Burnley FC RGS... · Report no: J4101/17/E Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd Telephone 0843 50 666 87 Fax 0843 51 599 30 Email [email protected] Contents Page 1. Int

EnvironmentalGeotechnical

Specialists

GEOT

ECHN

ICAL

ENVI

RONM

ENTA

LRogers Geotechnical Services LtdTelephone 0843 50 666 87 Fax 0843 51 599 30Email [email protected] 1 & 2, Barncliffe Business Park, Near Bank, Shelley,Huddersfield, West Yorkshire HD8 8LU.

REPORT

www.citation.co.uk

R

www.citation.co.uk

job number site address

date

written by

checked by issued by

Report no: J4101/17/E

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd Telephone 0843 50 666 87 Fax 0843 51 599 30 Email [email protected] www.rogersgeotech.co.uk

Contents Page

1. Introduction 2 2. Limitations 2 3. Previous Investigation 2 4.

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Fieldworks Utilities Survey Light Cable Percussive Boreholes Gas Monitoring Standpipes Trial Pits TRL Dynamic Probes

2 3 3 4 4 4

5. Geology 5 6.

6.1 6.2

Strata Conditions General Strata Groundwater

5 6 7

7. 7.1 7.2 7.3

Insitu Testing Standard Penetration Tests Gas and Water Level Monitoring TRL Dynamic Probes

7 7 7 8

8. 8.1

Laboratory Testing - Geotechnical Geotechnical Properties

8 9

9. Laboratory Testing - Environmental 10 10.

10.1 10.2

10.3 10.4 10.5

10.2.1

Discussion of Ground Conditions - Geotechnical Comments Foundations General Comments for Construction Ground-floors Hard-standing Areas Effect of Sulphates

10 10 11 13 13 13 14

mailto:[email protected]



11.

11.1

11.2

11.3

11.4 11.5

11.1.1 11.1.2 11.1.3 11.2.1 11.2.2 11.3.1 11.3.2 11.3.3

Discussion of Ground Conditions - Environmental Discussion of Test Results Soil Samples Waste Acceptance Criteria Gas Concentrations Site Specific Risk Assessment Approach Conceptual Ground Model and Risk Assessment Indicative Remediation Strategy Remediation Objectives Development Requirements Outline Strategy Fill Materials Verification Report

14 14 14 15 17 18 18 18 22 22 22 22 26 27

12. Recommendations for Further Work 28 13. References 28

Appendices 1. Site Plans including Utilities Survey 2. Borehole Records 3. Trialpit Records 4. TRL Dynamic Probe Results 5. Laboratory Testing - Geotechnical 6. Laboratory Testing - Environmental




Page 1

Report on a Geo-environmental Investigation

Location: Burnley FC Turfmoor, Harry Potts Way, Burnley, Lancashire BB10 4BX

For: Momentum Engineering

Report No. J4101/17/E Report date: January 2018

For and on behalf of Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd

James Farnsworth BEng, FGS Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Steve Rogers CEng, CGeol, MICE, MCIHT, FGS, ACIEH Technical Director

Report Summary1

Item Comments Section

Development Construction of infill structures to the stands of the existing sports stadium.

1.

Geology Till underlain by Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation. 5.

Strata Conditions Capping of asphalt underlain by variable made ground. From ≈1.5m to ≈2.5m below ground level, a sequence of clays (Till) was revealed to the full depth investigated at 15m.

6.

Groundwater Perched water encountered at shallow depth in the made ground and a more granular horizon within the Till.

6.2.

Foundation Design Piled foundations are likely to represent the most effective solution. 10.2.

Floor slabs Suspended. 10.3.

Hardstanding CBR 3% for existing sub-grade. Recompacted soils may achieve at least 5% CBR, although some recompacted soils could possess significantly higher CBR.

10.4.

Effect of Sulphates DS2; AC-2. 10.6.

Contamination Chemical contamination at the site is not significant in regard to the proposed end-use. Notwithstanding this, asbestos and significant concentrations of carbon dioxide were revealed in the north-west corner development area.

11.

1 This summary should not be relied upon to provide a comprehensive review. All of the information contained in this document should be considered.




Page 2

1. Introduction It is understood that development is to take place at Burnley Football Club’s Turf Moor Stadium, Harry Potts Way, Burnley. This development is to include infill structures in between the existing stands in the north-west, north-east and south-east corners of the site. Consequently, a site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with the instruction from the client. This work was required in order to determine the nature of the underlying soils, to assess their engineering properties and to assist in the design of safe and economical foundations for the proposed development. This report also takes into consideration the risk of any contamination present. This report describes the work undertaken, presents the data obtained and discusses the ground conditions in relation to the proposed works.

2. Limitations The recommendations made and opinions expressed in this report are based on the ground conditions revealed by the site works, together with an assessment of the site and of the laboratory test results. Whilst opinions may be expressed relating to sub-soil conditions in parts of the site not investigated, for example between borehole positions, these are for guidance only and no liability can be accepted for their accuracy. This report has been prepared in accordance with our understanding of current best practice. However, new information or legislation, or changes to best practice may necessitate revision of the report after the date of issue.

3. Previous Investigation A Geotechnical Investigation was undertaken by Rogers Geotechnical Services in January 2016 and was presented as report number J3347/15/E. However, it should be noted that that work was focused on the south-west and south-east corners of the stadium. In addition, investigation was also carried out on behalf of a constructor by PWA Geo-environmental in the south-east corner of the stadium and was reported as LTR/15208/022 in February 2016. These reports have been reviewed during the current intrusive investigation.

4. Fieldworks

The fieldworks were undertaken between the 30th November and 4th December 2017 and included the following:

Survey of buried utility services.

Three cable percussion boreholes. Three gas monitoring standpipes.




Page 3

Seven trialpits to expose the foundations of the existing stands. Four TRL dynamic probes.

The investigatory locations are shown on the site plan which is presented in Appendix 1 to this report. With respect to the client’s specification, it may be noted that boreholes were not required in the south-east corner of the site as data for this area was obtained in the previous investigation.

4.1 Utilities Survey

Whilst plans were obtained from statutory services providers and all investigatory positions were scanned with a CAT (Cable Avoidance Tool), in order to scan for all services (including gas, water and drainage) a GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) was employed. At each location a trained GPR operative scanned the immediate area and provided an assessment of whether there were any Radar returns that may represent buried services. Where any risk of encountering services was present, the investigatory positions were relocated.

As part of the investigation, a site survey was undertaken with a CAT (Cable Avoidance Tool) and a GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) to assist in determining the location of underground services. The results of the survey are presented on an AutoCAD plot which can also be found within Appendix 1. In this case, it is considered that the findings of the survey provide sufficient data in order to delineate the services at the site. Indeed this data was employed to ensure that the position of the boreholes and trial pits in this investigation were unlikely to encounter buried services. Notwithstanding the above, it should be appreciated that in order to obtain the precise location of buried services during construction it will be necessary to carefully excavate trial pits, using hand-held digging tools, to expose services.

4.2 Light Cable Percussive Boreholes

The boreholes were sunk using a 1.5 tonne capacity light cable percussive (shell and auger) drilling rig with 150mm diameter tools and casing.

During the boring operations, representative disturbed samples of the arisings were taken at regular depth intervals and sealed in plastic bags. Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were undertaken at regular depth increments; accept in cohesive materials where SPTs and undisturbed samples (U100s) were alternated. The SPTs were conducted in accordance with the procedures given in BS1377 : 1990 : Part 9 : 3.3, and the results are summarised on the borehole records. During this work an automatic trip hammer of 63.5kg falling through 760mm was employed to drive either a cone or split barrel sampler assembly into the ground, the barrel samples were retained in air tight plastic containers. The 100mm diameter undisturbed (U100) samples were sealed within a liner with wax and plastic caps. Groundwater levels were recorded when struck and boring stopped for a period of time to allow the water level to be monitored.




Page 4

All recovered samples were returned to the laboratory for subsequent logging and testing. The chemical test specimens were retained in the appropriate air tight containers within cool boxes for onward transition to the chemical laboratory. The soils were described in general accordance with BS5930: 2015, and full descriptions are given on the borehole records, which are presented as Appendix 2. Also included on these records are the water levels, casing details, standard penetration test results and a record of samples taken.

4.3 Gas Monitoring Standpipes

Gas monitoring standpipes were installed between 1.7m to 4m depth in all of the boreholes and the installation details are shown on the appropriate borehole records. In all cases, the monitoring standpipe consisted of a perforated pipe from the base of the borehole to between 0.4m and 1.0m below surface, with a non-perforated pipe to ground level. The response zone was filled with pea gravel, with a bentonite seal at the base and above, and the installation was capped with a stop box cover in a concrete surround.

4.4 Trial Pits

Trial pits were excavated using hand-held digging equipment immediately adjacent to the existing stands in order to reveal the nature of the near surface soils and extent and type of foundations. The soils were logged on site in general accordance with BS5930: 2015, and full descriptions are given on the trial pit records which are presented in Appendix 3, along with diagrams of the structures encountered. Samples were taken from the trialpits for subsequent inspection and testing. The chemical test specimens were retained in the appropriate air tight containers within cool boxes for onward transition to the chemical laboratory.

It may be noted that it was not possible to expose any foundation details at the location of TP6 due to a significant increase in ground level at the that locale.

4.5 TRL Dynamic Probes

TRL Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests were undertaken in each of the three investigation areas at the site. The penetrometer consists of an 8kg slide hammer falling through 575mm onto an anvil, which drives a 20mm diameter 60° cone into the ground. The depth of the cone driven per blow of the hammer is recorded. The results of the dynamic penetration tests are presented as Appendix 4 and include graphs of penetration blows and CBR values versus depth. The percentage CBR value has been obtained from the correlation provided in TRRL Road Note 8 which is given below:

Log10(CBR) = 2.48 – 1.057Log10(mm/blow)

It should also be noted that, in order to carry out laboratory testing, samples (bulk from granular soils and U38 from cohesive soils) were obtained from each TRL probe location.




Page 5

5. Geology The available published geological data for the site has been examined and the following table presents the anticipated geology.

Table 1: Geological Data for the Site

Strata Type Strata Name2 Previous Name3 Description3

Superficial Geology Till Boulder Clay

Group of sediments laid down by the direct action of glacial ice. Variable lithology, usually sandy, silty clay with pebbles, but can contain gravel-rich, or laminated sand layers; varied colour and consistency.

Solid Geology

Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation

Lower Coal Measures

Interbedded grey mudstone, siltstone and pale grey sandstone, commonly with mudstones containing marine fossils in the lower part, and more numerous and thicker coal seams in the upper part.

It should be appreciated the available data shows that the site is underlain by an expanse of Till, however, just to the south of the site, deposits of Alluvium are indicated to be present. Below the superficial geology, the Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation is indicated. Whilst the north-western corner of the site lies above undifferentiated strata within this sequence, the majority of the site is located above an unnamed sandstone member. Nearby markers suggest that the solid geology dips at shallow angles (≈5°) to the south-west. In association with the subcrop pattern of the sandstone member, the Low Bottom Mine coal seam is shown, although it should be noted that this is seam is marked as inferred and thus has not been directly observed. This inference will be based on an anticipation of the subcrop at the marked position. However, there are a few reasons for the lack of direct observation, such as the cover above the subcrop preventing it being seen or that the seam is not persistent in this area. In either case, the record of this sub-crop should be noted.

6. Strata Conditions

In accordance with the geology of the area, the succession has been shown to include the following:

2 Sources: British Geological Survey (NERC) Map Sheet 68; Clitheroe; Solid Edition and Drift Edition, Map Sheet 76; Rochdale; Solid and Drift Edition, and Geology of Britain Viewer [online resource from www.bgs.ac.uk] 3 Sources: British Geological Survey (NERC) Lexicon of Named Rock Units [online resource from www.bgs.ac.uk]




Page 6

Table 2: Generalised Strata Profile Depth

m below ground level to underside of layer

Strata Type Positions Encountered

Groundwater Strikes

m below ground level

0.1 – 0.2 HARDSTANDING (Asphalt with associated sub-base/Concrete) ALL None

+0.22 – 2.3

MADE GROUND (Variable sequence of strata including dark grey GRAVEL with cobbles, grey gravelly CLAY and dark grey/greyish brown gravelly SAND. Where the gravel fraction comprised brick, concrete, sandstone masonry, mortar, earthenware, ash, clinker and metal)

ALL 2.1m (BH2), 1.5m (BH3)

+10 – +15.5

TILL (Variable sequence of strata generally comprising very soft becoming firm, and firm, locally thinly laminated, yellowish grey and greyish brown variably sandy and gravelly CLAY)

BH1 to BH3 3.8m (BH2)

’+’ denotes that the strata extended below the termination depth of the investigated positions, thus the extent of the deposit is only proven to the depths indicated.

6.1 General Strata

The site was found to be capped by hardstanding that typically comprised asphalt, although in one location concrete was present. In some locations, immediately beneath the asphalt, a layer of sandstone boulders, sand sized fragments of ash and brick, or cream, grey or light yellow sandy gravel (likely to be limestone, dolostone or sandstone) was present and is likely to represent a sub-base to the hardstanding. On penetrating the capping, variable made ground was encountered. This horizon included a mixture of granular and cohesive strata with the gravel sized fraction comprising predominately anthropogenic materials. It should be appreciated that all of the trialpits terminated within the made ground, however, the boreholes fully penetrated these layers at depths ranging between 1.6m and 2.3m. Beneath the made ground, variable horizons of very soft, soft and soft to firm yellowish grey sandy clay with some gravel of sandstone and mixed lithologies (quartz), and silt partings, was initially revealed. It may be appreciated that in boreholes BH2 and BH3 plant remnants and organic matter was also observed and it is therefore considered that this may be attributed to the soil being a former growth layer for vegetation. Moreover, the overall hue at these locations was predominately black and dark grey, although the soil itself was still yellowish grey; it is reasoned that this colour is a result of the plant remnants apparent and some possible staining from the made ground above. In addition, a thin seam of grey clayey silt was encountered at 3.6m in BH1, however, as this material was not revealed in the other boreholes, it is likely to represent a lens local to that area. From 4.5m to 5.5m, more consistent conditions across the site were apparent, thinly laminated greyish brown clay being recovered from all three boreholes. This greyish brown clay was found to be soft becoming firm in BH1 and firm in BH2 and BH3. Between depths of 8.4m and 11.5m, firm greyish brown silty clay with gravel of mixed lithologies (quartz) was present to the base of the boreholes. With respect to the published geological data for the site, it is considered that the sequence of soils below the made ground represents the Till anticipated to underlie the site.




Page 7

6.2 Groundwater It should be appreciated that the normal rate of boring does not permit the recording of an equilibrium water level for any one strike, moreover, groundwater levels are subject to seasonal variation or changes on local drainage conditions. Notwithstanding this, groundwater was encountered toward the base of the made ground in boreholes BH2 and BH3, with a further strike being noted at 3.5m in BH2. It is considered that these strikes represent perched water associated with more granular horizons in the cohesive soils.

7. Insitu Testing 7.1 Standard Penetration Tests

The standard penetration tests were carried out in the boreholes and are summarised in the following table: Table 3: Summary of Standard Penetration Tests

Strata Depth Range

(m)

SPT ‘N’ (Blows/300mm) Comments

Granular soils Cohesive soils

Made Ground 1.2 – 1.5 – 2 – 19 Very soft ranging to stiff in-situ conditions.* Till 3 – 13.5 – 1 – 21 Very soft ranging to stiff in-situ conditions.

* It should be appreciated that SPT results in the made ground should be viewed with some caution given the significant gravel fraction within the soils present.

7.2 Gas and Water Level Monitoring

The standpipes were monitored between the 13th December 2017 and the 12th January 2018. The results of the gas monitoring undertaken to date are tabulated below.

Table 4: Gas monitoring

Location Date CH4 (%)

CO2 (%)

O2 (%)

Flow (l/h)

Barometric Pressure

(mb)

Water Level (m)

Standpipe Depth

(m)

BH1

13.12.17 0.0 0.7 20.5 0.1 973↓ 1.1

5 20.12.17 0.0 1.3 19.7 0.1 1018↑ 1.0 05.01.18 0.0 0.1 19.7 0.0 976↑ 1.3 12.01.18 0.0 0.3 18.7 0.0 1011↑ 1.3

BH2

13.12.17 0.0 9.7 14.2 0.1 974↓ 1.7

4.6 20.12.17 0.0 10.0 11.3 0.1 1019↑ 1.1 05.01.18 0.0 10.8 11.4 0.1 977↑ 1.8 12.01.18 0.0 10.3 15.4 0.1 1012↑ 2.5




Page 8

BH3

13.12.17 0.0 2.3 11.0 0.1 974↓ 1.5

5.2 20.12.17 0.0 6.3 6.7 0.1 1019↑ 1.2 05.01.18 0.0 7.0 5.6 0.1 977↑ 1.5 12.01.18 0.0 8.5 8.6 0.1 1012↑ 1.6

↑ rising pressure ↓ falling pressure → steady pressure This work was undertaken using a Geotechnical Instruments (UK) Ltd. GA5000 (serial No G503524) which was last calibrated on the 10th July 2017.

7.3 TRL Dynamic Probes

TRL dynamic penetration tests were undertaken along the length of the access road and the results are summarised below: Table 5: Summary of TRL Dynamic Probes

Position Depth Range (m)

Range of Average* Equivalent CBR

(%)

Comments

TRL1 0.34 – 1.99 12 – +40 Probes indicate an initial zone of variable but high equivalent CBR values. From ≈0.8m depth equivalent CBR notably decreases to the lower average.

TRL2 0.23 – 2.05 8 – 28 Probes indicate equivalent CBR values that gradually increase to around 18%, with higher averages recorded in discrete bands.

TRL4 0.24 – 2.06 3 – +40

Probes indicate an initial zone of variable but elevated equivalent CBR values. From ≈0.5m depth equivalent CBR notably decreases toward the lower average. From 1.5m depth, equivalent CBRs increase beyond 40%, before a rapid reduction to the lower average was seen at 2m.

TRL6 0.26 – 2.06 15 – +40

Probes indicate an initial zone of variable but high equivalent CBR values. From ≈1m depth equivalent CBR notably decreases to the lower average and then gradually increase with depth.

*It should be appreciated that layers with similar properties have been estimated from the changes in gradient apparent within the cumulative number of blows recorded. As a consequence an average equivalent CBR value has been determined for each layer of these layers.

8. Laboratory Testing - Geotechnical

The following programme of laboratory testing has been undertaken on samples obtained during this investigation: Moisture content determinations BS 1377: 1990: Pt2: 3.2 Index properties (1 point) BS 1377: 1990: Pt2: 4.4, 5.3 & 5.4 Linear shrinkage BS 1377: 1990: Pt2: 6.3 Soluble sulphate content BS 1377: 1990: Pt3: 5 pH value BS 1377: 1990: Pt3: 9 California Bearing Ratio BS 1377: 1990: Pt4: 7 One-dimensional consolidation BS 1377: 1990: Pt5: 3




Page 9

Undrained shear strength (Triaxial) BS 1377: 1990: Pt7: 8 & 9 The test results are presented in Appendix 5 and are summarised below: Table 6: Summary of Geotechnical Test Results

Test type Number of tests Range of results Comments

Moisture content determinations 16 18% to 38% Cohesive Made Ground and Till – results

generally decrease with depth.

Index Properties (1 Point) 3

LL PL PI LS

53% to 63% 21% to 25% 30% to 38% 15%

Cohesive Made Ground and Till – Clay of high plasticity, Consistency index 0.7 to 0.8, NHBC Class – Medium.

Soluble sulphate 3 SO4 0.29 to 0.68mg/l DS-2, Alkaline conditions. pH pH 8.1 to 10.4 California Bearing Ratio (Recompacted with standard effort, 2.5kg rammer)

3

CBR MC

ρ ρd

5% to +40% 12% to 21% 1.94 to 2.09Mg/m³ 1.60 to 1.88Mg/m³

Granular made ground may be compacted such that high CBR values can be achieved.

One–dimensional consolidation 6

cv mv

1.2 to 2.1m²/yr 0.07 to 1m²/MN

Till (BH1) – Moderate rate of settlement, clays of low to high compressibility.

cv mv

3.6 to 5.2m²/yr 0.082 to 0.43m²/MN

Till (BH3) – Fast rate of settlement, clays of low to high compressibility.

Undrained shear strength (Triaxial) 3

cu ρ ρd

26 to 107kPa 1.9 to 2.15Mg/m³ 1.5 to 1.84Mg/m³

Till - Low to high shear strength.

8.1 Geotechnical Properties

The idealised geotechnical properties employed in design are summarised below.

Table 7: Summary of Geotechnical Properties Property Range of values Comments Volume change potential (NHBC) Medium Cohesive Made Ground and Till

Shear strength parameters cu γ

26 to 107kN/m² 18.6 to 21kN/m³ Based on triaxial testing results

Consolidation characteristics (Assume mv gradually reduces with increasing depth)

cv mv

NW Corner (BH1)

1.2 to 2.1m²/yr 0.07 to 1m²/MN From one-dimensional consolidation test results

mv 0.10 to 2.2m²/MN From SPT and plasticity results, and after Stroud (1974), where mv = 1/f2N

cv mv NE

Corner (BH3)

3.6 to 5.2m²/yr 0.082 to 0.43m²/MN From one-dimensional consolidation test results

mv 0.18 to 0.20m²/MN From SPT and plasticity results, and after Stroud (1974), where mv = 1/f2N

Concrete classification DC-2 Brownfield locations (static water); ACEC class AC-2




Page 10

9. Laboratory Testing - Environmental A suite of testing was conducted on samples from across the site and the following regime was undertaken. Metals – Cd, CrVI, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, V and Zn. Semi and Non-Metals - As, Se, Free CN- and Phenols. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). Others – pH, organic content, total/soluble SO4

2- and asbestos screen.

This testing was undertaken by Chemtest Ltd and the results of the chemical testing are presented in Appendix 6 of this report.

10. Discussion of Ground Conditions - Geotechnical

It is understood that the site is to be developed by the construction of infill structures at the north-west, north-east and south-east corners of the stadium, between the existing stands. At the time of writing this report the precise structural details of the construction are not currently known, thus the discussion below is of a generalised nature.

10.1 Comments

It should be appreciated that within this investigation, the assessment of soils in the south-east corner of the site has been limited to shallow depths, i.e. trialpits and TRL dynamic probes, windowless sample boreholes and dynamic probes were carried out in previous investigation. In general terms, the windowless sample boreholes in that investigation demonstrated comparable ground conditions to the findings of this investigation, with 1.1m of variable cohesive and granular made ground being revealed above a sequence of very soft clays that are considered to represent Till. Moreover, the dynamic probes in the south-east corner demonstrated a gradual increase in resistance, which if approximately equated to SPT, suggest very soft becoming very stiff in-situ conditions. Similarly, if equivalent SPT values are considered alongside the recorded plasticity indices and following Stroud (1974), approximate mv values of between 0.03 to 1.68m2/MN may be considered (N.B. values of mv should be assumed to reduce with depth). In regard to the trial pits excavated adjacent to the existing structures, it may be noted that concrete structures were revealed at the base of the exterior walls. These structures were found at depths below ground level ranging between 0.06m and 0.5m, protruding from 0.2m to 0.55m from the exterior walls, and were 0.1m to 0.6m in thickness. It could therefore be assumed that these structures represent footings to the stadium stands, however, it should be appreciated that they were found to be underlain by the made ground typically revealed across the site. In view of this, it should be noted that it would be somewhat unusual for large structures such as the stands to have been founded within made ground. Whilst it is possible that the concrete structures could extend to depths greater than it was practical to




Page 11

observe in the trial pits, and thus are founded within the Till, it must also be realised that the Till across the site was found to be in a relatively weak in-situ condition at shallow depths. Therefore, it would be unexpected for large structures such as the stands to be founded in the made ground or weak near surface Till without excessive total and differential settlements occurring. As such, it is felt more likely that the existing stands will be supported on piled foundations and the concrete structures revealed in the trial pits represent piles caps or interconnecting beams.

10.2 Foundations It cannot be recommended that foundations be constructed directly within the made ground or weak near surface Till. These soils are also present in a weak and variable condition, such that excessive total and or differential settlement could occur under moderately light surface loading. It light of this and on the basis that the weaker horizons within the Till are present to significant depths, it is recommended that piles are employed to transfer foundation loads to deeper more competent soils. There are a number of piling options that could be considered for use at this site, which include driven displacement piles and continuous flight auger (CFA) bored piles. In order to formulate a suitable design it is recommended that the advice of specialist piling contractors be sought. However, for preliminary design and estimating purposes the following discussion is presented. It is considered that driven pre-cast concrete piles could be adopted at this site, although, it would be prudent to utilise a driving shoe or a lead steel section to minimise the risk of pile breakages whilst penetrating the piles through the made ground. The risk of pile breakages may further be reduced and greater laterally capacities provided by employing steel tubular driven piles, which could include thin walled bottom drive piles or thick walled top drive piles. It should be appreciated that thin walled piles will need to be concrete filled and possibly reinforced as the steel casing alone would not be sufficient to carry vertical or horizontal imposed loads. However, this is not necessarily the case with thick walled tubular piles. For both pile types care is required to ensure that the connection between the pile and pile cap is adequate. Should the piles be required to resist a combination of axial compression or tension loading and a coexistent bending moment, a positive connection between segmental piles should be employed to transfer loads between the pile segments. Consideration may also be given to the use of bored cast-in-place piles using continuous flight augers (CFA). In this type of piling an auger borehole is formed and concrete placed via the hollow stem of the auger as they are withdrawn. A reinforcement cage is then placed into the fluid concrete filled hole to complete the pile. It should be appreciated that with this method spoil will be produced at the surface which will need to be disposed of. Moreover, should such piles encounter obstructions or bedrock, a condition known as ‘flighting’ may occur. Flighting is where loose soils immediately adjacent to the pile borehole are pulled laterally into the drill string when the augers rotate quickly with little downward penetration. In regard to driven piles be at the site, care will be needed to ensure that the installation of driven piles does not lead to settlement of the existing. It is therefore recommended that existing buildings are




Page 12

carefully monitored during pile driving and should significant movements be observed, it will be necessary to consider use of bored piles as an alternative. Irrespective of the method of pile installation a working platform must be provided, the thickness of which will be determined by the type of piling rig employed and the strength of the near surface soils. The design of the platform should be undertaken in accordance with the procedures and specification given in the BRE publication entitled Working platforms for tracked plant.

In view of the above comments, it is reiterated that in order to formulate a suitable design, it is recommended that the advice of specialist contractors be sought. However, for preliminary design and costing purposes capacity relating to CFA, precast concrete and drilled piling is provided in the table below.

Table 8: Bearing Capacity for Single Piles

CFA Piles Driven Precast Piles Pile section

(mm) Pile length

(m) Allowable capacity

(kN) Pile section

(mm) Pile length

(m) Allowable capacity

(kN) North-west

Corner North-east

Corner North-west

Corner North-east

Corner 300 10

13 16

50 90

170

95 130 210

200 10 13 16

50 90

165

95 135 205

450 10 13 16

85 140 270

145 205 330

250 10 13 16

65 115 210

120 170 265

600 10 13 16

120 200 385

205 285 465

300 10 13 16

80 140 255

145 205 320

The above analyses are based upon the following assumptions. a) The ground conditions considered are as revealed by the current investigation. Due to the

differences in the ground conditions across the site, two sets of parameters have been employed. b) Skin friction from the made ground has not been considered. c) A factor of safety of 3.0 on skin friction and end bearing was applied. d) The water table is present at significant depth.

It may be noted that in regard to the ground conditions presented by the previous investigation in the south-east corner, the dynamic probes indicate higher pile capacities than those suggested by investigation in the north-east corner. However, careful consideration of the dynamic probe data will be required for the pile design.

In general terms, settlements of piled foundations are likely to be limited to 10mm for a single pile at working load. However, the consolidation characteristics revealed in this investigation should be employed to evaluate anticipated settlements. Notwithstanding this, it should be appreciated that the existing structures at the site will have undergone settlement after construction and any further




Page 13

settlement is likely to be minimal. Therefore, the settlement of any new foundations will be differential to the existing structures and it will be necessary to ensure that this is considered where old and new structures adjoin.

10.2.1 General Comments for Construction The stability of excavation faces cannot be guaranteed thus temporary support to the excavation faces may become necessary. Under no circumstances should operatives be allowed to enter unsupported excavations. Should the excavations be required to stand open, it is considered that a blinding layer of lean-mixed concrete be placed over the sub-grade. This expedient will reduce loosening or softening of the underling soil due to both physical disturbance and the ingress of surface water. Should seepage of groundwater be encountered it is considered that it could be dealt with using a simple form of de-watering. Such a system could include the excavation of sumps from which the water could be pumped.

10.3 Ground-floors

In light of the made ground and weak near surface soils it is not recommended that ground bearing ground floor slabs be employed. In this instance it would be necessary to suspend floors between foundation positions, such that the floor loads are transmitted via the foundations to competent soils at depth.

10.4 Hard-standing Areas

It is considered that any hard-standing at the site could be constructed employing traditional pavement design. For unmodified soils, a design California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 3% could be employed in the pavement design in the most onerous case. Notwithstanding this, testing carried out in this investigation suggests that recompacted soils may achieve a minimum CBR of 5%, however, significantly greater CBR values were apparent within some of the made ground at the site. It is recommended that proof rolling of the sub-grade be undertaken to establish the suitability of the soils, to expose any soft or weak ground and to ensure the sub-grade is well compacted prior to construction. Any areas of soft or weak ground should be remediated by increasing the sub-base thickness. Alternatively, weak material could be locally removed and replaced with a compacted granular capping layer. If construction were to be undertaken during the winter or after periods of prolonged rainfall, it may be prudent to employ a geotextile and/or a geogrid between the sub-base and sub-grade.




Page 14

10.5 Effect of Sulphates

In view of the nature of the underlying soils it is considered that the design sulphate class be assessed with reference to Table C24, which is provided in BRE Special Digest 1, Concrete in aggressive ground: Part C. On the basis of this table and considering the soluble sulphate contents recorded, it can be shown that well compacted buried concrete should be designed in accordance with Class DS-2 requirements. Assuming static groundwater, the table also indicates that the aggressive chemical environment for concrete (ACEC) classification is AC-2.

In order to evaluate the design chemical (DC) class for the buried concrete at this site reference should be made to Table D15, which can be found in Part D, Specifying concrete for general cast-in-situ use, of BRE Special Digest 1. From this table it may be shown that for an intended working life of at least 50 years the concrete design class DC-2 is required.

11. Discussion of Ground Conditions - Environmental 11.1 Discussion of Test Results

It is understood that the site is to be developed by the construction of infill structures to the existing stadium stands. Consequently, the site may be classified as commercial.

11.1.1 Soil Samples The results of the chemical testing undertaken on soil samples obtained during this investigation have been compared to the ATRISK soil screening values (SSVs) as compiled by WS Atkins plc. With respect to the results it should be appreciated that the soil organic matter (SOM) content for the samples tested was found to range between 17% and 36%. On this basis, it is considered that the screening values associated with 6% SOM should be adopted. These values have been derived in such a way as to adhere to the principles within the revised CLEA model and include the most current release of the SGVs. A list of subscribers is provided within the website6 and these include many local authorities. A comparison of the results of the testing, together with the data given above, can be found within Appendix 6. These results indicate the following:

4 Table C2, Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification for brownfield locations 5 Table D1, Selection of the DC Class and the number of APMs for concrete elements where the hydraulic gradient due to groundwater is 5 or less: for general in-situ use of concrete. 6 http://www.atrisksoil.co.uk/pages/general/subscribers.asp




Page 15

Table 9: Summary of contaminated areas Location Depth

(m) Contaminants found to be exceeding SSVs

(Commercial) BH1 NW Corner 0.6 PAHs [benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,

benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene] BH2 NE Corner 0.3 – 0.6 PAHs [benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,

benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene] TRL6 SE Corner 0.12 – 0.4 PAHs [chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene]

Concentrations of chromiumVI, free cyanide, phenols (total) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (aliphatic C5 to C10 and aromatic C5 to C8) were below the detection limits for the tests. Detectable levels of all other contaminants were recorded, but these fell below the associated Atrisk Soil Screening Values. It should be appreciated that the soil screening values for PAHs and TPHs (where appropriate) represents vapour saturation limits. The inhalation of vapour pathway contributes less than 10% of total exposure, which is unlikely to significantly affect the combined assessment criterion7. In view of this, the ATRISK soil SSVs notes that the users may wish to consider using a combined assessment criterion if free product is not observed, the values for which are also provided on the summary of contamination analysis. It is therefore considered that the criteria for no free product should be adopted for the PAHs at this site. The results of the contaminants found to exceed these screening values are tabulated below: Table 10: Summary of areas contaminated by PAHs & TPHs Location Depth

(m) Contaminants found to be exceeding SSVs

(Commercial) BH1 NW Corner 0.6 None.

BH2 NE Corner 0.3 – 0.6 None. TRL6 SE Corner 0.12 – 0.4 None.

On the basis of the above information, the results of the investigation indicate that the levels of contamination at the site are not significant in respect to the proposed end-use. However, it should be realised that Asbestos (Chrysotile fibres/clumps) was apparent within the soil sample from borehole BH1. Given that the Asbestos was only revealed in one location, it is unlikely that this represents a site wide presence of Asbestos. However, on the basis that the locations tested at the site are discrete to separate development areas, it could be that Asbestos is apparent in a limited area in the north-west corner of the site i.e. a ‘hot-spot’, or there is a presence of Asbestos throughout the north-west corner.

11.1.2 Waste Acceptance Criteria

Analysis of test samples was undertaken to assess the suitability of the site material for suitability in a landfill. In order to achieve this, waste acceptance criteria (WAC) testing has been undertaken to demonstrate compliance. The WAC have been set as maximum limit values which must not be exceeded and should not be viewed as minimum treatment specifications for landfill. The following table

7 Ref: ATRISK soil, SSVs derived using CLEA v1.071 for 6% SOM, Commercial land use, 23.06.17.




Page 16

has been extracted from the Environment Agency8 and adapted to compare against the chemical test results within appendix 6.

Table 11: Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria Limits

Determinand Maximum

Concentration (mg/kg)

Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria Limits Class of Landfill Maximum

Inert Stable* Hazardous

Total Organic Carbon % 7.7 – 7.8 3 5 6 Hazardous Loss on Ignition % 7.6 – 8.1 - - 10 Inert

BTEX <0.010 6 - - Inert PCBs (7 Congeners) <0.10 1 - - Inert

TPH (C10 – C40) 150 – 240 500 - - Inert Total (of 17) PAHs 27 – 320 100 - - Stable/Hazardous

pH 7.8 – 9.6 - 6> - Stable Acid Neutralisation

Capacity 0.022 – 0.088 - To be evaluated

To be evaluated -

Maximum Cumulative

Concentration (mg/kg) L/S 10:1

Limit values (mg/kg) for compliance leaching test using BS EN 12457 - 3 at L/S 10 l/kg

As 0.061 – 0.13 0.5 2 25 Inert Ba <0.5 20 100 300 Inert Cd <0.01 0.04 1 5 Inert Cr <0.05 0.5 10 70 Inert Cu <0.05 – 0.12 2 50 100 Inert Hg <0.005 0.01 0.2 2 Inert Mo 0.17 – 0.23 0.5 10 30 Inert Ni <0.05 0.4 10 40 Inert Pb <0.01 0.5 10 50 Inert Sb 0.045 – 0.047 0.06 0.7 5 Inert Se 0.026 – 0.075 0.1 0.5 7 Inert Zn <0.5 4 50 200 Inert Cl 30 – 200 800 15 000 25 000 Inert F 2.6 – 3.6 10 150 500 Inert

SO4 530 1000 20 000 50 000 Inert Total Dissolved Solids

(TDS) 1000 – 1300 4000 60 000 100 000 Inert

Phenol index <0.5 1 - - Inert Dissolved Organic

Carbon at own pH or pH 7.5-8.0

150 – 260 500 800 1000 Inert

*Stable, Non-reactive hazardous waste in non-hazardous landfill

The above information suggests that the soil sample tested principally fell within the parameters required for inert waste landfill, however, the level of Total Organic Carbon and PAHs exceed the limits for inert waste. Moreover, the recorded pHs were high and indicated alkaline condition. It is therefore likely waste from the site will need to be disposed of to non-inert landfill and the advice of waste

8 Guidance on sampling and testing of wastes to meet landfill waste acceptance procedures, Version 1, April 2005.




Page 17

specialists should be sought. Furthermore, the presence of asbestos within the soils at the site will need to be considered.

11.1.3 Gas Concentrations

With respect to ground gas, the results of the monitoring visits indicated negligible concentrations of methane throughout the site. Concentrations of carbon dioxide were found to range between 0.1% and 1.3% in associated with oxygen levels of 18.7% and 20.5%, in the north-western corner of the site, and 2.3% and 10.8% in the north-eastern corner with oxygen levels of 5.6% to 15.4%. It should be appreciated that on non-contaminated sites there is generally about 20% by volume of oxygen, associated with low levels of carbon dioxide. In addition, a maximum flow rate of 0.1 litres per hour was recorded and will be employed in the following calculations. The principal driving force for initiating the movement of gas in the ground is a change in barometric pressure. The most onerous gas condition on a site is usually observed on days of low or falling barometric pressure, preferably below 1000mb. It has been noted that measurements undertaken solely during high pressure conditions may be of lesser value. At this site the readings undertaken to date were at atmospheric pressures of between 973mb and 1019mb. On the basis that the site would appear to be underlain by generally low permeability soils, it is considered that the recorded gas concentrations are most likely attributable to the made ground present on site. In order to establish the gas screening value (GSV) for carbon dioxide or methane, the maximum gas concentration (expressed as a decimal) is multiplied by the borehole flow rate (l/hr). In this case, 0% (0.0) methane was recorded throughout. For the north-west corner of the site, a maximum concentration of 1.3% (0.013) carbon dioxide was recorded and 10.8% (0.108) for the north-east corner of the site. This was all in association with a maximum flow rate of 0.1 l/hr. This results in a GSV of 0 l/hr for methane with 0.0013 l/hr and 0.0108 l/hr for carbon dioxide in the north-west and north-east corners of the site respectively. In accordance with Table 2 of BS8485: 2015, Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings, the north-west corner may be characterised as Characteristic Situation Level 1 (CS1). Whilst the GSV obtained for the north-east of the site may also indicate CS1, it should be realised that the alongside the GSV, the upper boundary for CS1 is a maximum concentration limit of 1% methane and 5% carbon dioxide. In this case, the maximum concentration of 10.8% carbon dioxide exceeds this limit and thus it will be necessary to consider the north-east corner of the site in terms of Characteristic Situation Level 2, which will require protective measures to be employed. With regard to the number of monitoring visits required reference is made to Tables 5.5a and 5.5b of CIRIA report C665 (2007)9. Accepting that the proposed development is of low sensitivity and that the generation potential is very low, these tables suggest that 4 readings could be undertaken over a period of 1 month. However, C665 notes that not all sites will require gas monitoring for the period and frequency indicated in Tables 5.5a and 5.5b.

9 Adapted from tables 5.5a and 5.5b of CIRIA C665, 2007, Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gas to buildings, p60.




Page 18

In this case a total of 4 monitoring visits were undertaken over a one month time period, at which point monitoring was terminated because it was decided to assume CS1 for the north-western corner of the site and CS2 for the north-east corner.

In view of the above it is considered that with respect to gas monitoring, the site is fully characterised.

11.2 Site Specific Risk Assessment

11.2.1 Approach The presence of contamination hazards and the risks associated with them should be assessed in accordance with industry practice and the ‘suitable for use’ approach. This has been conducted with reference to The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and The Environment Agency10 advice on the assessment of risks arising from the presence of contamination in soils and using the source-pathway-receptor approach.11 This method dictates that there must be a risk of contaminant produced at a ‘source’ in sufficient concentration to cause harm and there must be a ‘pathway’ for the contaminant to reach an identifiable ‘receptor’ for the linkage to be proved and a contamination hazard to be considered present. Not all substances are contaminants and not all contaminants are considered to be a risk. Indeed DEFRA and The Environment Agency state that ‘a contaminant is a substance which has the potential to cause harm, while a risk itself is considered to exist if such a substance is present in sufficient concentration to cause harm and a pathway exists for a receptor to be exposed to the substance.’12

11.2.2 Conceptual Ground Model and Risk Assessment

In view of the results of the testing undertaken the conceptual site model has been produced. Sources of contamination include the following: On-site – Made Ground (Asbestos and Carbon dioxide) The preliminary risk assessment has been evaluated with reference to the following ratings and definitions:

N/A - A source-pathway-receptor linkage is not considered to exist and therefore a risk assessment is not required.

Low - A pollution linkage is unlikely and/or the likelihood of harm occurring is low and of

minor consequence.

10 R&D Publication CLR 8, ‘Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Land Contamination: An overview of the Development of Soil Guideline Values and Related Research’. 11 The pollution linkage approach was developed by ‘Circular 2/2000 Contaminated Land: Implementation of Part II of The Environmental Protection Act 1990’ which provides meanings for the terms contained in The Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part IIA, the primary legislation for addressing the issues of contaminated land. 12 See ‘Circular 2/2000 Contaminated Land: Implementation of Part II of The Environmental Protection Act 1990’, appendix A.




Page 19

Moderate - The linkage exists but the likelihood of harm occurring is not considered to be

significant although remedial action may be necessary High - The linkage exists and the available data indicates that significant harm may be

caused and remedial action could be necessary. The results of the risk assessment are presented in Table 12.




Page 20

Table 12: Conceptual Site Model and Site Specific Risk Assessment [Contamination: Asbestos and Carbon dioxide]

Conceptual Site Model Site Specific Risk Assessment

Pathways Receptor Linkage Present? Risk Rating Notes

Direct contact/dermal absorption/soil ingestion

Operative

Yes – asbestos was found to be present in the north-west corner of the site which may be harmful if ingested and exposure to soils is likely during works. High

Some contamination is present in the soils underlying the site. Precautionary measures will be required during the construction phase. Remediation will be required to either remove the contamination or break pathways.

End User

Yes – asbestos was found to be present in the north-west corner of the site which may be harmful if ingested via exposed soils. High

Neighbours

No – whilst asbestos was found to be present in one area of the site, the site is principally bordered by areas of hardstanding which will mitigate this pathway to neighbours. Moreover, it is anticipated that the construction areas will be made secure during the development.

N/A

Inhalation of Dust/Vapours

Operative

Yes – asbestos was found to be present in the north-west corner of the site which will be harmful if inhaled and dust may be derived from the exposed soils. However, no vapour-bound contamination is present.

Dust (High)

Vapours

(N/A) Some contamination is present underlying the site. Precautionary measures will be required during the construction phase. Remediation will be required to either remove the contamination or break pathways.

End User

Yes – asbestos was found to be present in the north-west corner of the site which will be harmful if inhaled and dust may be derived from the exposed soils. However, no vapour-bound contamination is present.

Dust (High)

Vapours

(N/A)

Neighbours

Yes – residential and commercial properties located within 250m radius of the site and asbestos was found to be present in the north-west corner of the site which will be harmful if inhaled. Dust may therefore be derived from the exposed soils during the construction. However, no vapour-bound contamination is present.

Dust (High)

Vapours

(N/A)

Ingestion of fruit/vegetables and/or

waters

Operative

No – no edible plants or contained water sources in the area of the proposed new works. Moreover, the asbestos contamination is unlikely to be taken up by plants.

N/A

End User

No – no soft landscaping or contained water sources anticipated in the area of the proposed development. Moreover, the asbestos contamination is unlikely to be taken up by plants.

Neighbours

No – the site generally bordered by areas of hardstanding limiting pathways to nearby gardens. Moreover, the asbestos contamination is not significantly mobile and is unlikely to be taken up by plants.




Page 21

Migration of hazardous gases via permeable strata or shallow mining activity

Operative

Yes – significant concentrations of carbon dioxide have been found to be present in the north-western corner of the site. Whilst this likely to present a limited risk to operatives, precautions may be necessary where work takes place in enclosed spaces.

High Characteristic Situation Level 2 has been considered for the site thus remediation will be required to either remove the contamination or break pathways.

End User

Yes – significant concentrations of carbon dioxide have been found to be present in the north-western corner of the site which may accumulate in enclosed spaces.

High

Neighbours

Yes – significant concentrations of carbon dioxide have been found to be present in the north-western corner of the site. Whilst the Till below the site is predominately of low permeability and unlikely to represent a significant pathway, the made ground was granular in part and there is a potential for pathways to connect to neighbouring properties.

Moderate Whilst there is limited potential for pathways to connect to neighbours, some precautionary measures will need to be considered.

Spillage/loss/run off direct to receiving water

Controlled

Waters

No – the asbestos contamination at the site is not considered to be significantly mobile and no sources of mobile contamination at surface were observed during the fieldworks.

N/A Migration via permeable

unsaturated strata

Controlled

Waters

No – the asbestos contamination at the site is not considered to be significantly mobile, moreover, the site is mainly underlain by low permeability cohesive soils.

Run off via drainage/sewers etc.

Controlled

Waters

No – the asbestos contamination at the site is not considered to be significantly mobile.

Direct contact with contaminated soils

Plants No – the asbestos contamination at the site is not considered to present a significant risk to plants. N/A

Uptake via root system

Direct contact with contaminated soils

Building Materials

Yes – whilst the asbestos contamination at the site is unlikely to present a risk to building materials and plastic water services, testing indicates that the aggressive chemical environment for concrete classification is AC-2.

N/A (plastic services)

Moderate

(buried concrete)

Precautions will be required to prevent damage to buried concrete.

Direct contact with contaminated groundwater

Exposure to Radon

Operative

No – Not in a radon affected area. Low Less than 1% of properties are above the action level. No radon protection measures required.

End User




Page 22

11.3 Indicative Remediation Strategy In view of the site specific risk assessment it is considered that remediation will be required at this site. However, it should be appreciated that the asbestos and the significant concentrations of carbon dioxide appear to be limited to the north-western development area. Therefore, remediation may only need to be focused toward these area specific issues. However, it may be noted that determination of the ground gas conditions in the south-eastern development was not within the scope of this investigation. As a consequence, further investigation may be required to clearly delineated contamination at the site, thus in the first instance it may be prudent to employ remedial measures throughout. The strategy for the site should include the following main elements.

11.3.1 Remediation Objectives

Based on the site specific risk assessment the object of the remediation is likely to be as follows. To protect the site operatives during the construction process from the ingestion of soil or dust, and

inhalation of dust. To protect the end user from the ingestion of soil or dust, and inhalation of dust. To protect neighbours from the inhalation and ingestion dust during the construction process. To protect site operatives, end-users and neighbours from elevated concentrations of carbon

dioxide.

To protect buried concrete from slightly elevated levels of sulphates. 11.3.2 Development Requirements

Whilst the precise nature of this development has not been finalised it is understood that it is to be developed by the construction of a new residential dwelling with garden areas. In view of the above a site specific remediation strategy should be undertaken after the proposed development has been finalised. However, for preliminary design and costing the following remediation proposals are offered.

11.3.3 Outline Strategy

In order to fulfil the objectives defined above it is likely that the following remedial strategy could be utilised. It is recommended that a pragmatic approach be undertaken, with observational techniques being employed at each stage of the work.

Ground-works

During the ground-works phase of the development, protection to the site operatives is required. The risk to site operatives is considered under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, together with regulations made under the act, which includes the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health




Page 23

(COSHH) regulations. Therefore the risks to site personnel must be considered under the Construction Design and Management (CDM) regulations at the planning stage and be included in the contractor’s Health and Safety Plan and site specific Method Statements. These documents should include the following main elements. Site operatives at all levels should be made aware of the hazards of working with contaminated

soils, in particular the potential hazards associated with materials containing asbestos and harmful ground gases. Where necessary task specific risk assessments/method statements should be produce, particularly for work in confined or enclosed spaces, and appropriate PPE provide where necessary.

Personal hygiene facilities, including washing and messing, must be provided and site operatives be encouraged to use them.

Where work is undertaken in dry weather the site should be dampened down to avoid dust. In addition, dust masks must be provided to all site operatives for use in dry weather.

Contaminations soils from the site will need to be disposed of to any appropriate waste site and the advice from specialist handlers will be necessary given the results of Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing.

Any stockpiles of contaminated soil on site should be sheeted over to prevent excessive amounts of airborne dust and cross contamination of imported fill.

Where vehicles are transferring soil to the landfill site they should be covered to prevent contamination of the surrounding area by dust.

Where work is undertaken in wet weather, vehicle and wheel washing facilities are required to ensure that the vehicles leaving the site do not transfer contamination to surrounding areas.

Due to the carbon dioxide present at the site, it will be necessary to ensure that pathways through granular strata do not allow gases to migrate off site. Therefore, the edges of the construction areas should be inspected. If granular soils are present then it will be necessary to provide a preferential pathway, such that gases are vented to atmosphere, along with a barrier to limit lateral movement.

On completion of the ground-works a careful site inspection of the sub-grade would be required. Should visual or olfactory evidence of contamination be revealed then further testing may become necessary.

Construction During the construction phase of the contract the following items are required to protect the end user from the potential contaminants revealed at this site. Beneath buildings, pavements and hard-standings clean inert granular sub-base should be

employed. With respect to good practice, any redundant services revealed at this site should be de-

commissioned and piped services sealed. Any existing services that are to be employed in the new development should be carefully inspected to ensure that they are serviceable.

New plastic services should be constructed in a surround of clean inert material and selected in accordance with the recommendation given in the United Kingdom Water Industry Research (UKWIR) website under Report Ref. No. 10/WM/03/21 - 'Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be used in Brownfield Sites'. The statutory water authority for the area in which site




Page 24

is located may have a risk assessment form to complete which allows these recommendations to be met. However, further determinand specification contamination testing may be necessary.

For buried concrete the results of the sulphate and pH testing indicate that the design sulphate class for the site should be DS-2.

It will be necessary to provide protection against carbon dioxide ground gas and further requirements for such protection are detailed below.

Gas Protection Measures In order to assess the protection measures required BS8485: 2015: Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings has been employed. In accordance with Table 3, Building types, of the code, the development may be considered to conform to Type C. Therefore, on the basis of Table 4 Gas protection score by CS and type of building, the minimum gas protection score (points) is 2.5. The gas protection system should consist of at least two different elements. The elements work independently and collaboratively, and a single element should not be used because there would be no redundancy to allow for defects in the component.

It should be appreciated that there are number of protection elements that could be provided to yield a sufficient score. However, for preliminary designs the follow elements could be considered in the first instance:

Table 13: Combination of protection elements (BS8485: 2015) for CS2

Reference Protection Element Score

Table 5 Precast suspended segmental subfloor (i.e. beam and block) 0

Table 6 Pressure relief pathway (usually formed of low fines gravel or with a thin geocomposite blanket or strips terminating in a gravel trench external to the building)

0.5

Table 7 Gas resistant membrane complying with the requirements given in Table 7 (Note 1) 2

Total Score 2.5

Note 1: The gas resistant membrane should meet the following criteria: Sufficiently impervious (methane gas transmission rate <40.0ml/day/m2/atm (average) BS ISO

15105-1 manometric method). Sufficiently durable and strong to remain serviceable for the anticipated life of the building, to

withstand in-service stresses and installation process. Capable, after installation, of providing a complete barrier to the entry of the relevant gas. Verified in accordance with CIRIA C735: 2014: Good practice on the testing and verification of

protection systems of buildings against hazardous ground gasses.

In addition to the above, the following points should be considered.




Page 25

Technical drawings of the incorporation of the gas protection measures into the sub-structure will be provided by a suitably qualified engineer/architect and produced in accordance with the guidance given in BRE 414.

The sequence of construction indicating when the gas protection system will be installed will be included with the remediation statement. Where possible the installation of membranes will take place as a unique activity on site and shall not take place until sub-structure construction is complete.

During and following the installation of the membrane, all parties in attendance at the site shall be made aware that a gas protection system is to be employed within the construction. Such communications should include, but not be limited to, the CDM documentation for the site and site inductions.

The installation of the membrane shall be carried out only by suitable personnel and the qualifications or experience/training should be included as part of the remediation statement. The suitability of personnel will be assessed in accordance with Annex 1 of CIRIA C735.

The installation shall be in strict accordance with manufacturer specifications and recommendations, which should also be included as part of the remediation statement.

The membrane system employed should not be an ensemble (i.e. a system comprising a mixture of products from different manufacturers will not be employed).

Membranes shall be supplied to site on a single wound roll, creased product will not be accepted or employed.

Whilst membranes are exposed, signage will be provided to indicate the access to the installation area is prohibited unless authorised. Footwear will be checked prior to accessing the membrane surface to ensure no sharp objects are apparent, such as stones caught in treads. The use of sharp objects or hot-works around the exposed membrane will be strictly prohibited unless the risk of damaging the membrane has been full assessed and mitigated.

Non-conformance of manufacturer recommendations shall be discussed and agreed as acceptable, in writing, with a suitably qualified person from the manufacturer.

Verification of the installation of the gas protection system will be carried out on each structure, unless agreed with any statutory authorities prior to construction.

Soft-Landscaped Areas

In view of the contamination on site, it is considered that landscaped areas will require some remediation. This could include the provision of a clean cover system including a capping layer of say 500mm of inert material, which will put the contaminated ground out of the end-users’ dig range. At the base of this layer, a granular capillary break of say 100mm of free draining granular soil should be placed in order to prevent mobile contamination rising upward. This expedient should also provide a suitable root barrier to isolate the plants from the underlying contaminated ground. Comments It should be appreciated that the asbestos contamination was only revealed in the north-western corner of the site. Moreover, borehole BH1 only represents one specific location in this area. Therefore, it is possible that the asbestos found may be associated with a limited area. As such, should further asbestos screening specific testing be carried out around this locale, it may be possible to establish that it is associated with a ‘hot-spot’ rather than being present throughout the north-west corner.




Page 26

Remediation could then be undertaken specifically for the ‘hot-spot’ and the remainder of the site treated in more general terms.

11.4 Fill Materials It should also be appreciated that any fill material, either site-won or imported, to be employed at the site should be subjected to the following assessment to determine its suitability. Fill materials should be initially screened, by a suitably qualified engineer to establish that: It is a suitable growing media if it is to be employed as such, including compliance with BS3883

(2007) It is free from obvious contamination i.e. visual or olfactory evidence It has not come from areas where Japanese Knotweed or other invasive or injurious plants are

suspected to be growing It is not a statutory nuisance, such as being odorous It is free from unsuitable material i.e. whole bricks, brick ties, timber or glass.

It should also be appreciated that any fill should be subjected to validation testing to assess its suitability. The following table has been taken from YALPAG13 documentation and may be used as a guide. Depending on the origin and nature of the material, not all fill will require the sampling frequency and testing indicated, although this should be in agreement with any regulatory bodies (such as the Local Authority). Table 14: Validation sampling and testing

Fill Type Frequency Minimum Determinands Virgin Quarried Material 1 or 2 depending

on the type of stone (to confirm the inert nature of

the material)

Standard metals/metalloids (As, Cd, Cr, CrVI, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn)

Crushed Hardcore, Stone, Brick

Minimum 1 per 1000m³

Standard metals/metalloids as above plus PAH (16 USEPA) and Asbestos

Greenfield/ Manufactured Soils

The greater of a minimum of 3 or 1

per 250m³

Standard metals/metalloids as above plus PAH (16 USEPA) and Asbestos

Brownfield/ Screened Soils

The greater of a minimum of 6 or 1

per 100m³

Standard metals/metalloids as above plus PAH (16 USEPA), TPH (CWG banded) and Asbestos Any additional analysis dependant on the history of the donor site.

The screening values for the above regime should also be agreed with any regulatory bodies; however, the following is recommended in the first instance.

13 YALPAG Technical Guidance for Developers, Landowners and Consultants – Verification Requirements for Cover Systems V3.3 Appendix 1a, October 2016.




Page 27

Table 15: Fill screening values

Contaminant Screening Value

(Commercial) (mg/kg)

Reference

As 635 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter Cd 410 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter CrVI 19.7 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter Cu 106000 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter Hg 405 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter Ni 1770 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter Pb 2310 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter V 7490 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter Zn 1100000 AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter

TPH CWG See contamination analysis sheet AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter PAH 16 USEPA See contamination analysis sheet AtriskSOIL SSVs, 6% soil organic matter

The above screening values are considered to be appropriate for topsoil (typically 6% SOM). However, for granular fill, the soil organic matter would be different (i.e. 1% SOM), thus different screening values would be required. Testing should comply with UKAS and MCERTS, where applicable, and undertaken by an accredited laboratory. Testing should comply with UKAS and MCERTS, where applicable, and undertaken by an accredited laboratory. Where the material has been derived from a commercial company, certificates or other industry quality protocol compliance i.e. WRAP should be obtained. However, it will be necessary to ensure that this documentation specifically related to the material being imported, it is no more than two months old and complies with the screening and frequency requirements given above. Suitable fill materials should be either placed immediate or sufficiently quarantined to prevent cross-contamination. If it is necessary, the quarantined material should be placed on appropriate sheeting and covered to prevent it becoming mixed with contaminated soils or dust, or penetrated by mobile contaminants.

11.5 Verification Report

In order to demonstrate that the remedial works and provision of clean cover has been sufficiently carried out where applicable, it will be necessary to produce a verification report for submission to any statutory authorities. It will be necessary for this report to include the following: The findings of any further investigation into possible contamination ‘hot-spots’ at the site and the

extents of any areas where ‘hot-spots’ have been wholly removed. Characterisation of the suitability of the clean material including the derivation of the material,

comments from a visual screen, the tests results of chemical screening, delivery tickets where appropriate and the conditions by which the clean material has been stored and handled on site.




Page 28

Photographic and logged evidence that clean material has been handled on site and placed in a sufficient thickness over soft-landscaped areas where made ground remains. This may be either at the time of placement or after placement by means of hand excavated trialpits. Photographs should include visual site references or reference boards to prove the location and date taken. A measurement reference should be visible in the photographs to substantiate the thickness of material placed. Please note that it may also be necessary to undertake a topographical survey and the requirement for which should be checked with any statutory authorities.

Evidence that gas protection measures have been implemented and installed in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. The evidence should also demonstrate that all joints and penetrations have been adequately sealed. The verification should be undertaken by a suitably qualified specialist.

The report detailed above should be produced by a suitably qualified engineer. The number of verification areas for the development should be confirmed with any statutory authorities for the site.

12. Recommendations for further work

This report should be forwarded to the relevant authorities as soon as practicable to ensure they have sufficient time to review and discuss any issues.

Consideration of further investigation to establish the extent of possible ‘hot-spots’ of asbestos contamination and the delineation of ground gas risks at the site.

Discussions with ground work contractors in relation to the requirement for materials to be disposed off-site to specialist handlers (i.e. Waste Acceptance Criteria) and the suitability of imported materials.

Discussions with piling contractors regarding their method for installing piles. Discussions with service providers regarding suitable materials for pipe work. Discussions with contractors in relation to the suitability of installation methods for bulk ground gas

barriers. Produce a validation report to demonstrate that the geo-environmental risks discussed in this report

have been mitigated. Detailed design of the sub-structure.

Clearly Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd would be happy to offer advice with respect to the above and assist where necessary.

13. References

British Geological Survey (NERC) (2018), BGS, Keyworth. - Geology of Britain Viewer:

(http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyviewer_google/googleviewer.html) - Lexicon of Named Rock Units: - (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/)




Page 29

British Standards Institution (1990) BS1377: British standard methods of test for soils for civil

engineering purposes, B.S.I., London. British Standards Institution (2015) BS5930: Code of practice for site investigations, B.S.I., London. British Standards Institution (2011), BS 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites –

Code of Practice, British Standards Institute. British Standards Institution (2015) BS8485: Code of practice for the design of protective measures

for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings, B.S.I., London.

British Standards Institution (2013), BS 8576 Guidance on Investigations for Ground Gas – Permanent Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds.

British Standards Institution (2004) BS EN ISO 14688: Geotechnical investigation and testing –

Identification and classification of soil, incorporating corrigendum no.1 (2007), B.S.I., London. Building Research Establishment (BRE) Special Digest 1 (2005), Third Edition: Concrete in

aggressive ground, BRE Press, Garston. • Part C: Assessing the aggressive chemical environment. • Part D: Specifying concrete for general cast-in-situ use.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency (2009) DEFRA

Science Report – Final SC050021/SR2, Human Health toxicological assessment of contaminants in soil. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency (2009) DEFRA

Science Report – SC050021/SR3, Updated technical background to the CLEA model. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2014) SP1010: Development of Category 4

Screening Levels for Assessment of Land Affected by Contamination – Policy Companion Document.

Stroud M.A. The standard penetration test in insensitive clays, Proceedings of the European

Symposium on Penetration Testing, Stockholm, 1975, Vol 2,pp 367 – 75.

Wilson S, Oliver S, Mallet H, Hutchings H, Card G, Assessing risks posed by ground gasses to buildings, CIRIA Report C665.




Page 30

Appendix 1

Site Plans including Utilities Survey


Burnley FC, Turfmoor, Harry Potts Way, Burnley BB10 4BX

Title: Investigation Location Plan

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd J4101/17/E

Job No:Site Name:

Plan not to scale and investigation positions approximated from site operative's notes.

BH1

TP1 TRL1

TRL2

TRL3

TRL4 BH2

BH3

TP3

TP4

TP5

TP4

TP7

TP8 TRL5

TRL6

Survey

Boundary

Survey

Boundary

Survey

Boundary

O

OO

O

O

O

O

O

O

OOOO

OOOOOO

OOOOOO

OO

OO

O

OO

OO

O

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

OO

OO

OO

James Hargreaves Stand

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

Radio trace U

nable to acquire depth

A

R

1

5

0

2

2

5

2

2

5

225

OS

A

MH

CL118.94

IL117.15

150

1

0

0

150

G-RUN

MH

CL118.70

IL117.55

IC

Unable to raise

Obstructions

CR

CR

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

0.2

0d

Brick W

all

Block Wall

Brick Wall

Tarmac

Metal Hoarding

Temporary Marquee

Tarmac

Tarmac

Concrete Ramp Down

Ra

mp

D

ow

n

Concrete

FH

UTT

PE

OS

A

OSA

O

S

A

O

S

A

Electricity

Foul Drainage

Fuel Line

Ventilation

Gauge Line

Offset Fill-Line

Compressed Air

Cable Television

Combined Drainage

Surface Drainage

British Telecom

Close Circuit Television

Telemetry

Fibre Optics

Unknown

Do Not Drill / Banded Pipes

Borehole

Water

Gas

LEGEND

Vapour RecoveryVR VR

U U U

FO FO FO

T T T T T

GL GL GL

cctv cctv cctv

BT BT BT

F F F F

V V V

OFL OFL OFL

A A A

CATV CATV CATV

GAS GAS GAS

E E E E

W W W W

Electricity High VoltageHV HV HV

CommunicationCOMMS COMMS

Oil PipeOIL OIL OIL

PipePIPE PIPE PIPE

End Of Trace

Trial Pit Location

T*

* - W= Water

F=Foam

TANK

P=Product

U=Unknown

C=Concrete

Scale

Client

Rogers

Harry Potts WayBurnley, BB10 4BX

Site Location

1:100@ A1

Drawn byA.B.

Sheet No. 3 of 3

Drawing No. 1117-ROG-5563 Revision -

General Notes:-

DISCLAIMER: The location of under ground services shown on this drawing has been determined using electro-magnetic (and/or ground probing radar, where requested) techniques and visual observations. the limitations of this drawing should be realised and no guarantee can be given that all services have been identified. This drawing may not include the location of all public services that may cross the site and therefore the relevant service drawings

should be obtained from the appropriate utility company and used in conjunction with this drawing. Additional services, structures or other below ground obstructions not indicated on this drawing may be present on site. reference should be made to historical plans and as built drawings. Excavations in the vicinity of services should be carried out with due diligence ref: HSG47 document "avoiding dangers from underground services". Location accuracy is

determined by refering to manufacturers guidelines for the systems deployed. Reference should be made to the latest version of AMS Ltd site procedures document for utility location surveys. Please note ground penetrating radar depths are approximate only.

Date30-11-17

Surveyed byD.C.

Approved by-

Excavated Area Window Sample

Electricity Low VoltageLV LV LV

Ground Probing RadarGPR GPR GPR

FenceO O O O

Edge of CanopyEOC EOC EOC

Overhead Service

Rain Water Pipe

Pipe Riser

Off Survey Area

Unable to Locate

Unable to Raise

Unable to Trace

Vapour Recovery

Taken From Records

Unable to Survey

Rodding Eye

Vent Pipe

Soakaway

Stop Tap

Sluice Valve

Traffic Sensor

Water Meter

Soil Vent Pipe

Soil Vapour Sample

Road Sign

British Telecom Box

British Telecom Cover

Assumed Route

Fire Hydrant

Gas Valve

Inspection Cover

Lighting Column

Manhole Cover

Cover Level

Down Pipe

Earth Rod

Electricity IC

Electricity Pole

End of Trace

Catch Pit

Depth (in metres)

Cable Riser

GV

G

EIC

EP

EOT

FH

IC

LC

MH

Gully

BO

BH

BTB

BTIC

AR

Bollard

Borehole

Co

CL

DP

ER

CATV

CP

d

Concrete

Cable TV

CR

TS

UTL

UTR

UTT

VR

VP

UTS

WM

OH

PR

P

RWP

RS

OSA

Post

RE

S/A

ST

SV

TFR

SVP

SVS

MW Monitoring Well

TL Traffic Light

SL Spot Light

C/BOX Control Box

BO/ILL Illuminated Bollard

U/S Underside

F/BED Flower Bed

RET WALL Retaining Wall

S/BIRCH Silver Birch

H/THORN Hawthorn

CON Conifer

SAP Sapling

TBM Temporary Bench Mark

OSBM Ordnance Survey Bench Mark

C/B FENCE Closeboard Fence

SEC FENCE Security Fence

P&R FENCE Post & Rail Fence

H/CHESTNUT Horse Chestnut

HT Height

WFC Water Filled Chamber

D/CHAN Drainage Channel

WP Waste Pipe

FS Fire Switch

G/RUN Gully Run

SP Soil Pipe

ABBREVIATIONS

IL Invert Level

Ø Pipe Diameter

WR Water Riser

Edge of CanopyEOC

GPR Ground Probing Radar

INT Interceptor

WS Window Sample

No Pipes VisibleNPV

KO Kerb Outlet

Burnley F.C.

Lamp PostLP

Telegraph PoleTP

32 Doncaster Road, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S70 1TL.Tel: 01226 292 377 Mobile: 07969 360287

E-Mail: [email protected] & [email protected]: www.avoinmaasurveys.com

Gully RunG-RUN G-RUN

Soil Vapour Sample

Lamp HoleLH

Survey

Boundary

Survey

Boundary

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

0

.

9

0

d

GP

R

GP

R

GP

R

GP

R

GP

R

GP

R

0.30d

OS

A

G

OSA

225

OSA

100

225

OS

A

MH

CL119.00

OSA

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

0

.

9

0

d

0

.

9

0

d

1

.

1

0

d

O

S

A

IC

0.48d

0.2

0d

0.2

0d

Service Trench

Multiple ducts

Tarmac

T

u

rn

s

tile

s

Tarmac

Tarmac

Tarmac

Refreshm

ents

B

ric

k

W

a

ll

B

ric

k

W

a

ll

Tunnel

Tunnel Extension Rail

Rubber

Brick Wall

Building

James Hargreaves Stand

R

am

p D

ow

n

M

u

l

t

i

p

l

e

c

a

b

l

e

s

Electricity

Foul Drainage

Fuel Line

Ventilation

Gauge Line

Offset Fill-Line

Compressed Air

Cable Television

Combined Drainage

Surface Drainage

British Telecom


Telemetry

Fibre Optics

Unknown


Borehole

Water

Gas

LEGEND


U U U

FO FO FO

T T T T T

GL GL GL

cctv cctv cctv

BT BT BT

F F F F

V V V

OFL OFL OFL

A A A

CATV CATV CATV

GAS GAS GAS

E E E E

W W W W



Oil PipeOIL OIL OIL

PipePIPE PIPE PIPE

End Of Trace

Trial Pit Location

T*

* - W= Water

F=Foam

TANK

P=Product

U=Unknown

C=Concrete

Scale

Client

Rogers


Site Location

1:100@ A1

Drawn byA.B.

Sheet No. 2 of 3


General Notes:-




Date30-11-17

Surveyed byD.C.

Approved by-




FenceO O O O


Overhead Service

Rain Water Pipe

Pipe Riser

Off Survey Area

Unable to Locate

Unable to Raise

Unable to Trace

Vapour Recovery

Taken From Records

Unable to Survey

Rodding Eye

Vent Pipe

Soakaway

Stop Tap

Sluice Valve

Traffic Sensor

Water Meter

Soil Vent Pipe

Soil Vapour Sample

Road Sign

British Telecom Box


Assumed Route

Fire Hydrant

Gas Valve

Inspection Cover

Lighting Column

Manhole Cover

Cover Level

Down Pipe

Earth Rod

Electricity IC

Electricity Pole

End of Trace

Catch Pit

Depth (in metres)

Cable Riser

GV

G

EIC

EP

EOT

FH

IC

LC

MH

Gully

BO

BH

BTB

BTIC

AR

Bollard

Borehole

Co

CL

DP

ER

CATV

CP

d

Concrete

Cable TV

CR

TS

UTL

UTR

UTT

VR

VP

UTS

WM

OH

PR

P

RWP

RS

OSA

Post

RE

S/A

ST

SV

TFR

SVP

SVS

MW Monitoring Well

TL Traffic Light

SL Spot Light

C/BOX Control Box


U/S Underside

F/BED Flower Bed



H/THORN Hawthorn

CON Conifer

SAP Sapling







HT Height



WP Waste Pipe

FS Fire Switch

G/RUN Gully Run

SP Soil Pipe

ABBREVIATIONS

IL Invert Level

Ø Pipe Diameter

WR Water Riser

Edge of CanopyEOC


INT Interceptor

WS Window Sample

No Pipes VisibleNPV

KO Kerb Outlet

Burnley F.C.

Lamp PostLP

Telegraph PoleTP




Soil Vapour Sample

Lamp HoleLH

Survey

Boundary

Survey

Boundary

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

CR

0

.

5

0

d

0.40d

GPRGPR

GPRGPR

GPRGPR

0.70d

GR

UTT

IC

UTR

Screws seized

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

0.3

0d

IC

1.22d

0

.5

0

d

Floodlight

EE E

EE

E E

0.40d

EE E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

0

.

5

0

d

0.80d

0.80d

0.40d

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

0

.

2

0

d

0

.

5

0

d

E

E

E

IC

0.79d

DP

OS

A

15

0

MH

CL117.23

IL116.28

OS

A

OS

A

2

2

5

MH OSA

CL117.19

IL115.76

4

5

0

MH

CL117.25

IL115.76

4

5

0

1

5

0

450

OS

A

MH

CL117.34

IL115.74

Plant Room

Water pipes in

plant room

Unable to trace,

PE.

IC

UTR

Stuck

Building

Jimmy McIlroy Stand

Bob Lord Stand

Concrete

Tarmac

Tarmac

Tarmac

Tarmac

Concrete

Bark Chipping

Tarmac

Higgin S

treet

OSA

Unknown CR

UTT

Brick Wall

Concrete

Brick W

all

Ste

ps U

p

Platform

Paving

Gravel

S

tone W

all

B

ric

k W

all

Ramp Down

Block Wall

Air

Con

225

150

Electricity

Foul Drainage

Fuel Line

Ventilation

Gauge Line

Offset Fill-Line

Compressed Air

Cable Television

Combined Drainage

Surface Drainage

British Telecom


Telemetry

Fibre Optics

Unknown


Borehole

Water

Gas

LEGEND


U U U

FO FO FO

T T T T T

GL GL GL

cctv cctv cctv

BT BT BT

F F F F

V V V

OFL OFL OFL

A A A

CATV CATV CATV

GAS GAS GAS

E E E E

W W W W



Oil PipeOIL OIL OIL

PipePIPE PIPE PIPE

End Of Trace

Trial Pit Location

T*

* - W= Water

F=Foam

TANK

P=Product

U=Unknown

C=Concrete

Scale

Client

Rogers


Site Location

1:100@ A1

Drawn byA.B.

Sheet No. 1 of 3


General Notes:-




Date30-11-17

Surveyed byD.C.

Approved by-




FenceO O O O


Overhead Service

Rain Water Pipe

Pipe Riser

Off Survey Area

Unable to Locate

Unable to Raise

Unable to Trace

Vapour Recovery

Taken From Records

Unable to Survey

Rodding Eye

Vent Pipe

Soakaway

Stop Tap

Sluice Valve

Traffic Sensor

Water Meter

Soil Vent Pipe

Soil Vapour Sample

Road Sign

British Telecom Box


Assumed Route

Fire Hydrant

Gas Valve

Inspection Cover

Lighting Column

Manhole Cover

Cover Level

Down Pipe

Earth Rod

Electricity IC

Electricity Pole

End of Trace

Catch Pit

Depth (in metres)

Cable Riser

GV

G

EIC

EP

EOT

FH

IC

LC

MH

Gully

BO

BH

BTB

BTIC

AR

Bollard

Borehole

Co

CL

DP

ER

CATV

CP

d

Concrete

Cable TV

CR

TS

UTL

UTR

UTT

VR

VP

UTS

WM

OH

PR

P

RWP

RS

OSA

Post

RE

S/A

ST

SV

TFR

SVP

SVS

MW Monitoring Well

TL Traffic Light

SL Spot Light

C/BOX Control Box


U/S Underside

F/BED Flower Bed



H/THORN Hawthorn

CON Conifer

SAP Sapling







HT Height



WP Waste Pipe

FS Fire Switch

G/RUN Gully Run

SP Soil Pipe

ABBREVIATIONS

IL Invert Level

Ø Pipe Diameter

WR Water Riser

Edge of CanopyEOC


INT Interceptor

WS Window Sample

No Pipes VisibleNPV

KO Kerb Outlet

Burnley F.C.

Lamp PostLP

Telegraph PoleTP




Soil Vapour Sample

Lamp HoleLH



Page 31

Appendix 2

Borehole Records


Well WaterStrikes

Samples and In Situ Testing

Depth (m) Type Results

Depth(m)

0.10

0.50

1.10

1.60

3.60

4.00

4.50

Level(m) Legend Stratum Description

ASPHALT. (Driller's notes)MADE GROUND (Sandstone boulders). (Driller's notes)MADE GROUND (Dark grey slightly clayey sub-rounded to sub-angular GRAVEL of concrete, brick, sandstone masonry and ash, with low cobble content. Cobbles are sub-rounded to sub-angular concrete, brick and sandstone masonry).MADE GROUND (Very soft dark grey mottled light grey gravelly CLAY. Gravel is sub-rounded to angular fine and medium sandstone masonry, brick, ash and glass).Very soft yellowish grey slightly gravelly sandy CLAY. Gravel is sub-rounded fine and medium sandstone. Sand is predominately fine with localised inclusions of coarse. (Till)

Grey slightly sandy clayey SILT. Sand is fine. (Till)

Soft grey slightly sandy silty CLAY. Sand is fine. (Till)

Soft becoming firm thinly laminated greyish brown CLAY with extremely closely spaced partings of silt and fine sand. Laminations are sub-horizontal. (Till)

Continued on Next Sheet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.60 B

1.20 B1.20 SPT N=2 (1,0/0,1,0,1)

2.00 - 2.45 U

3.00 - 3.45 B3.00 - 3.45 SPTLS

3.00 SPT N=1 (1,0/0,1,0,0)

3.60 D

4.00 - 4.45 U

4.50 D

5.00 - 5.45 B5.00 - 5.45 SPTLS

5.00 SPT N=7 (1,1/2,2,1,2)

6.00 - 6.45 U

6.50 D

7.00 D

7.50 - 7.95 B7.50 - 7.95 SPTLS

7.50 SPT N=7 (1,1/2,1,2,2)

8.50 D

9.00 - 9.45 U

9.50 D

10.00 - 10.45 SPTLS

Borehole LogBorehole No.

BH1Sheet 1 of 2

Project Name: Burnley FC, Turf MoorProject No.J4101/17/E

Co-ords:Hole Type

CP

Location: Harry Potts Way, Burnley BB10 4BX Level:Scale1:50

Client: Momentum Engineering Dates: 01/12/2017Logged By

JRF

RemarksServices inspection to 1.2m. Standing: waiting access; 0.75hr.

Well WaterStrikes



Depth(m)

11.50

15.50


10m: Becomes firm.

Firm becoming stiff greyish brown slightly gravelly silty CLAY. Gravel is rounded to sub-angular fine mixed lithologies. (Till)

13.5m: Becomes stiff.

End of Borehole at 15.500m

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

10.00 SPT N=10 (1,1/2,2,3,3)

11.50 D

12.00 - 12.45 U

12.50 D

13.00 D

13.50 - 13.95 B13.50 - 13.95 SPTLS

13.50 SPT N=21 (3,4/5,5,5,6)

14.50 D

15.00 - 15.45 U

15.50 D


BH1Sheet 2 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

CP



JRF


Well WaterStrikes



Depth(m)

0.10

0.60

2.30

3.80

5.50

8.40

10.00


ASPHALT. (Driller's notes)MADE GROUND (Black mottled yellow and red fine and medium SAND of ash and brick).

MADE GROUND (Soft grey mottled brown slightly gravelly CLAY with low cobble content. Gravel is sub-rounded to sub-angular fine to coarse sandstone masonry, ash, brick, concrete, mortar, glass and earthenware. Cobbles are sub-angular and angular sandstone masonry, concrete and earthenware). [Slight hydrocarbon odour (bitumen)]

1.5m: Becomes dark grey mottled brown.2.1m: Becomes black.

Soft grey mottled black and light yellow slightly gravelly sandy CLAY with low cobble content. Gravel is fine to coarse. Gravel and cobbles are rounded to sub-rounded mixed lithologies predominated by sandstone and quartz.

2.3-3m: Plant remnants.

Firm brown CLAY with extremely closely spaced partings of silt and fine sand. (Till)

Firm thinly laminated greyish brown CLAY with extremely closely spaced partings of silt and fine sand. Laminations are sub-horizontal. (Till)

Firm greyish brown slightly gravelly silty CLAY. Gravel is rounded to sub-angular fine mixed lithologies. (Till)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.30 D

0.60 D

1.00 D

1.50 - 1.95 B1.50 SPT N=8 (2,3/3,2,2,1)

2.30 D2.50 - 2.95 U

3.00 D

3.50 - 3.80 B3.50 - 3.95 SPTLS

3.50 SPT N=13 (1,1/2,3,4,4)

4.50 - 4.95 U

5.00 D

5.50 - 5.95 B5.50 - 5.95 SPTLS

5.50 SPT N=11 (2,2/2,3,3,3)

7.00 - 7.45 U

7.50 D

8.50 - 8.95 B8.50 - 8.95 SPTLS

8.50 SPT N=12 (3,2/2,3,3,4)

9.50 - 9.95 U

10.00 D


BH2Sheet 1 of 1


Co-ords:Hole Type

CP



JRF

RemarksServices inspection to 1.2m. Dayworks: cleaning work area; 1hr.

Well WaterStrikes



Depth(m)

0.20

1.50

2.20

3.00

3.50

5.00

9.75

10.00


ASPHALT. (Driller's notes)MADE GROUND (Dark greyish brown sandy sub-rounded to angular fine to coarse GRAVEL of sandstone masonry, brick, mortar, glass, ash, clinker and rare metal (cast iron)).

1m: with layers of very soft yellowish brown silty clay.

MADE GROUND (Stiff grey mottled brown and dark grey slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is sub-rounded to sub-angular fine to coarse siltstone, sandstone masonry, brick, mortar, ash and clinker). [Slight hydrocarbon odour (bitumen)]Soft grey mottled black and light yellow slightly gravelly sandy CLAY with organic traces.

Very soft grey mottled brown slightly gravelly silty CLAY. Gravel is sub-angular fine sandstone.Firm grey gravelly silty CLAY. Gravel is rounded to sub-rounded fine mixed lithologies.

Firm thinly laminated greyish brown CLAY with extremely closely spaced partings of silt. Laminations are sub-horizontal. (Till)

Firm greyish brown slightly gravelly silty CLAY. Continued on Next Sheet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.30 D0.50 D

1.00 D

1.50 - 1.95 B1.50 SPT N=19 (12,10/6,4,5,4)

2.30 D2.50 - 2.95 U

3.00 D

3.50 - 3.95 B3.50 - 3.95 SPTLS

3.50 SPT N=11 (1,1/2,3,3,3)

4.50 - 4.95 U

5.00 D

5.50 - 5.95 B5.50 - 5.95 SPTLS

5.50 SPT N=12 (1,2/3,3,3,3)

7.00 - 7.45 U

7.50 D

8.50 - 8.95 B8.50 - 8.95 SPTLS

8.50 SPT N=11 (2,2/2,3,3,3)

9.50 - 9.95 U

10.00 D


BH3Sheet 1 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

CP



JRF


Well WaterStrikes



Depth(m)


Gravel is rounded to sub-angular fine mixed lithologies. (Till)


11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20


BH3Sheet 2 of 2


Co-ords:Hole Type

CP



JRF




Page 32

Appendix 3

Trialpit Records


Trial Pit LogTrialpit No

TP1Sheet 1 of 1

Project Name: Burnley FC, Turf Moor

Project No.J4101/17/E

Co-ords:Level:

- Date01/12/2017

Location:

Client:

Harry Potts Way, Burnley BB10 4BX

Momentum Engineering

Dimensions (m):

Depth0.32

0.4

0.2 Scale1:50

LoggedRMc/JRF

Remarks:

Stability: Stable

Wat

erS

trike


Depth Type ResultsDepth

(m)

0.12

0.32


ASPHALT. (Operative's notes)MADE GROUND (Greyish brown slightly clayey gravelly SAND. Gravel is sub-rounded to sub-angular fine to coarse brick, ash, sandstone masonry and rare earthenware).

End of pit at 0.32 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.12 - 2.00 D


TP2Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date30/11/2017

Location:

Client:



Dimensions (m):

Depth0.90

Scale1:50

LoggedRMc/JRF

Remarks:

Stability:

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.120.19

0.50

0.90


ASPHALT.MADE GROUND (Cream sandy GRAVEL). (Operative's notes) (Sub-base)MADE GROUND (Grey sandy GRAVEL). (Operative's notes) (Sub-base)MADE GROUND (Dark grey gravelly SAND with medium and coarse gravel sized inclusions of grey clay/silt. Gravel is sub-rounded to angular fine to coarse brick, sandstone masonry, clinker and rare fragments of cast iron).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.70 - 0.90 D


TP3Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date30/11/2017

Location:

Client:



Dimensions (m):

Depth0.35

Scale1:50

LoggedRMc/JRF

Remarks:

Stability:

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.100.200.35


ASPHALT. (Operative's notes)MADE GROUND (Light yellow sandy GRAVEL). (Operative's notes) (Sub-base)MADE GROUND (Dark grey gravelly SAND with medium gravel sized inclusions of grey clay/silt. Gravel is sub-rounded to angular fine to coarse sandstone masonry, ash, clinker and rare brick and mortar).

End of pit at 0.35 m1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.40 D


TP4Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date30/11/2017

Location:

Client:



Dimensions (m):

Depth0.50

Scale1:50

LoggedRMc/JRF

Remarks:

Stability:

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.10

0.50


CONCRETE. (Operative's notes)MADE GROUND (Greyish brown slightly clayey very gravelly SAND. Gravel is sub-rounded to angular (and tabular) fine and medium brick, slate, sandstone masonry and mortar).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.10 - 0.50 D


TP5Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date30/11/2017

Location:

Client:



Dimensions (m):

Depth0.30

Scale1:50

LoggedRMc/JRF

Remarks:

Stability:

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.060.230.30


ASPHALT. (Operative's notes)MADE GROUND (Greyish brown sandy sub-rounded to sub-angular fine and medium GRAVEL of sandstone masonry, ash, clinker and rare brick and metal (cast iron fragments and screw).MADE GROUND (Very soft grey mottled yellow gravelly CLAY. Gravel is sub-rounded to angular fine and medium sandstone masonry, clinker and ash).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.06 - 0.23 D0.23 - 0.30 D


TP7Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date04/12/2017

Location:

Client:



Dimensions (m):

Depth0.60

Scale1:50

LoggedRMc/JRF

Remarks:

Stability:

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.100.12

0.60


ASPHALT. (Operative's notes)MADE GROUND (Grey sandy GRAVEL). (Operative's notes) (Sub-base)MADE GROUND (Dark reddish brown SAND and sub-rounded to sub-angular fine and medium GRAVEL of brick, sandstone masonry, ash and clinker).

End of pit at 0.60 m 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.12 - 0.60 D


TP8Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date04/12/2017

Location:

Client:



Dimensions (m):

Depth0.22

Scale1:50

LoggedRMc/JRF

Remarks:

Stability:

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.120.22


ASPHALT. (Operative's notes)MADE GROUND (Grey slightly sandy sub-rounded to angular predominately fine, rare medium, GRAVEL of concrete, mortar, black coated limestone, ash and sandstone masonry).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.12 - 0.22 D



Page 33

Appendix 4

TRL Dynamic Probe Results


IMPACT (TRL) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer SL970, TRL Road Note 8, 60o cone.

Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

(mm)

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

Blow Count

Total Blows

78

298893

1629 10

87

83

1316

1864

147480

1 1988 34

5 1977 1198

10099

1 1789 6

1 1985 34

1 1818 95

1 1749 98586

1 1664 391 1692 91 1720 9

84

1 1657 91 81

82

5 1605 10

135 1017 195 1128 11

5

755

55606570

5

45

9

849852

509563

13172626

3934

-

3910

302439953251241474102

673687722

1375

0

3540

115555

50

10

5555

8

50

15

3

202530

385111 410

419430437

11

67

395403

654

45

440482

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd Offices 1&2, Barncliffe Business Park, Near Bank, Shelley, Huddersfield HD8 8LU

Job No: Location:

J4101/17/E TRL DCP 1

Site: Client:

Burnley FC, Turf Moor Momentum Engineering

Tested By:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993001/12/2017 RMc

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

012

CBR

www.rogersgeotech.co.uk Test Date:

(mm)

947341360

01

(%)

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

Cumulative Number of Blows

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)

http://www.rogersgeotech.co.uk/


Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

(mm)

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

26

Blow Count

Total Blows

1 90 2046

26

1012

196772

1467 14

62

55

1178

1850

128440

1 2034 26

5 2014 251

5 1910 2277

8889

8782

5

2024

1714 17

5 1962 25

5 1782 195

0 1640 -5757

5 1604 161 1621 151 1640 13

56

5 1523 235 45

50

5 1377 14

261 909 305 1052 9

1

355

19202530

5

16

9

880890

745782

131044

57

26

912

4476677147-

833832859

1270

1

1515

111111

17

10

1011

8

18

11

3

121314

332111 479

541596629

11

67

392429

800

45

668709


Job No: Location:


Site: Client:


Tested By:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993001/12/2017 RMc

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

012

CBR


(mm)

900226245

01

(%)

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dept

h (m

bgl

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)



Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

(mm)

10 88 2028 14

102

45

5 48 1733 17

1770 110

1 89

565 68 1796

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

61

Blow Count

Total Blows

40 1617 131 39 1597

171 42 1646 191 41

1782

22

43 1659 -

-

02

120

2060 1

5 53 1757 58

5 63

1 43 1652

1632

5 58

263233

1151 4

31

27

854

1490

987

10 78 1845

24

1 1553 16

1 1525 201

1 1500 2634

3738

3635

1

1537

1435 7

1 1512 22

1 1480 51

1 1399 72930

1 1269 41 1333 41 1362 9

28

1 1210 41 25

26

1 1089 2

111 773 51 852 3

1

230

20212222

1

17

9

665699

459483

22202420

1417

7

83

86102416151091110

534560591

1260

1

1516

111111

18

10

1111

8

19

11

3

121314

271111 317

347390415

11

67

284299

511

45

426442


Job No: Location:


Site: Client:


Tested By:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993030/11/2017 RMc

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

012

CBR


(mm)

722235247

01

(%)

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dept

h (m

bgl

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)



Total Blows

Blow Count

Blow Count

Total Blows

(mm)

13

Depth CBR

(mm) (%)

101

Blow Count

Total Blows

135 1730 101 134 1705

555 145 1868 115 140

9

155 2055 13

53

540 5 150 1965

1755

22116121

852 22

111

103

816

1310

850100

1 1680 10

0 1628 -1

5 1459 8126

132133

131131

5

1655

1142 8

5 1630 7

5 1250 125

1 985 4105106

1 909 71 917 341 924 39

104

1 872 131 101

102

0 840 -

245 745 305 790 30

5

1005

80859095

5

65

25

602647

403414

15269539

4955

30

2421

70145781841841311311317831

443486540

1285

5

5560

555555

70

30

5555

20

75

35

3

404550

288115 328

348358376

55

1015

295300

425

45

384392


Job No: Location:


Site: Client:


Tested By:

Tel : 0843 50 66687 Fax : 0843 51 5993004/12/2017 RMc

1

CBR

(%)

Depth Depth

012

CBR


(mm)

701258275

01

(%)

-

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dept

h (m

bgl

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dept

h (m

bgl

)

CBR (%)




Page 34

Appendix 5

Laboratory Testing - Geotechnical


Project No. Project Name

w Passing LL PL PI Particle

bulk dry 425µm density

% % % % % Mg/m3

2 1.20 B 31.0 69 53 -1pt 23 30

3 2.00 2.45 U 30.0

7 4.00 4.45 U 25.0

11 6.00 6.45 U 38.0

21 12.00 12.45 U 18.0

27 15.00 15.45 U 17.0

6 2.50 2.95 U 26.0

9 3.50 3.80 B 29.0 97 55 -1pt 21 34

13 5.50 6.00 B 36.0

15 7.50 D 31.0

19 10.00 D 26.0

5 2.30 D 28.0

7 3.00 D 35.0

9 3.50 3.95 B 21.0

13 5.50 5.95 B 33.0 99 63 -1pt 25 38

18 9.80 B 18.0

All tests performed in accordance with BS1377:1990 unless specified otherwise

Key Date Printed Approved By Table

Density test Liquid Limit Particle density

Linear measurement unless : 4pt cone unless : sp - small pyknometer

wd - water displacement cas - Casagrande method gj - gas jar sheet

wi - immersion in water 1pt - single point test

Summary of Classification Test Results

J4101/17/E Burnley FC, Turf Moor

Hole No.

Sample

Soil Description

Density

RemarksRef Top Base Type

Mg/m3

BH1MADE GROUND (Dark grey

mottled light grey gravelly CLAY).

BH1Yellowish grey slightly gravelly

sandy CLAY.

BH1 Grey slightly sandy silty CLAY.

BH1

Thinly laminated greyish brown

CLAY with extremely closely

spaced partings of silt and fine

BH1Greyish brown slightly gravelly

silty CLAY.


silty CLAY.

BH2

Grey mottled black and light yellow

slightly gravelly sandy CLAY with

low cobble content.

BH2



low cobble content.

BH2 Greyish brown CLAY.

BH2



spaced partings of silt and fine

BH2Firm greyish brown slightly

gravelly silty CLAY.

BH3



organic traces.

BH3Grey mottled brown slightly

gravelly silty CLAY.

BH3 Grey gravelly CLAY.

BH3



spaced partings of silt.


CLAY.

122/12/2017

Jude 1

Project No. Project Name

13 5.50 5.95 B

Notes Date Printed Approved By Table

sheet

Linear Shrinkage - Summary of Results

J4101/17/E Burnley FC, Turf Moor

Hole No.

Sample

Soil DescriptionMaterial

<425µm Preparation

Linear

Shrinkage RemarksRef Top Base Type

% %

BH3

Thinly laminated greyish brown CLAY

with extremely closely spaced

partings of silt.

99Specimen prepared from

natural material15

Tests performed in accordance with BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990, clause 6.5 unless annotated

otherwise 222/12/2017

Jude1

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd.

Offices 1&2,

Barncliffe Business Park,

Near Bank, Shelley,

Huddersfield,

HD8 8LU

Interpretation of Moisture Content,

Liquid and Plastic LimitsJ4101/17/E

Project Name: Burnley FC, Turf Moor B.S 1377: Part 2: 1990: 3.2, 4 and 5Fig. Sheet.

3 1

Location: Input By: Jude

Client: Momentum EngineeringCheck By: Jude

Location Depth

Moisture

Content

(w)

Liquid

Limit

(wL)

Plastic

Limit

(wP)

Plasticity

Index (IP)

Retained

by 425mm

Modified

(w)

Modified

(IP)

Liquidity/

ConsistencyCasagrande

Class

N.H.B.C

Class

(%) (%) (%) (%)

(w') (IP') (IL) (IC)

(m) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

BH1 1.20 31 53 23 30 31 45 21 0.3 0.7 C H MEDIUM

BH2 3.50 29 55 21 34 3 30 33 0.2 0.8 C H MEDIUM

BH3 5.50 33 63 25 38 1 33 38 0.2 0.8 C H MEDIUM

ML or MLO

MI or MIO

MH or MHO

MV or MVO

ME or MEO

CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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

Pla

sti

cit

y I

nd

ex %

(I P

)

Liquid Limit % (wL)

Specimen Preparation

Condition Soaking details

Details Period of soaking days

Time to surface days

Amount of swell recorded mm

Material retained on 20mm sieve removed % Dry density after soaking Mg/m3

Initial Specimen details Bulk density Mg/m3 Surcharge applied kg

Dry density Mg/m3 kPa

Moisture content %

Results

TOP

BASE

General remarks Test specific remarks Approved Fig No.

Sheet No

Lab Sheet Reference :

California Bearing Ratio ( CBR )Job Ref J4101/17/E

Borehole/Pit No. TRL2

Site Name Burnley FC, Turf Moor Sample No. 1

Soil DescriptionMADE GROUND (Black sandy GRAVEL of brick, sandstone

masonry, concrete and ash, with medium cobble content). Depth m 0.20

CBR Test Number 1

Specimen

Reference

Specimen

Depth0.20 m Sample Type B

Specimen

Description

MADE GROUND (Black sandy GRAVEL of brick, sandstone

masonry, concrete and ash, with medium cobble content). KeyLAB ID RGS_2017122029

Test Method BS1377 : Part 4 : 1990, clause 7

Recompacted with specified standard effort using 2.5kg

rammer

REMOULDED Not soaked

19

1.98 2

1.79 1

10.7

Curve

correction

applied

CBR Values, % Moisture

Content2.5mm 5mm Highest Average

%

12.0 15.0 15.0 12.7

21.0 22.0 22.0 12.2

4

Jude1

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fo

rce A

pplie

d k

N

Penetration mm

Force v Penetration Plots

Top data

Top values

Top correction

Base data

Base values

Base Correction









Moisture content %

Results

TOP

BASE


Sheet No






masonry, concrete and ash, with medium cobble content).Depth m 0.30

CBR Test Number 1

Specimen

Reference

Specimen

Depth0.30-0.50 m Sample Type B

Specimen

Description


masonry, concrete and ash, with medium cobble content).KeyLAB ID RGS_2017122030



rammer


11

1.94 2

1.60 1

21.1

Curve

correction

applied



%

Yes 4.4 3.7 4.44.6

20.7

Yes 4.0 4.8 4.8 21.2

4

Jude2

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fo

rce A

pplie

d k

N

Penetration mm


Top data

Top values

Top correction

Base data

Base values

Base Correction









Moisture content %

Results

TOP

BASE


Sheet No






masonry, concrete and ash, with medium cobble content). Depth m 0.12

CBR Test Number 1

Specimen

Reference

Specimen

Depth0.12-0.14 m Sample Type B

Specimen

Description


masonry, concrete and ash, with medium cobble content). KeyLAB ID RGS_2017122031



rammer


27

2.09

1.88

11.4

Curve

correction

applied



%

22.0 26.0 26.0 11.7

44.0 50.0 50.0 12.9

4

Jude3

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fo

rce A

pplie

d k

N

Penetration mm


Top data

Top values

Top correction

Base data

Base values

Base Correction

Project location Burnley FCProject reference Sample depth (m) 2.00-2.45Borehole number Sample type UndisturbedSample number Specimen orientation

Specimen depth (m) 2.40Sample description

Particle density (Mg/m³) 2.65 (Assumed) Swelling pressure (kPa)

INITIAL CONDITIONSHeight (mm)Diameter (mm)Moisture content (trimmings) (%)Bulk density (Mg/m³)Dry density (Mg/m³)Voids ratio

Soft brown silty sandy CLAY made ground with glass and brick

Prepared from a sample tube in accordance with BS 1377:1990:Part 1:Clause 8.6

2050.47

301.871.43

0.847

DETERMINATION OF ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIESTested in accordance with BS 1377:1990:Part 5:Clause 3

TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH1U3 Vertical

Preparation method

Voids ratioDegree of saturation (%)

Comments / variations from procedures:

Tested Checked ApprovedDate Date Date

95

CJN22.12.17

IW15.12.17

0.847



TEST REPORT


Average laboratory temperature (°C) Method of time fitting Log time

- - -

(-)

Coefficient of consolidation

Coefficient of volume compressibility

Coefficient of secondary compressionPressure stage

csec mv

1.8 1.02.6 0.25

-

cv

(m²/year) (m2/MN)

0.15

- 50(kPa)

-100 - 200200 - 400400 - 100

50 - 1002.6 0.24 -4.8 -


IW CJN15.12.17 22.12.17

Project location Burnley FCProject reference Sample depth (m) 2.00-2.45Borehole number Sample type UndisturbedSample number Specimen orientationU3


TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH1

Vertical

0.800

0.850

0.900

Initial voids ratio

Tested Checked ApprovedDate Date Date15.12.17 22.12.17

IW CJN

0.600

0.650

0.700

0.750

1 10 100 1000

Void

s rat

io (-

)

Applied pressure (kPa)



TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH1

Vertical

0.00

2.00

4.00


IW CJN

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

1 10 100 1000

Vert

ical

com

pres

sion

(%)


Project location BurnleyFCProject reference Sample depth (m) 6.00-6.45Borehole number Sample type UndisturbedSample number Specimen orientation




TEST REPORT


Preparation method

1.002


207538

1.831.32

Brown Clay with silt lenses





1.002

CJN20.12.17 22.12.17

101

CJN


TEST REPORT




-240 - 480480 - 960960 - 240

120 - 2401.2 0.16 -1.2 -0.083

- 120(kPa)

csec mv

1.2 0.230.83 0.21

-

cv

(m²/year) (m2/MN)

Pressure stageCoefficient of consolidation


Coefficient of secondary compression

- - -

(-)


CJN CJN



TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH1

VerticalU11

0.950

1.000

1.050

Initial voids ratio


CJN CJN

0.700

0.750

0.800

0.850

0.900

1 10 100 1000

Void

s rat

io (-

)




TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH1

VerticalU11

0.00

2.00

4.00


CJN CJN20.12.17 22.12.17

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

1 10 100 1000

Vert

ical

com

pres

sion

(%)






Firm brown silty sandy gravelly CLAY


207518

2.171.84

0.441


TEST REPORT


Preparation method




109

CJN22.12.17

IW15.12.17

0.441



TEST REPORT



- - -

(-)




csec mv

1.1 0.142.1 0.070

-

cv

(m²/year) (m2/MN)

0.025

- 220(kPa)

-440 - 880

880 - 17601760 - 440

220 - 4402.0 0.043 -2.4 -


IW CJN15.12.17 22.12.17

Project location BurnleyFCProject reference Sample depth (m) 12.00-12.45Borehole number Sample type UndisturbedSample number Specimen orientationU21


TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH1

Vertical

0.400

0.420

0.440

0.460

Initial voids ratio


IW CJN

0.300

0.320

0.340

0.360

0.380

0.400

1 10 100 1000 10000

Void

s rat

io (-

)


Project location BurnleyFCProject reference Sample depth (m) 12.00-12.45Borehole number Sample type UndisturbedSample number Specimen orientationU21


TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH1

Vertical

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00


IW CJN

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

1 10 100 1000 10000

Vert

ical

com

pres

sion

(%)






TEST REPORT


Preparation method

0.412


207518

2.221.88

Soft grey brown mottled silty sandy gravelly CLAY





0.412

IW09.01.18 15.01.18

116

CJN


TEST REPORT




-100 - 200200 - 400400 - 100

50 - 1007.2 0.10 -12 -0.049

- 50(kPa)

csec mv

4.9 0.435.7 0.15

-

cv

(m²/year) (m2/MN)




- - -

(-)


IW CJN



TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH3

VerticalU5

0.395

0.405

0.415

0.425

Initial voids ratio


IW CJN

0.325

0.335

0.345

0.355

0.365

0.375

0.385

1 10 100 1000

Void

s rat

io (-

)




TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH3

VerticalU5

0.00

1.00

2.00


IW CJN09.01.18 15.01.18

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1 10 100 1000

Vert

ical

com

pres

sion

(%)






TEST REPORT


Preparation method

0.820


207531

1.911.46

Brown CLAY





0.820

CJN12.01.18 16.01.18

100

CJN


TEST REPORT




-200 - 400400 - 800800 - 200

100 - 2001.7 0.11 -1.9 -0.072

- 100(kPa)

csec mv

5.2 0.0821.6 0.15

-

cv

(m²/year) (m2/MN)




- - -

(-)


CJN CJN



TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH3

VerticalU10

0.790

0.810

0.830

0.850

Initial voids ratio


CJN CJN

0.650

0.670

0.690

0.710

0.730

0.750

0.770

1 10 100 1000

Void

s rat

io (-

)




TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH3

VerticalU10

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00


CJN CJN12.01.18 16.01.18

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

1 10 100 1000

Vert

ical

com

pres

sion

(%)






Firm brown silty CLAY


207529

2.011.56

0.702


TEST REPORT


Preparation method




110

CJN15.01.18

IW09.01.18

0.702



TEST REPORT



- - -

(-)




csec mv

2.6 0.373.6 0.17

-

cv

(m²/year) (m2/MN)

0.055

- 115(kPa)

-230 - 460460 - 920920 - 230

115 - 2305.0 0.097 -5.0 -


IW CJN09.01.18 15.01.18



TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH3

Vertical

0.700

0.750

Initial voids ratio


IW CJN

0.500

0.550

0.600

0.650

1 10 100 1000

Void

s rat

io (-

)




TEST REPORT

J4101/17/EBH3

Vertical

0.00

2.00

4.00


IW CJN

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

1 10 100 1000

Vert

ical

com

pres

sion

(%)


Test Number

Length mm

Diameter mm

Bulk Density Mg/m3

Moisture Content %

Dry Density Mg/m3

Rate of Strain %/min

Cell Pressure kPa

At failure Axial Strain %

Deviator Stress, ( σ1 - σ3 )f kPa

Undrained Shear Strength, cu kPa ½( σ1 - σ3 )f

Mode of Failure

Remarks Approved Printed

Fig. No.

Lab Sheet Reference : Sheet

Borehole/Pit No. BH1

7

Soil Description Grey slightly sandy silty CLAY. Depth 4.00

Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial

Compression Test without measurement

of pore pressure - single specimen

Job Ref J4101/17/E

Specimen

Depth4.00 m Sample Type

Site Name Burnley FC, Turf Moor Sample No.

U

Specimen

DescriptionGrey slightly sandy silty CLAY. KeyLAB ID RGS_2017122018

Specimen

Reference

Test Method BS1377 : Part 7 : 1990, clause 8, single specimen Date of test 13.12.17

1

200.0

104.0

Should be concidered disturbed due to thick

wall U100.Jude 22/12/2017 12:55

5

1.90

25.4

1.52

2.0

90

20.4

1

52

26

Plastic

Deviator stress corrected

for area change and

membrane effects

Mohr circles and their

interpretation is not covered

by BS1377.

This is provided for

information only.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Corr

ecte

d D

evia

tor

Str

ess kP

a

Axial Strain %

Deviator Stress v Axial Strain

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Shear

Str

ength

kP

a

Normal Stresses kPa

Mohr Circles

Test Number

Length mm

Diameter mm

Bulk Density Mg/m3

Moisture Content %

Dry Density Mg/m3


Cell Pressure kPa




Mode of Failure


Fig. No.



27

Soil Description Greyish brown slightly gravelly silty CLAY. Depth 15.00




Job Ref J4101/17/E

Specimen



U

Specimen

DescriptionGreyish brown slightly gravelly silty CLAY. KeyLAB ID RGS_2017122016

Specimen

Reference


1

200.0

104.0

Jude 22/12/2017 12:555

2.15

16.7

1.84

2.0

300

20.3

2

214

107

Plastic


for area change and

membrane effects



by BS1377.


information only.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Corr

ecte

d D

evia

tor

Str

ess kP

a

Axial Strain %


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Shear

Str

ength

kP

a

Normal Stresses kPa

Mohr Circles

Test Number

Length mm

Diameter mm

Bulk Density Mg/m3

Moisture Content %

Dry Density Mg/m3


Cell Pressure kPa




Mode of Failure


Fig. No.



6

Soil DescriptionGrey mottled black and light yellow slightly gravelly sandy

CLAY with low cobble content.Depth 2.50




Job Ref J4101/17/E

Specimen



U

Specimen

Description

Grey mottled black and light yellow slightly gravelly sandy

CLAY with low cobble content.KeyLAB ID RGS_2017122023

Specimen

Reference


1

200.0

104.0

Should be concidered disturbed due to thick

walled U100.Jude 22/12/2017 12:55

5

1.96

26.2

1.56

2.0

60

21.1

3

65

33

Plastic


for area change and

membrane effects



by BS1377.


information only.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Corr

ecte

d D

evia

tor

Str

ess kP

a

Axial Strain %


0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Shear

Str

ength

kP

a

Normal Stresses kPa

Mohr Circles



Page 35

Appendix 6

Laboratory Testing - Environmental


Chemtest Ltd.

Depot Road

Newmarket

CB8 0AL

Tel: 01638 606070

Email: [email protected]

Report No.: 17-33451-1

Initial Date of Issue: 20-Dec-2017

Client Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd

Client Address: Unit 4, Barncliffe Business Park

Near Bank

Shelley

Huddersfield

West Yorkshire

HD8 8LU

Contact(s): James Farnsworth

Project J4101/17/E Burnley FC

Quotation No.: Date Received: 14-Dec-2017

Order No.: 1217-17 Date Instructed: 14-Dec-2017

No. of Samples: 3

Turnaround (Wkdays): 5 Results Due: 20-Dec-2017

Date Approved: 20-Dec-2017

Approved By:

Details: Glynn Harvey, Laboratory Manager

Final Report

Page 1 of 5

Results - Soil

Client: Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd 17-33451 17-33451 17-33451

Quotation No.: 554808 554809 554810

Order No.: 1217-17 BH1 BH2 TRL6

1B 1-2D 1B

SOIL SOIL SOIL

0.60 0.30 0.12

0.60 0.40

11-Dec-2017 13-Dec-2017 13-Dec-2017

COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY

Determinand Accred. SOP Units LOD

Cadmium M 2450 mg/kg 0.10 0.93 0.54 0.30

Chromium (Hexavalent) N 2490 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50

Copper M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 78 380 110

Mercury M 2450 mg/kg 0.10 0.31 1.7 0.18

Nickel M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 42 42 21

Lead M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 180 370 89

Zinc M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 520 840 97

Vanadium U 2450 mg/kg 5.0 31 36 21

Arsenic M 2450 mg/kg 1.0 33 52 27

Selenium M 2450 mg/kg 0.20 0.35 0.37 < 0.20

Cyanide (Free) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50

Total Phenols M 2920 mg/kg 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30

Naphthalene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 9.7 14 0.94

Acenaphthylene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 2.5 2.1 0.38

Acenaphthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 10 24 0.99

Fluorene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 11 26 1.1

Phenanthrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 55 160 8.5

Anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 14 44 2.1

Fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 47 140 11

Pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 45 140 11

Benzo[a]anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 20 60 5.6

Chrysene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 23 72 7.4

Benzo[b]fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 21 62 5.2

Benzo[k]fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 8.5 24 2.8

Benzo[a]pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 16 51 5.5

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 10 31 3.6

Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 5.2 11 4.0

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 9.3 30 3.6

Total Of 16 PAH's M 2700 mg/kg 2.0 310 900 74

Aliphatic TPH >C5-C6 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Aliphatic TPH >C6-C8 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Aliphatic TPH >C8-C10 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Aliphatic TPH >C10-C12 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 1.8 2.6 3.7

Aliphatic TPH >C12-C16 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 5.7 14 2.9

Aliphatic TPH >C16-C21 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 12 340 22

Aliphatic TPH >C21-C35 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 42 2600 380

Project: J4101/17/E Burnley FC

Top Depth (m):

Bottom Depth (m):

Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:

Chemtest Sample ID.:

Client Sample Ref.:

Client Sample ID.:

Sample Type:

Date Sampled:

Page 2 of 5

Results - Soil

Client: Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd 17-33451 17-33451 17-33451

Quotation No.: 554808 554809 554810

Order No.: 1217-17 BH1 BH2 TRL6

1B 1-2D 1B

SOIL SOIL SOIL

0.60 0.30 0.12

0.60 0.40

11-Dec-2017 13-Dec-2017 13-Dec-2017

COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY

Determinand Accred. SOP Units LOD


Top Depth (m):

Bottom Depth (m):

Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:

Chemtest Sample ID.:

Client Sample Ref.:

Client Sample ID.:

Sample Type:

Date Sampled:

Aliphatic TPH >C35-C44 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 45 7.3 2.9

Total Aliphatic Hydrocarbons N 2680 mg/kg 5.0 110 3000 410

Aromatic TPH >C5-C7 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Aromatic TPH >C7-C8 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Aromatic TPH >C8-C10 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 1.4 < 1.0 < 1.0

Aromatic TPH >C10-C12 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 83 7.5 < 1.0

Aromatic TPH >C12-C16 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 340 40 < 1.0

Aromatic TPH >C16-C21 U 2680 mg/kg 1.0 960 150 17

Aromatic TPH >C21-C35 M 2680 mg/kg 1.0 2000 2000 490

Aromatic TPH >C35-C44 N 2680 mg/kg 1.0 140 78 20

Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons N 2680 mg/kg 5.0 3500 2300 530

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons N 2680 mg/kg 10.0 3700 5300 940

pH M 2010 N/A 10.4 8.1 9.4

Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 M 2120 g/l 0.010 0.40 0.68 0.29

ACM Type U 2192 N/A Fibres/Clumps - -

Asbestos Identification U 2192 % 0.001 ChrysotileNo Asbestos

Detected

No Asbestos

Detected

Moisture N 2030 % 0.020 15 15 10

Soil Colour N 2040 N/A Brown Brown Brown

Other Material N 2040 N/A Stones Stones Stones

Soil Texture N 2040 N/A Sand Sand Sand

Sulphate (Total) M 2430 % 0.010 0.44 0.90 0.24

Organic Matter M 2625 % 0.40 12 15 6.7

Page 3 of 5

Test Methods

SOP Title Parameters included Method summary

2010 pH Value of Soils pH pH Meter

2030

Moisture and Stone Content of

Soils(Requirement of

MCERTS)

Moisture content

Determination of moisture content of soil as a

percentage of its as received mass obtained at

<37°C.

2040Soil Description(Requirement of

MCERTS)Soil description

As received soil is described based upon

BS5930

2120Water Soluble Boron, Sulphate,

Magnesium & ChromiumBoron; Sulphate; Magnesium; Chromium Aqueous extraction / ICP-OES

2192 Asbestos Asbestos Polarised light microscopy / Gravimetry

2300Cyanides & Thiocyanate in

Soils

Free (or easy liberatable) Cyanide; total

Cyanide; complex Cyanide; Thiocyanate

Allkaline extraction followed by colorimetric

determination using Automated Flow Injection

Analyser.

2430 Total Sulphate in soils Total SulphateAcid digestion followed by determination of

sulphate in extract by ICP-OES.

2450 Acid Soluble Metals in Soils

Metals, including: Arsenic; Barium; Beryllium;

Cadmium; Chromium; Cobalt; Copper; Lead;

Manganese; Mercury; Molybdenum; Nickel;

Selenium; Vanadium; Zinc

Acid digestion followed by determination of

metals in extract by ICP-MS.

2490 Hexavalent Chromium in Soils Chromium [VI]

Soil extracts are prepared by extracting dried

and ground soil samples into boiling water.

Chromium [VI] is determined by ‘Aquakem 600’

Discrete Analyser using 1,5-diphenylcarbazide.

2625 Total Organic Carbon in Soils Total organic Carbon (TOC)

Determined by high temperature combustion

under oxygen, using an Eltra elemental

analyser.

2680 TPH A/A Split

Aliphatics: >C5–C6, >C6–C8,>C8–C10,

>C10–C12, >C12–C16, >C16–C21, >C21–

C35, >C35– C44Aromatics: >C5–C7, >C7–C8,

>C8– C10, >C10–C12, >C12–C16, >C16– C21,

>C21– C35, >C35– C44

Dichloromethane extraction / GCxGC FID

detection

2700

Speciated Polynuclear

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

in Soil by GC-FID

Acenaphthene; Acenaphthylene; Anthracene;

Benzo[a]Anthracene; Benzo[a]Pyrene;

Benzo[b]Fluoranthene; Benzo[ghi]Perylene;

Benzo[k]Fluoranthene; Chrysene;

Dibenz[ah]Anthracene; Fluoranthene; Fluorene;

Indeno[123cd]Pyrene; Naphthalene;

Phenanthrene; Pyrene

Dichloromethane extraction / GC-FID

2920 Phenols in Soils by HPLC

Phenolic compounds including Resorcinol,

Phenol, Methylphenols, Dimethylphenols, 1-

Naphthol and TrimethylphenolsNote:

chlorophenols are excluded.

60:40 methanol/water mixture extraction,

followed by HPLC determination using

electrochemical detection.

Page 4 of 5

Report Information

Key

U UKAS accredited

M MCERTS and UKAS accredited

N Unaccredited

S This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is accredited for this analysis

SN This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is not accredited for this analysis

T This analysis has been subcontracted to an unaccredited laboratory

I/S Insufficient Sample

U/S Unsuitable Sample

N/E not evaluated

< "less than"

> "greater than"

Comments or interpretations are beyond the scope of UKAS accreditation

The results relate only to the items tested

Uncertainty of measurement for the determinands tested are available upon request

None of the results in this report have been recovery corrected

All results are expressed on a dry weight basis

The following tests were analysed on samples as received and the results subsequently corrected to a dry

weight basis TPH, BTEX, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, Phenols

For all other tests the samples were dried at < 37°C prior to analysis

All Asbestos testing is performed at the indicated laboratory

Issue numbers are sequential starting with 1 all subsequent reports are incremented by 1

Sample Deviation Codes

A - Date of sampling not supplied

B - Sample age exceeds stability time (sampling to extraction)

C - Sample not received in appropriate containers

D - Broken Container

E - Insufficient Sample (Applies to LOI in Trommel Fines Only)

Sample Retention and Disposal

All soil samples will be retained for a period of 45 days from the date of receipt

All water samples will be retained for 14 days from the date of receipt

Charges may apply to extended sample storage

If you require extended retention of samples, please email your requirements to:

[email protected]

Page 5 of 5


Client: Job Number: J4101/17/ESite: Date: 20/12/2017

Tox Data Report No. Reference

Min Max3 0.3 0.93 C4 <0.5 <0.5 19.7 49.1 B/C

78 380 A+7 0.18 1.7 A/D8 21 42 A+

89 370 C97 520 A+21 36 A+

1 27 52 C10 <0.2 0.37 A

<0.5 <0.5 A9 <0.3 <0.3 A

Free product No free product20 0.94 14 432 1050 A+

0.99 24 106000 A+1.1 26 72000 A+2.1 44 544000 A+11 140 72600 A+11 140 54400 A+5.6 60 10.3 142 A

2 7.4 72 2.64 14300 A2 5.2 62 7.29 144 A2 2.8 24 4.12 1440 A2 5.5 51 26.2 76.3 B/C2 5.2 11 0.0236 14.4 A*2 3.6 31 0.368 144 A2 3.6 30 0.112 1450 A

<1 <1 1100 29400 A+<1 <1 769 98200 A+<1 <1 476 14800 A+1.8 3.7 297 69500 A+2.9 14 126 139000 A+12 340 A+42 2600 A+<1 <1 A+<1 <1 4360 183000 A+<1 1.4 3600 20800 A+<1 83 2190 53800 A+<1 340 65400 A+17 960 A+

490 2000 A+

8.1 10.4 -6.7 15 -

0.29 0.68 -0.24 0.9 -

Chromium VI

Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd.SUMMARY OF CONTAMINATION ANALYSIS - including Atkins ATRISK SSVs

Compound Range of Values Found (mg/kg)

Commercial (mg/kg)

Metals

Momentum EngineeringBurnley FC, Turfmoor Staduim

Cadmium 410

Copper 106000

Arsenic 635

Nickel 1770Lead 2310Zinc

Mercury 405.00

1100000Vanadium 7490

Semi and Non Metals

Selenium 13000Free Cyanide

FluoreneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyrene

373Phenols (total) 3170

Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons NapthaleneAcenaphthene

Petroleum HydrocarbonsAliphatic C5-C6

Aliphatic C16-C21 3620000

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Benzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyrene

Chrysene

Dibenz(a,h)anthraceneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Aromatic C5-C7 (Benzene) 98Aromatic C7-C8 (Toluene)

Aliphatic C6-C8Aliphatic C8-C10Aliphatic C10-C12Aliphatic C12-C16

Aliphatic C21-C35 3620000

Aromatic C8-C10

Organic Content (%) -

Aromatic C12-C16Aromatic C16-C21 28400Aromatic C21-C35 28400

Aromatic C10-C12

OtherspH -

B = health criterion values, which are available from toxicological reviews published in the C4SL project methodology report. A* Atrisk's SSV is lower than Chemtest's detectable limit for this compound.

A = WS ATKINS PLC, ATRISK SOIL SCREENING VALUES BASED ON 6% SOIL ORGANIC MATTER

C = Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SLs) based on 6% soil organic matter.

D - Value provided is based on Methyl Mercury. Should elemental mercury be observed or a source be known then a limit of 102 should be used.

Soluble Sulphate (mg/l) -Total Sulphate (%) -

A+ = Values updated June 2017.

Chrysotile in one locationAsbestos - -

Chemtest Ltd.

Depot Road

Newmarket

CB8 0AL

Tel: 01638 606070

Email: [email protected]

Report No.: 17-33453-1

Initial Date of Issue: 22-Dec-2017

Client Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd

Client Address: Unit 4, Barncliffe Business Park

Near Bank

Shelley

Huddersfield

West Yorkshire

HD8 8LU

Contact(s): James Farnsworth

Project J4101/17/E Burnley FC

Quotation No.: Date Received: 14-Dec-2017

Order No.: 1217-17 Date Instructed: 14-Dec-2017

No. of Samples: 2

Turnaround (Wkdays): 7 Results Due: 22-Dec-2017

Date Approved: 22-Dec-2017

Approved By:

Details: Martin Dyer, Laboratory Manager

Final Report

Page 1 of 5

Results - 2 Stage WAC

Chemtest Job No:

Chemtest Sample ID: Limits

Sample Ref: Stable, Non-

Sample ID: reactive Hazardous

Top Depth(m): Inert Waste hazardous Waste

Bottom Depth(m): Landfill waste in non- Landfill

Sampling Date: hazardous

Determinand SOP Accred. Units Landfill

Total Organic Carbon 2625 U % 7.7 3 5 6

Loss On Ignition 2610 U % 8.1 -- -- 10

Total BTEX 2760 U mg/kg < 0.010 6 -- --

Total PCBs (7 Congeners) 2815 U mg/kg < 0.10 1 -- --

TPH Total WAC (Mineral Oil) 2670 U mg/kg 150 500 -- --

Total (Of 17) PAH's 2700 N mg/kg 320 100 -- --

pH 2010 U 9.6 -- >6 --

Acid Neutralisation Capacity 2015 N mol/kg 0.022 -- To evaluate To evaluate

Eluate Analysis 2:1 8:1 2:1 Cumulative

mg/l mg/l mg/kg mg/kg 10:1

Arsenic 1450 U 0.023 0.011 < 0.050 0.13 0.5 2 25

Barium 1450 U 0.014 0.0041 < 0.50 < 0.50 20 100 300

Cadmium 1450 U 0.00013 < 0.00010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5

Chromium 1450 U 0.0049 < 0.0010 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.5 10 70

Copper 1450 U 0.092 0.025 0.18 0.12 2 50 100

Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.00050 < 0.0010 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2

Molybdenum 1450 U 0.093 0.013 0.18 0.23 0.5 10 30

Nickel 1450 U 0.0091 0.0022 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.4 10 40

Lead 1450 U 0.0018 < 0.0010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50

Antimony 1450 U 0.0082 0.0040 0.016 0.045 0.06 0.7 5

Selenium 1450 U 0.016 0.0063 0.032 0.075 0.1 0.5 7

Zinc 1450 U 0.0067 < 0.0010 < 0.50 < 0.50 4 50 200

Chloride 1220 U 49 16 97 200 800 15000 25000

Fluoride 1220 U 0.54 0.33 1.1 3.6 10 150 500

Sulphate 1220 U 110 45 220 530 1000 20000 50000

Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 230 86 450 1000 4000 60000 100000

Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.030 < 0.30 < 0.50 1 - -

Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 40 24 79 260 500 800 1000

Solid Information

Dry mass of test portion/kg 0.175 0.321

Moisture (%) 14 1.400

0.222

Waste Acceptance Criteria

Leachant volume 1st extract/l

Leachant volume 2nd extract/l

Eluant recovered from 1st extract/l

Landfill WAC analysis (specifically leaching test results) must not be used for hazardous waste classification purposes. This analysis is only applicable for hazardous waste

landfill acceptance and does not give any indication as to whether a waste may be hazardous or non-hazardous.

0.60

11-Dec-2017

Limit values for compliance leaching test

using BS EN 12457 at L/S 10 l/kg

Leachate Test Information


17-33453 Landflll Waste Acceptance Criteria

554812

BH1

1B

Page 2 of 5

Results - 2 Stage WAC

Chemtest Job No:

Chemtest Sample ID: Limits

Sample Ref: Stable, Non-

Sample ID: reactive Hazardous

Top Depth(m): Inert Waste hazardous Waste

Bottom Depth(m): Landfill waste in non- Landfill

Sampling Date: hazardous

Determinand SOP Accred. Units Landfill

Total Organic Carbon 2625 U % 7.8 3 5 6

Loss On Ignition 2610 U % 7.6 -- -- 10

Total BTEX 2760 U mg/kg < 0.010 6 -- --

Total PCBs (7 Congeners) 2815 U mg/kg < 0.10 1 -- --

TPH Total WAC (Mineral Oil) 2670 U mg/kg 240 500 -- --

Total (Of 17) PAH's 2700 N mg/kg 27 100 -- --

pH 2010 U 7.8 -- >6 --

Acid Neutralisation Capacity 2015 N mol/kg 0.088 -- To evaluate To evaluate

Eluate Analysis 2:1 8:1 2:1 Cumulative

mg/l mg/l mg/kg mg/kg 10:1

Arsenic 1450 U 0.012 0.0052 < 0.050 0.061 0.5 2 25

Barium 1450 U 0.028 0.013 < 0.50 < 0.50 20 100 300

Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5

Chromium 1450 U 0.0011 < 0.0010 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.5 10 70

Copper 1450 U 0.0039 0.0045 < 0.050 < 0.050 2 50 100

Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.00050 < 0.0010 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2

Molybdenum 1450 U 0.042 0.013 0.082 0.17 0.5 10 30

Nickel 1450 U 0.0033 0.0015 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.4 10 40

Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50

Antimony 1450 U 0.0076 0.0043 0.015 0.047 0.06 0.7 5

Selenium 1450 U 0.0046 0.0023 < 0.010 0.026 0.1 0.5 7

Zinc 1450 U 0.0059 < 0.0010 < 0.50 < 0.50 4 50 200

Chloride 1220 U 9.5 2.0 19 30 800 15000 25000

Fluoride 1220 U 0.34 0.25 < 1.0 2.6 10 150 500

Sulphate 1220 U 94 47 180 530 1000 20000 50000

Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 230 120 450 1300 4000 60000 100000

Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.030 < 0.30 < 0.50 1 - -

Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 17 15 < 50 150 500 800 1000

Solid Information

Dry mass of test portion/kg 0.175 0.309

Moisture (%) 19 1.400

0.246

Waste Acceptance Criteria

Leachant volume 1st extract/l

Leachant volume 2nd extract/l

Eluant recovered from 1st extract/l

Landfill WAC analysis (specifically leaching test results) must not be used for hazardous waste classification purposes. This analysis is only applicable for hazardous waste

landfill acceptance and does not give any indication as to whether a waste may be hazardous or non-hazardous.

1.50

13-Dec-2017

Limit values for compliance leaching test

using BS EN 12457 at L/S 10 l/kg

Leachate Test Information


17-33453 Landflll Waste Acceptance Criteria

554813

BH3

4B

Page 3 of 5

Test Methods

SOP Title Parameters included Method summary

1020

Electrical Conductivity and

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in

Waters

Electrical Conductivity and Total Dissolved

Solids (TDS) in WatersConductivity Meter

1220Anions, Alkalinity & Ammonium

in Waters

Fluoride; Chloride; Nitrite; Nitrate; Total;

Oxidisable Nitrogen (TON); Sulfate; Phosphate;

Alkalinity; Ammonium

Automated colorimetric analysis using

‘Aquakem 600’ Discrete Analyser.

1450 Metals in Waters by ICP-MS

Metals, including: Antimony; Arsenic; Barium;

Beryllium; Boron; Cadmium; Chromium; Cobalt;

Copper; Lead; Manganese; Mercury;

Molybdenum; Nickel; Selenium; Tin; Vanadium;

Zinc

Filtration of samples followed by direct

determination by inductively coupled plasma

mass spectrometry (ICP-MS).

1610Total/Dissolved Organic Carbon

in WatersOrganic Carbon TOC Analyser using Catalytic Oxidation

1920 Phenols in Waters by HPLC

Phenolic compounds including: Phenol,

Cresols, Xylenols, Trimethylphenols Note:

Chlorophenols are excluded.

Determination by High Performance Liquid

Chromatography (HPLC) using electrochemical

detection.

2010 pH Value of Soils pH pH Meter

2015 Acid Neutralisation Capacity Acid Reserve Titration

2030

Moisture and Stone Content of

Soils(Requirement of

MCERTS)

Moisture content

Determination of moisture content of soil as a

percentage of its as received mass obtained at

<37°C.

2610 Loss on Ignition loss on ignition (LOI)Determination of the proportion by mass that is

lost from a soil by ignition at 550°C.

2625 Total Organic Carbon in Soils Total organic Carbon (TOC)

Determined by high temperature combustion

under oxygen, using an Eltra elemental

analyser.

2670Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

(TPH) in Soils by GC-FID

TPH (C6–C40); optional carbon banding, e.g. 3-

band – GRO, DRO & LRO*TPH C8–C40Dichloromethane extraction / GC-FID

2700

Speciated Polynuclear

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

in Soil by GC-FID

Acenaphthene; Acenaphthylene; Anthracene;

Benzo[a]Anthracene; Benzo[a]Pyrene;

Benzo[b]Fluoranthene; Benzo[ghi]Perylene;

Benzo[k]Fluoranthene; Chrysene;

Dibenz[ah]Anthracene; Fluoranthene; Fluorene;

Indeno[123cd]Pyrene; Naphthalene;

Phenanthrene; Pyrene

Dichloromethane extraction / GC-FID

2760

Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs) in Soils by Headspace

GC-MS

Volatile organic compounds, including BTEX

and halogenated Aliphatic/Aromatics.(cf.

USEPA Method 8260)*please refer to UKAS

schedule

Automated headspace gas chromatographic

(GC) analysis of a soil sample, as received,

with mass spectrometric (MS) detection of

volatile organic compounds.

2815

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

(PCB) ICES7Congeners in

Soils by GC-MS

ICES7 PCB congeners Acetone/Hexane extraction / GC-MS

Page 4 of 5

Report Information

Key

U UKAS accredited

M MCERTS and UKAS accredited

N Unaccredited

S This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is accredited for this analysis

SN This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is not accredited for this analysis

T This analysis has been subcontracted to an unaccredited laboratory

I/S Insufficient Sample

U/S Unsuitable Sample

N/E not evaluated

< "less than"

> "greater than"

Comments or interpretations are beyond the scope of UKAS accreditation

The results relate only to the items tested

Uncertainty of measurement for the determinands tested are available upon request

None of the results in this report have been recovery corrected

All results are expressed on a dry weight basis

The following tests were analysed on samples as received and the results subsequently corrected to a dry

weight basis TPH, BTEX, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, Phenols

For all other tests the samples were dried at < 37°C prior to analysis

All Asbestos testing is performed at the indicated laboratory

Issue numbers are sequential starting with 1 all subsequent reports are incremented by 1

Sample Deviation Codes

A - Date of sampling not supplied

B - Sample age exceeds stability time (sampling to extraction)

C - Sample not received in appropriate containers

D - Broken Container

E - Insufficient Sample (Applies to LOI in Trommel Fines Only)

Sample Retention and Disposal

All soil samples will be retained for a period of 45 days from the date of receipt

All water samples will be retained for 14 days from the date of receipt

Charges may apply to extended sample storage

If you require extended retention of samples, please email your requirements to:

[email protected]

Page 5 of 5


Documents

Burnley FC RGS... · Report no: J4101/17/E Rogers Geotechnical Services Ltd Telephone 0843 50 666 87 Fax 0843 51 599 30 Email [email protected] Contents Page 1. Int