WS Atkins memorandum · 2017-02-13 · TP03 0.5 19.21 16 Soil sampled from trial pits TP01 at 0.5m did not report any PAHs to exceed the relevant SSV, and soil sampled from TP04 at

Atkins memorandum Subject Kettering Depot Recycling Centre:

Environmental Review of Ground Investigation

To Richard Allum

c.c. Christina Leafe

From Helen Kelleher

Date 11th July 2006 Ref 5041119_Env Review_V1

Richard, Re: Kettering Depot Recycling Centre - Environmental Review of Ground Investigation Soil Analytical Results 1.0 Introduction

This memo presents an environmental review of the findings from the limited ground investigation undertaken by Geotechnical Engineering Limited on a site in Kettering during the 24th to the 27th April and on the 4th May 2006. The approximate National Grid Reference of the site is SP 858 797. The limited ground investigation comprised of drilling four boreholes, five trial pits and two window sample exploratory holes.

The proposed end use of the site situated off Robinson Way, Kettering, Northamptonshire is as a civic amenity recycling centre.

2.0 Screening Criteria

The soil analytical results have been screened against the published Defra and Environment Agency Soil Guideline Values (SGVs). In the absence of an SGV, Atkins Soil Screening Values (SSV) has been used. Information regarding Atkins SSVs is presented in Appendix A. The soil analytical results have been screening using the Conceptual Exposure Model (CEM) based on a commercial and industrial land-use scenario.

The proposed end use of the site as a civic amenity recycling centre will consist of predominately hard-standing areas with grassed verges around the perimeter of the site. The users of the site will include members of the public depositing their waste and / or recyclables and employees operating the site. This CEM is considered to be appropriate for the proposed end use of the site as a civic amenity recycling centre.

Analytical Suite - Soils

Three soil samples were submitted for chemical analysis as shown in the table below:

Borehole Depth (m)

TP01 0.5 TP03 0.5 TP04 0.2

The three soil samples were analysed for the following:

Analytical Suite of Contaminants (Soil)

Metals: boron, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, hexavalent chromium.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Total, Free and Complex Cyanide and Thiocyanate.

P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div75\503\5031651 NCC recycling centres(ra)\004 Kettering Telford Way\Environmental Review\Issue v0 to Richard Allum\Environmental Review_Kettering v1_July 2006.doc

Analytical Suite of Contaminants (Soil)

Asbestos. Acid soluble sulphide, water soluble sulphate, elemental sulphur. Monohydric Phenols pH

For human health purposes this environmental review will concentrate on the levels on metals,

PAHs, monohydric phenols, cyanide and asbestos.

3.0 Review of Analytical Results (Soils) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Analytical results reported four PAHs to exceed the relevant SSV based on a commercial and industrial land-use scenario. These are presented in the table below.

PAHs Borehole Depth (m) Concentration (mg/kg) SSV (mg/kg) Chyrsene 24.64 6.4

Benzo(a)pyrene 26.04 16

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 29.85 18

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

TP03 0.5

19.21 16

Soil sampled from trial pits TP01 at 0.5m did not report any PAHs to exceed the relevant SSV, and soil sampled from TP04 at depth of 0.2m did not report any PAHs to be above the limit of detection of the laboratory equipment.

It is noted from the borehole for TP03 that between depths of 0.45m and 0.8m that clinker is present and a slight hydrocarbon odour was reported. This could potentially be the source of the elevated concentration of PAHs present; however such an assumption cannot be fully validated from the information available to date.

It should be noted that the SSVs are based on a depth of 1.0m and a Soil Organic Matter (SOM) content of 1.67%. The SOM content for the soil sample is unknown for soil sampled from TP03 at a depth of 0.5m, however a SSV based on a depth of 0.5m would be lower in comparison to the SSV based on depth of 1.0m. If the SOM content of the soil samples from TP03 was higher, then a derived SSV would be higher, however based upon the concentrations reported, it is likely that they would still exceed. However, this assumption cannot be fully validated based on the information available to date and the absence of a measured SOM content for the soil.

It should also be noted that the SSVs are modelled on a sandy soil, the soil reported on the borehole log for TP03 at a depth of 0.5m was Made Ground reported as a slightly sandy clay. Although, in accordance with the guidance outlined in CLR10 regarding Made Ground, it is the matrix of soil which is considered appropriate with regards to the behaviour of contaminants. In this case, the soil matrix has been reported as sandy clay, given that the SSVs are modelled on a sandy soil, the SSVs are considered conservative and appropriate for use.

Metals

The concentrations of metals reported in the three soil samples taken did not report any concentration of metals to be above the relevant SGV or SSV based on a commercial and industrial land-use scenario.

Asbestos

Asbestos was not reported in any of the three soil samples taken.


4.0 Assessment of Analytical Results

Re-use of Material

Given that the four PAHs reported in soil sampled from TP03 at a depth of 0.5m exceeded the relevant SSV it is recommended that the material should not be re-used on site. Given that the proposed development of the site involves a 600mm layer of hard-standing concrete, then this material could potentially be left on site (in-situ), with the proviso that the material is buried at depth and will not cause harm to human health. A covering of hard-standing will help eliminate the inhalation pathway and therefore potential risk to human health will be reduced.

Waste Characterisation Assessment

The soil analysis data was preliminarily assessed utilising the analytical program CAT-WASTESOIL, to determine if the materials may potential be formally classified as non hazardous or hazardous by a landfill operator. CAT-WASTESOIL is an online tool that enables waste to be classified in accordance with the Landfill and Hazardous Waste Regulations and the Environment Agency guidance “A Better Place: Guidance for Waste Destined for Landfill” and “Technical Guidance WM2: Interpretation of the Definition and Classification of Hazardous Waste.”

The preliminary waste characterisation determined the three soil samples as non hazardous; such material would need to disposed of at a non hazardous waste management licensed facility. The input and output worksheets from CAT-WASTESOIL are presented in Appendix B.

5.0 Recommendations and Conclusions

Based upon the review of the analytical information available to date the following is recommended:

Soil material around the vicinity of TP03 to a depth of 0.8m should not be re-used on the site due to the elevated concentrations of PAHs (chrysene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k)fluoranthene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene reported.

It is proposed that the site will be covered with a 600mm layer of concrete hardstanding, the material could then potentially be left in situ. However, this would only be with the understanding that the area of TP03 is covered with concrete which would help to eliminate the vapour inhalation pathway.

No further analytical testing is recommended. Brief analysis of the data using the analytical programme CAT-WASTESOIL has categorised the waste as non-hazardous.

During any site works, it is recommended that all site workers and personnel should wear appropriate PPE.


References

Defra and Environment Agency (2002). The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Model: Technical Basis and Algorithms. R&D Publication CLR10.


Appendix A


CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT

Human Health Soil Assessment

In 2002 the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency (EA) launched the CLEA 2002 (Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment) model software together with associated documentation and a suite of Soil Guideline Values (SGVs). The SGVs have been derived using the CLEA model according to three typical land-uses, applicable to long-term human exposure to soil contaminants. The three types of land-use are:

• residential with plant uptake (for example, home grown vegetables) or residential without plant uptake;

• allotments; and

• commercial/industrial.

To date, Defra and the Environment Agency have released 10 CLEA SGVs comprising arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury (inorganic), nickel, selenium, toluene, ethylbenzene and phenol.

In conjunction with the SGVs Defra has issued CLAN 2/05, which explains that SGVs may not meet the test for ‘significant possibility of significant harm’ under Part IIA of the EPA 1990 and should be used to form a basis for further evaluation, rather than a set of assessment criteria on which determination can definitely be carried out.

Where CLEA SGVs were not available, it was the intention of Defra and the Environment Agency that soil screening values could be calculated using the CLEA methodologies set out in CLR 7 to 10 and any relevant CLEA Briefing Notes.

In November 2005 an update to the CLEA 2002 software was released called CLEA UK. The CLEA UK software was released as a beta version and has currently only been tested by the Environment Agency for a limited range of chemicals and scenarios. Therefore the Environment Agency recommended that at the present time it is used cautiously until a final version is released. Given this statement, Atkins has not derived Soil Screening Values (SSVs) using the CLEA UK model at the date of writing.

Atkins approach has been to develop a set of screening criteria which can be applied to a broad range of sites whilst retaining the receptor parameters that define the standard land uses of residential with or without plant uptake and commercial/industrial. The process followed to derive these values has many similarities with site-specific risk assessment (which would be a natural next step), and in order for this semi-quantitative approach to be valid, the conceptual model

has been made sufficiently sensitive for the resulting criteria to act as relatively conservative screening values.

An important proviso in this is that the Atkins’ screening criteria should only be applied where actual site conditions have been checked by a risk assessment specialist against the hypothetical conceptual model and it is clear that there are no pathways relevant to the site that might have been overlooked or underestimated by the generic assumptions.

Atkins adapted the RISC Workbench risk assessment model to be compliant with the requirements of CLR7-10, including alignment of receptor characteristics to UK default values and the toxicological approach. RISC Workbench was selected by virtue of the algorithms incorporated within it and because it is a scientifically robust and peer reviewed quantitative human health risk assessment tool. This has enabled Atkins to generate a series of soil screening values (SSVs) for a range of contaminants for which CLEA SGVs do not exist at present. In addition, the contaminant source zone is larger and closer to the surface than is assumed in the CLR 10 default case.

Since their inception, Atkins SSVs have been kept updated to reflect changes made by the Environment Agency to a number of areas of the CLEA model. The Environment Agency has released CLEA Briefing Notes which detail adaptations to the building parameters for the vapour pathway, changes to the conceptual exposure models for building vapour intrusion (including adoption of the Johnson and Ettinger model), associated soil parameters and modification of the dermal exposure pathway.

SSVs have been generated for over 40 contaminants. These include:

• benzene, xylene;

• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(ah)anthracene, fluorene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, pyrene;

• tetrachloroethene;

• trichloroethene;

• 1,1,1-trichloroethane;

• 1,1,2,2 and 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane;

• free cyanide;

• copper; and

• speciated and fractionated Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) using the TPH Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) approach.

TPH covers a wide range of different compounds and consequently, two identical TPH results could represent two quite different mixtures of contaminants. The publication of the Environment Agency TPH document gives guidance on assessing the health risks from petroleum hydrocarbons in soil. After a review of the different TPH assessment methodologies by the Environment Agency, it was deemed appropriate to adopt the approach developed by the TPHCWG, as modified by the American Petroleum Institute (API) to include heavier fractions. The TPHCWG approach is considered most appropriate because it considers 13 fractions, thus enabling detailed modelling of the potential for human exposure from transport properties. Therefore, this approach has been adopted for the purpose of the derivation of Atkins SSVs.

The Environment Agency TPH publication also suggests that indicator compounds (such as benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes and PAHs) should be assessed when considering TPH mixtures. Individual Atkins SSVs have been developed for the majority of these compounds.

The proposed end-use for the site is for a civic amenity recycling centre. Therefore the CLEA SGV and Atkins SSV values for commercial/industrial use have been used to assess the human health associated with soil contamination detected beneath the site.

The SSVs have been designed to incorporate a high level of conservatism and to flag up when further DQRA is required. They do not necessarily meet the tests in Table B of the Statutory Guidance (DETR Circular 02/2000) for ‘significant possibility of significant harm’ and are therefore not suitable for determining a site as ‘contaminated land’ without further evaluation.

Appendix B


Site Name:Site Location:

Site ID:Job No:

Date:User:

Company Name:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Sample Ref >>> TP01 TP03 TP04

Depth (m) >>> 0.5m 0.5m 0.2m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m

Compound / Element Sample

Concentration (mg/kg)

Sample Concentration

(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)BenzeneTolueneEthylbenzenem,p-xyleneo-xyleneNaphthalenene 0.20 0.35 0.05Acenaphthylene 0.05 0.49 0.05Acenaphthene 0.05 3.24 0.05FluorenePhenanthrene 0.14 29.10 0.05Anthracene 0.06 7.10 0.05Fluoranthene 0.35 58.58 0.05Pyrene 0.29 47.85 0.05Benzo(a)anthracene 0.15 24.52 0.05Chrysene 0.21 24.64 0.05Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.21 29.85 0.05Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.05 8.69 0.05Benzo(a)pyrene 0.20 26.04 0.05Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.19 19.21 0.05Di-benz(a,h,)anthracene 0.05 3.62 0.05Benzo(g,h,i)peryleneAnthanthreneBenzo(e)pyreneCyclopenta(cd)pyrene2 - chlorophenol3 - chlorophenol4 - chlorophenol

Soil Waste Classification Tool - Input Sheet

Atkins

7th July 2006H Kelleher

Kettering Civic Amenity Recycling Centre

5041119.1595.904

This Input sheet has been designed to work with the Waste Classification Tool, developed by Atkins Consultants Lts and J. McArdle Contracts, as a rapid classification of contaminated soils as hazardous or non-hazardous wastes. 14:24 and 12/07/2006


Site ID:Job No:

Date:User:

Company Name:


Depth (m) >>> 0.5m 0.5m 0.2m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m




(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


Atkins



5041119.1595.904

Vinyl chlorideCis-1,2-dichloroetheneTrans -1, 2-dichloroetheneDichloromethaneChloroformCarbon tetrachlorideTetrachloroethylene1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethaneHexachlorobutadieneTrichloroethenechlorobenzene1,1 - dichlorobenzene1,3 - dichlorobenzene1,4 - dichlorobenzene1,2,3 - trichlorobenzene1,2,4 - trichlorobenzene1,2,4 - trimethylbenzene1,3,5 - trimethylbenzeneAnilinePhenol 0.01 0.02 0.01Resorcinol2,3 - dichlorophenol2,4 - dichlorophenol2,5 - dichlorophenol2,6 - dichlorophenol2,4,6 - trichlorophenol



Site ID:Job No:

Date:User:

Company Name:


Depth (m) >>> 0.5m 0.5m 0.2m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m




(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


Atkins



5041119.1595.904

Pentachlorophenol2,4 - D 2,4 - DDD (or TDE)4,4 - DDD (or TDE)2,4 - DDE4,4 - DDEAtrazineSimazineChlorpyrifosDicamberPermethrinCypermethrin2,4 - DDT4,4 - DDTa - HCHb - HCHg - HCH (or lindane)Methyl ethyl ketone (butanone)Methyl-tert-butyl etherDecane

PCBs (sum of congeners or total PCBs)Di-n-butyl phthalate1,3-butadieneHydroquinoneHeavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)Kerosene (combination of compounds)Gasoline



Site ID:Job No:

Date:User:

Company Name:


Depth (m) >>> 0.5m 0.5m 0.2m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m




(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)


Atkins



5041119.1595.904

Lubricating oils (unused)DieselArsenic 241.00 53.00 9.00Boron 1.00 3.00 1.00Cadmium 2.00 1.00 1.00Hexavalent Chromium 3.00 6.00 0.30Chromium (Total) 60.00 72.00 11.00Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI resultsCopper 1.00 13.00 52.00Lead 1.00 13.00 52.00

ManganeseMercury 1.20 1.20 1.20Nickel 28.00 33.00 3.00Selenuim 3.00 3.00 3.00Zinc 147.00 269.00 78.00

Free Cyanide 1.00 1.00 1.00Thiocyanate 1.00 4.00 1.00


Site NameLocationSite IDJob NumberDateUser NameCompany Name

Hole ID Sample Depth Contaminant Contaminant Concentration (%) Hazardous Waste Y/N Hazard Class Risk Phrases Exceeded Additive Risk Phrases

Exceeded Additional Risk Phrases (see notes section)

TP01 0.5m Boron 0.002314815 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)TP01 0.5m Chromium (Total) 0.008330897 N R43 see commentTP01 0.5m Nickel 0.007382019 N R42 see comment, R43 see commentTP01 0.5m Free Cyanide 0.0001 N R12 testTP01 0.5m Thiocyanate 0.0001 N R32 test or calculationTP03 0.5m Boron 0.006944444 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)TP03 0.5m Chromium (Total) 0.009646302 N R43 see commentTP03 0.5m Nickel 0.008700238 N R42 see comment, R43 see commentTP03 0.5m Free Cyanide 0.0001 N R12 testTP03 0.5m Thiocyanate 0.0004 N R32 test or calculationTP04 0.2m Boron 0.002314815 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)TP04 0.2m Chromium (Total) 0.00156387 N R43 see commentTP04 0.2m Nickel 0.0007909306 N R42 see comment, R43 see commentTP04 0.2m Free Cyanide 0.0001 N R12 testTP04 0.2m Thiocyanate 0.0001 N R32 test or calculation

[email protected]

Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information

Kettering Civic Amenity Recycling CentreF1F15041119#1595#9047/7/2006 10:52:01 AM

This output data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 14:38 12/07/2006

R1 to R6Test for explosives except when

the waste is covered by the Explosives Act 1875

R7, R8 and R9 Test/calculation for oxides

R10 R10 test flash point

R11 R11 test flash point

R12 R12 test flammability

R15 R15 test flammability

R16 R16 test for explosives

R17 R17 pyrophoric test

R18 R18 test for flammable explosive vapour air mixture

R19 R19 test for flammable explosive peroxides

R29 R29 test or calculation



R42 and R43 No test available

R44 R44 test for explosives

R54 to R58 see comment

Notes:

Notes - Additional Information on Risk Phrases

Test to establish whether a substance or preparation presents a danger of explosion when submitted to the effect of a flame (thermal sensitivity), impact or friction. Undertake Test Method A14 from EC Directive 92/62/EEC

Applicable to solid compounds that are not explosive, highly flammable, organic peroxides or combustible. A test for the compounds oxidising properties as described in Directive 92/69/EEC, Test Method A17. For organic peroxides calculate the available oxygen content (%). For liquids and oxidising materials not covered by those previously listed no testing available.Flashpoint test as per Directive 92/62/EEC, Test Method A9For liquid substances, undertake the flashpoint test as per Directive 92/62/EEC, Test Method A9. For solid substances undertake flammability test as per directive 92/62/EEC, Test Method A10

Flammability of gasses test as per Directive 92/62/EEC Test Method A11.To test the flammability of a substance when in contact with water test as per Directive 92/62/EEC, Test Method A12.Test to establish whether a substance or preparation present a danger of explosion when submitted to the effect of a flame (thermal sensitivity), impact or friction. Undertake Test Method A14 from EC Directive 92/62/EECTo test the pyrophoric properties of solids and liquids test as per Directive 92/62/EEC, Test Method A13.Test to establish whether a substance or preparation presents a danger of explosion when submitted to the effect of a flame (thermal sensitivity), impact or friction. Undertake Test Method A14 from EC Directive 92/62/EECTest to establish whether a substance or preparation present a danger of explosion when submitted to the effect of a flame (thermal sensitivity), impact or friction. Undertake Test Method A14 from EC Directive 92/62/EECUndertake test as per Directive 92/62/EEC, Test Method A12.

Classification of waste as ecotoxic (on the basis of terrestrial non-aquatic toxicity) is not applicable due to the lack of detailed information. Until more data becomes available R54 to R58 should not be considered when assessing the ecotoxic hazard of wastes and classifications should be based upon aquatic toxicity data. Where there is reason to believe that a waste contains substances that only have effects on the terrestrial environment, guidance on the approapriate test method should be obtained from the Environment Agency.

Testing of compounds which would be classified under H14 should only be undertaken where the hazards cannot be adequately identified. (i.e. where the waste contains a substance/s for which there is no aquatic toxicity data and/or where the waste is an uncharacterised mixture and/or there is the potential that the waste may contain unknown substances or breakdown products.Aquatic toxicity testing should be undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Health and Safety Publication, series on Testing and Assessment No. 23 ENV/JM/MONO(2000) 6 June 2000

Undertake testing as per Directive 92/62/EEC, Test Method A12 modified to replace water with an acid which will not cause a displacement reaction to occur. Method to measure SO2 evolved when a waste is in contact with an acid (see Environment Agency SWEN 068).Undertake testing as per Directive 92/62/EEC, Test Method A12 modified to replace water with an acid which will not cause a displacement reaction to occur). No test available for sensitisationTest to establish whether a substance or preparation present a danger of explosion when submitted to the effect of a flame (thermal sensitivity), impact or friction. Undertake Test Method A14 from EC Directive 92/62/EEC

This data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 14:39 12/07/2006

WS Atkins memorandum · 2017-02-13 · TP03 0.5 19.21 16 Soil sampled from trial pits TP01 at 0.5m did not report any PAHs to exceed the relevant SSV, and soil sampled from TP04 at

Documents