

7.8 GROUND-WATER ................................................................................................. 19

7.9 GEOCHEMICAL CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 22

References Total No of Text Pages: 24

Figure

APPENDIX A: PLANS

Location Plan A1

Site Plan A2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont’d

Figure

APPENDIX B: SITE WORK

Notes on Field Procedures

Key to Borehole and Trial Pit Records

Borehole Records (Nos. BH01, BH01A, BH01B, BH02 and BH03) B1 to B5

Trial Pit Records (Nos. TP01 to TP03) B6 to B8

SPT Hammer Energy Test Report TER83 B9

Results of Gas and Water Level Monitoring in Standpipes B10

APPENDIX C: GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING

Notes on Laboratory Procedures

Laboratory Test Results C1 to C12

APPENDIX D: GEOCHEMICAL LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory Test Results D1 to D9

APPENDIX E: ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

P:\25085\Report\report.doc 1 of 24

MRS DEBORAH MARSHALL

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

AT 5B HOPE TERRACE

EDINBURGH

INTERPRETATIVE REPORT ON GROUND INVESTIGATION

Contract No.25085 12 June 2019

1. INTRODUCTION

It is proposed build a single residential property at 5B Hope Terrace in Edinburgh.

On the instructions of Create Engineering LLP, Consulting Engineers to Mrs

Deborah Marshall, and to their specification, an investigation was made to provide

information on the ground conditions for foundation design and construction and in

relation to any geochemical contamination of the site. These purposes were the

significant factors in determining the scope of the investigation. No responsibility

can be taken for specific design proposals not detailed or advised at the time of

compilation of this report.

The comments given in this report and any opinions expressed therein are based

on the ground conditions encountered during the site work, on the results of any in-

situ or laboratory testing and any professional third party input. Whilst every effort

has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data supplied and any analysis or

interpretation derived from it, the possibility exists of variations in the ground,

ground-water and ground gas conditions around, below and between the extent of

the exploratory positions. No liability can be accepted for any such variations in

these conditions. Furthermore, any recommendations are specific to the

development as detailed in this Report and no liability will be accepted should they

be used for the design of alternative schemes, by third parties, without prior

consultation with Raeburn Drilling & Geotechnical Limited.


The recommendations of this report are based on an interpretation of legislation,

Codes of Practice, guidance notes and current research opinion. Revision of such,

particularly in environmental matters, is developing rapidly. Although this report

endeavours to anticipate any such changes that may arise within the foreseeable

future, changes are liable to occur which may cause the report inadequately to

address the position at that time. Further, the situation may be subject to varied

interpretation by statutory authorities and others, for which Raeburn Drilling &

Geotechnical Limited /Terra Tek Limited cannot be responsible.

2. LOCATION OF SITE

The site lies in a residential area, on the northern side of Hope Terrace

(approximate National Grid reference NT252718). The existing house is located to

the north and the site comprises the remaining grounds facing Hope Terrace. More

residential properties are present to the east and west.

A plan showing the approximate location of the site is given in Figure A1 in

Appendix A.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF SITE

3.1 General

A desk study of the former land use of the site was outside the scope of this report.

3.2 Description of Site

As mentioned above, the site comprises the grounds of the existing No. 5 Hope

Terrace and lies between Hope Terrace on the south and the house on the north.

The ground surface rises gently to the north. Many mature trees are present.


3.3 Geology of Site

The 1:10560 scale geological map for the area (Ref. 1) indicates the site to be

underlain with cohesive glacial till (i.e. boulder clay), overlying sedimentary bedrock

belonging to the Upper Old Red Sandstone. The map shows rock outcrops in the

area, so that the drift may be thin.

4. GROUND INVESTIGATION

4.1 Site Work

The site work was carried out on the 14th and 15th January 2019, in accordance with

the guidelines laid down in EN1997-2:2007 (Ref. 2), BS5930 (Ref. 3), BS10175

(Ref. 4) and in-house procedures. The results of the site work are given in

Appendix B.

Three boreholes (Nos. BH01 to BH03) were scheduled to be sunk by continuous

percussion boring. However, a rock obstruction was encountered at a depth of

1.40m at position BH01 and two further attempts (denoted BH01A and BH01B)

were made to advance this borehole. Both found similar obstructions. In addition,

three trial pits (Nos. TP01 to TP03) were excavated by hand. The borehole and

trial pit positions shown on the site plan (Fig. A2 in Appendix A). The depths of the

boreholes and trial pits, the descriptions of the strata encountered and comments

on the ground-water conditions are given in the borehole and trial pit records (Figs.

B1 to B8). The positions and depths of the boreholes and trial pits were determined

by the Consulting Engineers and were set out on site by Raeburn Drilling &

Geotechnical Limited, in conjunction with the Consulting Engineers.

Disturbed and 100mm diameter tube samples were taken at the depths shown on

the borehole and trial pit records, and were despatched to the depot at Hamilton for

examination, storage and testing. Each sample was uniquely identified and a

transmittal note system used throughout sample transfer. Geochemical soil

samples were taken directly into tubs or vials, filling the container completely such

that no voids were present. Geochemical samples were stored on site and

transported to the laboratory in coolboxes.


Standard (split-barrel sampler) penetration tests (Ref. 5) were made to assess the

relative density or the hardness of the materials encountered. The values of

penetration resistance, given in the borehole records, are not corrected for energy

ratio, or in any other way. The references to relative density under the heading

"Description of Strata" in the borehole records are based on the field values of

penetration resistance uncorrected for the effects of overburden pressure. The

Hammer Energy Test Report is presented as Figure B9.

A nominal 50mm diameter perforated standpipe was installed in each of boreholes

BH01B, BH02 and BH03, details of which are given on the relevant records. Tests

were subsequently carried out to determine the methane, carbon dioxide, carbon

monoxide, hydrogen sulphide and oxygen contents of the gas in the standpipes. In

addition, water level readings were scheduled, but the instruments remained dry

over the monitoring period. The results of the monitoring are given in Figure B10.

4.2 Laboratory Testing

A test schedule was submitted to and approved by the Consulting Engineers. The

laboratory testing was carried out by Terra Tek Limited, another company within the

Raeburn Group. Terra Tek Limited holds UKAS Accreditation for the scheduled

tests.

The geotechnical laboratory testing was carried out in accordance with BS1377

(Ref. 6). The results are given in Appendix C and comprised the following:

Description of Test Figures

Moisture Content Tests C1

Liquid and Plastic Limit Tests C1 to C6

Particle Size Distribution Tests C7 to C10

One-dimensional Consolidation Test C11

Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test C12


In addition, chemical contamination testing was carried out on four samples of

made ground/soil. The results are given in Appendix D and comprised the

following:

Description of Test Figures

Metals and Metalloids, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Sulphate and pH

D1

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) (USEPA 16) D2

TPHCWG and VPHCWG - Aliphatic/Aromatic Split D3 & D4

Asbestos Screen / Identification D5

NRA Leachate – Metals, Ammonia and pH D6

NRA Leachate - Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (USEPA 16) D7

NRA Leachate - TPHCWG Aliphatic/Aromatic Split D8

Finally, the pH values of an additional two soil samples were determined and the

results are given in Figure D9.

5. GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED

Beneath 0.30m to 0.50m of topsoil or made ground, the boreholes and trial pits

encountered glacial very sandy, clayey or very clayey, gravel or more occasionally

very gravelly very clayey sand. The trial pits were completed in the granular soil at

depths of 0.75m or 1.00m. Boreholes BH01, BH01A, BH01B, BH02 and BH03

encountered rock obstructions at depths ranging from 1.40m to 2.75m.

Made ground was found in only trial pit TP03, in which the material comprised

clayey sand and gravel.


It is worth noting that the granular glacial soil was visually assessed as being fine

grained (i.e. gravelly sandy clay), but the test results subsequently have shown the

material to be granular, albeit generally very clayey. In this regard, it should be

recognised that with glacial soils of this type, comparatively small changes in the

clay, sand and gravel fractions can result in the material passing from cohesive to

granular, and vice-versa, when described strictly in accordance with BS5930 (Ref.

3).

On this basis, the results of the penetration tests indicate that the granular soil is

medium dense, dense and possibly even very dense.

Rock obstructions were found in the base of all five boreholes, typically at depths of

1.40m, 1.90m and 2.75m at positions BH01, BH02 and BH03, respectively.

However, penetration of 0.10m or less were obtained, so it was difficult to be

certain whether the rock was bedrock, rather than cobbles or boulders in the drift.

However, the geological map suggests that bedrock in the area could lie at shallow

depth, so that the former is more likely, although by no means certain.

Ground-water was not encountered in the boreholes or trial pits. Furthermore, the

standpipes in boreholes BH01B, BH02 and BH03 remained dry over the monitoring

period, with the tips at depths of 1.45m, 2.00m and 2.75m, respectively.

6. COMMENTS ON THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

The foundation loadings should be taken below the layer of topsoil and made

ground. To allow for climatic conditions, pad or strip foundations in granular soils

should be placed at a minimum depth of 0.6m below final ground level. To make

good any disturbance caused during excavation, prepared formations in the natural

granular soils should be compacted prior to construction. Tamping with the back of

an excavator bucket should suffice in the case of the foundation excavations.


As discussed in section 5, the grading analyses and index property tests have

shown the glacial soil to be granular, rather than fine grained as was visually

assessed. At its poorest, the granular soil was medium dense. There was one low

result from a triaxial compression test, but the consistency index on the clay matrix

was high, suggesting that the poor shear strength was due to sample disturbance.

Obviously, medium dense covers a range of strengths and it is therefore advised

that the prepared exposed formations are examined and any material with a shear

strength of less than 60kPa is removed and replaced with lean-mix concrete.

On this basis, pad and strip foundations constructed as discussed above, may be

designed to an allowable net bearing pressure of 120kPa. This value should

ensure the customary acceptable factor of safety of 3 against shear failure of the

ground and with its adoption the maximum total settlement associated with

foundations up to 1.2m wide should be less than 25mm.

Settlements in the granular soil will take place largely as the loadings are applied.

Differential movements will be dependent on variations in the foundation widths and

loading intensities and on the stiffness of the structure, as well as the ground

conditions.

Given the possible presence of bedrock at shallow depth, it would be advisable to

avoid stepped foundations at this site, whereby the glacial soil and comparatively

incompressible bedrock are present on either side. The layer of glacial soil should

be allowed to thin and thicken gradually, thereby minimising the worst possible

effects of differential movement. .

A lightly reinforced concrete ground bearing floor slab should be satisfactory,

provided the made ground and topsoil are removed and the slab is cast on a

blanket of well-compacted imported granular fill. The exposed formation in the

natural soil should be compacted.


Support will be required to the walls of vertically sided foundation or service

excavations that extend below a depth of about 1.2m. Care should be taken to

ensure that adequate support is provided where vibratory compaction plant is used

in the base of an excavation or where excavations are made adjacent to existing

footings. However, excavations that are to be backfilled with lean-mix concrete,

and where man-access is not required, may stand unsupported for a sufficient

period to allow placement, provided the concrete is cast as soon as possible after

making the opening.

The evidence from the boreholes, trial pits and standpipes indicates that ground-

water should not be encountered in the foundation excavations. However, surface

water may still collect. To prevent the deterioration of prepared formations in the

presence of surface water, it would be advisable to place a blinding layer of

concrete or the foundation concrete itself, as soon as possible after excavating to

formation level.

7. GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Methodology

For the purposes of assessing the geochemical condition of a site, it is generally

accepted that a risk-based approach should be adopted. A Conceptual Site Model

should be built up from the results of a desk study. The model should be tested by

assessing the risk that a hazard is connected to a potential receptor by a pathway.

The site comprises the grounds of the existing dwelling at 5 Hope Terrace, which

lies to the north. Hope terrace lies to the south, with more residential properties to

the east and west. A female child will be the most sensitive receptor.

Once pollutant linkage has been demonstrated, the risk to each receptor should be

assessed. A tiered approach is advocated in most instances, whereby generic

guidelines are compared against an appropriate data set. If concentrations in

excess of these generic guidelines are found, a further, more detailed, but less

conservative, site specific risk assessment should be carried out.


The risk to human health from long-term exposure to soils can be determined using

various relevant models. In this instance, the Contaminated Land Exposure

Assessment (CLEA) model has been used. Prior to using this, and indeed any

model, it is necessary to determine whether it is appropriate to the given situation.

The model uses defined land use types, which fall into the following categories:

residential, allotments and commercial/industrial. Residential is the most stringent,

but will be appropriate to this site. For the assessment of human health, the

procedures set out in CLR 11 (Ref. 7) and the Updated Technical Background to

the CLEA Model (Ref. 8) have been followed.

Screening has been carried out against Suitable For Use Levels (S4ULs) published

by the Land Quality Management (LQM) Group (Ref. 9). The most up to date

S4ULs have been used for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, selenium, copper,

mercury, nickel, zinc, petroleum hydrocarbons and polyaromatic hydrocarbons.

The exception to this is lead, for which a Site Specific Assessment Criteria (SSAC)

has been calculated using the CLEA Software Version 1.071 published by the

Environment Agency (Ref. 10).

The updated technical background to the CLEA model assumes that the data set is

representative of an “averaging area”. The CLEA model indicates that the top

1.00m of soil is critical for all pathways to humans, except for inhalation of volatile

contaminants. In this connection, the laboratory testing has been focussed on the

top 1.00m of soil. The entire site has generally been taken as the “averaging area”

as the site is comparatively small and the material was found to be consistent

across the whole site.

Sulphate and acid attack on buried concrete should be evaluated with reference to

BRE Special Digest 1 (Ref. 11).

The generation of methane, hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide and carbon

dioxide gases is often associated with made ground, mine workings, residual

petroleum hydrocarbons or organic deposits. The risk associated with ground gas

should be assessed in accordance with CIRIA Report C665 (Ref. 12). In addition,

EH40/05 (Ref. 13) sets exposure limits for construction workers in excavations.


In assessing the risk to ground and surface waters, the procedures set out in the

SEPA Position Statement (Ref. 14) and supporting guidance (Ref. 15) have been

followed.

7.2 Sample Selection

A residential development is planned for the site. Residential has the most

stringent guidelines with respect to ground contamination and moreover, it has

been assumed that there could be gardens and that vegetables will be grown for

home consumption. As such, end users are at risk mainly through ingestion and

inhalation of indoor and outdoor soil and dust.

Given the known history of the site, there were no targeted sources of

contamination as it was anticipated that the ground conditions would be consistent

across the site. This has proven to be the case. A non-targeted sampling strategy

of boreholes and trial pits was adopted. Three standpipes were installed within the

boreholes to enable any ground gases to be monitored and ground-water to be

monitored and sampled. In the event, the standpipes remained dry and gound-

water samples were not recovered.

Following site works, samples were selected for testing to assess the risks posed to

humans (end users and construction workers) and the proposed structures. Given

the consistency of the material across the site, a sample was taken from a depth of

0.30m or 0.50m, at four positions across the site. The following testing regime was

adopted for each of these four samples:

Metals, pH, SO4, Speciated PAH, TPHCWG, VPHCWG.and BTEX

The four samples were screened for asbestos.


7.3 End User Risk Analyses

Following the procedures outlined in section 7.1, the last stage of the assessment

of data would be carried out based on the principles outlined in the CIEH/CL:AIRE

publication: Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical

Concentration, May 2008 (Ref. 16). The ESI Statistics Calculator (Ref. 17) was

designed to carry out the calculations outlined in the above document and has been

used in the following risk assessments.

The above documents consider sites to be contaminated until proven otherwise. In

essence, the objective is to decide whether the available evidence supports a

particular hypothesis, in this case, the Null Hypothesis where µ ≥ Cc (i.e. is the true

mean concentration, µ, equal to or greater than the Critical Concentration, Cc?). An

assessment is then undertaken to establish whether, on the basis of the available

data, the strength of the evidence favours the Null Hypothesis, or was an

Alternative Hypothesis (in this case µ < Cc) more likely to be true.

The calculator allows values to be set for concentrations which fall below the limit of

detection (non-detects), the values of which can significantly alter the data. In this

case, a value of half the limit of detection has been assumed. An upper confidence

level (UCL) was calculated and a required evidence level set, in this case 95%

which is common in the planning scenario, and the data was assessed for outliers.

Outliers are only removed from the data set if they are obviously the result of an

error which can be identified and explained, or indicate that there is more than one

soil population.

Two different assessment methods have been applied, depending on whether the

data is normally distributed (the one-sample t test) or non-normally distributed

(Chebychev Theorem).

Heavy Metals and Metalloids

Four samples were analysed for a heavy metals and metalloid suite comprising

arsenic, cadmium, total and hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, copper,

nickel, zinc, beryllium, vanadium, and boron.


The Land Quality Management S4ULs for a residential with home grown

vegetables land use have been used for the following assessment and an SSAC for

lead has been calculated as discussed in sub-section 7.1.

The S4ULs used to assess heavy metals were derived for a pH range between 6

and 8. Outside this range, the S4ULs will be more or less conservative. The pHs

at this site ranged from ,5.6 to 6.5, with an average of 6.1, so that the S4ULs are

appropriate, although only marginally so.

The results for heavy metals for the whole site are summarised in the table below:

Determinant Maximum

Concentration (mg/kg)

Population Distribution

Test Type

Upper Confidence

Limit (mg/kg)

Suitable for Use Level (S4UL) or

SSAC (mg/kg)

Evidence level

against Null Hypothesis

Arsenic 29 Non-normal Chebychev 36 37 95%

Cadmium 0.84 Normal 1 sample t test 0.89 11 100%

Chromium <1 Non-normal Chebychev 0.5 910 100%

Lead 206 Normal 1 sample t test 191 191 95%

Mercury 0.59 Normal 1 sample t test 0.57 40 100%

Selenium 1.3 Normal 1 sample t test 1.5 250 100%

Copper 42 Non-normal Chebychev 61 2400 100%

Nickel 31 Normal 1 sample t test 31 180 100%

Zinc 181 Normal 1 sample t test 211 3700 100%

Beryllium 1.7 Normal 1 sample t test 1.9 1.7 90%

Vanadium 46 Normal 1 sample t test 46 410 100%

Boron 1.9 Normal 1 sample t test 1.8 290 100%

Hexavalent Chromium

0.6 Normal 1 sample t test 0.56 6 100%

With the exception of beryllium, the calculated Upper Confidence Limits are at or

below the S4ULs and the evidence level is 95% or more. As such, the risk from

these determinants has been assessed as low. The reverse was true of beryllium,

however, and in this case the risk has been assessed as medium.


Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Petroleum hydrocarbons are a complex mixture of carbon/hydrogen based

molecules of varying chain length with both aromatic and aliphatic fractions. The

aliphatic fraction often predominates, but the aromatic fraction is usually more toxic.

It is possible, therefore, that whilst the total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content is

comparatively high, the higher concentrations are in heavier less harmful bands.

To characterise the petroleum hydrocarbons, tests (TPHCWG) to determine the

carbon banding and the aliphatic and aromatic split were carried out on the four

samples.

The UK Approach for Evaluating Human Health Risks from Petroleum

Hydrocarbons in soils, SR P5-080/TR3 (Ref. 18) indicates that if elevated

concentrations are detected, analyses for petroleum hydrocarbon fractions should

be carried out and assessed against appropriate screening values. The document

considers that, even if the individual fractions are below the screening values, there

is the potential for additively of toxicological effects between fractions, giving rise to

the possibility of significant harm, so a further assessment is required. Suitable For

Use Levels (S4ULs) have been published by Land Quality Management for a series

of carbon bands, as per TPHCWG. These values have been used as the initial Tier

1 assessment.

This second assessment involves the calculation of the Hazard Index (HI). If the HI

is less than 1, then no further action is required. The HI is calculated using the

following equation:

HI = ∑ HQ = ∑measured concentration, Fi /GAC

where

HI= Hazard Index

HQ = Hazard Quotient

Fi = Fraction of Individual Compound (mg/kg)

GAC = Generic Assessment Criteria for individual Compounds (mg/kg).


The table below summarises the maximum concentrations found at the site,

together with the Upper Confidence Limits, compared with the S4ULs for a

residential with home grown produce land use and a soil organic matter (SOM)

content of 2.5%. In this connection, S4ULs are quoted for soil organic matter

contents of 1.0%, 2.5% and 6.0%. In the present case, SOM concentrations of

2.9% to 7.3% were measured with an average of 4.9%. A SOM of 2.5% has been

used in the analyses, as it is more protective than 6.0%.

The Upper Confidence Limits for all the carbon bands are significantly less than the

relevant assessment criteria. Given this, the Hazard Quotient has been calculated

for each determinant using the Upper Confidence Limit and is also given in the

table above. The Hazard Index has been calculated as 0.19 and the risk to human

end users from petroleum hydrocarbons is, therefore, considered to be low.

Carbon Band

Maximum Measured

Concentration (mg/kg)

Upper Confidence

Limit (mg/kg)

Suitable for Use Level

(S4UL) (mg/kg)

Evidence level against

Null Hypothesis

Hazard Quotient

Aliphatic C5 to C6 <0.01 0.005 78 100% 6.41E-05

Aliphatic C6 to C8 <0.01 0.005 230 100% 2.17E-05

Aliphatic C8 to C10 <1 0.5 65 100% 0.007692

Aliphatic C10 to C12 <1 0.5 330 100% 0.001515

Aliphatic C12 to C16 7 9 2400 100% 0.003833

Aliphatic C16 to C35 <1 .0.5 92000 100% 5.43E-06

Aliphatic C35 to C44 <1 0.5 92000 100% 5.43E-06

Aromatic C5 to C7 <0.01 0.005 140 100% 3.57E-05

Aromatic C7 to C8 <0.01 0.005 290 100% 1.72E-05

Aromatic C8 to C10 <0.01 0.005 83 100% 6.02E-05

Aromatic C10 to C12 1 1.2 180 100% 0.0065

Aromatic C12 to C16 42 56 330 100% 0.169697

Aromatic C16 to C21 2 2.5 540 100% 0.004648

Aromatic C21 to C35 <1 0.5 1500 100% 0.000333

Aromatic C35 to C44 <1 0.5 1500 100% 0.000333


Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons

Analyses for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) was undertaken on the four

samples. PAHs are often associated with ash and incomplete combustion.

Naphthalene is the most mobile compound in the group and benzo(a)pyrene and

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene are the most toxic. Suitable For Use Levels (S4ULs) have

been published by Land Quality Management for all sixteen PAH congeners. The

table below summarises the range of results for these compounds compared with

the assessment criteria, again for a soil organic matter content of 2.5%.

PAH Congener

Maximum Concentration

(mg/kg)

Population Distribution

Upper Confidence

Limit (mg/kg)

Suitable for Use Level

(S4UL) (mg/kg)

Evidence Level

against Null Hypothesis

Naphthalene <0.05 Non-normal 0.025 5.6 100%

Acenaphthylene <0.05 Non-normal 0.025 420 100%

Acenaphthene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 510 100%

Fluorene <0.05 Non-normal 0.025 400 100%

Phenanthrene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 220 100%

Anthracene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 5400 100%

Fluoranthene 0.21 Non-normal 0.26 560 100%

Pyrene 0.20 Non-normal 0.25 1200 100%

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.16 Non-normal 0.20 11 100%

Chrysene 0.18 Non-normal 0.22 22 100%

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.16 Normal 0.14 3.3 100%

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.13 Non-normal 0.17 93 100%

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.13 Non-normal 0.17 2.7 100%

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 36 100%

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 0.28 100%

Benzo(ghi)perylene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 340 100%

As can be seen from the table, the S4ULs exceed the Upper Confidence Limits for

all the congeners and the evidence level is 100%. On this basis, the risk to end

users from polyaromatic hydrocarbons is considered low.


BTEX

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene are often referred to collectively as

BTEX because they have closely related chemical structures and have similar fate

and transport properties. They are often used together in industrial and petroleum

products and commonly occur together in the environment as a result of related

pollution.

BTEX testing was undertaken on the four samples. In all cases, the measured

concentrations were below the limits of detection. As such, the risk from BTEX is

considered low.

Asbestos

The four samples were screened for asbestos. The results are given in Figure D5

in Appendix D. Asbestos not detected in any of these samples, nor was there any

visual evidence of the material in the boreholes or trial pits, nor on the ground

surface. As such, the risk due to asbestos is considered low.

7.4 Chemical Attack on Buried Concrete

The results of the chemical analyses on the four samples of made ground/soil

indicated soluble sulphate contents (as SO4 in 2:1 water/soil extracts) in the range

of less than 0.01g/l to 0.06g/l. The associated pH values were in the range 5.6 to

6.5. Tests on two other samples of natural soil produced pH values of 8.0 and 7.5.

BRE Special Digest 1: 2005 recommends precautionary measures with respect to

sulphate attack on concrete for a range of concentrations, for both ‘Greenfield’ and

‘Brownfield’ locations. The concentrations in the made ground and natural soil at

this site fall within the least onerous Class DS-1.

Consideration should also be given to the risk of acid attack on concrete. The

classification varies depending on whether the ground-water is static or mobile. In

the static conditions likely to apply at this site, the classification becomes AC-1s.

Provided the mixes are designed in accordance with the recommendations given in

Special Digest 1, the risk due to sulphate and acid attack on buried concrete is

considered low.


7.5 Ground Gas

The generation of methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide or hydrogen sulphide

gases is often associated with made ground, organic deposits, mine workings or

residual petroleum hydrocarbons. Light fractions within any residual petroleum

hydrocarbons could also give rise to volatile organic compounds.

Methane is a flammable gas. It is explosive in air at a concentration above 5% by

volume (the so-called Lower Explosive Limit). Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas

that is heavier than air and can concentrate in open excavations or internal void

spaces. Carbon monoxide is both flammable and an asphyxiant. Hydrogen

sulphide can be associated with made ground, particularly material containing slag

and can be identified by humans by a ‘rotten egg’ smell.

With respect to the limiting concentrations, CIRIA Report C665 discusses the

concept of gas screening values (GSV), which are the product of gas

concentrations multiplied by gas volume flow. In essence, this approach considers

the likely gas flux, rather than simplistically looking at the maximum concentration,

which has had a tendency to lead to over design of gas protection measures. Once

determined, the GSV is used to determine which “Characteristic Situation” applies

and what, if any, gas protection measures are suitable to adequately protect a

development.

Gas monitoring in the standpipes has been carried out on six occasions and the

results are recorded in Figure B10 in Appendix B. Methane, carbon monoxide and

hydrogen sulphide were not detected. Carbon dioxide was found in all three

standpipes, with a maximum concentration of 1.1% in borehole BH03 on the first

visit. The introduction of oxygen into a borehole can result in an early spike in the

carbon dioxide readings, but this effect diminishes with time. Gas flows and

differential pressures were below the limits of detection. The first and second

monitoring visits were made at a time of low atmospheric pressure (i.e. <1000mb)

when gas generation is commonly at its worst.

Based on this set of data, the GSV has been calculated as 0.001l/hr for carbon

dioxide. This indicates Characteristic Situation 1 conditions, in which case gas

protection measures are not required.


7.6 Radon

To assess whether there is a potential risk to end users from exposure to radon,

reference has been made to BR211 (Ref. 19). The document suggests that in most

cases, it is impractical to assess the severity of a radon problem on a particular site

accurately, until the building has been constructed and occupied. However,

information and reference maps are available for 1km squares related to the

National Grid.

Reference to these maps indicates that the site lies within a grid where there is a

Lower Probability Radon Area (less than 1% of homes are estimated to be at or

above the Action Level). Radon protective measure are not considered necessary.

7.7 Construction Workers

None of the recorded chemical concentrations should present a problem to

construction workers who will be exposed only in the short term. This also applies

to asbestos.

However, across the site, good standards of hygiene should be applied to ensure

that ingestion and dermal contact are minimised. These should include gloves and

overalls to prevent direct contact, in addition to site washing facilities.

In addition, gas monitoring should be undertaken in all excavations and confined

spaces. In this connection, carbon dioxide concentrations of up to 1.1% were

recorded in the standpipes. Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas and, with respect

to construction workers, EH40/2005 sets a 15 minute exposure limit of 1.5% by

volume and an eight hour exposure limit of 0.5%. Carbon dioxide is heavier than

air and can concentrate in open excavations. At worst, ventilation may be required.

On this basis and provided the comments above are addressed, the risk to

construction workers will be low.


7.8 Ground-Water

The standpipes in boreholes BH01B, BH02 and BH03 were scheduled for ground-

water sampling. However, the tubes were not long enough to intercept the ground-

water table. As such, leachate testing was carried out on three of the original four

soil/made ground samples. This included the sample from borehole BH01 at

0.30m, which contained the highest levels of chemical contamination. The samples

were tested for a leachate suite comprising arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,

mercury, selenium, copper, nickel, zinc, beryllium, vanadium, ammoniacal nitrogen,

pH, petroleum hydrocarbons (aliphatic/aromatic split) and speciated polyaromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs).

SEPA Position Statement WAT-PS-10-01 describes site specific assessment

criteria and the way in which SEPA will assign them to high risk ground-water

pollutant inputs in a consistent and logical way. The generally accepted procedure

for assessing risks from potentially polluting inputs is to use the concept of source-

pathway-receptor.

A passive input can be considered here, resulting from previous activity that has

now ceased due to the historical nature of the site. From the SEPA on-line Water

Environment Hub, it is clear that the ground-water below the site lies in the

Morningside aquifer. The quality of this aquifer is shown as good and water

abstraction could be a possibility. As such, the ground-water should be considered

a potential receptor. Therefore, resource protection values are the most

appropriate set of thresholds for risk assessment purposes.

The Position Statement from SEPA provided assessment criterial for pollutant

inputs into ground-water. If these are not available, other standards have been

referenced. As ground-water was not encountered, the leachate results have been

used to assess the potential for contamination to impact on the ground-water. The

findings are summarised in the table below:


PAL: Protection of Aquatic Life: Freshwater

RPV: Resource Protection Value

PIW: Protection of Inland Waters

PSWfDW: Protection of Surface Waters

WHO DWG: WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality

EQS: Environmenal Quality Standard

Determinant

Maximum Concentration

Recorded (µg/l)

Guideline

Value (µg/l)

Standard

Exceedences

Arsenic 21.2 10 RPV Borehole BH01

Cadmium <0.04 5 RPV None

Chromium 0.47 50 RPV None

Lead 1.97 25 RPV None

Mercury <0.08 1 RPV None

Selenium <0.05 10 RPV None

Copper 7.1 50 PSWfDW None

Nickel 2.5 20 RPV None

Zinc 10.1 3000 PSWfDW None

Beryllium 0.08 4 RPV None

Vanadium 4.8 20 EQS None

Ammoniacal Nitrogen (as N) 900 5000 RPV None

Naphthalene <0.01 10 PAL None

Anthracene <0.01 0.1 PIW None

Benzo(b)fluoranthene <0.01 0.03 PSW None

Benzo(a)pyrene <0.01 0.01 RPV None

Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene <0.01 0.002 PSW None

Fluoranthene <0.01 0.0063 EQS None

Benzo(ghi)perylene <0.01 0.03 PSW None

Petroleum Hydrocarbons Aromatic C5 to C6

<10 10 WHO DWG None


<10 10 WHO DWG None


<10 90 WHO DWG None


<10 90 WHO DWG None

Petroleum Hydrocarbons Aliphatic C5 to C8

<10 15000 WHO DWG None

Petroleum Hydrocarbons Aliphatic C9 to C16

<10 300 WHO DWG None


With the exception of arsenic, the results were below the limits of detection or the

appropriate guideline value. To assess this risk further a risk assessment was

carried out.

This was carried out following the methods described by SEPA. The assessment

focused on the highest concentrations recorded in borehole 01. As the results are

for leachate, the assessment was carried out to consider how quickly the

contamination would attenuate as it moved through the soil column towards the

ground-water.

The hydraulic gradient was calculated assuming the pore-water would percolate

downwards, towards ground-water table. This was seen as a conservative

assumption. Having an assumed hydraulic gradient allowed a P20 (Ref. 20)

ground-water monitoring risk assessment to be carried out. The assessment is

included in the Site Specific Assessments in Appendix E.

In carrying out the P20 assessments, additional assumptions had to be made.

These are stated below;

• Pore-water would percolate down towards the ground-water,

• The width of the contamination plume is 10m, half the distance to the next

sample point,

• The aquifer thickness was taken as 0.40m, the thickness of the layer the elevated

concentrations came from,

• A bulk density of 2.00Mg/m3 was estimated from the site works,

• The porosity of 0.35n was taken for the correct soil type from Domenico, P.A and

Schwarts, F.W (1990).

• The hydraulic conductivity of 7x10-1 m/day was taken from Domenico, P.A and

Schwarts, F.W (1990).

The results indicated that if the maximum leachable potential was mobilised into

the pore-water, it would have naturally attenuated to below the RPV within 4.50m

of the source.


To summarise, it is unlikely that the arsenic will present a risk to water quality and it

is reasonable to conclude that the risk to the water environment is low.

7.9 Geochemical Conclusions

Following the site works and laboratory testing, the risk assessment may be

presented as follows:

Source Pathway Receptor Risk

Outcome

Remediation

Required?

Toxic Metals

(made ground)

Ingestion, Inhalation,

Direct Contact Humans

Female Child Medium

(Beryllium) Yes (see below)

Construction

Worker Low No (see below)

Migration via permeable

strata or ground-water

Ground-water Low No

Surface Water Low No

Petroleum

Hydrocarbons

(made ground)



Female Child Low No

Construction


Polyaromatic

Hydrocarbons

(made ground)



Female Child Low No

Construction




Ground-water Low No


Leachable and

Mobile

Hydrocarbons

(made ground)



Ground-water Low No


Soil Gases (from

any organic soil,

hydrocarbons,

made ground)


strata

Humans

Female Child Low No

Construction


Buildings (fire, explosion) Low No (see below)

Asbestos

(demolition

rubble or made

ground)

Inhalation Humans

Female Child Low No

Construction


Sulphates and

Corrosives

(demolition

rubble or made

ground)

Direct Contact

Buildings and Services Low No (see below)

Humans Female Child Low No

Radon Inhalation Human

Female Child Low No

Construction

Worker Low No


As noted earlier, the risks generally have been assessed as low, with a medium risk

with respect to beryllium. In some cases the low classification is dependent on

precautions being implemented, as discussed in the previous sub-sections and

summarised below.

• The risk to construction workers has been generally assessed as low.

However, it will be necessary to ensure that good standards of site hygiene

are employed in order to ensure that ingestion and dermal contact are

minimised. Gas monitoring during entry into excavations and confined

spaces should be undertaken. Ventilation may be required. It is worth

noting that these are standard procedures.

• The risk to buried concrete due to sulphate and acid attack has been

assessed as low, provided the mixes are designed in accordance with the

requirements of Special Digest 1, as detailed in sub-section 7.4.

A medium risk was identified with respect to beryllium. Three of the four samples

had concentrations just below the Suitable for Use Level (S4UL), which resulted in

the Upper Confidence Level (UCL) being slightly above. Remediation will be

required. The simplest solution would be to break the link between the source and

the receptor by providing a barrier. This could be hard paving on the roads and

paths, or a blanket of clean inert soil in the areas of soft landscaping. It is

commonly accepted that to be effective, this barrier should be about 1.0m thick, but

in the present case the measured beryllium concentrations were all below the

Upper Confidence Limit (UCL). The advice of the appropriate Local Authority

should be sought with respect to reducing the thickness of this capping layer.


REFERENCES

(1) 1:10560 scale Geological Survey of Great Britain (Scotland). Sheet NT27SE. (2) BS EN 1997-2. Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical design – Part 2 : Design assisted by laboratory testing.

2007. (3) BS5930: Code of Practice for Ground Investigations, British Standards Institution, 2015. (4) BS10175: Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites, British

Standards Institution, 2011 + A1:2013. (5) BS EN ISO 22476-3: Geotechnical investigation and testing. Field testing. Standard penetration

test, 2005. (6) BS1377 : Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, British Standards Institution,

1990. (7) DEFRA Publication CLR11. Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination. The

Environment Agency 2004. (8) Updated Technical Background to The CLEA Model. Science Report SC050021/SR3. August

2008. Environment Agency. (9) Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment, Land Quality Management

Limited, 2007. (10) The Soil Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment, Contaminated Land: (11) BRE Special Digest 1. Concrete in Aggressive Ground. Building Research Establishment. 2005. (12) Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gas to Buildings, CIRIA C665. (13) EH40/05. Occupational Exposure Limits. Health and safety Executive, 2003. (14) Position Statement WAT-PS-10-01 Assigning groundwater assessment criteria for pollutant inputs.

SEPA. June 2011. (15) Supporting Guidance (WAT-SG-53) Environmental Standards for Discharges to Surface Waters.

SEPA April 2013 (16) CL:AIRE Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration,

Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments, 2008. (17) Contaminated Land Statistics Calculator, ESI, 2008. (18) The UK Approach for Evaluating Human Health Risks from Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Soil.

Science Report P5-080/TR3. (19) BRE376 Radon: Guidance on protective measures for new dwellings in Scotland. 1999.

(20) Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Land Contamination remedial Targets Worksheet. V. 3.2.

Environment Agency Updated August 2014.

Create Engineering LLP

Deborah Marshall

250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH

APPENDIX APLANS

Sty

le:

AP

PE

ND

IX A

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:23:

29

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:


Deborah Marshall


LOCATION PLAN

Crown CopyrightLicence No.

1000005786

Fig No:Originator

StatusChk & App

Sty

le:

RD

G_L

OC

AT

ION

_PLA

N

File

: P:\

GIN

TW

\PR

OJE

CT

S\2

5085

.GP

J

Prin

ted:

05/

03/2

019

09:5

8:00

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

m

Title:

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:

Final

A1WTG

RH

Deborah Marshall



Originator

StatusChk & App

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:S

tyle

: A

3_S

ITE

PLA

N

File

: P:\

GIN

TW

\PR

OJE

CT

S\2

5085

.GP

J

Prin

ted:

05/

03/2

019

13:3

9:12

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

mS

tyle

: A

3_S

ITE

PLA

N

File

: P:\

GIN

TW

\PR

OJE

CT

S\2

5085

.GP

J

Prin

ted:

05/

03/2

019

13:3

9:12

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

m

Title:

SITE PLANA2

Fig No:

FinalWTG

RH


Deborah Marshall


APPENDIX BSITE WORKS

Sty

le:

AP

PE

ND

IX B

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:23:

58

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:


Deborah Marshall


NOTES ON FIELD PROCEDURES

Sonic drilling is employed as an alternative boring method for soft ground and rock. The sonic rig operates much like anyconventional top-drive rotary rig. The main difference is that a sonic drill rig has a specially designed hydraulically powered drillhead or oscillator which produces adjustable high frequency vibratory forces. Sonic samples are extruded direct to plastic linerbags or semi-rigid plastic liners for rapid inspection. Bulk and small disturbed samples are then taken from the plastic liner bags.

Trial pits are excavated by hand or machine for a number of purposes such as avoiding services, exposing foundations orobtaining a better view of shallow ground conditions.

Tube samples of cohesive soils are generally taken with a 100mm internal diameter open drive sampler known as a U100, with anarea ratio of 30%. The sampler is driven into the soil at the bottom of the borehole by a sliding hammer. After a sample is taken,the drive head and cutting shoe are unscrewed from the sample tube and any wet or disturbed soil removed from either end. Thesample tube is then sealed with wax and fitted with plastic end caps.

A range of more specialised equipment, e.g. thin walled open drive sampler (UT100), piston or foil samplers, may be used to obtainhigher quality samples in conditions where conventional open drive sampling is impracticable or unsatisfactory. The UT100sampler is specifically utilised to obtain class 1 samples of cohesive soils as required under BS EN1997-2.

Disturbed samples are taken from the boring tools or trial pits at regular intervals. The samples are sealed in airtight containers.Bulk samples are large disturbed samples from the boring tools, or from trial pits, generally where tube samples are unavailable.

The Standard Penetration Test, SPT, in accordance with BS EN ISO 22476-3, determines the resistance of soil to the penetrationof a split barrel sampler. A 50mm diameter split barrel sampler is driven 450mm into the soil using a 63.5kg hammer with a 760mmdrop, and the penetration resistance, the "N" value, is expressed as the number of blows required to achieve 300mm penetrationbelow an initial penetration of 150mm, the seating drive, through any disturbed soil at the bottom of the borehole.

In coarse soils, the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is conducted in the same manner as the SPT but using a 50mm diameter 60degree apex solid cone point to replace the split barrel sampler.

Where more accurate or longer term measurement of emissions is required, gas monitoring standpipes are installed in boreholes.

Determination and measurement of gases in the ground, commonly in relation to landfills, may be made directly from the groundsurface, where a hole is formed by driving a solid and rigid steel spike to depths normally in the range 1.0 to 1.5m. Gas emissionsare analysed using an appropriate portable analyser. However, research has shown that the small sample hole size and smearingeffects can give a false negative result.

A more accurate record of groundwater behaviour may be obtained from standpipes or standpipe piezometers.

(a) The trial pit or borehole is rarely left standing at the relevant depth for sufficient time for the water level to reach equilibrium.(b) A permeable stratum may have been sealed off by the borehole casing.(c) It may have been necessary to add water to the borehole to facilitate progress.(d) There may be seasonal, tidal or other effects at the site.

Borehole water levels are recorded, together with the depths at which seepages or inflows of groundwater are detected and theobservations noted on the borehole or trial pit records. These observations may not give an accurate indication of groundwaterconditions, for the following reasons:

Generally, peat probing is carried out using a Mackintosh Probe. The probe is pushed through the peat until resistance is met thenthe depth at which this occurred is recorded.

Gases

Groundwater

Sonic Drilling

Trial Pits

Samples and In-situ Tests

Peat Probing

Boring

The standard method of boring in soil for ground investigation is known as the cable tool method. It uses various tools worked on awire cable, typically a shell in non-cohesive soils such as sand and gravel, and a clay cutter in cohesive soils such as clay. Verydense soils, boulders or other hard obstructions are disturbed or broken up by chiselling and the fragments removed with the shell.Where the ground conditions require, the borehole is lined with driven steel casings of such sizes that the bottom of the borehole isnot less than 125mm diameter.

Where there are constraints upon access, alternative methods of soft ground boring are available. However, each has limitationsthat need to be taken into account when assessing their suitability and the ground conditions inferred from their results.

Rotary Drilling

Rotary drilling is employed to extend ground investigation beyond the practical limit of cable tool boring in hard formations,commonly rock. Core drilling is used to obtain continuous intact samples of the formation and is generally undertaken with doubletube swivel type core barrels fitted with tungsten or diamond bits as appropriate to formation type and hardness. Open-hole rotarydrilling using tricone rock roller bits or tungsten insert drag bits, or down-the-hole hammers, is carried out where more limitedinformation is sufficient, strata identification being made from cuttings only. Open-hole rotary drilling methods may also beemployed for fast penetration of soils where detailed sampling is not required, prior to coring at depth. Air or water is the flushingmedium normally used with rotary drilling methods. Where the ground conditions require, the borehole is lined with inserted ordrilled-in casing.

Sty

le:

NO

TE

S F

IELD

WO

RK

S

File

: P:\

GIN

TW

\PR

OJE

CT

S\2

5085

.GP

J

Prin

ted:

18/

04/2

019

09:2

4:10

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

m

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:

25085

Deborah Marshall



LetterNominal Diameter (mm)

Borehole

Wooden plug

92

113

Non-standard

412

76

100

121

146

108

54

76

75

Bentonite

Bentonite/cement grout

Solid pipe

Slotted pipe

Piston sample

NOTE: Tube samples are 100mm diameter unless otherwise specified in the remarks. Suffix 'a' indicates sample not

SOIL SAMPLES

UP

limited recovery

Small Disturbed/Jar/Tub/Vial sample

Bag/Large Bag sample

Sample appropriate for geochemical analyses (tub)

B/LB

ET

CORE RECOVERY AND ROCK QUALITY

Rotary Open Hole Drilling through Soil / Rotary Open Hole Drilling through Rock

Ground-water sample

recovered; suffix 'b' indicates full penetration of sampler not obtained; suffix 'c' indicates full penetration of sampler but

UT (X)

General purpose tube sample; X No of blows to drive sampler

Thin walled push in sampler (type OS-T/W); X No of blows to drive sampler

# before a description indicates that it is based on the Driller's record.

Material legends are in accordance with ISO 710-1 and 710-2

LEGENDS

IN SITU AND FIELD TESTS

or'a' is blow/75mm for seating drive; 'b' is blows/75mm for test drive; (pen) is test drive penetration if less than 300mm.

California bearing ratio testCBR

K

HP

FV

HV

ID

Permeability test

Hand penetrometer test

Field vane test

Hand vane test

Density test

PID

D/J/T/V

RO-S/RO-R

FI

Flush: "Depth" indicates depth down to which recorded "Returns" relate

N/I

Solid Core Recovery: The core recovered as solid cylinders expressed as a percentage of the core run length

Rock Quality Designation: The core recovered as solid cylinders of length 100mm or more expressed as a percentage of core run length.

Fracture Index: The number of discontinuities expressed as fractures per metre

Non Intact

GROUND-WATER

Ground-water encountered

Depth to which ground-water rose

Ground-water cut off by the casing

Water sampleWS

Concrete

Spoil

TCR

SCR

RQD

N/R

Total Core Recovery: The total core recovered expressed as a percentage of the core run length

No Recovery (assumed)

W

DIMENSIONS

All dimensions in metres unless otherwise stated.

Core

Standard

N

H

P

SSand

Gravel

Porous element

U (X)

INSTALLATIONS (BACKFILL) ROTARY DRILLING SIZES

Standard penetration test (split barrel sampler(SPT)or cone (CPT)); X is the penetration (N) value;SPT=X a/b (pen)

CPT=X a/b (pen)

Moisture condition value testMCV

Photo Ionisation Detector (ppm)

KEY TO BOREHOLE AND TRIAL PIT RECORDS

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:S

tyle

: B

H T

P K

EY

F

ile:

P:\

GIN

TW

\PR

OJE

CT

S\2

5085

.GP

J

Prin

ted:

18/

04/2

019

09:2

4:04

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

m

0.30

1.50

Brown sandy clayey TOPSOIL with many roots. Sand is fine to coarse

Very dense reddish brown very sandy very clayey fine to coarseangular and subangular GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse

SANDSTONE recovered as brown silty sandy coarse angular gravel....at 1.50m: # sandstone obstruction

END OF BOREHOLE

14/01

0.300.400.50

1.00

1.20

1.50

0.40

1.401.50 Dry

End OfShift

SPT=82

ET, T, V,VBET, T, V,V

B, ET, T,V, VB, TU(308)

ET, T, V,V

1.50

14/12019

CasingDepth

Boring

Struck

To Depth

Chk & App

Remarks:

1:50

JW

Casing

Driller Fig No:

Scale

RC

FlushChisellingOriginator

HoleDiam.

Status Sheet 1 of 1

# Description based on Driller's log.An inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m to clear services.Ground-water was not observed to enter the borehole.The Penetration Tests were carried out using Trip Hammer TER83.The borehole was abandoned at a depth of 1.50m due to a sandstone obstruction. Borehole BH01A was attempted at an immediately adjacentlocation.

Final

From (m) To (m)TypeTime(hr)Water AddedGround-water

ReturnsToFromToFromCut OffTime(min)Rose To

WTG

105

B1

1.50 1.50

VerticalOrientation:

Contract No:Site:

Client:

Engineer:

Location:

Deborah Marshall


25085

Equipment: Hand Tools, Boart Longyear Terrier 120

BH01

NS252818


1.20m1.50m

Inspection Pit toPercussion to

Depth

Pro

gres

s

Depth DepthType

Samples

Result

TestsDepth

Level

(m) Description of Strata

Sym

bol

Backfill

Lege

nd

Depth

Water

Sty

le:

BO

RE

HO

LE N

EW

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ+

44 (

0)16

98 7

1099

9

Prin

ted:

18/

04/2

019

09:2

4:36

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

m

5.11 /12.20.26.24

0.30

1.40

# TOPSOIL with roots

Reddish brown very sandy very clayey fine to coarse angular andsubangular GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse (descriptiontaken from the record for borehole BH01).

....at 1.40m: # sandstone obstructionEND OF BOREHOLE

14/01

0.35

1.40 DryEnd Of

Shift

1.40

14/12019

CasingDepth

Boring

Struck

To Depth

Chk & App

Remarks:

1:50

JW

Casing

Driller Fig No:

Scale

RC


HoleDiam.

Status Sheet 1 of 1

# Description based on Driller's log.An inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m to clear services.Ground-water was not observed to enter the borehole.The borehole was abandoned at a depth of 1.40m due to a sandstone obstruction. Borehole BH01B was attempted at an immediately adjacentlocation.

Final



WTG

105

B2

1.40 1.40


Contract No:Site:

Client:

Engineer:

Location:

Deborah Marshall


25085


BH01A

NS252818


1.20m1.40m


Depth

Pro

gres

s

Depth DepthType

Samples

Result

TestsDepth

Level


Sym

bol

Backfill

Lege

nd

Depth

Water

Sty

le:

BO

RE

HO

LE N

EW

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ+

44 (

0)16

98 7

1099

9

Prin

ted:

18/

04/2

019

09:2

4:36

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

m

0.50

1.45

0.25

0.50

1.45

# TOPSOIL with roots

Reddish brown very sandy very clayey fine to coarse angular andsubangular GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse (descriptiontaken from the record for borehole BH01).


14/01

0.35

1.45 DryEnd Of

Shift

14/12019

CasingDepth

Boring

Struck

To Depth

Chk & App

Remarks:

1:50

JW

Casing

Driller Fig No:

Scale

RC


HoleDiam.

Status Sheet 1 of 1

# Description based on Driller's log.An inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m to clear services.Ground-water was not observed to enter the borehole.A 50mm diameter perforated standpipe was installed to a depth of 1.45m.

Final



WTG

105

B3

1.45 1.45


Contract No:Site:

Client:

Engineer:

Location:

Deborah Marshall


25085


BH01B

NS252818


1.20m1.45m


Depth

Pro

gres

s

Depth DepthType

Samples

Result

TestsDepth

Level


Sym

bol

Backfill

Lege

nd

Depth

Water

Sty

le:

BO

RE

HO

LE N

EW

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ+

44 (

0)16

98 7

1099

9

Prin

ted:

18/

04/2

019

09:2

4:37

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

m

1.00

2.00

0.50

1.00

2.00

Brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy clayey TOPSOIL with many rootsand rootlets. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarsesubangular of sandstoneMedium dense reddish brown very sandy very clayey fine to coarsesubangular GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse

SANDSTONE recovered as red gravelly slightly clayey fine to coarsesand....at 2.00m: # sandstone obstruction

END OF BOREHOLE

14/01

0.30

0.50

1.00

1.20

1.50

2.00 2.00

0.35

1.902.00 Dry

End OfShift

SPT=13

SPT>50

ET, T, V,VB, ET, T,V, V

B, ET, T,V, VB, TU(118)

ET, T, V,V

T 2.00

14/12019

CasingDepth

Boring

Struck

To Depth

Chk & App

Remarks:

1:50

JW

Casing

Driller Fig No:

Scale

RC


HoleDiam.

Status Sheet 1 of 1

# Description based on Driller's log.An inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m to clear services.Ground-water was not observed to enter the borehole.A 50mm diameter perforated standpipe was installed to a depth of 2.00m.The Penetration Tests were carried out using Trip Hammer TER83.

Final



WTG

105

B4

2.00 2.00


Contract No:Site:

Client:

Engineer:

Location:

Deborah Marshall


25085


BH02

NS252818


1.20m2.00m


Depth

Pro

gres

s

Depth DepthType

Samples

Result

TestsDepth

Level


Sym

bol

Backfill

Lege

nd

Depth

Water

Sty

le:

BO

RE

HO

LE N

EW

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ+

44 (

0)16

98 7

1099

9

Prin

ted:

18/

04/2

019

09:2

4:37

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

m

2.2 /3.3.4.3

25 (20)/50 (10)

1.00

2.75

0.50

1.00

2.75

Brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy clayey TOPSOIL with many roots.Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse subangular ofsandstone

Medium dense and dense reddish brown very sandy very clayey fine tocoarse angular GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse


14/01

0.200.30

0.50

1.00

1.20

1.50

2.50 2.00

0.40

2.75 DryEnd Of

Shift

SPT=24

SPT=38

BET, T, V,VB, ET, T,V, V

B, ET, T,V, VBU(201)

ET, T, T,V, VU(114)ET, T, T,V, V

B, TU(80) 2.75

14/12019

CasingDepth

Boring

Struck

To Depth

Chk & App

Remarks:

1:50

JW

Casing

Driller Fig No:

Scale

RC


HoleDiam.

Status Sheet 1 of 1

# Description based on Driller's log.An inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m to clear services.Ground-water was not observed to enter the borehole.A 50mm diameter perforated standpipe was installed to a depth of 2.75m.The Penetration Tests were carried out using Trip Hammer TER83.

Final



WTG

105

B5

2.75 2.75


Contract No:Site:

Client:

Engineer:

Location:

Deborah Marshall


25085


BH03

NS252818


1.20m2.75m


Depth

Pro

gres

s

Depth DepthType

Samples

Result

TestsDepth

Level


Sym

bol

Backfill

Lege

nd

Depth

Water

Sty

le:

BO

RE

HO

LE N

EW

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ+

44 (

0)16

98 7

1099

9

Prin

ted:

18/

04/2

019

09:2

4:38

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

m

12.9 /7.4.5.8

3.3 /3.9.13.13

Dry

0.40

0.75

# TOPSOIL

# Reddish brown gravelly sandy CLAY with sandstone

END OF TRIAL PIT14/1

201914/1

Remarks:

Fig No:

Scale

Chk & App

Cut OffTime(mins)Rose ToStruckGround-water

Status

Originator

1:50

Driller

Sheet 1 of 1

# Description based on Driller's log.Ground-water was not encountered.The walls of the pit stood vertical throughout excavation.

B6JW

WTG FINAL

RC

Backfill

Depth

Water

Depth

Sym

bolSamples and Tests

Result Lege

nd

Depth

SampleDescription of Strata

Pro

gres

s

Depth

Level

Typ

e (m)


Contract No:Site:

Client:

Engineer:

Location:

Deborah Marshall


25085Trial Pit No.

Equipment: Hand Tools

TP01

NS252818


0.75m

Width - m Length - m

Hand Pit to

Sty

le:

TR

IALP

IT

File

: P:\

GIN

TW

\PR

OJE

CT

S\2

5085

.GP

J+44

(0)

1698

710

999

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:24:

53

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com

Dry

0.30

1.00

0.30

1.00

Brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy clayey TOPSOIL. Sand is fine tocoarse. Gravel is fine to coarse angular of sandstone

Reddish brown very sandy clayey fine to coarse subangular andsubrounded GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse

END OF TRIAL PIT

B, ET, T, V, V

B, ET, T, V, V15/1

201915/1

Remarks:

Fig No:

Scale

Chk & App


Status

Originator

1:50

Driller

Sheet 1 of 1

Ground-water was not encountered.The walls of the pit stood vertical throughout excavation.

B7JW

WTG FINAL

RC

Backfill

Depth

Water

Depth

Sym


Result Lege

nd

Depth


Pro

gres

s

Depth

Level

Typ

e (m)


Contract No:Site:

Client:

Engineer:

Location:

Deborah Marshall


25085Trial Pit No.


TP02

NS252818


1.00m

Width - m Length - m

Hand Pit to

Sty

le:

TR

IALP

IT

File

: P:\

GIN

TW

\PR

OJE

CT

S\2

5085

.GP

J+44

(0)

1698

710

999

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:24:

54

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com

Dry

0.50

1.00

0.20

0.50

1.00

MADE GROUND (reddish brown clayey fine to coarse sand and fine andmedium angular gravel of sandstone)

Reddish brown very gravelly very clayey fine to coarse SAND. Gravel is fineto coarse subangular and subrounded of sandstone

END OF TRIAL PIT

B, ET, T, V, V

B, ET, T, V, V

B, ET, T, V, V15/1

201915/1

Remarks:

Fig No:

Scale

Chk & App


Status

Originator

1:50

Driller

Sheet 1 of 1

Ground-water was not encountered.The walls of the pit stood vertical throughout excavation.

B8JW

WTG FINAL

RC

Backfill

Depth

Water

Depth

Sym


Result Lege

nd

Depth


Pro

gres

s

Depth

Level

Typ

e (m)


Contract No:Site:

Client:

Engineer:

Location:

Deborah Marshall


25085Trial Pit No.


TP03

NS252818


1.00m

Width - 0.50m Length - 0.50m

Hand Pit to

Sty

le:

TR

IALP

IT

File

: P:\

GIN

TW

\PR

OJE

CT

S\2

5085

.GP

J+44

(0)

1698

710

999

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:24:

54

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com


Deborah Marshall


Fig No:Originator

StatusChk & App

Sty

le:

A4_

NA

ME

BO

X

File

: P:\

GIN

TW

\PR

OJE

CT

S\2

5085

.GP

J

Prin

ted:

18/

04/2

019

09:2

5:55

R

aebu

rn D

rillin

g an

d G

eote

chni

cal,

Whi

stle

berr

y R

d, H

amilt

on

ML3

0H

P T

el:

0169

8-71

1177

E

-mai

l: en

quiri

es@

raeb

urnd

rillin

g.co

m

Title:

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:

Final

B9WTG

FMR SPT HAMMER ENERGY TEST REPORT TER83

BH01B 22/01/19 00:00 984 0.00 0.90 19.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Occasional snow showers

29/01/19 00:00 979 0.00 0.70 19.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Occasional snow schowers

05/02/19 00:00 1011 0.00 0.20 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, frosty

12/02/19 00:00 1012 0.00 0.30 19.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast

19/02/19 00:00 1001 0.00 0.20 20.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast

26/02/19 00:00 1022 0.00 0.40 19.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, sunny

BH02 22/01/19 00:00 984 0.00 0.70 19.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Occasional snow showers


05/02/19 00:00 1011 0.00 0.70 19.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, frosty

12/02/19 00:00 1012 0.00 0.60 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast

19/02/19 00:00 1001 0.00 0.20 20.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast

26/02/19 00:00 1022 0.00 0.10 20.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, sunny

BH03 22/01/19 00:00 984 0.00 1.10 19.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Occasional snow showers


05/02/19 00:00 1011 0.00 0.40 19.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, frosty

12/02/19 00:00 1012 0.00 0.10 20.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast

19/02/19 00:00 1001 0.00 0.40 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast

26/02/19 00:00 1022 0.00 0.00 20.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, sunny

Remarks

RESULTS OF GAS AND WATER LEVELMONITORING IN STANDPIPES

BoreholeNo.

Sur

veye

dLe

vel (

m O

D)

Sty

le:

SP

IPE

MO

NIT

OR

ING

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:26:

23

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com

Dep

th to

Bas

eof

Sta

ndpi

pe (

m)

Date

Diff

eren

tial

Pre

ssur

e(P

a)

CH4

(%vol)

Gas Composition

Atm

osph

eric

Pre

ssur

e(m

Bar

)

Depthto

Water(m)(m)

Flow

(l/hr)

CO2

(%vol)

O2

(%vol)

H2S(ppm)

CO(ppm)

JP

FinalWTG

B10Sheet 1 of 1

Engineer:

Client:

Fig No:Originator

Status

Site: Contract No:

Chk & App

Sty

le:

SP

IPE

MO

NIT

OR

ING

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:26:

23

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com

Title:

Final

JP

Deborah Marshall


WTG


B10


Deborah Marshall


APPENDIX CGEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING

Sty

le:

AP

PE

ND

IX C

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:26:

38

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:


Deborah Marshall


NOTES ON LABORATORY PROCEDURES

TEST STANDARD

CLASSIFICATION TESTS

Determination of moisture content BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 3.2

Determination of liquid limit BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 4.3 and 4.4

Determination of plastic limit and plasticity index BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 5.3 and 5.4

Determination of bulk density BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 7.2

Determination of particle density (formerly specific gravity) BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 8.2 and 8.3

Sieve analysis by wet or dry sieving BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 9.2 and 9.3

Sedimentation by the pipette method BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 9.5

CHEMICAL TESTS

Determination of organic matter content BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 3 : 3.4

Determination of mass loss on ignition BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 3 : 4.3

Determination of sulphate content of soil and groundwater BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 3 : 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5

Determination of chloride content BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 3 : 7.2 and 7.3

Determination of pH value BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 3 : 9.5

COMPACTION-RELATED TESTS

Determination of dry density/moisture content relationship BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 4 : 3.3 to 3.6

Determination of moisture condition value (MCV) SDD Tech Memo SH7/83; SDD Appls Guide No.1 Rev. 1989

Determination of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 4 : 7.4

CONSOLIDATION AND STRENGTH TESTS

Determination of one-dimensional consolidation properties BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 5 : 3.5

Determination of undrained shear strength in triaxial compression BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 7 : 8.4 and 9.4

Lab Vane Tests BS 1377 : 1990

Shear Box Tests BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 7 : Clause 4

ROCK TESTS

Determination of point load strength DIHM based on ISRM Commission on Testing Methods, 1985

Determination of unconfined compressive strength DIHM based on ASTM D2938-86

LA Abrasion Tests BS EN 1097-2-2010 and BS 818 : Part 2 : 1990

Magnesium Soundness Tests BS EN 1367-2

Slake durability ISRM Suggested methods

Rock porosity / density ISRM Suggested methods

Sty

le:

NO

TE

S L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

File

: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:26:

45

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:

Non Engineering Sample

Description

Contract No 25085

Dry

Liq

uid

Lim

it

Pla

stic L

imit

Att

erb

erg

Cla

ssific

ation

Part

icle

Density

Atterberg limits

Lab P

roje

ct N

o B

22261-2

: 31/0

1/2

019 1

5:4

3:4

7

PSD

1.20

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL TESTS

Brown CLAY with some gravel.

Gravel is fine to coarse.

12 25 Oed

Brown sandy SILT with some gravel.


6.3 25

Mg/m³

Shear

Str

ength

Other Tests

Total Stress

BH01 1.20 22

BH03 1.50

BH02

Angle

of

Shearing

Resis

tance P

hi

% kPa kPa

Density

% Mg/m³ Mg/m³

Notes

31/01/2019

Originator

PM

Opinions and interpretations are outside the scope

of UKAS accreditation Y

Appare

nt

Cohesio

n

C

Approved

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Bulk

Pla

sticity I

ndex

Perc

enta

ge r

eta

ined

425µ

m

%

Brown silty clayey SAND with much

gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.

Versio

n 0

74 - 1

4/1

1/2

013

BH02 1.20

BH01 1.20

1121 - G

eote

chnica

l Test S

um

mary - B

22261-2

.xls

Exploratory

Hole

Depth

m

PSDBrown silty clayey SAND with much

gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.

32

12 16 CL 2.17 1.94 38

44

43

38 0.7

Y- Y YY Y Y YUKAS Accredited Test Y/N Y

13

Brown sandy SILT with much gravel.


15 27

%

Y Y

tFigure C1

Sheet 1 of 2

See individual report

sheets

Test details are given on the 'Notes on Laboratory Procedures' sheet

B 469225

T 469226

B 469223

T 469224

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID

Sample Identification

TSite

Client

Engineer

Sample

Ref

U 469227


Deborah Marshall


Non Engineering Sample

Description

Contract No 25085

Dry

Liq

uid

Lim

it

Pla

stic L

imit

Att

erb

erg

Cla

ssific

ation

Part

icle

Density

Atterberg limits

Lab P

roje

ct N

o B

22261-2

: 31/0

1/2

019 1

5:4

3:4

8

PSD

PSD16 13 24

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL TESTS

Brown silty clayey SAND with some

gravel and one cobble. Gravel is fine

to coarse.

22 27

Mg/m³

Shear

Str

ength

Other Tests

Total Stress

TP03 0.50 17

Angle

of

Shearing

Resis

tance P

hi

14

% kPa kPa

Density

29

% Mg/m³ Mg/m³

Notes

31/01/2019

Originator

PM

Opinions and interpretations are outside the scope

of UKAS accreditation Y

Appare

nt

Cohesio

n

C

Approved

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

Bulk

Pla

sticity I

ndex

Perc

enta

ge r

eta

ined

425µ

m

%

Brown silty clayey SAND with much

gravel. Gravel is fine to cobble

sized.

Versio

n 0

74 - 1

4/1

1/2

013

TP02 1.00

1121 - G

eote

chnica

l Test S

um

mary - B

22261-2

.xls

Exploratory

Hole

Depth

m

CL

Y- Y YY Y Y YUKAS Accredited Test Y/N Y

%

Y Y

tFigure C1

Sheet 2 of 2

See individual report

sheets

Test details are given on the 'Notes on Laboratory Procedures' sheet

B 469228

B 469229

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID


TSite

Client

Engineer

Sample

Ref


Deborah Marshall


Contract No.

Non Engineering Description :

Preparation :

Sample was determined to be Non-Plastic after preparation

Results :As Received Moisture Content : (BS1377:Part 2:Clause 3:1990) %Percentage retained on 425µm sieve : %Liquid Limit : %

Plastic Limit :

Equivalent moisture content of material passing 425µm sieve : %

tFigure C2

IG31/01/2019 Sheet 1 of 1

Liquid Limit (One Point Cone Penetrometer Method)Originator

Checked &

Approved

BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 5:1990

12

20

- L

LP

L B

H0

1 0

1.2

0

T -

B2

22

61

-2-4

69

22

4.x

ls :

Sa

mp

le I

D 4

69

22

4

Ve

rsio

n 0

51

- 0

8/1

1/2

01

3

T

Mo

or

La

ne

, W

itto

n,

Birm

ing

ha

m,

B6

7H

G

25

Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index & Liquidity Index

6.322

Non-Plastic

BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 4.4:1990

La

b P

roje

ct N

o B

22

26

1-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

01

9 1

5:4

3:5

2

8.1

BH01

1.20

T

Hole ID

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type

Client Deborah Marshall

Engineer Create Engineering LLP

Brown sandy SILT with some gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.

Sample washed and air dried

25085Site 5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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

Liquid Limit (%)

Pla

stic

ity I

ndex

M L M I M H M V M E

C L C I C H C V C E

Contract No.


Preparation :



Plastic Limit :


tFigure C3

IG31/01/2019 Sheet 1 of 1


Checked &

Approved


12

20

- L

LP

L B

H0

2 0

1.2

0

T -

B2

22

61

-2-4

69

22

6.x

ls :

Sa

mp

le I

D 4

69

22

6

Ve

rsio

n 0

51

- 0

8/1

1/2

01

3

T

Mo

or

La

ne

, W

itto

n,

Birm

ing

ha

m,

B6

7H

G

27


1532

Non-Plastic


La

b P

roje

ct N

o B

22

26

1-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

01

9 1

5:4

3:5

9

22

BH02

1.20

T

Hole ID

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type



Brown sandy SILT with much gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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

Liquid Limit (%)

Pla

stic

ity I

ndex

M L M I M H M V M E

C L C I C H C V C E

Contract No.


Preparation :


Plastic Limit : %Plasticity Index :

Equivalent moisture content of material passing 425µm sieve : %Liquidity Index :

Lab P

roje

ct

No B

22261-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

019 1

5:4

4:0

51220 -

LLP

L B

H03 0

1.5

0

U -

B22261-2

-469227.x

ls :

Sam

ple

ID

469227

121625

1312

Vers

ion 0

51 -

08/1

1/2

013

TSite

Client

Engineer

BH03

1.50

U

Hole ID

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type


Deborah Marshall


Checked &

Approved





140.08

Brown CLAY with some gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.

Moor

Lane,

Witto

n,

Birm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

tFigure C4

IG31/01/2019 Sheet 1 of 1

Liquid Limit (Four Point Cone Penetrometer Method)Originator

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

23 24 25 26 27Moisture Content (%)

Pe

ne

tra

tion

of co

ne

(m

m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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

Liquid Limit (%)

Pla

stic

ity In

de

x

M L M I M H M V M E

C L C I C H C V C E

Contract No.


Preparation :


Plastic Limit : %Plasticity Index :

Equivalent moisture content of material passing 425µm sieve : %Liquidity Index :

Lab P

roje

ct

No B

22261-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

019 1

5:4

4:1

11220 -

LLP

L T

P02 0

1.0

0

B -

B22261-2

-469228.x

ls :

Sam

ple

ID

469228

142429

1613

Vers

ion 0

51 -

08/1

1/2

013

TSite

Client

Engineer

TP02

1.00

B

Hole ID

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type


Deborah Marshall


Checked &

Approved





180.15

Brown silty clayey SAND with much gravel. Gravel is fine to cobble sized.

Moor

Lane,

Witto

n,

Birm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

tFigure C5

IG31/01/2019 Sheet 1 of 1

Liquid Limit (Four Point Cone Penetrometer Method)Originator

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28 29 30 31 32Moisture Content (%)

Pe

ne

tra

tion

of co

ne

(m

m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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

Liquid Limit (%)

Pla

stic

ity In

de

x

M L M I M H M V M E

C L C I C H C V C E

Contract No.


Preparation :



Plastic Limit :


tFigure C6

IG31/01/2019 Sheet 1 of 1


Checked &

Approved


12

20

- L

LP

L T

P0

3 0

0.5

0

B -

B2

22

61

-2-4

69

22

9.x

ls :

Sa

mp

le I

D 4

69

22

9

Ve

rsio

n 0

51

- 0

8/1

1/2

01

3

T

Mo

or

La

ne

, W

itto

n,

Birm

ing

ha

m,

B6

7H

G

27


2217

Non-Plastic


La

b P

roje

ct N

o B

22

26

1-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

01

9 1

5:4

4:1

9

27

TP03

0.50

B

Hole ID

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type



Brown silty clayey SAND with some gravel and one cobble. Gravel is fine to coarse.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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

Liquid Limit (%)

Pla

stic

ity I

ndex

M L M I M H M V M E

C L C I C H C V C E

Figure C7

t Sheet 1 of 1

35.7

50

3.9

0.0063D10

Uniformity Coefficient

6.4

Silt

Clay

619.0

1260 -

PS

D B

H01 0

1.2

0

B -

B22261-2

-469223.x

ls :

Sam

ple

ID

469223

Vers

ion 0

59 -

24/0

6/2

013

Lab P

roje

ct

No B

22261-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

019 1

5:4

4:2

6

Moor

Lane,

Witto

n,

Birm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

T

Contract No 250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH

Deborah Marshall


Site

Client

Engineer

Hole

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type

% PassingNon Engineering Description

125.0 mm90.0 mm75.0 mm63.0 mm50.0 mm37.5 mm28.0 mm20.0 mm14.0 mm10.0 mm6.30 mm5.00 mm3.35 mm2.00 mm1.18 mm600 µm425 µm300 µm212 µm150 µm

63 µm20 µm

6 µm2 µm

15.8

D100

D60

Particle Diameter - mm

100100100100100

948776716763615958565553483830231610

6

42.1

Notes

OriginatorChecked &

Approved

CR31/01/2019

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONBS1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.2 - Wet Sieving

BS1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.4 - Sedimentation by Pipette

BH01

1.20

B

Cobbles

Gravel

Sand

Brown silty clayey SAND with much gravel. Gravel is fine

to coarse.

Sample Proportions - %

0.0

Particle Size

Sedimentation sample not pre-treated

0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 6 20 60 200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Particle Size - mm

Perc

enta

ge P

assin

g -

%

CobblesClayFine Fine FineMedium Coarse Medium Coarse Medium Coarse

Silt Sand Gravel


BH02

1.20

B

Cobbles

Gravel

Sand


to coarse.


0.5

Particle Size

OriginatorChecked &

Approved

CR31/01/2019





63 µm20 µm

6 µm2 µm

21.0

D100

D60


100100100100

98939288868279787471686461564840302113

9

29.0

Notes

T


Deborah Marshall


Site

Client

Engineer

Hole

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type

1260 -

PS

D B

H02 0

1.2

0

B -

B22261-2

-469225.x

ls :

Sam

ple

ID

469225

Vers

ion 0

59 -

24/0

6/2

013

Lab P

roje

ct

No B

22261-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

019 1

5:4

4:5

9

Moor

Lane,

Witto

n,

Birm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

D10


8.8

Silt

Clay

139.3

40.7

63

0.39

0.0028

Figure C8

t Sheet 1 of 1

0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 6 20 60 200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Particle Size - mm

Perc

enta

ge P

assin

g -

%


Silt Sand Gravel

Figure C9

t Sheet 1 of 1

38.3

75

4.4

0.0039D10


7.5

Silt

Clay

1128.2

1260 -

PS

D T

P02 0

1.0

0

B -

B22261-2

-469228.x

ls :

Sam

ple

ID

469228

Vers

ion 0

59 -

24/0

6/2

013

Lab P

roje

ct

No B

22261-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

019 1

5:4

5:0

6

Moor

Lane,

Witto

n,

Birm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

T


Deborah Marshall


Site

Client

Engineer

Hole

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type



63 µm20 µm

6 µm2 µm

9.0

D100

D60


100100100

9695897867656462615955534943342922171212

7

41.0

Notes

OriginatorChecked &

Approved

CR31/01/2019



TP02

1.00

B

Cobbles

Gravel

Sand


to cobble sized.


4.2

Particle Size


0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 6 20 60 200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Particle Size - mm

Perc

enta

ge P

assin

g -

%


Silt Sand Gravel

Figure C10

t Sheet 1 of 1

55.1

75

0.54

0.0055D10


7.1

Silt

Clay

98.2

1260 -

PS

D T

P03 0

0.5

0

B -

B22261-2

-469229.x

ls :

Sam

ple

ID

469229

Vers

ion 0

59 -

24/0

6/2

013

Lab P

roje

ct

No B

22261-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

019 1

5:4

5:1

2

Moor

Lane,

Witto

n,

Birm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

T


Deborah Marshall


Site

Client

Engineer

Hole

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type



63 µm20 µm

6 µm2 µm

12.0

D100

D60


100100100

9595959390888481807674706256473527201310

7

20.7

Notes

OriginatorChecked &

Approved

CR31/01/2019



TP03

0.50

B

Cobbles

Gravel

Sand

Brown silty clayey SAND with some gravel and one

cobble. Gravel is fine to coarse.


5.2

Particle Size


0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 6 20 60 200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Particle Size - mm

Perc

enta

ge P

assin

g -

%


Silt Sand Gravel

Non Engineering Description:

15 % 14 %

Assumed

Degree of saturation %

20±2°C

Pressure Range

kPa

0 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 200

200 - 400

400 - 50

Duration

days

1

1

1

1

1

Specimen taken 50mm below top of (U100) tube by vertical extrusion with horizontal orientation

Cv (log time)

m²/year

3.45

unable to assess

Cv (root time)

m²/year

4.70

10.13

5.37

Final Moisture Content

Final Voids Ratio

2.68 Mg/m³

unable to assess

1.35

3.18

2.22

Initial Voids Ratio

Initial Bulk Density 2.12 Mg/m³

0.453

0.107

0.072

0.021

6.57

Particle Density

Voids ratio (e)

0.424

0.412

C sec

881.84 Mg/m³

Specimen Dimensions

Laboratory temperature

0.377

19.82mm x 74.94mm dia

Mv

0.387

ONE DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATIONBS1377:PART 5:1990

OriginatorChecked &

Approved

KP31/01/2019 t

Figure C11

Sheet 1 of 1Moor

Lane,

Witto

n,

Birm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

Lab P

roje

ct

No B

22261-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

019 1

5:4

5:2

0

Ve

rsio

n 0

62

- 1

1/0

5/2

01

1

T1510 -

OE

D B

H03 0

1.5

0

U -

B22261-2

-469227.x

ls :

Sam

ple

ID

469227

Brown CLAY with some gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.

0.387

Engineer


Deborah Marshall


SiteContract No 25085

Hole ID

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type

BH03

1.50

U

Client

0.170

m²/MN

0.397

Initial Dry Density

0.395

Initial Moisture Content

0.370

0.380

0.390

0.400

0.410

0.420

0.430

1 10 100 1000

Effective Pressure (kPa)

Vo

ids R

atio

(e

)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

• C

oe

ffic

ien

t o

f C

on

so

lida

tion

m²/

yr

(T

50

)

Phi

kPa

°0.7

Sample Details

Dry Density Mg/m³

Sample Condition

162.6

3

8.0

38

0.20

Brown CLAY with some gravel. Gravel is fine

to coarse.

Shear Strength Parameters

C

Undisturbed specimen taken

100mm below top of tube


Hole

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type

BH03

1.50

U

1.23 1.23

Membrane Correction

Test Details

Membrane Thickness mm

0.45

2

0.20

4.3 6.8

Cell Pressure kPa 100 200

Maximum Deviator Stress kPa 77 88

Non Engineering Description

Shear Strength kPa 38

Brittle

4344

UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED MULTISTAGE

TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

tFigure C12

86

1.23

400

0.40

12

0.27

2.17

0.20

1.94

1

83.7

Bulk Density

Vers

ion 0

34 -

22/1

1/2

012

TSite

Client

Engineer

Diameter mm


Moisture Content %

Mode of Failure

Strain at Failure %

Rate of Axial Displacement %/min

kPa

Mg/m³

Moor

Lane,

Witto

n,

Birm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

Lab P

roje

ct

No B

22261-2

: 3

1/0

1/2

019 1

5:4

5:3

0

OriginatorChecked &

Approved

Height mm

Comments

Undisturbed

1730 -

UU

TX

L B

H03 0

1.5

0

U -

B22261-2

-469227.x

ls :

Sam

ple

ID

469227

AT31/01/2019

Contract No. 25085

Deborah Marshall

Stage

BS 1377 : Part 7 : 1990 Clause 9

Sheet 1 of 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500Normal Stress - kPa

Shear

Str

ess -

kP

a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Strain - %

Devia

tor

Str

ess

- k

Pa

Moor

Lane, W

itton, B

irm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

Lab P

roje

ct N

o B

22261-2

Contract No 25085

Checked &

Approved

AT31/01/2019

Site 5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH

Deborah Marshall


Hole

Sample Ref

Depth (m)

Sample Type

#R

EF

!

T1730 -

UU

TX

L B

H03 0

1.5

0 U

- B

22261-2

-469227.x

ls

Engineer

Client

BH03

1.50

U

Sheet 2 of 2

Figure C12

tOriginator Please note that these photographs are intended to show the

failure mode, and do not necessarily show accurately the

colouration of the soil.

1

2


Deborah Marshall


APPENDIX DGEOCHEMICAL LABORATORY TESTING

Sty

le:

AP

PE

ND

IX D

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:27:

51

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:

2140 - S

uite

Maxi S

OIL

- B22261 0

1.x

ls

HoleDepth

m

BH03 0.50

Lab P

roje

ct No B

22261 : 2

9/0

1/2

019 1

7:1

7:2

1

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

0.50

TH

Checked &

Approved

31 181

Figure D1

Sheet 1 of 129/01/2019

Originator

Vers

ion 0

10 - 2

9/0

1/2

009

TP02 0.30

BH01 0.30

TP03

0.6 4.3 0.06

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg %

5.8

23 50 0.69 41 1.9 0.3

441.49

29 173 1.69 46 <1.0

6.5

<1.0

5.6

0.6 <0.01

0.020.3 3.9

26 156 1.49 42 6.51.2 <0.3 2.5 0.01

0.8428.7

mg/kg mg/kg

<1 206 41

mg/kg

0.59

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

1.3

0.13 <0.5

TP1740.05 ~1 1.0 0.3 0.1

M U UM N M

0.01

MTP169 TP019

T 469206

T 469210

T 469198

T 469202

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID


TSite

Client

Engineer

Sample

Ref

t


Deborah Marshall


g/l

0.60 <1 17

6.2 0.84 <1

6.2

98 0.38 1.3 42

0.125.2 0.74 <1 66 0.6 40

17

Bery

llium

pH

0.5 0.10 1 1

Ars

enic

Cadm

ium

Chro

miu

m

Lead

Zin

c

Merc

ury

Sele

niu

m

Copper

Nic

kel

Vanadiu

m

Boro

n (

wate

r solu

ble

)

Hexavale

nt

Chro

miu

m

Tota

l org

anic

carb

on

TP1370.10 0.5 1

TP137TP137 TP137 TP137 TP137

25085Contract No

TP137 TP137Limits of Detection

Terra Tek Analysis Method TP137MM M

TP137 TP032 TP0400.51

Sulp

hate

(w

ate

r solu

ble

in

2:1

extr

act)

as S

O4

TP137Accreditation M=Mcerts U=UKAS N=No accreditation M MMM M M

RESULTS OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION TESTS -

SOIL

KEY

* - deviating result (refer to Appendix S2 for details)

^ - result expressed on as-received basis


TP045 TP045TP045 TP045


Deborah Marshall

Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method TP045 TP045

POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (USEPA 16) -

SOIL

KEY


25085Contract No

Tota

l P

AH

s (

US

EP

A 1

6)

TP045 TP045 TP045MM M M M

TP045 TP0450.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100.10

Dib

enzo (

ah)

anth

racene

Benzo (

ghi) p

ery

lene

Benzo (

a)

anth

racene

Chry

sene

Benzo (

b)

fluora

nth

ene

Benzo (

k)

fluora

nth

ene

Phenanth

rene

Anth

racene

Benzo (

a)

pyre

ne

Indeno (

1,2

,3 -

cd)

pyre

ne

Naphth

ale

ne

Acenaphth

yle

ne

Acenaphth

ene

Flu

ore

ne

Flu

ora

nth

ene

Pyre

ne

<0.10 <0.10

<0.05 <0.05 <0.10

<0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.05 <0.10

<0.05

<0.05 <0.10 <0.10

<0.05

<0.05 <0.10 <0.05

<0.10


mg/kgmg/kg mg/kg

tTP045

Sample

Ref

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID


TSite

Client

Engineer

T 469198

T 469202

T 469206

T 469210

M M M M MTP045 TP045TP045 TP045

1.3

M MMMMTP045

M M

0.10 0.100.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10

mg/kg

<0.10


<0.10<0.05 0.21

<0.10

<0.05 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10

<0.05 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <1.3<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.05 <0.05

<0.05 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <1.3

0.18

<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.05 <0.05

<0.10 <1.3<0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.05

mg/kg mg/kg

0.13 <0.10 <0.10 <1.3

mg/kg mg/kg

0.16 0.16 0.13

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

<0.10

Vers

ion 0

08 - 1

9/0

6/2

007

TP02 0.30

BH01 0.30

TP03

0.20

Figure D2

Sheet 1 of 129/01/2019

OriginatorChecked &

Approved

Accreditation M=Mcerts U=UKAS N=No accreditation

Lab P

roje

ct No B

22261 : 2

9/0

1/2

019 1

7:1

7:2

4

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

0.50

DAB

2150 - P

AH

s S

OIL

- B22261 0

1.x

ls

HoleDepth

m

BH03 0.50

Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method

Accreditation U=UKAS N=No accreditationTP126 TP126TP126 TP126 TP126

25085Contract No

TP126 TP1261 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

TP

H (

Aro

matics >

C16-C

21)

TP

H (

Aro

matics >

C21-C

35)

TP

H (

Aro

matics >

C35-C

40)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics >

C21-C

35)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics >

C35-C

40)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics C

8-C

10)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics >

C10-C

12)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics >

C12-C

16)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics >

C16-C

21)

1

<1 <1 <1 <1

<1 <1

<1 <1 <1

<1

<1 <1 <1

<1 <1<1 <1 <1


Deborah Marshall


TP

H (

Aro

matics >

C10-C

12)

TP

H (

Aro

matics >

C12-C

16)

<1

<1 <1 <1

U U

t

Sample

Ref

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID


TSite

Client

Engineer

V 469199

V 469203

V 469207

V 469211

U UUTP126

U

TPHCWG - SOIL

UU UTP126 TP126 TP126

U U

1 1

mg/kg

<1


<1

mg/kg mg/kg

7 <1 <1

<1 <1 <1 Yes<1

Yes

Yes

<1 <1 <1 <1

2 <1 <1 <1

<1


Vers

ion 0

10 - 1

8/0

2/2

009

TP02 0.30

BH01 0.30

TP03

Figure D3

Sheet 1 of 129/01/2019

Originator

42 2

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

0.50

DAB

Checked &

Approved

2210 - T

PH

CW

G S

oil - B

22261 0

1.xls

HoleDepth

m

BH03 0.50

Lab P

roje

ct No B

22261 : 2

9/0

1/2

019 1

7:1

7:2

7S

am

ple

receiv

ed

in

ap

pro

pri

ate

co

nta

iner

KEY



Yes<1

<5

KEY



2215 - V

PH

CW

G - S

oil - B

22261 0

1.x

ls

HoleDepth

m

BH03 0.50

Lab P

roje

ct No B

22261 : 2

9/0

1/2

019 1

7:1

7:2

9

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

0.50

DAB

Checked &

Approved

<10 <5

Figure D4

Sheet 1 of 129/01/2019

Originator

Vers

ion 0

10 - 1

8/0

2/2

009

TP02 0.30

BH01 0.30

TP03

Yes

Sam

ple

receiv

ed

in

ap

pro

pri

ate

co

nta

iner

µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg

<10 <5 <5 <5

<5

Yes

<10 <5 <5 <5 Yes

<10 <5 <5 <5 Yes

469199

<10

µg/kg µg/kg

<10 <10 <5

µg/kg

<10

µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg

<5

5 5

MMM MMMTP154 TP154

MTP154 TP154 TP154

VPHCWG - SOIL

MMM M


V

V

TSite

Client

Engineer

Sample

Ref

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID

469207

V 469203

V 469211

t


Deborah Marshall


<5 <5

<10

<10 <10 <10

<10 <10

<10

<10 <10

<10

<10

<5 <5

<10<10 <10 <10 <10 <5 <5

TP

H (

Alip

hatics C

5-C

6)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics C

6-C

8)

TP

H (

Aro

matics C

6-C

7)

TP

H (

Aro

matics C

7-C

8)

TP

H (

Aro

matics C

8-C

10)

Benzene

Eth

ylb

enzene

m &

p -

Xyle

ne

o -

Xyle

ne

Tolu

ene

MT

BE

10 10 10 10 10 5 5 510TP154

25085Contract No


Accreditation U=UKAS N=No accreditationTP154 TP154TP154 TP154 TP154

2700 - A

sbesto

s - B

22261 0

1.x

ls

HoleDepth

m

BH03 0.50

Lab P

roje

ct No B

22261 : 2

9/0

1/2

019 1

7:1

7:3

2

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

0.50

TH

Comments

Figure D5

Sheet 1 of 129/01/2019

OriginatorChecked &

Approved

Vers

ion 0

08 - 1

9/0

6/2

007

TP02 0.30

BH01 0.30

TP03

%

~None

~None

~None

None ~

ND

ND

ND

ND


S/CU

0.001~ ~

US/C

KEY

T 469206

T 469210

T 469198

T 469202

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID


TSite

Client

Engineer

Sample

Ref

tU


Deborah Marshall


Asbesto

s S

cre

en

25085Contract No

S/C

Quantification b

y P

hase

Contr

ast

Optical

Mic

roscopy


Accreditation M=Mcerts U=UKAS N=No accreditation

ASBESTOS SCREEN/IDENTIFICATIONND - no asbestos detected

D - asbestos detected

3140 - C

onta

min

atio

n N

RA

P1 - B

22261-3

01.x

ls

HoleDepth

m

BH03 0.50

Lab P

roje

ct No B

22261-3

: 18/0

3/2

019 1

5:3

4:0

7

10.1

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

TH

2.5

Figure D1

Sheet 1 of 118/03/2019

OriginatorChecked &

Approved

Vers

ion 0

08 - 1

9/0

6/2

007

TP02 0.30

BH01 0.30 0.08 4.8 0.5

0.6 6.9

6.8

µg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l

0.06 3.9

0.9 2.8 0.03 3.6 0.9 6.8

0.7 1.8

µg/l

<0.5

µg/l µg/l

7.15<0.5

µg/l

<0.08

µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l

21.2

10.8 <0.08

0.01 0.2 0.1 ~

RESULTS OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION TESTS - NRA LEACHATE

N N UN

ET 469205

ET 469197

ET 469201

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID


TSite

Client

Engineer

Sample

Ref

t


Deborah Marshall


2.35

<0.04

<0.04 <0.04 <0.01

0.47 1.97

6.8 <0.04 0.07 3.740.40 <0.08 <0.5

Merc

ury

Sele

niu

m

Copper

Nic

kel

Zin

c

Bery

llium

Vanadiu

m

Am

monia

cal nitro

gen

pH

Ars

enic

Cadm

ium

Chro

miu

m

Lead

0.2 0.04 0.04 0.01

N NN

0.08 0.5 0.03 0.30.3TP078 TP020TP156 TP156 TP156 TP156 TP156

25085Contract No

Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method TP156

NN N N N NAccreditation U=UKAS N=No accreditationTP156TP156 TP156 TP156 TP156

Figure D6

3155 - P

AH

s N

RA

Suite

2 - B

22261-3

01.x

ls

HoleDepth

m

BH03 0.50

Lab P

roje

ct No B

22261-3

: 18/0

3/2

019 1

5:3

4:1

0

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

TH

Checked &

Approved

<10 <10

Figure D2

Sheet 1 of 118/03/2019

Originator

Vers

ion 0

08 - 1

9/0

6/2

007

TP02 0.30

BH01 0.30 <10 <10 <10 <160

ng/lng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l

<10

<10 <10 <10 <10

<10

<10

ng/l

<10 <10

<10

<10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10

<10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10

<160

<160

ng/l ng/l

<10 <10 <10

ng/l

<10

ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l

<10

<10 <10

10 1010 10 10 10

N N NN N NTP112

POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (USEPA 16) - NRA LEACHATE

TP112TP112

ET 469205

ET 469197

ET 469201

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID


TSite

Client

Engineer

Sample

Ref

t

160

N

10

N

<10 <10 <10

<10

<10 <10

<10

<10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10

Indeno (

1,2

,3 -

cd)

pyre

ne

Chry

sene

Phenanth

rene

Anth

racene

Flu

ora

nth

ene

Pyre

ne

Benzo (

b)

fluora

nth

ene

Benzo (

k)

fluora

nth

ene

Benzo (

a)

pyre

ne

10

Naphth

ale

ne

Acenaphth

yle

ne

Acenaphth

ene

Flu

ore

ne

Benzo (

a)

anth

racene

10 10 10 10TP112 TP112 TP112

NNTP112 TP112

10

N N NN

10 10 10

N N NTP112

25085Contract No

Benzo (

ghi) p

ery

lene


Deborah Marshall


ng/l

TP112 TP112TP112

Poly

nucle

ar

Aro

matic

Hydro

carb

ons (

tota

l)

TP112 TP112 TP112TP112 TP112

Dib

enzo (

ah)

anth

racene


Accreditation U=UKAS N=No accreditation

Figure D7


Accreditation U=UKAS N=No accreditationTP130 TP130TP130

N N

TP

H (

Aro

matics >

C35-C

40)

25085Contract No

TP155 TP155 TP130 TP130TP15510

N N NN

10

TP

H (

Aro

matics >

C21-C

35)

10 10 10 10 10TP155 TP155 TP130

NNTP130 TP130

N

10 10

TP

H (

Alip

hatics C

5-C

6)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics C

6-C

8)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics C

8-C

10)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics >

C10-C

12)

TP

H (

Aro

matics C

6-C

7)

TP

H (

Aro

matics C

7-C

8)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics >

C12-C

16)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics >

C16-C

21)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics >

C21-C

35)

TP

H (

Alip

hatics >

C35-C

40)

TP

H (

Aro

matics C

8-C

10)

TP

H (

Aro

matics >

C10-C

12)

TP

H (

Aro

matics >

C12-C

16)

TP

H (

Aro

matics >

C16-C

21)

<10 <10 <10<10 <10 <10

<10

<10

<10

<10 <10 <10


Deborah Marshall


µg/l

t

Sample

Ref

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID


TSite

Client

Engineer

ET 469197

ET 469201

ET 469205

10

NTP130

TPHCWG ALIPHATIC/AROMATIC SPLIT - NRA LEACHATE

TP130N N NN N N

10 1010 10 10 10TP130

µg/l

<10

µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l

<10

µg/l µg/l

<10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10<10 <10 <10 <10<10 <10 <10 <10

µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l

<10<10 <10 <10 <10<10

µg/l

Vers

ion 0

10 - 1

8/0

2/2

009

TP02 0.30

BH01 0.30

Figure D3

Sheet 1 of 118/03/2019

Originator

<10 <10

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

TH

Checked &

Approved

3210 - T

PH

CW

G C

5-C

40 N

RA

- B22261-3

01.x

ls

HoleDepth

m

BH03 0.50

Lab P

roje

ct No B

22261-3

: 18/0

3/2

019 1

5:3

4:1

3

Figure D8

1140 - B

RE

Suite

Soil - B

22261-2

01.xls

HoleDepth

m

BH02 1.20

Moor L

ane, W

itton, B

irmin

gham

, B6 7

HG

TH

Figure D1

Sheet 1 of 125/01/2019

OriginatorChecked &

Approved

Vers

ion 0

11 - 2

6/0

7/2

012

BH01 1.20

Lab P

roje

ct No B

22261-2

: 25/0

1/2

019 1

5:2

7:4

2

BRE SD1 SUITE - SOIL

T 469224

T 469226

Sample

Type

Lab

Sample

ID


TSite

Client

Engineer

Sample

Ref

t


Deborah Marshall


8.0

7.5

~

pH

TP019

25085Contract No


MAccreditation M=Mcerts U=UKAS N=No accreditation

Figure D6Figure D9

Contract No

Notes

T 469206

469210

Deviating

Deviating

Deviating

Ve

rsio

n 0

17

- 2

2/0

1/2

01

5

TP02 0.30

BH01 0.30

80

50

- D

escri

ptio

ns

- B

22

26

1 0

1.x

ls

Mo

or

La

ne

, W

itto

n, B

irm

ing

ha

m, B

6 7

HG

BH03

29/01/2019TGH

La

b P

roje

ct N

o B

22

26

1 : 2

9/0

1/2

01

9 1

7:1

7:3

7

TP03 0.50

Depth

m

Checked &

Approved

0.50

T 469198

OriginatorAppendix S1

T


Deborah Marshall


469202

Exploratory

Hole

Sample

Type

Sample

Ref


Client

Engineer

Site

T

T

PR

IMA

RY

MA

TR

IX

Te

mp

era

ture

on

re

ce

ipt °

C

Date

Sampled

Deviating

Lab

Sample

ID

Ad

diti

on

al m

atr

ix

10.8

10.8

Se

co

nd

ary

Ma

trix

Clayey SAND Fine to medium gravel

Sandy CLAY Fine to medium gravel

Roots / twigs

10.8

Clayey SAND Fine to medium gravel

Fine to medium gravel

10.8

CLAY

17.3

% R

eta

ine

d 2

mm

% L

oss a

t 3

0C

10.5

19.2

6.4

16.2 17.1

13.4

Roots / twigs 29.4

E13009/1

SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS

Sheet 1 of 1

The laboratory removes any material > 2mm prior to analysis. The quantity and nature of the material is shown as the secondary and additional matrix types in the above table.

Where a parameter cannot be determined in house it is our policy to use a UKAS/MCERTS accredited laboratory wherever possible. Terra Tek will assume responsibility for the quality of subcontracted tests and the performance of the subcontractor chosen. Where there is no known UKAS/MCERTS laboratory for a particular parameter, a laboratory listed within the Terra Tek Approved Subcontractors List, which is subject to performance assessment, will be selected.

Terra Tek are accredited for clay, sand and loam matrix types only, where they constitute the major component of the sample. Other coarse granular materials such as gravel, are not accredited where they comprise the major component of the sample.

Results are expressed on a dry-weight basis (samples dried at 30oC ± 5oC) except where stated.

1

2

3

4


V Deviating

Deviations due to use of incorrect sample container are shown on result tables.

Pre

se

rva

tive

s u

sed

Date

Sampled

Deviating

Da

ma

ge

d c

on

tain

er

Deviating results are indicated within result tables.

Results reported for samples classified as deviating may be compromised. Deviation types are shown as "X" or "Yes" in the table above.

The absence of "X" or "Yes" in the table above indicates no reported deviations.

Sa

mp

ling

da

te h

as

no

t b

ee

n

pro

vid

ed

Deviating conditions

Depth

m

Exce

ed

ed

ma

xim

ium

ho

ldin

g

tim

e f

or

sele

cte

d t

est

(s)

Pre

se

nce

of

he

ad

sp

ace

in

sam

ple

via

l

Po

orly

fittin

g c

ap

or

lid

Sample

Type

Sample

Ref


469202

Client

Engineer

T

Deborah Marshall


4691990.30

25085

T 469198

Contract NoSite

T

Exploratory

Hole

Lab

Sample

ID

29/01/2019TGH

La

b P

roje

ct N

o B

22

26

1 :

29

/01

/20

19

17

:17

:40

BH03 0.50

Ve

rsio

n 0

17

- 2

2/0

1/2

01

5

BH03 0.50

BH01 0.30

8051 -

Devi

atin

g s

am

ple

s -

SO

LID

- B

22261 0

1.x

ls

Mo

or

La

ne

, W

itto

n,

Birm

ing

ha

m,

B6

7H

G

BH01

V

469210

tAppendix S2

Checked &

Approved

DEVIATING SAMPLES - SOIL

469203

469207

469211

469206

Sheet 1 of 1

Originator

TP02 0.30 V

TP02 0.30 T

TP03 0.50 V

TP03 0.50 T

NOTES

Deviating

Deviating

Deviating

Deviating

Deviating

Deviating

BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering

Purposes.

Yes

Determination of pentane/acetone extractable petroleum

hydrocarbons (C8 - C40) by GC/FID Yes

MEWAM method: Cyanide in Waters etcDetermination of total cyanide by steam

distillation/colorimetry.Yes Yes


Purposes.

8100 -

Test

Meth

ods S

oil

- B

22261 0

1.x

ls

MCERTS

Accredited

Wet/Dry

Sample

Tested

Method

Code

ISO17025

Accredited

YesPreparation of soil samples for chemical analysis

Reference Description of Method

Engineer

Site25085

BS1881: Part 324, 1988: Testing ConcreteDetermination of elemental sulfur by soxhlet extraction and

titrimetry.

1. Terra Tek (Birmingham) are MCERTS accredited for clay, sand & loam matrix types only, where they constitute the major component of the sample. Other coarse granular

materials, ie gravel, are not accredited where they comprise the major component of the sample.

2. Results are expressed on a dry-weight basis (samples dried at 30°C ± 5°C) except where stated.

3. The laboratory removes any material >2mm prior to analysis. The quantity and nature of any material removed from samples is recorded and the information is available on

request.

4. The laboratory records the date of analysis of each parameter. This information is available on request.

5. Where a parameter cannot be determined in house it is our policy to use a UKAS/MCERTS accredited laboratory wherever possible. Terra Tek will assume responsibility for

the quality of subcontracted tests and the performance of the subcontractor chosen. Where there is no known UKAS/MCERTS laboratory for a particular parameter, a laboratory

listed within the Terra Tek Approved Subcontractors list, which is subject to performance assessment, will be selected.

Dry

Yes WetTNRCC Method 1005: 2001 (modified)

Determination of ammoniacal nitrogen by colorimetry.

Dry

MEWAM method: Determination of Thiocyanate

,1985Determination of thiocyanate by colorimetry Yes Yes Dry

Determination of acid soluble sulfides by steam

distillation/colorimetry.Yes Yes

Determination of water soluble sulfate in 2:1 water/soil

extractYes Yes Dry

Dry

Determination of water soluble boron by colorimetry Yes

DryDetermination of loss on ignition at 50-440°C by gravimetry Yes

Yes Yes

Dry

Dry

Dry

N/AYes

Dry

Determination of complex cyanide by calculation Yes Dry

Determination of polyaromatic hydrocarbons extractable in

dichloromethane, by GC/MSYes Yes Dry

APHA/AWWA, 19th edition: Method 3500Cr-D


Purposes.

N/ASheet 1 of 2

Dry

Determination of organic matter by titrimetry. Yes Dry

Determination of acid soluble sulfate by gravimetry. Yes Yes

Determination of hexavalent chromium by colorimetry. Yes

Determination of Toluene Extractable Matter by soxhlet

extraction.Yes

TP042BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering

Purposes.

TP046MEWAM method: Phenols in water and Effluents:

4-aminoantipyrine method

TP045GACHAMJA A.M. Chromatography and Analysis:

1992 9-11 (modified)


Purposes.

Wet

Determination of Free Cyanide by steam

distillation/colorimetryYes

TP043

Dry

Determination of monohydric phenols by steam

distillation/colorimetryYes Yes Dry

TP047 MEWAM method: Cyanide in Waters etc

Checked &

Approved

tSUMMARY OF IN-HOUSE ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS

(SOIL)

Appendix S3

DryYes

T

MEWAM method: Cyanide in Waters etc

TP051 USEPA Method 9030B

TP032MAFF Book 427: The Analysis of Agricultural

Materials: Method 8

TP049

Determination of pH in 2.5:1 water/soil extract using pH

meter.

APHA/AWWA, 19th edition: Method 5520E

Vers

ion 0

26 -

21/0

5/2

009

TP019

GP001

Moor

Lane,

Witto

n,

Birm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

GP012

TP067

TP050

TP048

TP029

TP033

Notes

Originator

N/A

Lab P

roje

ct

No B

22261 :

29/0

1/2

019 1

7:1

7:4

3

TP072 In-house documented method

TP052

Contract No5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH

TP041BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering

Purposes.

TP040

Deborah Marshall


Client

BS EN 12457-3: Characterisation of Waste -

Compliance test for leaching of granular waste

materials and sludges (two-stage batch test)

Preparation of soil samples for two-stage leachate test

In-house documented method

Yes

USEPA Methods 8081B & 8141BDetermination of pesticides and herbicides in soil by

GC/MS SIM

Yes


Purposes.

8100 -

Test

Meth

ods S

oil

- B

22261 0

1.x

ls

MCERTS

Accredited

Wet/Dry

Sample

Tested

Method

Code

ISO17025

Accredited

Determination of anionic detergent (MBAS) by colorimetry

Reference Description of Method

Engineer

Site25085

1. Terra Tek (Birmingham) are MCERTS accredited for clay, sand & loam matrix types only, where they constitute the major component of the sample. Other coarse granular

materials, ie gravel, are not accredited where they comprise the major component of the sample.

2. Results are expressed on a dry-weight basis (samples dried at 30°C ± 5°C) except where stated.

3. The laboratory removes any material >2mm prior to analysis. The quantity and nature of any material removed from samples is recorded and the information is available on

request.

4. The laboratory records the date of analysis of each parameter. This information is available on request.

5. Where a parameter cannot be determined in house it is our policy to use a UKAS/MCERTS accredited laboratory wherever possible. Terra Tek will assume responsibility for

the quality of subcontracted tests and the performance of the subcontractor chosen. Where there is no known UKAS/MCERTS laboratory for a particular parameter, a laboratory

listed within the Terra Tek Approved Subcontractors list, which is subject to performance assessment, will be selected.

Wet

USEPA Method 5021. Wisconsin DNR modified

GRO methodDetermination of volatiles in by GC/MS headspace Yes Selected Wet

Determination of glycols by GC/FID DI

Determination of polyaromatic hydrocarbons extractable in

dichloromethane, by GC/MS (with concentration stage)Dry

Wet

Determination of Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons/GRO. Yes

DryDetermination of water soluble chloride by titrimetry Yes

Wet

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Determination of carbonyls by GC/MS. Wet

Determination of acid extractable metals in soil by ICP-

OESSelected Selected Dry


Purposes.


Purposes.

N/ASheet 2 of 2

Dry

Extracted petroleum hydrocarbons from TP067 split into

aromatic and aliphatic fractions. Analysed by GC/FID.Yes Wet

Determination of water soluble chloride by titrimetry Yes Yes

Determination of carbonate in soil (rapid titration method)

Determination of Total & Speciated 7 PCB Congeners by

GC/MS SIMYes Yes

TP134 In-house documented method

TP145 USEPA Methods 3550C & 8270D

TP137 BS7755: Section 3.9: 1995/ISO 11466:1995

USEPA Methods 8100 & 8270D.

In-house method TP045

Wet

Determination of total & speciated WHO 12 PCB

Congeners by GC/MS SIM.

TP135

Wet

Determination of Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by

GC/MSYes Yes Wet

TP147 USEPA Methods 8082A & 3665A

Checked &

Approved

tSUMMARY OF IN-HOUSE ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS

(SOIL)

Appendix S3

T

USEPA Method 556

TP158 USEPA Method 1671

TP100Wisconsin DNR Modified GRO method, Method

for Determining Gasoline Range Organics

TP152

Determination of acid soluble chloride by titrimetry

USEPA Methods 8082A & 3665A

Vers

ion 0

26 -

21/0

5/2

009

TP098

TP073

Moor

Lane,

Witto

n,

Birm

ingham

, B

6 7

HG

TP074

TP154

TP150

TP099

TP110

Notes

Originator

N/A

Lab P

roje

ct

No B

22261 :

29/0

1/2

019 1

7:1

7:4

4Contract No


TP126 TNRCC Method 1006 (modified)

TP114

Deborah Marshall


Client

In-house documented methodDetermination of water soluble fluoride by ion selective

electrode


Deborah Marshall


APPENDIX EENVIRONMENTAL DATA

Sty

le:

AP

PE

ND

IX E

F

ile: P

:\G

INT

W\P

RO

JEC

TS

\250

85.G

PJ

P

rinte

d: 1

8/04

/201

9 09

:30:

07

Rae

burn

Dril

ling

and

Geo

tech

nica

l, W

hist

lebe

rry

Rd,

Ham

ilton

M

L3 0

HP

Tel

: 01

698-

7111

77

E-m

ail:

enqu

iries

@ra

ebur

ndril

ling.

com

Engineer:

Client:

Site: Contract No:

Arsenic

(mg/kg)

Cadmium

(mg/kg)

Chromium

(mg/kg)

Lead (mg/kg) Mercury

(mg/kg)

Selenium

(mg/kg)

Copper

(mg/kg)

Nickel (mg/kg) Zinc (mg/kg) Beryllium

(mg/kg)

37 11 910 191 40 250 2400 180 3700 1.7

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

11.575 0.755 0.5 96.75 0.305 0.8625 35 27.25 140 1.34

11.4263949 0.11357817 0 80.089013 0.22487033 0.525 12.0277457 3.5 60.8988232 0.44347116

0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Yes No No No No No No No No No

Non-normal Normal Single value Normal Normal Normal Non-normal Normal Normal Normal

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Evidence level required: 95%

-4.450222535 -180.4043907 N/A -2.353631203 -353.0479052 -949.0952381 -393.2573998 -87.28571429 -116.9152313 -1.62355542

Evidence level 95% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90%

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ ≈≥ Cc

61.213864 31.368386

Client/client ref: Create Engineering LLP

Project ref: 25085

Site ref: EDINBURGH, 5B HOPE TERRACE

Data description:

Contaminant(s): heavy metals

Test scenario: Planning

Date: 5 March 2019

User details: WTG

211.658532 1.861824436.4782503 0.88864535 0.5 190.989277 0.56960081 1.4802579

Standard deviation, s

Number of non-detects

Critical concentration, Cc

Notes

Distribution

Statistical approach

Set non-detect values to:

t statistic, t0 (or k0)

Base decision on:

Outliers?

Sample size, n

Sample mean,

Select dataset

Test scenario:

Result

(on true mean concentration, µ)

Upper confidence limit

Go to outlier test Show individual summaryBack to data

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Go to normality test

x

Evidence level


Project ref: 25085


Data description:

Contaminant(s): heavy metals


Date: 5 March 2019

User details: WTG




Notes

Distribution




Base decision on:

Outliers?

Sample size, n

Sample mean,

Select dataset

Test scenario:

Result



Back to data

x

Vanadium

(mg/kg)

Boron (mg/kg) Hexavalent

Chromium

(mg/kg)

410 290 6

4 4 4 0 0 0 0

43.25 1.025 0.3375 No Data No Data No Data No Data

2.21735578 0.67019898 0.18874586

0 2 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

No No No

Normal Normal Normal

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

-330.7994169 -862.3558394 -60.00131578

100% 100% 100%

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc

1.81361088 0.559593845.859122

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Napthalene

(mg/kg)

Acenaphthyle

ne (<0.05)

Acenaphthene

(mg/kg)

Fluorene

(mg/kg)

Phenanthrene

(mg/kg)

Anthracene

(mg/kg)

Fluoranthene

(mg/kg)

Pyrene

(mg/kg)

Benzo(a)anthr

acene (mg/kg)

chrysene

(mg/kg)

5.6 420 510 400 1200 5400 560 1200 11 22S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

0.025 0.025 0.05 0.025 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.0875 0.0775 0.0825

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.075 0.055 0.065

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Single value Single value Single value Single value Single value Single value Non-normal Non-normal Non-normal Non-normal

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3


N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -13997.75 -31997.66667 -397.1818182 -674.3846154

Evidence level 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc

Sample size, n

Sample mean,

Select dataset

Test scenario:

Result



Distribution




Base decision on:

Outliers?

0.26435596 0.25095871


Project ref: EDINBURGH, 5B HOPE

STREET

Site ref: 25085

Data description:

Contaminant(s): PAH


Date: 5 March 2019

User details: WTG

0.19736972 0.224164220.025 0.025 0.05 0.025 0.05 0.05




Notes


Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y


x

Evidence level

Sample size, n

Sample mean,

Select dataset

Test scenario:

Result



Distribution




Base decision on:

Outliers?


Project ref: EDINBURGH, 5B HOPE

STREET

Site ref: 25085

Data description:

Contaminant(s): PAH


Date: 5 March 2019

User details: WTG




Notes

Back to data

x

Benzo(b)fluor

anthene

(mg/kg)

Benzo(k)fluora

nthene

(mg/kg)

Benzo(a)pyren

e (mg/kg)

indeno(1,2,3-

cd)pyrene

(mg/kg)

dibenzo(ah)an

thracene

(mg/kg)

benzo(ghi)per

ylene (mg/kg)

3.3 93 2.7 36 0.28 340S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL

4 4 4 4 4 4 0

0.065 0.05125 0.05125 0.025 0.05 0.05 No Data

0.06442049 0.0525 0.0525 0 0 0

2 3 3 4 4 4

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Yes Yes Yes No No No

Normal Non-normal Non-normal Single value Single value Single value

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

-100.433878 -3540.904762 -100.9047619 N/A N/A N/A

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc

0.14080242 0.1656711 0.025 0.05 0.050.1656711

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Aliphatic C5-

C6 (mg/kg)

Aliphatic C6-

C8 (mg/kg)

Aliphatic C8-

C10 (mg/kg)

Aliphatic C10-

C12 (mg/kg)

Aliphatic C12-

C16 (mg/kg)

Aliphatic C16-

C35 (mg/kg)

Aliphatic C35-

C44 (mg/kg)

Aromatic C5-

C7 (mg/kg)

Aromatic C7-

C8 (mg/kg)

Aromatic C8-

C10 (mg/kg)

78 230 65 330 2400 92000 92000 140 290 83

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

0.005 0.005 0.5 0.5 2.125 0.5 0.5 0.005 0.005 0.005

0 0 0 0 3.25 0 0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

No No No No Yes No No No No No

Single value Single value Single value Single value Non-normal Single value Single value Single value Single value Single value

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3


N/A N/A N/A N/A -1475.615385 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Evidence level 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc

0.5 0.005


Project ref: 25085


Data description:

Contaminant(s): TPHCWG


Date: 6 March 2019

User details: WTG

0.005 0.0050.005 0.005 0.5 0.5 9.20821078 0.5




Notes

Distribution




Base decision on:

Outliers?

Sample size, n

Sample mean,

Select dataset

Test scenario:

Result




Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y


x

Evidence level


Project ref: 25085


Data description:

Contaminant(s): TPHCWG


Date: 6 March 2019

User details: WTG




Notes

Distribution




Base decision on:

Outliers?

Sample size, n

Sample mean,

Select dataset

Test scenario:

Result



Back to data

x

Aromatic C10-

C12 (mg/kg)

Aromatic C12-

C16 (mg/kg)

Aromatic C16-

C21 (mg/kg)

Aromatic C21-

C35 (mg/kg)

Aromatic C35-

C44 (mg/kg)

180 330 540 1500 1500

4 4 4 4 4 0 0

0.625 11.25 0.875 0.5 0.5 No Data No Data

0.25 20.5121915 0.75 0 0

3 2 3 4 4

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Yes Yes Yes No No

Non-normal Non-normal Non-normal Single value Single value

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

-1435 -31.07907803 -1437.666667 N/A N/A

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc

55.9552849 2.5095871 0.5 0.51.16986237

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Carbon Band

Upper Confidence

Limit (mg/kg)

Suitable for Use

Level S4UL

(Residentail with

home grown

produce (mg/kg))

Hazard

Quotent

Aliphatic C5 to C6 0.005 78 6.41E-05

Aliphatic C6 to C8 0.005 230 2.17E-05

Aliphatic C8 to C10 0.5 65 0.007692

Aliphatic C10 to C12 0.5 330 0.001515

Aliphatic C12 to C16 9.2 2400 0.003833

Aliphatic C16 to C35 0.5 92000 5.43E-06

Aliphatic C35 to C44 0.5 92000 5.43E-06

Aromatic C5 to C7 0.005 140 3.57E-05

Aromatic C7 to C8 0.005 290 1.72E-05

Aromatic C8 to C10 0.005 83 6.02E-05

Aromatic C10 to C12 1.17 180 0.0065

Aromatic C12 to C16 56 330 0.169697

Aromatic C16 to C21 2.51 540 0.004648

Aromatic C21 to C35 0.5 1500 0.000333

Aromatic C35 to C44 0.5 1500 0.000333

Hazard Index 0.194762

MRS DEBORAH MARSHALL PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL …

Documents