Incubator 2 Alconbury Weald - Microsoft · Incubator 2 Alconbury Weald Ground Investigation Interpretive Report January 2017 Type Ground Investigation Interpretative Report Client

Incubator 2

Alconbury Weald

Ground Investigation Interpretive Report

January 2017

The Shadbolt Group, 18 Bewick Road, Gateshead, NE8 4DP

Tel: (0191) 478 3330

Web: www.shadboltgroup.net

Report checked: Report Author:

Signed: Signed:

Incubator 2

Alconbury Weald

Ground Investigation Interpretive Report

January 2017

Type Ground Investigation Interpretative Report

Client Urban and Civic (Alconbury) Ltd.

Our Reference 2507 – Incubator 2 ‐ Alconbury

Produced by Tim Shepherd

Checked by Mike Taylor

Submitted Issue 2 – January 2017

Shadbolt Environmental Geo‐Environmental Solutions

Incubator 2, Alconbury i Issue V1

Ground Investigation Interpretative Report January 2017

CONTENTS

0.0 REPORT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Scope of Works ................................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.3 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 SITE INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 General .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Site Description ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

3.0 HISTORICAL LAND USE ................................................................................................................................. 8

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Geology ............................................................................................................................................................................. 9

4.2 Mining Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................................................................... 9

4.4 Hydrology, Flood Risk and Drainage Issues ..................................................................................................................... 9

4.5 Radon ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

5.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 10

6.0 SITE INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................................................. 11

6.1 Proposed Development.................................................................................................................................................. 11

6.2 Scope of Investigation .................................................................................................................................................... 11

6.3 In‐Situ Testing ................................................................................................................................................................. 11

6.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................................... 11

6.5 Chemical Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................................................... 12

6.6 Gas Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................................... 12

6.7 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12

7.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 13

7.1 Made Ground .................................................................................................................................................................. 13

7.2 Superficial Deposits ........................................................................................................................................................ 13

7.3 Solid Deposits .................................................................................................................................................................. 13

7.4 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................................... 13

7.5 Ground Obstructions ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

7.6 Observed Contamination ............................................................................................................................................... 13

7.7 In‐Situ and Laboratory Geotechnical Analysis ............................................................................................................... 13

8.0 GROUND CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 17

8.1 Legislation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17

8.2 Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 17

8.3 Derivation of Soils TSVs .................................................................................................................................................. 18

8.4 Soil Contamination Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 20

8.4.1 Soils Statistical Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 20

8.5 Leachate Contamination Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 20

8.6 Groundwater Contamination Assessment .................................................................................................................... 20


Incubator 2, Alconbury ii Issue V1


9.0 GAS RISK ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................................. 21

9.1 Gas Risk Assessment and Protection Measures ........................................................................................................... 21

9.2 Ground Gas Monitoring Data ......................................................................................................................................... 21

9.3 Gas Risk ‐ Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................... 22

10.0 RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 23

10.1 Contamination Sources .................................................................................................................................................. 23

10.2 Potential Contaminant Pathways .................................................................................................................................. 23

10.3 Potential Contamination Receptors .............................................................................................................................. 24

10.4 Qualitative Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................................................... 24

10.4.1 Current and Future Site Users ................................................................................................................. 27

10.4.2 Ground Excavation / Development Workers ........................................................................................... 27

10.4.3 Future Developments including Buried Structures and Services ............................................................ 27

10.4.4 Controlled Waters.................................................................................................................................... 27

10.4.5 Flora ......................................................................................................................................................... 27

11.0 GROUND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................ 28

11.1 Proposed Development – COMMERCIAL ...................................................................................................................... 28

11.2 Ground Obstructions ...................................................................................................................................................... 28

11.3 Mining ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28

11.4 Foundations .................................................................................................................................................................... 28

11.5 Chemical Attack on Buried Structures ........................................................................................................................... 30

11.6 Drainage, Highways and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 30

11.7 Invasive and Protected Species ...................................................................................................................................... 30

12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 31

12.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 31

12.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................... 32

13.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 33

APPENDICES

Appendix A Report Conditions

Appendix B Exploratory Hole Logs

Drawing No. 2465‐003 ‐ Exploratory Hole Location Plan

Appendix C Shadbolt Environmental Tier 1 Screening Values

Appendix D Chemical Laboratory Results

Appendix E Geotechnical Laboratory Results

Appendix F Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Results

Appendix G Third Party Information

PBA Drawing No. 24213/026/01

Environ Drawing No. 3377‐20‐06a (and accompanying notes)


Incubator 2, Alconbury iii Issue V1


0.0 REPORT SUMMARY

Site Investigation Works The intrusive investigation comprised the drilling of 3 No. cable percussive boreholes and 8 No. mechanically excavated trial pits to maximum depths of 20.00m bgl and 3.30m bgl respectively.

together with in‐situ testing, laboratory geotechnical and chemical analysis and gas and ground water monitoring from installations in 3 No. boreholes

Ground Encountered Made Ground was identified in all the exploratory holes to a maximum depth of 0.50mbgl (BH02) and

predominantly consisted of soft brown gravelly silty clay and relic topsoil with rootlets, in places overlying brown

sandy gravelly clay intermixed with occasional bricks. The gravel content comprising brick, concrete, chalk, some

ash and coal. Cobbles of brick were encountered in TP07 and TP04. The superficial materials were generally found

to comprise a firm becoming stiff brown and grey slightly sandy gravelly clay with low cobble content. Gravel and

cobbles predominantly comprised chert and chalk. From approximately 1.50mbgl, cohesive deposits were often

very gravelly or in some instances fissured, which prevented hand shear vane testing being undertaken.

Rockhead was not identified at the site during the intrusive investigation works.

Site Location and

Description

The site is located to the east of Alconbury approximately 2km north east of Alconbury itself and 6.25km north west

of Huntingdon town centre. The site lies within a former military airfield which is undergoing redevelopment as a

business hub.

The development site generally comprises a rectangular grassed area of land (measuring approximately 70 metres

by 50 metres), close to the main entrance to Alconbury Weald Enterprise Campus. Immediately to the north,

bordering the site, is the relatively recently constructed “Incubator 1” building. To the eastern boundary is a

footpath, grassed verge and tarmac access road. To the immediate south is an additional grassed area and to the

western boundary is a tarmac access road. Land surrounding the site comprises the remainder of the former airfield

redevelopment project, with various tenants including vehicle and container storage, recycling, welfare provision

and general light industrial usage with a move towards modern commercial offices and workspaces and residential

and amenity uses within the proposed and ongoing Alconbury Weald and Enterprise Campus developments.

Site History Originally agricultural land, the airfield opened in 1938 and used and upgraded by USAF up to 1995, sold by MoD to Urban and Civic in 2009. Few details of changes are indicated on OS plans within the airfield area likely due to censorship of sensitive information.

Geology

Made Ground: Made Ground was identified to a maximum depth of 0.50mbgl and predominantly consisted of soft

brown gravelly silty clay and relic topsoil with rootlets, in places overlying brown sandy gravelly clay intermixed with

occasional bricks. The gravel content comprising brick, concrete, chalk, some ash and coal. Cobbles of brick were

encountered in TP07 and TP04.

Superficial: Cohesive Glacial Till (Diamicton / Boulder Clay)

Solid Geology: Oxford Clay Formation (mudstone and siltstone strata)

Mining Not in a coal mining area.

No records of Historical Mining, JPB Mining Areas, Non‐Coal Mining, Non‐Coal Mining Cavities, Natural Cavities, Brine Extraction, Tin Mining and Clay Mining within 1000m of the site.

Hydrogeology Superficial Strata: Unproductive

Solid Geology: Unproductive

Hydrology There is 1 No. Environment Agency river quality record within 1500m of the site relating to Alconbury Brook 1232m W of the airfield where a Biological Quality Grade of B was recorded in 2009.

Flood Risk The Environment Agency Flood Map does not show the site is to be at risk from river flooding. There are no indicated Environment Agency Zone 2 and Zone 3 floodplains within 250m of the site.

Previous Ground Investigations

The Client supplied a copy of Peter Brett Associates (PBA) Report No. 24213 Rev C “Ground Stability and Phase 1 Contaminated Land Study” July 2012 which provided an overview of the whole Alconbury Weald development site and referenced a number of previous studies, risk assessments including a detailed walkover study and a record of potential contamination sources and incidental contamination identifications.


Incubator 2, Alconbury iv Issue V1


Contamination

Assessment

Soils: 12 No. samples tested, all contaminants within TSVs, No Asbestos detected.

Gas Risk Assessment 2 No. completed of a scheduled 6 No. monitoring visits. Based on the data to date risk to proposed development is preliminarily assessed as Characteristic Situation 1, VERY LOW.

Risk Assessment Current and Future Site Users (Commercial): Low

Site Development / Maintenance Workers: Low

Controlled Waters: Low

Development: Low

Foundation Design Based on the expected construction and relatively low loads required, it is anticipated that pad foundations within

natural clays may be suitable for the proposed development. Laboratory and in‐situ testing indicates an allowable

bearing capacity in the order of 150kPa is appropriate at 1.50m bgl in order to remain within acceptable levels of

settlement (<25mm), increasing to 250kPa at around 2.20m bgl.

Assessment of the underlying cohesive strata indicates a medium volume change potential within the upper 1m,

becoming low to medium and low with depth.

Ground floor slab to be either;

• a fully suspended ground floor slab or;

• a suitably designed ground bearing floor slab to mitigate the medium ground swell potential, with the

removal / replacement of near surface made ground material and any potentially weathered material

Geotechnical Testing CBR Value for Design: 3%

Chemical Attack on

Buried Structures

Concrete: Design Sulphate Class for the site is DS‐3, ACEC Class AC‐2s.

Recommendations The remaining gas monitoring visits should be completed, at which point the gas risk assessment will be updated to reflect the additional data.

An earthworks and remediation strategy should be developed to outline the measures required to allow the development to proceed on a more assured basis with regards to potential contamination and any preparatory groundworks that may be required.

This table is intended as a summary only and should be read in conjunction with the main report.


Incubator 2, Alconbury 5 Issue V1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Shadbolt Environmental (part of the Shadbolt Group) were commissioned by the client Urban and Civic (Alconbury) Ltd.

to undertake a site investigation for a proposed commercial office building (Incubator 2 Building) within the Alconbury

Weald development at the former RAF Alconbury airfield.

This report provides an assessment of the ground conditions encountered at the site with regards to the proposed

commercial development.

1.1 Aims and Objectives

The purpose of the investigation was to determine the existing ground conditions and identify possible contamination

related to past uses of the site which may provide constraints to the proposed development.

In order to achieve the above stated aims and objectives the following works have been undertaken:

Intrusive investigations including mechanically excavated trial pits, cable percussive

boreholes and windowless sample boreholes.

Chemical laboratory testing.

Geotechnical Laboratory testing.

Gas and water monitoring (on‐going).

Contamination risk assessment.

Foundation assessment.

1.2 Scope of Works

The site investigation designed by Shadbolt Environmental, consisted of 8 No. mechanically excavated Trial Pits, 3 No.

Cable Percussive Boreholes, together with in‐situ testing (SPT, Hand Shear Vane and Mexiprobe), laboratory geotechnical

and chemical analysis and gas and ground water monitoring from installations in the 3 No. boreholes.

1.3 Limitations

The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are based on the strata observed in the borings and

excavations; together with the results of the site and laboratory tests as detailed within the report. Shadbolt

Environmental takes no responsibility for ground conditions which occur between the exploratory hole positions.

Every effort has been made to interpret the conditions between investigation locations; however, such information is

indicative. A detailed review of the extent of limitations of this report is included in the Report Conditions included in

Appendix A and the standard terms and conditions of the agreement.




2.0 SITE INFORMATION

2.1 General

The site is located to the east of Alconbury approximately 2km north east of Alconbury itself and 6.25km north west of

Huntingdon town centre. The site lies within a former military airfield which is undergoing redevelopment as a business

hub.

The approximate National Grid Reference (NGR) for the site is 519765,276575.

A general site location plan of the site is presented as Figure 1 and an aerial photograph as Figure 2.

Figure 1 – General Site Location Plan

THE SITE




2.2 Site Description

The development site generally comprises a rectangular grassed area of land (measuring approximately 70 metres by 50

metres), close to the main entrance to Alconbury Weald Enterprise Campus. Immediately to the north, bordering the site,

is the relatively recently constructed “Incubator 1” building. To the eastern boundary is a footpath, grassed verge and

tarmac access road. To the immediate south is an additional grassed area and to the western boundary is a tarmac access

road.

Underground services were present on site. These included live electric cables and drainage / water pipes. It was reported

that a fibre optic cable was also present running along the western boundary.

Land surrounding the site comprises the remainder of the former airfield redevelopment project, with various tenants

including vehicle and container storage, recycling, welfare provision and general light industrial usage with a move towards

modern commercial offices and workspaces and residential and amenity uses within the proposed and ongoing Alconbury

Weald and Enterprise Campus developments.

Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph (2008)

THE SITE




3.0 HISTORICAL LAND USE

A full historical appraisal of the Alconbury Weald development site has been carried out previously by Peter Brett

Associates (PBA) and is presented under Project Ref: 24213/026, Doc Ref: A1/Geo v01 Rev C as “Alconbury Weald – Ground

Stability and Phase 1 Contaminated Land Desk Study” dated July 2012. This document was produced for Urban and Civic

as an appraisal of the entire development and reference should be made to this document for full details. A history of the

air field operations is also given in the BACTEC International Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment contained within the

PBA report.

Within the vicinity of the Development area pertinent information includes the following; in earliest OS mapping the site

is shown as agricultural land with the airfield opening in 1938 and used during WWII and through the Cold War to recent

times by the United States Air Force before being purchased by Urban and Civic in 2009. The taxi‐ways and roads to the

north and north east the development area were modified in the 1980s to accommodate reconnaissance planes used at

the time. The airfield and infrastructure were returned to the British Ministry of Defence in 1995 with the USAF

maintaining use of the housing and support areas for the near future.

Few details are indicated on OS plans within the airfield area likely due to censorship of sensitive information. A mast is

indicated close to the study area from maps dated from 1978, with a second mast structure noted on plans dated from

1992.




4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.1 Geology

Geological plans indicate that the site is underlain by superficial Cohesive Glacial Till (Diamicton / Boulder Clay) which

comprises predominantly clay strata with varying but generally low proportions of sand, gravel and oversized materials.

The solid geology beneath the site comprises strata of the Oxford Clay formation comprising a sequence of mudstone and

siltstone strata.

4.2 Mining Risk Assessment

The site is not located within a known coal mining affected area as verified by The Coal Authority’s Coal Mining Gazetteer

for England and Wales. Additionally, there are no database records of Historical Mining, JPB Mining Areas, Non‐Coal

Mining, Non‐Coal Mining Cavities, Natural Cavities, Brine Extraction, Tin Mining and Clay Mining within 1000m of the site.

4.3 Hydrogeology

Information on the hydrogeological characteristics of the site has been obtained from the following:

The Environment Agency Groundwater Vulnerability Maps

Peter Brett Associates Ground Stability and Phase 1 Contaminated Land Desk Study Report

(July 2012) and appendices including GroundSure Report.

The superficial geology located beneath the site is designated as Unproductive; Unproductive aquifers are rock layers or

drift deposits with low permeability that have negligible significance for water supply or river base flow.

The solid geology located beneath the site is designated as Unproductive; Unproductive aquifers are rock layers or drift

deposits with low permeability that have negligible significance for water supply or river base flow.

4.4 Hydrology, Flood Risk and Drainage Issues

There are 66 No. river network features recorded within 500m of the airfield site including 12 No. within the airfield

boundary.

There is 1 No. Environment Agency river quality record within 1500m of the site relating to Alconbury Brook 1232m W of

the airfield where a Biological Quality Grade of B was recorded in 2009.

Information from the Environment Agency (EA) indicates that the site does not lie within 250m of an indicated

Environment Agency Zone 2 or Zone 3 flood plain. Additionally, there are no Flood Defences or areas benefitting from

Flood Defences or Flood Storage within 250m of the site.

The BGS indicate that the site does lie within 50m of groundwater flooding susceptible areas. The BGS note that the airfield

has a Very High susceptibility to groundwater flooding with High confidence rating in the assessment.

4.5 Radon

Reference to the NRPB Report W26 ‘Radon Atlas of England and Wales,’ 2002 indicates the site is not located in a Radon

Affected Area as less than 1% of homes have radon emissions above the recommended Action Level, therefore, no specific

protective measures are necessary for developments on this site with respect to radon.




5.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

A number of boreholes and trial pits have been undertaken historically in the surrounding area, logs from these holes have

been reviewed and confirm the geology indicated by the BGS.

A number of intrusive investigations and incidental identifications of contaminated soils across the airfield have been

compiled previously by Environ; the findings of these previous investigations were reviewed in PBA Report No. 24213 Rev

C “Ground Stability and Phase 1 Contaminated Land Study” July 2012 and are summarised in PBA Drawing No.

24213/026/01 “Extent of Identified Contamination from Previous Targeted Intrusive Investigations – Airfield Area” which

is presented in Appendix G along with a detailed plan (Drawing No. 3377‐20‐06a) and accompanying notes from Environ

report No. UK11‐15006 “Environmental Review” October 2009 indicating previously identified areas of contamination.




6.0 SITE INVESTIGATION

The physical ground investigation work was carried out by Shadbolt Environmental during November 2016.

6.1 Proposed Development

It is understood that the site is to be developed for commercial / office end‐use, the configuration of the proposed

development is anticipated to be a single unit measuring approximately 54 metres x 16 metres with external hardstanding

and landscaping areas and roadways linking to existing road and proposed new roads within the airfield development.

6.2 Scope of Investigation

The intrusive investigation comprised the drilling of 3 No. cable percussive boreholes and 8 No. mechanically excavated

trial pits to maximum depths of 20.00m bgl and 3.30m bgl respectively. A plan showing the approximate location of the

exploratory holes is included as Drawing No. 2507‐003 ‐ Exploratory Hole Location Plan.

The soils encountered during this investigation have been logged in accordance with BS5930:1999 +A2:2010 “Code of

Practice for Site Investigation”.

During drilling and excavation representative samples were taken at regular intervals from the exploratory holes to assist

in the identification of the soils, and to allow selected geotechnical and chemical testing to be programmed.

Gas/groundwater monitoring wells have been installed in the 3No. cable percussive boreholes (BH01, BH02 and BH03).

Each monitoring well comprises a lower slotted section of 50mm diameter HDPE pipe, surrounded by a filter pack of 10mm

non‐calcareous gravel and an upper plain section surrounded in part by a bentonite seal and in part by gravel or arisings.

The top of the plain pipe was cut off above ground level and the monitoring well protected by a raised lockable cover set

in concrete.

6.3 In‐Situ Testing

SPT testing was carried out in the cable percussive boreholes and hand shear vane testing was undertaken in cohesive soils

in the trial pits. Assessment of the likely CBR values of shallow soils was also undertaken in the proposed car park areas

using a hand held ‘’Mexi Probe’’ this was to enable evaluation of the likely CBR values and provide data for highway

pavement design.

Results of the in‐situ testing are presented on the relevant exploratory hole logs included in Appendix B.

6.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Selected samples (scheduled by SE) were submitted to our nominated geotechnical testing laboratory. Results of the

geotechnical testing are presented within Appendix E.




6.5 Chemical Laboratory Testing

A programme of chemical laboratory analysis was scheduled by Shadbolt Environmental to determine the concentrations

of potential contaminants which may be present within the soils encountered at the site. 12 No. soil samples were tested

for a range of determinands including heavy and phytotoxic metals and metalloids, inorganic and organic contaminants as

well as asbestos. The Shadbolt Environmental Tier 1 Screening Values, together with the results of the contamination

testing are reported in Appendix C and Appendix D respectively.

6.6 Gas Monitoring

To date there have been 2 No. gas monitoring visits made to the site out of a scheduled 6 No visits to be undertaken over

a period of 3 No. months.

A standard procedure was followed in accordance with CIRIA guidance; this procedure involved measurement, in the

following order of:

Atmospheric temperature, pressure and ambient oxygen concentration on site

immediately prior to and on completion of, monitoring.

Emission rate.

Methane, oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations using a GFM 475 infra‐red gas

analyser.

Standing water level using a dipmeter.

The results of the monitoring visits have been assessed, the findings are discussed in Section 9.0 of this report.

6.7 Limitations

It should be noted that although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data obtained from the

investigation, the possibility exists of variations in ground and groundwater conditions between and around the borehole

locations.

In addition, groundwater levels and ground gas concentrations will vary seasonally and with changes in weather conditions.




7.0 GROUND CONDITIONS

For an accurate description of the strata encountered, reference should be made to the individual exploratory hole logs

presented included in Appendix B.

The ground conditions encountered at the site are summarised in the following sections.

7.1 Made Ground

Made Ground was identified in all the exploratory holes to a maximum depth of 0.50mbgl (BH02) and predominantly

consisted of soft brown gravelly silty clay and relic topsoil with rootlets, in places overlying brown sandy gravelly clay

intermixed with occasional bricks. The gravel content comprising brick, concrete, chalk, some ash and coal. Cobbles of

brick were encountered in TP07 and TP04.

7.2 Superficial Deposits

Superficial deposits were identified in all exploratory holes.

The superficial materials were generally found to comprise a firm becoming stiff brown and grey slightly sandy gravelly

clay with low cobble content. Gravel and cobbles predominantly comprised chert and chalk. From approximately

1.50mbgl, cohesive deposits were often very gravelly or in some instances fissured, which prevented hand shear vane

testing being undertaken.

Stiff laminated clay was encountered in BH02 from 15.00mbgl.

7.3 Solid Deposits

Rockhead was not identified at the site during the investigation.

7.4 Groundwater

Groundwater was not generally recorded during the site works. Subsequent post site works monitoring has reported

standing groundwater at approximately 0.60mbgl to 1.00mbgl.

7.5 Ground Obstructions

Generally, ground obstructions were not encountered during site works. Occasional cobbles were encountered in

exploratory holes. Greater effort was required by the JCB 3CX during excavation of the deeper strata in trial pits.

The presence of other obstructions in the form of relict foundations previously not shown on historical plans or demolition

rubble also cannot be ruled out.

7.6 Observed Contamination

With the exception of ash gravel type material in the shallow made ground deposits, evidence of obvious visual or olfactory

contamination was not observed during the siteworks.

7.7 In‐Situ and Laboratory Geotechnical Analysis

The following in‐situ and laboratory geotechnical testing has been undertaken, the results of which are summarised in

Table 7.7.1 (below) and are presented in full in Appendix E.




The implications of the geotechnical analysis are discussed in Section 11.

Standard Penetration Tests

Hand Shear Vane Tests

Atterberg Limit determination

One Dimensional Consolidation Tests

Undrained Shear Strength (Triaxial Compression)

Particle Size Distribution Tests

Dry Density / Moisture Content Relationship

California Bearing Ratio Tests

Mexi Probe in‐situ tests




Method Strata Parameter Comments

Standard Penetration

Tests (SPT)

Natural Cohesive

Strata (Clay)

1.00m to 5.00m

‘N’ values range from N=20

to N=39

(Average 29.3)

SPT values confirm clay strata to be

firm to stiff (medium to high

strength).

All of results above N = 20


Tests (SPT)

Natural Cohesive

Strata (Clay)

5.00m to 10.00m

‘N’ values range from N=30

to N=50

(Average 42.6)


stiff (high strength).

All of results above N = 29


Tests (SPT)

Natural Cohesive

Strata (Clay)

10.00m to 15.00m

‘N’ values N=50



Both of results reported as test

refusals at N = 50


Tests (SPT)

Natural Cohesive

Strata (Clay)

15.00m to 20.00m

‘N’ values N=50



Both of results reported as test

refusals at N = 50

Hand Shear Vanes

(HSV)*

Natural Cohesive

Strata

0.30m to 0.50m

Shear strength values range

from 60 to 98kN/m²

(Average 78kN/m²)

HSV readings confirm shallow clay

strata to be firm and stiff

(medium to high strength)

Hand Shear Vanes

(HSV)*

Natural Cohesive

Strata

0.50m to 1.00m


from 50 to 70kN/m²

(Average 60kN/m²)

HSV readings confirm shallow clay

strata to be firm to stiff

(medium strength)

Hand Shear Vanes

(HSV)*

Natural Cohesive

Strata

1.00m to 2.00m


from 51 to 95kN/m²

(Average 60kN/m²)

HSV readings confirm deeper clay

strata to be firm and stiff

(medium to high strength)

Atterberg Limits

Natural Cohesive

Strata

0.50m to 2.65m

LL = 35 to 62% (Avg. 42%)

PI =17 to 35% (Avg. 23%)

Clays are generally of Intermediate Plasticity. Becoming of low plasticity below approximately 2.00mbgl

Particle Size

Distribution

Natural Cohesive

Strata

Clay/Silt = 58 to 77%

Sand = 13 to 30%

Gravel = 2 to 13%

Cobbles = 0%

PSD analysis indicates Cohesive materials in Class 2A/2B (SHW)

Compaction

(Dry Density/Moisture

Content Relationship)

Natural Cohesive

Strata

Initial Moisture Content

20 to 28% (Avg. 24%)

Optimum Moisture Content

16 to 19% (Avg. 17.5%)

Cohesive materials are slightly above optimum moisture content for earthworks.

Consolidation Natural Cohesive

Strata

At 1.20m to 5.20m, 192 to

1344kPa:

Mv = 0.022 to 0.12m²/MN

Cv = 1.5 to 33m²/yr

Values obtained indicate low to medium compressibility clays. At the likely founding depth indicate loading in the region of 150kPa to




maintain acceptable levels of settlement (<25mm).

Triaxial (Quick

Undrained)

Natural Cohesive

Strata

2.20m

Cu = 230kPa

12.50m

(Cu = 478kPa)

Testing confirms clay strata to be stiff, high strength below 1.50m

California Bearing

Ratio (CBR)

Natural Cohesive

Strata

CBR Values

5.8 to 8.7%

(Avg. 6.8)

Design CBR value to be taken as 3%.

Insitu Mexi Probe

(CBR)

Natural Cohesive

Strata

CBR Values

3.5 to 8.0%

(Avg. 5.8)

Design CBR value to be taken as 3%.

*Where 140kN/m² is reported for HSV readings on Trial Pit logs this represents the highest reading on the HSV gauge indicating a shear strength in

excess of 140kN/m²; the shear strength at failure could not be measured via this method.

Table 7.7.1 – Summary of In‐Situ and Laboratory Geotechnical Testing undertaken.




8.0 GROUND CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

8.1 Legislation

Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides for the control of specific threats to health or the environment

from existing land contamination. In accordance with the Act, the statutory guidance document and The Contaminated

Land (England) Regulations 2000, the definition of contaminated land is intended to embody the concept of risk

assessment. Therefore, land is only “contaminated land” where it appears to the regulatory authority, by reason of

substances within, on, or under the land that:

Significant harm is being caused, or there is significant possibility of such harm being caused; or

Pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused.

The guidance defines “risk” as the combination of:

Probability, or frequency, of occurrence of a defined hazard (for example, exposure of a property to a substance

with the potential to cause harm); and

Magnitude (including the seriousness) of the consequences.

For a risk of pollution or environmental harm to occur as a result of ground contamination, all of the following elements

must be present:

Source, i.e. a substance that is capable of causing pollution or harm;

Receptor (or target), i.e. something which could be adversely affected by the contaminant; and

Pathway, i.e. a route by which the contaminant can reach the receptor.

If one of these elements is missing (source, pathway or receptor) there can be no significant risk. If all are present then

the magnitude of the risk is a function of the magnitude and mobility of the source, the sensitivity of the receptor and the

nature of the migration pathway.

8.2 Assessment Methodology

In order to assess the environmental risk posed by potential contaminants within the underlying soils and groundwater

Shadbolt Environmental undertook an initial screen of the laboratory results using Shadbolt Environmental Tier One

Screening Values Version (TSVs). This screening was using TSVs derived for the proposed COMMERCIAL end use.

Contaminant concentrations below the TSVs are considered not to warrant further risk assessment. Concentrations of

potential contaminants above the TSVs require further consideration of the potential pollutant linkages. It should be noted

that exceedance of the TSVs does not necessarily require that the site be remediated.




8.3 Derivation of Soils TSVs

On‐going research by the Environment Agency (EA) is being undertaken to produce toxicology reports (TOX series) for each

of the contaminants identified within the CLR framework and then to produce published Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) using

the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Model. Parallel to the work being undertaken by the EA is research

being undertaken by Land Quality Management Limited and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) to

produce similar General Assessment Criteria (GAC) using the CLEA Model. To date, SGVs and GACs have been published

for over 80 No. contaminants with SGVs / GACs derived for each contaminant for three different land use scenarios namely:

Residential

Allotment

Commercial

In addition, Shadbolt Environmental (The Shadbolt Group) have derived screening values for Parks, Playing Fields and

Open Spaces based on current guidance.

Shadbolt Environmental TSV’s are based on the SGVs and GACs which are scientifically based generic assessment criteria

that can be used to simplify the assessment of human health risks arising from long‐term and on‐site exposure to chemical

contamination in soil.

SGVs and GACs are a screening tool for the generic quantitative risk assessment of land contamination (Defra and

Environment Agency, 2004). They are not (unless clearly stated otherwise) relevant for assessing risks to human health

from short‐term exposure to chemicals in soil including injury arising from direct bodily contact and do not take account

of other types of risks to humans such as explosion or suffocation risks (associated with the build‐up of gases such as

methane and carbon dioxide) or aesthetic issues such as odour or colour.

SGVs and GACs do not take account of other non‐soil based sources of contamination such as contamination in

groundwater, surface waters or drinking waters. They cannot be used to evaluate risks to non‐human receptors such as

controlled waters, ecosystems, buildings and services, domestic pets or garden plants. Where, for example, phytotoxic

effects are an important consideration in the current or future intended land use further investigation should be

undertaken.

SGVs are guidelines on the level of long‐term human exposure to individual chemicals in soil that, unless stated otherwise,

are tolerable or pose a minimal risk to human health. They represent “trigger values” – indicators to a risk assessor that

soil concentrations above this level may pose a possibility of significant harm to human health (Defra, 2008b). Significance

is linked to:

Margin of exceedance;

Duration and frequency of exposure;

Other site‐specific factors that the enforcing authority may wish to take into account.

SGVs do not of themselves represent the threshold at which there is a significant possibility of significant harm (SPOSH).

Nor do they automatically represent an unacceptable intake in the context of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act

1990. However, they can be a useful starting point for such an assessment.




In order to assess the soil analyses results with regard to potential human health risks, Shadbolt Environmental TSVs have

been derived in accordance with the UK framework set out in the most recent CLR (Contaminated Land Report) documents

(EA/DEFRA, 2009) and LQM/CIEH S4ULs for Human Health Risk Assessment 2015 and are “in line” with industry standards.

Assessment Framework

The CLEA model states that, ‘the contamination is assumed to be at or within 1m of the surface’. It is considered that at

depths greater than 1m, the probability of human exposure via the direct contact pathways are significantly reduced,

leaving inhalation of volatile compounds as the dominant pathway with regard to human health risks. Typically, volatile

compounds only significantly affect the indoor inhalation pathway.

Statistical Analysis

The CLEA guidelines also state that for each contaminant, the upper 95th percentile of the mean measured concentration

(95%UCL) should be calculated and this value should be compared to the TSV.

The objective of maximum value tests is to decide whether the maximum concentration observed should be treated as an

outlier or whether it can reasonably be considered to come from the same underlying population as the other samples.

It is known that contaminant concentrations often demonstrate lognormal or other distribution forms. Therefore, in order

to calculate what are considered to be more representative 95%UCL values, the contaminant concentrations have first

been assessed to determine if each contaminant distribution is closer to a normal or lognormal distribution.

If a dataset was found to be log normally distributed, the geometric mean was used to calculate the 95%UCL, for those

that were found to be normally distributed; the arithmetic mean was used to calculate the 95%UCL. Constituent non‐

detects were assigned a value equal to the reported analytical laboratory limit of detection, considered reasonably

conservative. Any identified outliers are excluded from the datasets used in calculation of the 95%UCL value.




8.4 Soil Contamination Assessment

In total, 12 No. soil samples were submitted for testing for a suite of common contaminants during the Shadbolt

Environmental ground investigation.

The analysis included heavy and phytotoxic metals and metalloids, inorganic and organic contaminants as well as asbestos.

An additional 3 No. soil samples were scheduled for asbestos fibre screening.

The laboratory chemical results have indicated all tested contaminant concentrations to be within SE TSVs for a

COMMERCIAL end use.

8.4.1 Soils Statistical Assessment

Chemical analysis reported contaminant concentrations well within SE TSVs for commercial land use. Therefore, statistical

analysis was not considered necessary.

8.5 Leachate Contamination Assessment

Due to low contaminant concentrations reported from chemical analysis no leachate testing is considered necessary at

this stage.

8.6 Groundwater Contamination Assessment

Groundwater was generally not encountered during the site investigation works.




9.0 GAS RISK ASSESSMENT

9.1 Gas Risk Assessment and Protection Measures

CIRIA have developed a characterisation system for all buildings except for low‐rise housing developments with a clear

ventilated sub‐floor void. This is a risk based system which compares gas emission rates to generic Characteristic Situations

derived and expanded on from CIRIA 149. Concept of ‘Traffic Lights’ developed from Byle and Witherington has also been

included (See Table 10.8.2) for residential development.

The Characteristic Situations include ‘Typical Maximum Concentrations’ for initial screening purposes and risk‐based Gas

Screening Values (GSVs) for consideration when the Typical Maximum Concentrations are exceeded. The GSVs are

calculated by multiplying the borehole flow rate by the concentration in the air stream of the particular gas being

considered.

The Characteristic Situation system has been designed for both methane and carbon dioxide, with the worst case value

adopted.

9.2 Ground Gas Monitoring Data

To date 2 No. of the scheduled 6 No. monitoring visits have been undertaken; the gas monitoring results are presented

Appendix F.

The maximum Methane and Carbon Dioxide emissions, which are representative of the Typical Maximum Concentrations,

were as follows:

Methane: 0.0% v/v

Carbon Dioxide: 0.9% v/v

The maximum concentration of methane recorded was 0.0% v/v, however 0.1% v/v will be used for calculations as this is

the limit of detection of the instrument.

The maximum recorded positive flow rate in the boreholes was 0.2 l/hr.

The calculated GSVs for methane and carbon dioxide to date are as follows:

Methane: (0.1/100) x 0.2 = 0.0002 l/hr

Carbon Dioxide: (0.9/100) x 0.2 = 0.0018 l/hr




Characteristic Situation (CIRIA 149)

Comparable Classification In DETER et al (1999)

Risk Classification

Gas ScreeningValue (GSV) (CH4 or CO2) (l/hr)1

AdditionalFactors

Typical source ofgeneration

1 A Very Low Risk <0.07 Typically methane 1 % and/or carbon dioxide 5 %. Otherwise consider increase to Situation 2.

Natural soils with low organic content. “Typical” made ground

2 B Low. Risk

<0.7 Borehole air flow rate not to exceed 70 l/hr. Otherwise consider increase to characteristic Situation 3

Natural soil, high peat/ organic content “Typical” made ground

3 C Moderate Risk <3.5 Old landfill, inert waste, mineworkings flooded

4 D Moderate to high risk

<15 Quantitative risk assessment required to evaluate scope of protective measures

Mineworkings –susceptible to flooding, completed landfill (WMP 26B criteria)

5 E High risk <70 MineworkingsUnflooded inactive with shallow workings near surface

6 F Very high risk >70 Recent landfill site

Notes: Gas screening value: (Litres of gas/hour) is calculated by multiplying the maximum gas concentration (%) by the maximum measured borehole flow rate (l.hr) – See Glossary. Site Characterisation should be based on gas monitoring of concentrations and borehole flow rates for the minimum period defined in Table 5.5, CIRIA 659. Source of gas and generation potential/performance should be identified. Soil gas investigation should be in accordance with guidance provided in Chapters 4 to 6. If there is no detectable flow, use the limit of detection of the instrument. The boundaries between the Partners in Technology classifications do not fit exactly with the boundaries for the CIRIA classification.

Table 9.2.1 ‐ Gas Risk Assessment – Characteristic Situations with Typical Maximum concentrations and Gas Screening

Values (Reproduced from Table 8.5, CIRIA 659 – Assessing risk posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings)

9.3 Gas Risk ‐ Discussion

When monitoring data to date is compared to the values in Table 9.7.1 the site is characterised as:

Characteristic Situation 1

The risk from soil gas affecting the proposed development is preliminarily assessed as Very Low and no gas protection

measures are required.




10.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

All available data has been collated and evaluated to establish an initial conceptual model of the site in its current condition

and post development identifying sources, pathways and receptors and pollutant linkages. The site conceptual model has

been developed in accordance with BS10175: 2011.

A Tier 1 risk assessment has been undertaken using the appropriate guidelines for a COMMERCIAL End Use.

10.1 Contamination Sources

In total 12 No. soil samples were submitted for testing for a suite of common contaminants during the Shadbolt

Environmental ground investigation with an additional 2 No. soils submitted for asbestos fibre screening.

The laboratory chemical results have indicated all soil samples tested to have contaminant concentrations within SE TSVs

for a COMMERCIAL end use.

10.2 Potential Contaminant Pathways

The following potential contaminant pathways are proposed considering the proposed future COMMERCIAL end‐use.

Inhalation / ingestion of dust, gases and vapour;

Ground gas / vapour migration;

Dermal contact;

Ingestion of soils and / or groundwater;

Leaching of contaminants from made ground soils to groundwater;

Groundwater flow;

Soil gas migration through Made Ground, granular soils, fissures and mine entries

Migration and leakage through service conduits;




10.3 Potential Contamination Receptors

The potential receptors listed below are proposed considering the current status of the site and surrounding area, and the

proposed development for commercial end use.

Human Health

Current site users.

Future site occupiers.

Site development workers.

Environmental

Future establishment of flora and fauna.

Buildings and underground services.

Controlled waters and aquifers.

10.4 Qualitative Risk Assessment

By considering the sources, pathways and receptors, an assessment of the environmental risks is made with reference to

the significance and degree of the risk to the development for current and future site users.

The qualitative risk assessment has been undertaken in accordance with BS10175:2011 and CIRIA Document C552:

Contaminated Land Risk assessment, A Guide to Good Practice.

The risk assessment has been carried out by assessing the severity of the potential consequence, taking into account both

the potential severity of the hazard and the sensitivity of the target, based on the categories given in Table 10.4.1 below.

Category Definition

Severe Acute risks to human health, catastrophic damage to buildings / property,

major pollution of controlled waters

Medium

Chronic risk to human health, pollution of sensitive controlled waters,

significant effects on sensitive ecosystems or species, significant damage to

buildings or structures

Mild Pollution of non‐sensitive waters, minor damage to buildings or structures

Minor Requirement for protective equipment during site works to mitigate health

effects, damage to non‐sensitive ecosystems or species

Table 10.4.1 – Definition of Risk Severity




The likelihood of an event (probability) takes into account both the presence of the hazard and target and the integrity of

the pathway and has been assessed based on the categories given in Table 10.4.2 below.

Category Definition

High Likelihood Pollutant linkage may be present, and risk is almost certain to occur in long

term, or there is evidence of harm to the receptor

Likely Pollutant linkage may be present, and it is probable that the risk will occur over

the long term

Low Likelihood Pollutant linkage may be present, and there is a possibility of the risk occurring,

although there is no certainty that it will do so

Unlikely Pollutant linkage may be present, but the circumstances under which harm

would occur are improbable

Table 10.4.2 – Definition of Risk Probability

The potential severity of the risk and the probability of the risk occurring have been combined in accordance with the

following matrix in order to give a level of risk for each potential hazard, given in Table 10.4.3 below.

Potential Severity

Severe Medium Mild Minor

Probability of

Risk

High Likelihood Very high High Moderate Low/Moderate

Likely High Moderate Low/Moderate Low

Low likelihood Moderate Low/Moderate Low Very low

Unlikely Low/Moderate Low Very low Very low

Table 10.4.3 – Risk Matrix of Potential Hazard



The risk assessment for the sites is presented in Table 10.4.4. Further discussion of the more significant pollutant linkages is provided in a discussion below

for each receptor in turn.

Table 10.4.4– Risk Assessment

Hazard /

Pollutant

Source Pathway Receptor Potential

Severity

Probability of

Risk

Level of Risk

Hazardous Gas

Low concentrations of CO2

have been recorded and the

site is preliminarily classed

as Characteristic Situation 1

pending completion of

scheduled monitoring.

Inhalation

Future site users Medium Unlikely Low

Site development/maintenance

workers Medium Unlikely Low

Asbestos Fibres

Asbestos fibres were not

detected in any tested

sample.

Inhalation

Future site users Medium Unlikely Low

Site development/maintenance

workers Medium Unlikely Low




10.4.1 Current and Future Site Users

Potential pathways considered significant to current and future site uses are dermal contact, ingestion of

contaminated soil / groundwater and inhalation of fibres, gases, vapours or dusts.

It is considered that the site presents a LOW risk to current site users from the soils located at the site as the

identified contamination is below the TSVs for soils with respect to the current commercial end use.

Low methane and carbon dioxide levels have been recorded at the site. Reference to current best practice” (see

9.3) indicates the results fall into Characteristic Situation 1 for gas protection i.e. no specific gas protection measures

required (Very Low Risk).

10.4.2 Ground Excavation / Development Workers

It is envisaged that significant earthworks will not be required for the proposed development with excavations being

limited to those for foundations, services and hardstanding areas. It is considered that the risk to construction

and/or maintenance workers during redevelopment works is LOW owing to low concentrations of metallic and

hydrocarbon contaminants.

10.4.3 Future Developments including Buried Structures and Services

Sources of hydrocarbon contamination have been reported to be minimal within soils with contaminant

concentrations below SE TSVs within the proposed development area. It is generally considered that there is a LOW

risk to buried structures and services across the site.

In the sites current state, the overall risk to future proposed development / services is considered to be LOW.

10.4.4 Controlled Waters

Chemical analysis undertaken on soil samples collected from the site reported low concentrations of contaminants.

It is therefore considered that there is a LOW risk to controlled waters within the vicinity of the site. No groundwater

was encountered during the physical ground investigation works.

10.4.5 Flora

Generally low contaminant concentrations have been reported at shallow depth across the site and it is therefore

considered that there is LOW risk to the establishment of flora at the site.




11.0 GROUND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS

11.1 Proposed Development – COMMERCIAL

It is understood from the client that the site is to be developed for commercial use with a new office facility

(Incubator 2) within the Alconbury Weald development within the former RAF Alconbury airfield.

11.2 Ground Obstructions

Obstructions below ground were not encountered within exploratory holes during the recent ground investigation.

Occasional cobbles of brick were noted in the shallow made ground deposits.

The presence of other obstructions in the form of relict foundations previously not shown on historical plans or

demolition rubble also cannot be ruled out.

11.3 Mining

The site is not located within a known coal mining affected area as verified by The Coal Authority’s Coal Mining

Gazetteer for England and Wales.

Additionally, there are no database records of Historical Mining, JPB Mining Areas, Non‐Coal Mining, Non‐Coal

Mining Cavities, Natural Cavities, Brine Extraction, Tin Mining and Clay Mining within 1000m of the site

11.4 Foundations

Made Ground was identified in all the exploratory holes to a maximum depth of 0.50m bgl (BH02) and

predominantly consisted of soft brown gravelly silty clay and relic topsoil with rootlets, in places overlying brown

sandy gravelly clay intermixed with occasional bricks. The gravel content comprising brick, concrete, chalk, some

ash and coal. Cobbles of brick were encountered in TP07 and TP04.

The superficial materials were generally found to comprise a firm becoming stiff brown and grey slightly sandy

gravelly clay with low cobble content. Gravel and cobbles predominantly comprised chert and chalk. From

approximately 1.50mbgl, cohesive deposits were often very gravelly or in some instances fissured, which prevented

hand shear vane testing being undertaken. Stiff laminated clay was encountered in BH02 from 15.00mbgl

Based on the expected construction and relatively low loads required, it is anticipated that pad foundations within




Where soft strata or deeper Made Ground are present the subgrade material should be excavated out and replaced

with engineered granular fill to avoid undesirable differential settlement.

Assessment of the underlying cohesive strata indicates a medium volume change potential within the upper 1m,

becoming low to medium and low with depth beneath 1m.

With regards to the ground level floor slab It is considered that either;

a fully suspended ground floor slab is utilised or;




a suitably designed ground bearing floor slab to mitigate the medium ground swell potential, with

the removal / replacement of near surface made ground material and any potentially weathered

material is utilised.




11.5 Chemical Attack on Buried Structures

The water soluble sulphate test results reported concentrations between 10mg/l and 1655mg/l. The soil pH was

between 7.9 and 8.4 indicating neutral to slightly alkaline conditions.

The results have been assessed in accordance with the guidance given in BRE Special Digest 1:2005. Assuming a

brownfield site with static groundwater the Design Sulphate Class for the site is DS‐3, ACEC Class AC‐2s.

11.6 Drainage, Highways and Infrastructure

Whilst no soakaway tests were undertaken as part of the ground investigation it is likely that shallow soakaways

would not be feasible due to the cohesive nature of the materials identified during the investigation.

A CBR value of 3.0% at formation with capping is likely to be required and should be adopted for pavement and

hardstanding design purposes.

11.7 Invasive and Protected Species

No suspected invasive species (flora) were identified during siteworks or subsequent monitoring visits. It is

anticipated that an ecological survey may have been carried out previously or is proposed in the future to identify

potential ecological constraints to the proposed development and the wider airfield reclamation works.




12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 Conclusions

Shadbolt Environmental (part of the Shadbolt Group) were commissioned by the Client Urban and Civic Plc. to

undertake a site investigation for a COMMERCIAL end use comprising a proposed new office facility within the

Alconbury Weald development, within the former RAF Alconbury airfield.

Made Ground was identified in all the exploratory holes to a maximum depth of 0.50mbgl (BH02) and predominantly

consisted of soft brown gravelly silty clay and relic topsoil with rootlets, in places overlying brown sandy gravelly

clay intermixed with occasional bricks. The gravel content comprising brick, concrete, chalk, some ash and coal.

Cobbles of brick were encountered in TP07 and TP04.

Superficial deposits were identified in all exploratory holes and generally found to comprise a firm becoming stiff

brown and grey slightly sandy gravelly clay with low cobble content. Gravel and cobbles predominantly comprised

chert and chalk. From approximately 1.50mbgl, cohesive deposits were often very gravelly or in some instances

fissured, which prevented hand shear vane testing being undertaken. Stiff laminated clay was encountered in BH02

from 15.00mbgl.

Generally, ground obstructions were not encountered during site works, occasional cobbles were encountered in

exploratory holes. Greater effort was required by the JCB 3CX during excavation of the deeper strata in trial pits.

The presence of other obstructions in the form of relict foundations previously not shown on historical plans or

demolition rubble also cannot be ruled out.

Rockhead was not encountered within the extent of this ground investigation.

The laboratory chemical results have indicated all soil samples tested to have contaminant concentrations within SE

TSVs for a commercial end use.

Groundwater was not generally recorded during the site works. Subsequent post site works monitoring has

reported standing groundwater at approximately 0.60mbgl to 1.00mbgl.

It is considered that in its present state, generally, the site presents a LOW risk to human health and the surrounding

environment. Should the site be developed for a commercial end use it is considered that the risk will remain LOW.

Given the site observations and chemical testing results it is considered that there is a LOW risk to controlled waters

within the vicinity of the site.

Based on the expected construction and relatively low loads required, it is anticipated that pad foundations within




If soft strata or deeper Made Ground are present, the subgrade material should be excavated out and replaced with

engineered granular fill to avoid undesirable differential settlement.

To date there have been 2 No. monitoring visits made to the site from a scheduled total of 6 No. Based on the data

collected the risk from soil gas affecting the proposed development is preliminarily assessed as Characteristic




Situation 1, Very Low.

A CBR value of 3.0% at formation should be adopted for pavement and hardstanding design purposes.

The concrete Design Sulphate Class for the site is DS‐3, ACEC Class AC‐2s.

12.2 Recommendations

The remaining gas monitoring visits should be completed, at which point the gas risk assessment will be updated to

reflect the additional data.

An earthworks and remediation strategy should be developed to outline the measures required to allow the

development to proceed on a more assured basis with regards to potential limited contamination and any

preparatory groundworks that may be required.




13.0 REFERENCES

Site walkover survey.

Historical and Recent Ordnance Survey maps and plans.

Geological Survey Sheets.

The Environment Agency.

Groundsure Report.

British Geological Survey.

BRE Report BR211; Radon: Protective measures for new buildings.

NRPB‐W26 ‘Radon Atlas of England and Wales,’ NRPB, 2002.

CIRIA 132 ‘A guide for safe working on contaminated sites,’ CIRIA, 1996.

CIRIA C552 ‘Contaminated Land Risk assessment. A guide to good practice,’ CIRIA,

2001.

BS10175 ‘Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – code of practice,’ BS,

2011.

CLR 11 ‘Model Procedures for the management of land contamination’ EA, 2004

Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA

Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance

April 2012.

Ciria C733 Asbestos in soil and made ground: a guide to understanding and managing

risks, March 2014.

BRE Special Digest 1, 2005 (Third Edition). Concrete in aggressive ground.

Construction Research Communications Ltd, Watford.

BS 5930: 1999. Code of practice for site investigations. BSI, UK.

BS 10175: 2011. Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – Code of Practice.

BSI, UK.

CIRIA C665: 2006. Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings.

London UK.

DD ENV, 1997. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design. Parts 1 to 3. BSI, UK.

Environment Agency, 2008 ‐ onwards, Science Reports SC050021 (SGVs)

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

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

Nottingham.

Tomlinson, M.J., 2001 Foundation design and construction. Prentice Hall, London.

The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales)

(Amendment) Regulations, September 2015.


Incubator 2, Alconbury Issue V2


APPENDIX A

REPORT CONDITIONS




REPORT CONDITIONS

GEO‐ENVIRONMENTAL GROUND INVESTIGATION

This report is produced for the benefit of Urban and Civic (Alconbury) Ltd., in accordance with the terms of the

appointment.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment and relates to the

condition of the site at the time of ground investigations. No warranty is provided as to the possibility of future

changes in the condition of the site.

Shadbolt Environmental takes no responsibility for conditions which occur between the individual exploratory holes.

Whilst every effort has been made to interpret the conditions between investigation locations, such information is

only indicative.

Whilst the contamination assessment detailed within this report reflects our view, because there are no exact UK

definitions of these matters, being subject to risk analysis, Shadbolt Environmental are unable to give categoric

assurances that they will be accepted by authorities or funds without question. This report is prepared and written

for the purposed uses stated in the report and should not be used in a different context without reference to

Shadbolt Environmental. In time, improved practices or amended legislation may necessitate a re‐assessment.

The report is limited to the geotechnical and environmental aspects detailed within the report, and is necessarily

restricted and no liability is accepted for any other aspect especially concerning gradual or sudden pollution

incidents.




APPENDIX B

EXPLORATORY HOLE LOGS

Drawing 2571‐003 – Exploratory Hole Location Plan

WellWaterStrikes Depth (m)

Depth LevelLegend(m) (m AOD) Stratum Description

Project Name:

Location:

Client: Dates:

Level:Co-ords:Project No.

Borehole No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Hole TypePlant:

Urban and Civic

Alconbury Weald

No groundwater encountered.Inspection pit excavated to 1.20mbgl

Incubator 2

Type

Type

Samples & In Situ TestingResults

Results

2507

The Shadbolt Group18 Bewick RoadGatesheadTyne & WearNE8 4DPTel: 0191 4783330email: [email protected]

-

24/11/2016

519815E - 276620N

Cable PercussionCable

TS

BH01

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Bo

reh

ole

Lo

g v

2 d

ate

d 2

7th

No

v 0

3

0.00-0.300.200.40

0.30-0.80

1.20

1.65

2.20

2.20-2.70

3.20

3.65

4.20

4.20-4.65

5.20

5.65

6.506.50

8.00

8.45

9.10

9.509.50

BD

BD

U

D

SPT

B

U

D

SPT

B

U

D

SPTB

U

D

D

SPTB

30

N=30(2,5/

5,7,9,9)

90

N=39(5,5/

7,9,10,13)

100

N=45(5,7/

9,11,11,14)

100

N=50(5,8/

12,12,13,13)

0.30

1.65

3.20

4.20

MADE GROUND Turf over brown silty sandy clay with somerootlets.

Firm light brown becoming brown slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravelis subangular, fine to medium limestone and chalk. (somerootlets noted).

... becomes light brown from 0.40mbgl

Very stiff brown and grey mottled gravelly CLAY with some silt.Gravel is subangular, fine to medium chalk.

Very stiff fissured brown and grey mottled CLAY. Gravel issubangular to subrounded, fine to medium chalk.

Very stiff brown grey gravelly CLAY with some silt. Gravel issubangular, fine to medium chalk and chert.

End of Borehole at 10.00 m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1:50

Sheet 1 of 1



Project Name:

Location:

Client: Dates:


Borehole No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Hole TypePlant:

Urban and Civic

Alconbury Weald

Inspection pit excavated to 1.20mbgl.No groundwater encountered

Incubator 2

Type

Type


Results

2507


-

24/11/2016-25/11/2016

519815E - 276620N


TS

BH02

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Bo

reh

ole

Lo

g v

2 d

ate

d 2

7th

No

v 0

3

0.200.20-0.50

0.50

0.50-1.00

1.201.20

2.20

2.65

3.20

3.20-3.70

4.20

4.65

5.20

5.20-5.70

6.50

6.95

8.00

8.00-8.50

9.00

9.50

9.95

DBD

B

SPTB

U

D

SPT

B

U

D

SPT

B

U

D

SPT

B

D

U

D

N=20(2,2/

3,4,7,6)

51

N=23(2,3/

4,5,7,7)

95

N=30(4,5/

5,7,8,10)

100

N=42(5,7/

8,10,11,13)

97

0.20

0.50

1.00

3.00

4.00

MADE GROUND Brown silty clay with some rootlets.

MADE GROUND Brown slightly silty clay. (reworked natural)

Firm light brown gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular, fine tomedium chalk.

Firm brown and grey mottled gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangularto angular fine to medium chalk and some chert.

... becoming stiff at 1.20mbgl

Stiff grey brown gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular, fine tomedium occasionally coarse chalk.

Very stiff fissured grey gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular,fine to medium occasionally coarse chalk.

Continued next sheet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1:50

Sheet 1 of 2



Project Name:

Location:

Client: Dates:


Borehole No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Hole TypePlant:

Urban and Civic

Alconbury Weald

Inspection pit excavated to 1.20mbgl.No groundwater encountered

Incubator 2

Type

Type


Results

2507


-

24/11/2016-25/11/2016

519815E - 276620N


TS

BH02

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Bo

reh

ole

Lo

g v

2 d

ate

d 2

7th

No

v 0

3

10.50

11.00

11.00-11.50

12.00

12.50

12.95

13.50

14.0014.00

15.00

15.50

15.95

16.50

17.00

17.00-17.50

18.00

18.50

18.50-19.00

19.50

D

SPT

B

D

U

D

D

SPTB

D

U

D

D

SPT

B

D

SPT

B

D

50(6,11/

12,15,17,6 for 30mm)

106

50(7,10/

13,16,16,5 for 30mm)

110

50(16,9 for 45mm/

12,14,20,4 for 0m

50(10,14/

17,19,14 for 45mm)

15.00

Very stiff fissured grey gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular,fine to medium occasionally coarse chalk.

Very stiff laminated brown grey becoming dark grey CLAY withsome silt.


11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

1:50

Sheet 2 of 2



Project Name:

Location:

Client: Dates:


Borehole No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Hole TypePlant:

Urban and Civic

Alconbury Weald

No groundwater encountered

Incubator 2

Type

Type


Results

2507


-

26/11/2016

-


TS

BH03

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Bo

reh

ole

Lo

g v

2 d

ate

d 2

7th

No

v 0

3

0.100.20

0.30-0.500.40

0.50-1.20

1.20

1.65-1.80

2.20

2.20-2.70

3.20-3.65

3.65

4.20

4.20-4.70

5.20

5.65

6.10

6.50

6.50-7.00

7.50

8.00

8.45

9.00

9.50

9.50-10.00

BDBD

B

U

D

SPT

B

U

D

SPT

B

U

D

D

SPT

B

D

U

D

D

SPT

B

54

N=31(2,5/

7,8,8,8)

98

N=33(5,5/

7,7,8,11)

100

N=40(3,5/

7,10,11,12)

110

N=49(6,8/

9,10,15,15)

0.10

0.50

1.20

2.20

4.00

MADE GROUND Turf over brown silty clay with rootlets

MADE GROUND Brown gravelly clay and occasional whole bricks.Gravel is angular, fine to coarse brick, with some concrete andrare ash.

Firm light brown CLAY.

Firm light brown gravelly CLAY. Gravel is angular, fine tomedium chalk.

Stiff light brown gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular, fine tomedium chalk with some chert.

Stiff grey brown and grey gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular,fine to medium chalk with occasional chert.

Very stiff grey slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular ,fine to medium chalk.

... becoming gravelly from 5.00mbgl


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1:50

Sheet 1 of 1

Samples & In Situ Testing

Depth (m)Depth Level

Legend(m) (m AOD)

Stratum Description

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Dimensions:

Level:Co-ords:Project No:

Trialpit No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Type Results

Groundwater:

Depth

Dates:

Plant:

TO:

Stability:

Urban and Civic

Stable

Alconbury Weald


Incubator 2

2507


JCB 3CX

-

23/11/2016

519817E - 276630N

3.30m 0.6

0m

23/11/2016

3.30m

TS

TP01

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Tri

alp

it L

og

v2

da

ted

27

th N

ov

03

0.05

0.15

0.300.300.400.400.40

1.00

2.00

2.30

3.30

D

D

BD

IVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

D

B

D

D

889893

0.10

0.25

0.80

3.30

MADE GROUND Turf over brown silty sandy clay with some rootlets.

MADE GROUND Bricks with some fine to medium gravel of ash.

Firm to stiff light brown CLAY with occasional angular fine white gravel ofchalk..

Stiff brown and grey mottled very gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular,fine to coarse chert and chalk.

... too gravelly for hand vane from 1.0mbgl

Trialpit Complete at 3.30 m

1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Legend(m) (m AOD)

Stratum Description

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Dimensions:


Trialpit No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Type Results

Groundwater:

Depth

Dates:

Plant:

TO:

Stability:

Urban and Civic

No groundwater encounteredStable

Alconbury Weald

Incubator 2

2507


JCB 3CX

-

23/11/2016

-

3.20m 0.6

0m

23/11/2016

3.30m

TS

TP02

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Tri

alp

it L

og

v2

da

ted

27

th N

ov

03

0.100.150.150.150.250.40

0.800.800.80

1.10

1.50

2.002.00

2.50-3.00

DIVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

DB

IVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

D

B

BD

B

907075

706060

0.15

0.60

1.50

3.20


Stiff light brown slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is angular, fine chalk.

Firm to stiff becoming siff brown with some brown and grey mottlinggravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular, fine to coarse of chalk.

Very stiff fissured brown with grey mottling gravelly CLAY. Gravel isangular to subangular, fine to coarse chalk. (too gravelly for hand vane).


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Legend(m) (m AOD)

Stratum Description

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Dimensions:


Trialpit No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Type Results

Groundwater:

Depth

Dates:

Plant:

TO:

Stability:

Urban and Civic

Stable

Alconbury Weald


Incubator 2

2507


JCB 3CX

-

23/11/2016

-

3.20m 0.6

0m

23/11/2016

3.30m

TS

TP03

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Tri

alp

it L

og

v2

da

ted

27

th N

ov

03

0.10

0.450.450.450.450.45

1.001.001.001.00

1.50

2.10

3.00

D

IVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

DB

IVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

D

B

D

D

1008080

506662

0.30

1.00

3.20


Firm to stiff light brown slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular,fine to medium, occasionally coarse chalk.

... very gravelly at 0.45mbgl

Firm light brown with brown grey mottling very gravelly CLAY. Gravel issubangular, fine to coarse chalk and chert.

... stiff and fissured from 2.00mbgl and no hand vane possible.


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Legend(m) (m AOD)

Stratum Description

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Dimensions:


Trialpit No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Type Results

Groundwater:

Depth

Dates:

Plant:

TO:

Stability:

Urban and Civic

Stable

Alconbury Weald


Incubator 2

2507


JCB 3CX

-

23/11/2016

-

3.30m 0.7

0m

23/11/2016

3.30m

TS

TP04

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Tri

alp

it L

og

v2

da

ted

27

th N

ov

03

0.000.10

0.35

0.500.500.50

0.50-0.60

1.101.101.101.301.30

1.70

2.20

3.00-3.30

DD

D

IVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

B

IVN 1IVN 2IVN 3IVN 1IVN 2

B

D

B

1003298

65404890

100

0.05

0.30

1.20

1.60

3.30


MADE GROUND Brown sandy gravelly clay and occasional bricks. Gravel isangular, fine to medium chert and chalk.


... with fine to medium gravel of chalk from 0.60mbgl

Stiff brown and grey mottled sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular,fine to coarse chert and chalk.

Stiff fissured grey and brown mottled sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel issubangular to subrounded, fine to medium occasionally coarse chalk and somechert. (too fissured for hand vane).


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Legend(m) (m AOD)

Stratum Description

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Dimensions:


Trialpit No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Type Results

Groundwater:

Depth

Dates:

Plant:

TO:

Stability:

Urban and Civic

Stable

Alconbury Weald


Incubator 2

2507


JCB 3CX

-

23/11/2016

-

3.00m 0.7

0m

23/11/2016

3.20m

TS

TP05

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Tri

alp

it L

og

v2

da

ted

27

th N

ov

03

0.05

0.250.300.300.300.30

0.90

1.35

2.50-3.00

D

DIVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

B

D

B

D

1088080

0.10

0.65

3.00

MADE GROUND Turf over brown silty sandy clay with some rootlets andoccasional brick fragments.

Firm to stiff light brown sandy CLAY.

Stiff brown and light grey sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular, fineto medium chalk. Occasional chert cobble noted. (too fissured for handvane).

becoming very stiff from 1.50mbgl.


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Legend(m) (m AOD)

Stratum Description

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Dimensions:


Trialpit No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Type Results

Groundwater:

Depth

Dates:

Plant:

TO:

Stability:

Urban and Civic

Stable

Alconbury Weald


Incubator 2

2507


JCB 3CX

-

23/11/2016

-

3.30m 0.7

0m

23/11/2016

3.30m

TS

TP06

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Tri

alp

it L

og

v2

da

ted

27

th N

ov

03

0.10

0.300.350.350.35

0.700.700.700.70

1.30

1.75

2.60-3.10

D

BIVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

IVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

D

B

D

B

828480

807072

0.20

0.60

1.00

1.60

3.30

MADE GROUND Turf over brown silty slightly gravelly sandy clay with somerootlets. Gravel is fine to medium limestone and coal.

Stiff light brown slightly sandy CLAY.

Firm to stiff light brown and grey gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular,fine to medium chalk.

Firm to stiff brown and light grey brown sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel issubangular, fine to medium occasionally coarse chert and chalk. (toogravelly for hand vane).

Stiff fissured brown and grey mottled gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangularto subrounded, fine to coarse chalk.

... grey brown from 3.00mbgl.


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Legend(m) (m AOD)

Stratum Description

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Dimensions:


Trialpit No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Type Results

Groundwater:

Depth

Dates:

Plant:

TO:

Stability:

Urban and Civic

Stable

Alconbury Weald


Incubator 2

2507


JCB 3CX

-

23/11/2016

-

3.15m 0.7

0m

23/11/2016

3.10m

TS

TP07

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Tri

alp

it L

og

v2

da

ted

27

th N

ov

03

0.10

0.25

0.450.450.45

0.45-0.60

0.80

1.60

2.60

3.10

D

D

IVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

B

B

D

D

D

1007582

0.20

0.35

0.70

3.15

MADE GROUND Turf over brown silty sandy clay with some rootlets and somegravel of brick and limestone and rare coal.

MADE GROUND Brown sandy gravelly clay with occasional bricks. Gravel issuangular, fine to medium, limestone and chalk.


Firm light brown and grey gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular, fine tomedium chalk. (too fissured for hand vane).

... gravel is fine to coarse from 1.50mbgl


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1



Legend(m) (m AOD)

Stratum Description

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Dimensions:


Trialpit No

Scale

Logged By

Remarks:

Type Results

Groundwater:

Depth

Dates:

Plant:

TO:

Stability:

Urban and Civic

Stable

Alconbury Weald


Incubator 2

2507


JCB 3CX

-

23/11/2016

-

3.30m 0.7

0m

23/11/2016

3.20m

TS

TP08

Ho

leB

AS

E 3

.1 (

Bld

42

6.7

2)

Sta

nd

ard

Tri

alp

it L

og

v2

da

ted

27

th N

ov

03

0.05

0.15

0.450.450.450.50

1.10

2.00

3.00

D

D

IVN 1IVN 2IVN 3

B

D

B

D

10010098

0.10

0.25

0.80

3.30

MADE GROUND Turf over brown silty sandy slightly gravelly clay with somerootlets.

MADE GROUND bricks intermixed with topsoil and fine to medium gravel ofash, coal and brick.

Stiff light brown sandy CLAY.

Stiff light grey and light brown gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subangular, fineto coarse chalk. (too gravelly for hand vane).


1

2

3

4

1:25

Sheet 1 of 1

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

ZHV

ZHV

ZHV

ZHV

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

F

:

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

:

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

Z

LVZ

LVZ

LVZ

LVZ

LVZ

LVZ

LVZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

ZHV

ZHV

Z

HV

Z HV Z HVZ HV

ZHV Z

HV ZHV Z

HV ZHV

ZHV

ZHV

ZHV

Z HVZ

HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z Z Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

Z

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

ZZ

Z

ZZ

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

F

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

: : : : ::

::

::

::

::

::

::

: : : : ::

::

::

::

::

:

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

ZSL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

ZSL

Z

SL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

ZSL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

ZSL

Z SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL Z

SL

ZSL

Z

SL

ZSL

Z

SL

ZSL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

ZSL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

SL

Z

Z

ZLV

ZLV

ZLV

Z

::

:

::

:

:

:

:

::

:

:

::

:

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

:

::

::

:

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

:

:

::

:

:

::

::

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

HV

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZHV

ZHV

ZHV

ZHV

ZHV

ZHV

ZHV

Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV Z HV

::

:

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

:

::

:

::

:

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

:

:

:

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

:

::

:

:

::

:

:

:

::

:

:

::

:

:

:

::

::

:

::

:

:

:

::

: :: :

::

::

::

:

::

:

:

::

:

::

::

:

:

::

:

::

::

:

::

:

:

::

::

::

:

::

:

:

::

::

:

:

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

:

:

::

:

:

::

::

:

:

::

:

:

::

:

:

::

::

:

:

::

:

::

:

:

:

::

::

:

::

::

::

:

::

::

:

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

:

::

:

::

:

:

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

:

::

:

::

:

::

:

::

:

::

:

:

::

:

::

::

:

:

::

:

::

::

::

::

:

::

:

::

:

::

::

::

:

ZSL

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

:

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

:

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

:

::

::

::

::

::

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

:: : : :

: :: :

: :: :

:

: :: : :

: :: :

: :: : :

Z

Z

Z

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM

COMCOM

COM

COMCOM

COM

: : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : :

: : : :: : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : :

: : : : :: : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : :: : : : : : : :

::

::

:

::

::

::

::

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM

COMCOM

COM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM

COM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

:: :

:

:: :

:

: :: : : : :

: : : : :: : : : :

: : : : :: : : : :

: : : : :: : : : :

: : : : :: : : : :

: : : : :: :

: :: : : : :

: : : : :: : : : :

: : : : :: : : : :

: : : : :: : : : :

: : : : :: : : : :

: : : : :: :

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

::

:

COM

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM COM COM

COM

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

Z

Z Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZZ

ZZ

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

ZLV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

Z

LV

::

::

:

:

::

:

:

::

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COMCOM

COM

TP-01

TP-08

TP-07

TP-05

TP-04

TP-06

TP-03

TP-02

BH-03BH-02

BH-01

MC-01

MC-02

MC-03

MC-04

MC-05

MC-14

MC-13

MC-12

MC-11

MC-10

MC-09

MC-08

MC-07

MC-06

Trial Pit (SE Dec 2016)

Mexe-cone Survey Point (SE Dec 2016)

Cable Percussive Borehole (SE Dec 2016)

Drawn By: Checked By: Date:

Revision:

Scale @ A3:

Client:

Project:

Drawing Title:

Drawing Number:

Drawing Status:

18 Bewick Road, Gateshead, NE8 4DP

T: (0191) 478 3330

W: www.shadboltgroup.net

Geo-Environmental Solutions

Part of The Shadbolt Group

Rev Amendment

By

Chkd Date

Copyright © 2014 'Shadbolt Environmental Ltd'.

'The Shadbolt Group' is a trading name of 'Shadbolt Environmental Ltd'

Use of drawings is deemed as acceptance of our T&C's available on our website.

Preliminary

Urban & Civic

Alconbury Weald - Incubator 2

Exploratory Hole Location Plan

2507-003

1:500

-

IM TS 22/12/16

1. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all other information

by relevant parties classed as Designers under the Construction

(Design & Management) Regulations 2015.

2. Only figured dimensions are to be worked from. The Contractor is

to check all dimensions on site and report any discrepancies to

the Engineer.

3. All dimensions are in metres unless noted otherwise.




APPENDIX C

SHADBOLT ENVIRONMENTAL TIER 1 SCREENING VALUES

Issue No. Date

Version 6 11/03/2015

Determinand UnitsResidential with Home Grown

Produce

Residential without Home

Grown ProduceAllotments Commercial Pblic Open Space 1 Public Open Space 2 Derviation Tool

pH <5, >9 <5, >10 <5, >9 <5, >9 <5, >9 <5, >9 Nuetral ConditionsAsbestos % <0.001% <0.001% <0.001% <0.001% <0.001% <0.001% Lab Screening Level

HEAVY METALS/METALLOIDSArsenic mg/kg 37 40 43 640 79 170 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Beryllium mg/kg 1.7 1.7 35 12 2.2 63 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Boron mg/kg 290 11000 45 240000 21000 46000 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Cadmium mg/kg 11 85 1.9 190 120 532 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Chromium (III) mg/kg 910 910 18000 8600 1500 33000 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Chromium (VI) mg/kg 6 6 1.8 33 7.7 220 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Copper mg/kg 2400 7100 520 68000 12000 4400 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Lead mg/kg 200 310 80 2330 630 1300 pC4SLMercury (Elemnetal) mg/kg 1.2 1.2 21 98vap (25.8) 16 30vap (25.8) CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Mercury (Inorganic) mg/kg 40 56 19 110 120 140 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Mercury (Methyl) mg/kg 11 15 6 320 40 68 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Nickel mg/kg 180 180 230 980 230 3400 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Selenium mg/kg 250 430 88 1200 1100 1800 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Vanadium mg/kg 410 1200 91 9000 2000 5000 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015Zinc mg/kg 3700 40000 620 730000 81000 170000 CLEA MODE LQM/CIEH 2015

GENERAL INORGANICSCyanide mg/kg 2 2 2 2 2 2 LOD

US EPA PRIORITY PAHsAcenaphthene mg/kg 510 4700 (141)sol 85 97000 (141sol) 15000 30000 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMAcenaphthylene mg/kg 420 850 69 97000 (212sol) 15000 30000 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMAnthracene mg/kg 5400 35000 950 54000 74000 150000 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMBenzo(a)Anthracene mg/kg 11 14 6.5 170 29 56 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMBenzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 2.70 3.2 2 35 5.7 5.7 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMBenzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 3.3 4 2.1 44 7.2 15 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMBenzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 93 110 75 1200 190 410 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMBenzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg 340 360 470 4000 640 1500 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMChrysene mg/kg 22 31 9.4 350 57 110 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMDi-benzo(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.28 0.32 0.27 3.6 0.57 1.3 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 36 46 21 510 82 170 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMFluoranthene mg/kg 560 1600 130 23000 3100 6300 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMFluorene mg/kg 400 3800 (76.5)sol 67 68000 9900 20000 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMNaphthalene mg/kg 5.6 5.6 10 460 (183)sol 4900 1900 (183)sol CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMPhenanthrene mg/kg 220 1500 38 22000 3100 6200 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMPyrene mg/kg 1200 3800 270 54000 7400 15000 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMCoal Tar (Bap as surrogate marker) mg/kg 0.98 1.2 0.67 15 2.2 4.7 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOM

Chlorinated Solvents1,2 Dichloroethane (DCA) mg/kg 0.011 0.013 0.0083 0.97 29 24 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOM1,1,1,2 Tetrachloroethane mg/kg 2.8 3.5 1.9 250 1400 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOM1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane mg/kg 3.4 8 0.89 550 1400 2100 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMPCE (Tetrachloroethene) mg/kg 0.39 0.4 1.5 42 1400 110 sol (951) CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOM1,1,1 Trichloroethane (111 TCA) mg/kg 18 18 110 1300 140000 76000 vap (2915) CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMChloroethene (Vinyl Chloride VC) mg/kg 0.00087 0.001 0.001 0.077 6.5 5 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTetrachloromethane mg/kg 0.056 0.056 1 6.3 920.0 270.0 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTrichloroethene (TCE) mg/kg 0.034 0.036 0.091 2.6 120.0 91.0 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTrichloromethane (Chloroform) mg/kg 1.7 2.1 0.83 170.0 2500.0 2800.0 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOM

CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMPhenolicsPhenol mg/kg 200 690 42 690 dir (30000) 690(dir) (10000) 690(dir) (8300) LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOM

TPH (Environment Agency 16 Fractions)TPH Aliphatic >C5-6 mg/kg 78 78 1700 5900 (558) sol 590000 130000 (558) sol CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aliphatic >C6-8 mg/kg 230 230 5600 17000 (332) sol 610000 220000 (322) sol CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aliphatic >C8-10 mg/kg 65 65 770 4800 (190) vap 13000 18000 (190) vap CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aliphatic >C10-12 mg/kg 330 (118) vap 330 (118) vap 4400 23000 (118) vap 13000 23000 (118) vap CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aliphatic >C12-16 mg/kg 2400 (59) sol 2400 (59) sol 1300 82000 13000 25000 (59) sol CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aliphatic >C16-35 mg/kg 92000 (21) sol 92000 (21) sol 270000 1700000 250000 480000 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aliphatic > C35-44 mg/kg 92000 (21) sol 92000 (21) sol 270000 1700000 250000 480000 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aromatic >EC5-7 mg/kg 140 690 27 46000 (2260) sol 56000 84000 (2260) sol CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aromatic >EC7-8 mg/kg 290 1800 51 110000 (1920) sol 56000 95000 (1920) sol CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aromatic >EC8-10 mg/kg 83 110 21 8100 (1500) vap 5000 8500 (1500) vap CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aromatic >EC10-12 mg/kg 180 590 31 28000 (899) sol 5000 9700 (899) sol CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aromatic >EC12-16 mg/kg 330 2300 (419)sol 57 37000 5100 7700 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aromatic >EC16-21 mg/kg 540 1900 110 28000 3800 7800 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aromatic >EC21-35 mg/kg 1500 1900 820 28000 3800 7800 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTPH Aromatic >EC35-44 mg/kg 1500 1900 820 28000 3800 7800 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMAlphatic - Aromatic EC44-70 mg/kg 1800 1900 2100 28000 3800 7800 CLEA MODEL LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMTotal TPH mg/kg 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 NOT a S4U If exceeded speciation required

BTEXBenzene mg/kg 0.17 0.70 0.034 47.00 72.00 100.00 LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMToluene mg/kg 290 1900 51 110000 vap (1920) 56000 95000vap (1920) LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMEthylbenzene mg/kg 110 190 39 1300 vap (1220) 24000 22000vap (1220) LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMXylenes (ortho) mg/kg 140 210 67 15000 sol (1120) 42000 24000sol (1120) LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMXylenes (meta) mg/kg 140 190 74 14000 vap (1470) 42000 24000sol (1470) LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOMXylenes (para) mg/kg 130 180 69 1400 sol (1350 42000 23000sol (1350) LQM/CIEH 2015 - 2.5% SOM

NOTES

separately as appropriate for the site, e.g. for water, ecology, building materials.

For certain compounds not identified as a significant risk to human health (eg heavy end hydrocarbon fractions), aesthetic and other considerations may drive requirement for remediation.

SOIL - THE SHADBOLT GROUP SUITABLE FOR USE LEVELS - HUMAN HEALTH

1) Screen individual constituent values initially and if exceedences are noted consider further in relation to averaging areas and statistical analysis

Issue

4) Please note that the TSVs derived for certain compounds may be low in relation to standard laboratory detection limits.

Status

2) These values are for initial screening for potential risk to human health only. They are not remediation thresholds. Screening for other receptors to be done

3) TSVs have been derived for common constituents only to date, pending future issues of this sheet. Research has bene undertaken for numerous other constituents already.




APPENDIX D

CHEMICAL LABORATORY RESULTS

Contract no:

Contract name:

Client reference:

Clients name:

Clients address:

Samples received:

Analysis started:

Analysis completed:

Report issued:

Notes:

Key:

I/S Insufficient sample to carry out test

N/S Sample not suitable for testing

Approved by:James SpittleCustomer Services Team Leader

ANALYTICAL TEST REPORT

62499

Incubator 2

2507

Gateshead

Tyne & Wear

2531

Shadbolt Environmental

NAD No Asbestos Detected

09 December 2016

Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the UKAS accreditation scope.

Methods, procedures and performance data are available on request.

This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without prior written approval.

U UKAS accredited test

Unit 6 Parkhead, Greencroft Industrial Park, Stanley, County Durham, DH9 7YBTel 01207 528578 Fax 01207 529977 Email [email protected]

Vat Reg No. 772 5703 18 Registered in England number 4284013

09 December 2016

Samples will be disposed of 6 weeks from initial receipt unless otherwise instructed.

Unless otherwise stated, Chemtech Environmental Ltd was not responsible for sampling.

M MCERTS & UKAS accredited test

Results reported herein relate only to the material supplied to the laboratory.

$ Test carried out by an approved subcontractor

18 Bewick Road

02 December 2016

02 December 2016

NE8 4DP

CE709 Test Report Issue 10 August 2016

Page 1 of 7 Pages

Chemtech Environmental Limited

SAMPLE INFORMATION

MCERTS (Soils):

Lab ref Sample id Depth (m) Sample description Material removed % Removed % Moisture

62499-1 BH01 0.20 Clay with Gravel & Roots - - 18.6

62499-2 BH03 0.20 Clay with Gravel & Roots - - 18.2

62499-3 TP01 0.15 Loamy Clay with Gravel & Roots - - 22.8

62499-4 TP02 0.10 Loamy Clay with Roots - - 21.3

62499-5 TP02 1.10 Clay with Gravel & Chalk - - 16.3


62499-8 TP04 0.00 Sandy Loamy Clay with Roots - - 17.2

62499-9 TP04 0.10 Clay with Gravel & Roots - - 19.3


62499-11 TP05 0.05 Clay with Roots - - 20.5

62499-13 TP07 0.25 Clay with Gravel - - 12.9

62499-15 TP08 1.10 Clay with Gravel - - 13.8

All results are reported on a dry basis. Samples dried at no more than 30°C in a drying cabinet.Analytical results are inclusive of stones.

Soil descriptions are only intended to provide a log of sample matrices with respect to MCERTS validation. They are not intendedas full geological descriptions. MCERTS accreditation applies for sand, clay and loam/topsoil, or combinations of these whetherthese are derived from naturally occurring soils or from made ground, as long as these materials constitute the major part of thesample. Other materials such as concrete, gravel and brick are not accredited if they comprise the major part of the sample.

62499Incubator 22507


Page 2 of 7 Pages


SOILS

Lab number 62499-1 62499-2 62499-3 62499-4 62499-5 62499-6

Sample id BH01 BH03 TP01 TP02 TP02 TP03

Depth (m) 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.10 1.10 0.10

Date sampled 24/11/2016 26/11/2016 25/11/2016 25/11/2016 25/11/2016 25/11/2016

Test Method Units

Arsenic (total) CE127 M mg/kg As 19 16 15 19 21 -

Boron (water soluble) CE063 M mg/kg B 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.9 0.9 -

Cadmium (total) CE127 M mg/kg Cd 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 -

Chromium (total) CE127 M mg/kg Cr 72 78 82 67 68 -

Copper (total) CE127 M mg/kg Cu 17 19 39 23 17 -

Lead (total) CE127 M mg/kg Pb 21 26 27 38 14 -

Mercury (total) CE127 M mg/kg Hg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -

Nickel (total) CE127 M mg/kg Ni 35 31 33 40 41 -

Selenium (total) CE127 M mg/kg Se 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 -

Zinc (total) CE127 M mg/kg Zn 106 83 81 174 174 -

pH CE004 M units 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.0 8.4 -

Sulphate (2:1 water soluble) CE061 M mg/l SO4 <10 20 25 <10 32 -

Cyanide (total) CE077 M mg/kg CN <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) CE072 M % w/w C - - 8.26 - - -

Estimate of OMC (calculated from TOC) CE072 M % w/w - - 14.24 - - -

PAH

Naphthalene CE087 M mg/kg <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 -

Acenaphthylene CE087 M mg/kg <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -

Acenaphthene CE087 M mg/kg <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -

Fluorene CE087 U mg/kg <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -

Phenanthrene CE087 M mg/kg 0.04 0.15 0.07 0.12 <0.02 -

Anthracene CE087 U mg/kg <0.02 0.05 <0.02 0.05 <0.02 -

Fluoranthene CE087 M mg/kg 0.07 0.37 0.13 0.35 <0.02 -

Pyrene CE087 M mg/kg 0.05 0.33 0.10 0.30 <0.02 -

Benzo(a)anthracene CE087 U mg/kg 0.03 0.16 0.05 0.17 <0.02 -

Chrysene CE087 M mg/kg 0.04 0.18 0.07 0.21 <0.01 -

Benzo(b)fluoranthene CE087 M mg/kg 0.05 0.14 0.09 0.23 <0.02 -

Benzo(k)fluoranthene CE087 M mg/kg <0.02 0.11 0.05 0.12 <0.02 -

Benzo(a)pyrene CE087 U mg/kg <0.02 0.16 0.06 0.19 <0.02 -

Indeno(123cd)pyrene CE087 M mg/kg <0.02 0.09 <0.02 0.10 <0.02 -

Dibenz(ah)anthracene CE087 M mg/kg <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 -

Benzo(ghi)perylene CE087 M mg/kg <0.02 0.10 0.05 0.15 <0.02 -

PAH (total of USEPA 16) CE087 mg/kg 0.28 1.84 0.70 2.00 <0.27 -

TPH

EPH (>C10-C40) CE033 M mg/kg 117 60 189 144 <10 -

Subcontracted analysis

Asbestos (qualitative) $ - - NAD NAD NAD - NAD



Page 3 of 7 Pages


SOILS

Lab number

Sample id

Depth (m)

Date sampled

Test Method Units

Arsenic (total) CE127 M mg/kg As

Boron (water soluble) CE063 M mg/kg B

Cadmium (total) CE127 M mg/kg Cd

Chromium (total) CE127 M mg/kg Cr

Copper (total) CE127 M mg/kg Cu

Lead (total) CE127 M mg/kg Pb

Mercury (total) CE127 M mg/kg Hg

Nickel (total) CE127 M mg/kg Ni

Selenium (total) CE127 M mg/kg Se

Zinc (total) CE127 M mg/kg Zn

pH CE004 M units

Sulphate (2:1 water soluble) CE061 M mg/l SO4

Cyanide (total) CE077 M mg/kg CN

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) CE072 M % w/w C

Estimate of OMC (calculated from TOC) CE072 M % w/w

PAH

Naphthalene CE087 M mg/kg

Acenaphthylene CE087 M mg/kg

Acenaphthene CE087 M mg/kg

Fluorene CE087 U mg/kg

Phenanthrene CE087 M mg/kg

Anthracene CE087 U mg/kg

Fluoranthene CE087 M mg/kg

Pyrene CE087 M mg/kg

Benzo(a)anthracene CE087 U mg/kg

Chrysene CE087 M mg/kg

Benzo(b)fluoranthene CE087 M mg/kg

Benzo(k)fluoranthene CE087 M mg/kg

Benzo(a)pyrene CE087 U mg/kg

Indeno(123cd)pyrene CE087 M mg/kg

Dibenz(ah)anthracene CE087 M mg/kg

Benzo(ghi)perylene CE087 M mg/kg

PAH (total of USEPA 16) CE087 mg/kg

TPH

EPH (>C10-C40) CE033 M mg/kg


Asbestos (qualitative) $ -

62499-7 62499-8 62499-9 62499-10 62499-11 62499-12

TP03 TP04 TP04 TP04 TP05 TP07

3.00 0.00 0.10 2.20 0.05 0.10

25/11/2016 25/11/2016 25/11/2016 25/11/2016 25/11/2016 25/11/2016

13 14 16 27 20 -

1.5 1.4 17 1.3 2.2 -

0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.5 -

38 80 65 41 77 -

10 14 17 11 21 -

7.7 33 30 9.4 50 -

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -

20 21 26 22 35 -

0.6 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.0 -

38 65 103 42 124 -

7.9 8.3 8.3 8.1 8.3 -

1655 65 97 60 19 -

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -

- - 1.52 - - -

- - 2.62 - - -

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 -

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.11 -

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.07 -

<0.02 0.06 0.08 <0.02 1.03 -

<0.02 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 -

<0.02 0.20 0.21 <0.02 1.65 -

<0.02 0.17 0.17 <0.02 1.23 -

<0.02 0.11 0.10 <0.02 1.20 -

<0.01 0.11 0.13 0.02 1.20 -

<0.02 0.08 0.13 <0.02 1.22 -

<0.02 0.06 <0.02 <0.02 0.68 -

<0.02 0.09 0.11 <0.02 0.85 -

<0.02 0.07 0.06 <0.02 0.35 -

<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.18 -

<0.02 0.07 0.09 <0.02 0.50 -

<0.27 1.05 1.09 <0.27 10.3 -

<10 66 87 65 35 -

- - NAD - NAD NAD



Page 4 of 7 Pages


SOILS

Lab number

Sample id

Depth (m)

Date sampled

Test Method Units

Arsenic (total) CE127 M mg/kg As

Boron (water soluble) CE063 M mg/kg B

Cadmium (total) CE127 M mg/kg Cd

Chromium (total) CE127 M mg/kg Cr

Copper (total) CE127 M mg/kg Cu

Lead (total) CE127 M mg/kg Pb

Mercury (total) CE127 M mg/kg Hg

Nickel (total) CE127 M mg/kg Ni

Selenium (total) CE127 M mg/kg Se

Zinc (total) CE127 M mg/kg Zn

pH CE004 M units

Sulphate (2:1 water soluble) CE061 M mg/l SO4

Cyanide (total) CE077 M mg/kg CN

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) CE072 M % w/w C

Estimate of OMC (calculated from TOC) CE072 M % w/w

PAH

Naphthalene CE087 M mg/kg

Acenaphthylene CE087 M mg/kg

Acenaphthene CE087 M mg/kg

Fluorene CE087 U mg/kg

Phenanthrene CE087 M mg/kg

Anthracene CE087 U mg/kg

Fluoranthene CE087 M mg/kg

Pyrene CE087 M mg/kg

Benzo(a)anthracene CE087 U mg/kg

Chrysene CE087 M mg/kg

Benzo(b)fluoranthene CE087 M mg/kg

Benzo(k)fluoranthene CE087 M mg/kg

Benzo(a)pyrene CE087 U mg/kg

Indeno(123cd)pyrene CE087 M mg/kg

Dibenz(ah)anthracene CE087 M mg/kg

Benzo(ghi)perylene CE087 M mg/kg

PAH (total of USEPA 16) CE087 mg/kg

TPH

EPH (>C10-C40) CE033 M mg/kg


Asbestos (qualitative) $ -

62499-13 62499-14 62499-15

TP07 TP08 TP08

0.25 0.15 1.10

25/11/2016 25/11/2016 25/11/2016

15 - 10

1.3 - 1.1

0.2 - 0.2

175 - 40

15 - 9.8

17 - 8.6

<0.5 - <0.5

24 - 18

0.7 - 0.6

68 - 31

8.3 - 8.4

11 - 13

<1 - <1

1.72 - -

2.97 - -

<0.01 - <0.01

<0.01 - <0.01

<0.01 - <0.01

<0.01 - <0.01

<0.02 - <0.02

<0.02 - <0.02

0.07 - <0.02

0.06 - <0.02

0.03 - <0.02

0.03 - <0.01

0.03 - <0.02

0.03 - <0.02

0.02 - <0.02

<0.02 - <0.02

<0.02 - <0.02

<0.02 - <0.02

<0.27 - <0.27

14 - 58

NAD NAD -



Page 5 of 7 Pages


METHOD DETAILS

METHOD SOILS METHOD SUMMARY SAMPLE STATUS LOD UNITS

CE127 Arsenic (total) Aqua regia digest, ICP-MS Dry M 1 mg/kg As

CE063 Boron (water soluble) Hot water extract, ICP-OES Dry M 0.5 mg/kg B

CE127 Cadmium (total) Aqua regia digest, ICP-MS Dry M 0.2 mg/kg Cd

CE127 Chromium (total) Aqua regia digest, ICP-MS Dry M 1 mg/kg Cr

CE127 Copper (total) Aqua regia digest, ICP-MS Dry M 1 mg/kg Cu

CE127 Lead (total) Aqua regia digest, ICP-MS Dry M 1 mg/kg Pb

CE127 Mercury (total) Aqua regia digest, ICP-MS Dry M 0.5 mg/kg Hg

CE127 Nickel (total) Aqua regia digest, ICP-MS Dry M 1 mg/kg Ni

CE127 Selenium (total) Aqua regia digest, ICP-MS Dry M 0.3 mg/kg Se

CE127 Zinc (total) Aqua regia digest, ICP-MS Dry M 5 mg/kg Zn

CE004 pH Based on BS 1377, pH Meter Wet M - units

CE061 Sulphate (2:1 water soluble) Aqueous extraction, ICP-OES Dry M 10 mg/l SO4

CE077 Cyanide (total) Extraction, Continuous Flow Colorimetry Wet M 1 mg/kg CN

CE072 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Removal of IC by acidification, CarbonAnalyser

Dry M 0.1 % w/w C

CE072 Estimate of OMC (calculated from TOC) Calculation from Total Organic Carbon Dry M 0.1 % w/w

CE087 Naphthalene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.01 mg/kg

CE087 Acenaphthylene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.01 mg/kg

CE087 Acenaphthene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.01 mg/kg

CE087 Fluorene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet U 0.01 mg/kg

CE087 Phenanthrene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 Anthracene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet U 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 Fluoranthene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 Pyrene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 Benzo(a)anthracene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet U 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 Chrysene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.01 mg/kg

CE087 Benzo(b)fluoranthene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 Benzo(a)pyrene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet U 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 Indeno(123cd)pyrene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 Dibenz(ah)anthracene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 Benzo(ghi)perylene Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet M 0.02 mg/kg

CE087 PAH (total of USEPA 16) Solvent extraction, GC-MS Wet 0.27 mg/kg

CE033 EPH (>C10-C40) Solvent extraction, GC-FID Wet M 10 mg/kg

$ Asbestos (qualitative) HSG 248, Microscopy Dry U - -



Page 6 of 7 Pages


DEVIATING SAMPLE INFORMATION

CommentsSample deviation is determined in accordance with the UKAS note "Guidance on Deviating Samples" andbased on reference standards and laboratory trials.For samples identified as deviating, test result(s) may be compromised and may not be representative ofthe sample at the time of sampling.

Environmental Ltd did not undertake the sampling. Such samples may be deviating.

KeyN No (not deviating sample)Y Yes (deviating sample)NSD Sampling date not providedNST Sampling time not provided (waters only)EHT Sample exceeded holding time(s)IC Sample not received in appropriate containersHP Headspace present in sample containerNCF Sample not chemically fixed (where appropriate)IT Sample not cooledOR Other (specify)

Lab ref Sample id Depth (m) Deviating Tests (Reason for deviation)

62499-1 BH01 0.20 N

62499-2 BH03 0.20 N

62499-3 TP01 0.15 N

62499-4 TP02 0.10 N

62499-5 TP02 1.10 N

62499-7 TP03 3.00 N

62499-8 TP04 0.00 N

62499-9 TP04 0.10 N

62499-10 TP04 2.20 N

62499-11 TP05 0.05 N

62499-13 TP07 0.25 N

62499-15 TP08 1.10 N

Chemtech Environmental Ltd cannot be held responsible for the integrity of sample(s) received if Chemtech



Page 7 of 7 Pages




APPENDIX E

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY RESULTS

Site:

Job Number:

Originating Client:

Originating Reference:

Date Sampled:

Date Scheduled:

Date Testing Started:

Date Testing Finished:

Remarks:

Authorised By:

Unit 4 Faraday Close, Pattinson North Industrial Estate, Washington, Tyne & Wear, NE38 8QJ

Tel. 0191 482 8500 Fax. 0191 482 8520 Email. [email protected] Internet. www.ianfarmer.co.uk

18 Bewick Road

Gateshead

Tyne and Wear

NE8 4DP

F.A.O. Tim Shepherd

Test Report - 17629 /1

Incubator 2

17629

Shadbolt Consulting Ltd.

17629

Not Given

02/12/2016

07/12/2016

20/12/2016

Paul Cathcart

Quality Manager Date: 20/12/2016

Page. 1

Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 3661447

Registered Office: Unit 4 Faraday Close, Pattinson North Industrial Estate, Washington, NE38 8QJ

Offices in: Coventry (024) 7630 3422. Harpenden, Herts. (01582) 460 018. Llanelli (01554) 566 566.

Motherwell (01698) 230 231. Newcastle upon Tyne (0191) 482 8500. Truro (01827) 261 775.

Warrington (01925) 855 440.

1464

1.65 17.9 80 21.0 36 17 19

0.50 23.3 91 25.0 54 21 33

2.65 15.4 77 19.0 34 17 17

0.25 23.7 99 24.0 62 27 35

1.70 16.7 98 17.0 37 18 19

2.50 16.5 89 18.0 35 16 19

0.70 23.7 66 33.0 49 21 28

1.60 16.8 89 18.0 36 17 19

Site: Incubator 2 Job Number: 17629

Natural /

Sieved

Natural

Water

Content %

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1

Liquidity

IndexClass

Client: Shadbolt Consulting Ltd. Page: 2

Determination of Water Content, Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit

and Derivation of Plasticity and Liquidity Index

Borehole / Trial

PitDepth (m) Sample Description / Remarks

Percentage

%

Water

Content %

Sample Passing

425 µm Sieve Liquid Limit

%

Plastic Limit

%

Plasticity

Index %

BH1 D1 Sieved 0.21 CI Brown gravelly CLAY

BH2 D1 Sieved 0.12 CH Brown gravelly CLAY

BH2 D2 Sieved 0.09 CL Brown / Grey sandy gravelly CLAY

TP02 D1 Natural -0.09 CH Brown sandy CLAY

TP04 B2 Natural -0.05 CI Brown / Grey gravelly CLAY

TP05 D1 Sieved 0.10 CL/CI Grey sandy gravelly CLAY

TP06 D1 Sieved 0.44 CI Brown sandy CLAY

TP07 D1 Sieved 0.06 CI Brown sandy CLAY

Method of Preparation: BS EN ISO 17892 : Part 1 : 2014 : Clause 5.1 Water content test preparation

BS 1377 : Part 1 : 2016 : Clause 8.4.3 Preparation of samples for plasticity tests

BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 4.2 Preparation of samples for plastic limit tests

Method of Test: BS EN ISO 17892 : Part 1 : 2014 : Clause 5.2 Water content test execution

BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 4.3 or 4.4 Determination of the liquid limit

BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 5.3 Determination of the plastic limit and plasticity index1464

BS 1377 : Part 2 : 1990 : Clause 8.2 Determination of particle density (Gas jar method)

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1



Determination of Particle Density by Gas Jar Method

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Particle

Density Mg/m3Description / Remarks

TP02 0.40 B1 2.57 Brown sandy gravelly CLAY

TP06 0.30 B1 2.53 Brown sandy gravelly CLAY

Method of Test:

Method of Preparation: BS 1377 : Part 1 : 2016 : Clause 8.3 Initial preparation of disturbed samples

BS 1377 : Part 1 : 2016 : Clause 8.4.4 Preparation of samples for particle density tests

mm

mm

mm

mm

Remarks

Preparation and testing in accordance with BS1377 unless noted below

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1



DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Borehole /

Trial PitDepth (m) Sample Testing Type Description

TP01 0.30 B1 Wet Sieve Brown sandy CLAY

Sieving SedimentationDry Mass of sample, g 863

Particle Size

mm% Passing

Particle Size

mm% Passing

Sample Proportions % dry mass

Very coarse 0

Gravel 5

Sand 33

Fines <0.063mm 63

20 100 Grading Analysis

14 98 D100 20

10 98 D60

6.3 97 D30

5 97 D10

3.35 97 Uniformity Coefficient

2 96 Curvature Coefficient

1.18 91

0.6 84

0.425 80

0.3 75

0.212 70

0.15 66

0.063 63

Method of Preparation: BS 1377:Part 1:1990, clause 7 3 Initial preparation

BS 1377:Part 1:1990, clause 7.4.5 Preparation of particle size tests

Method of Test: BS1377:Part 2:1990, clause 9.2 Determination of particle size distribution by wet sieving method

1464

÷÷

ø

ö

çç

è

æ

1m

m

SILT

Fine Medium Coarse

SAND

Fine Medium Coarse

GRAVEL

Fine Medium CoarseCLAY COBBLES BOULDERS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Perc

enta

ge P

assin

g %

Particle Size mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

Remarks


Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /


TP02 0.40 B1 Wet Sieve Brown sandy gravelly CLAY


Particle Size

mm% Passing

Particle Size

mm% Passing


Very coarse 0

Gravel 8

Sand 20

Fines <0.063mm 72

28 100


14 95 D100 28

10 95 D60

6.3 94 D30

5 94 D10



1.18 90

0.6 88

0.425 86

0.3 82

0.212 77

0.15 74

0.063 72




1464

÷÷

ø

ö

çç

è

æ

1m

m

SILT

Fine Medium Coarse

SAND

Fine Medium Coarse

GRAVEL


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Perc

enta

ge P

assin

g %

Particle Size mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

Remarks


Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /


TP04 0.50 B1 Wet Sieve Brown sandy CLAY


Particle Size

mm% Passing

Particle Size

mm% Passing


Very coarse 0

Gravel 2

Sand 23

Fines <0.063mm 76

Grading Analysis

14 100 D100 14

10 100 D60

6.3 100 D30

5 99 D10



1.18 97

0.6 94

0.425 92

0.3 87

0.212 83

0.15 79

0.063 76




1464

÷÷

ø

ö

çç

è

æ

1m

m

SILT

Fine Medium Coarse

SAND

Fine Medium Coarse

GRAVEL


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Perc

enta

ge P

assin

g %

Particle Size mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

Remarks


Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /


TP04 1.70 B2 Wet Sieve Brown / Grey gravelly CLAY


Particle Size

mm% Passing

Particle Size

mm% Passing


Very coarse 0

Gravel 10

Sand 13

37.5 100 Fines <0.063mm 77

28 97


14 95 D100 37.5

10 94 D60

6.3 93 D30

5 92 D10



1.18 89

0.6 87

0.425 87

0.3 85

0.212 82

0.15 79

0.063 77




1464

÷÷

ø

ö

çç

è

æ

1m

m

SILT

Fine Medium Coarse

SAND

Fine Medium Coarse

GRAVEL


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Perc

enta

ge P

assin

g %

Particle Size mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

Remarks


Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /




Particle Size

mm% Passing

Particle Size

mm% Passing


Very coarse 0

Gravel 13

Sand 30

Fines <0.063mm 58


14 97 D100 20

10 96 D60 0.148

6.3 92 D30

5 90 D10



1.18 85

0.6 80

0.425 77

0.3 71

0.212 64

0.15 60

0.063 58




1464

÷÷

ø

ö

çç

è

æ

1m

m

SILT

Fine Medium Coarse

SAND

Fine Medium Coarse

GRAVEL


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Perc

enta

ge P

assin

g %

Particle Size mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

Remarks


Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /




Particle Size

mm% Passing

Particle Size

mm% Passing


Very coarse 0

Gravel 4

Sand 30

Fines <0.063mm 66

28 100


14 98 D100 28

10 98 D60

6.3 98 D30

5 98 D10



1.18 92

0.6 84

0.425 81

0.3 77

0.212 72

0.15 69

0.063 66




1464

÷÷

ø

ö

çç

è

æ

1m

m

SILT

Fine Medium Coarse

SAND

Fine Medium Coarse

GRAVEL


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Perc

enta

ge P

assin

g %

Particle Size mm

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1



DETERMINATION OF DRY DENSITY/MOISTURE CONTENT RELATIONSHIP

Borehole /

Trial PitDepth (m) Sample Description

TP02 0.4 B1 Brown sandy gravelly CLAY

Percentage Retained 37.5mm 0 %

Percentage Retained 20.0mm 2 % Samples Used Single sample tested

Grading Zone 2 Particle Density 2.57 Mg/m³Measured using

gas jar

Mould Type 1 LITRE Method of compaction Compaction using 2.5kg rammer

Maximum Dry Density 1.72 Mg/m³ Optimum Moisture Content 16 %

Method of Preparation: BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.6 Preparation of samples for compaction related test

BS 1377:PART 4:1990:3.2 Preparation of samples for compaction tests

Preparation Details: -2146826273

Method of Test: BS1377:Part 4:1990, clause 3.3, 2.5kg rammer

BS1377:Part 2:1990:8.2 Determination of Particle Density (Gas Jar method) 1464

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

Dry

Density, M

g/m

3

Moisture Content, %

0 % Air Voids

5 % Air Voids

10 % Air Voids

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1



DETERMINATION OF DRY DENSITY/MOISTURE CONTENT RELATIONSHIP

Borehole /


TP06 0.3 B1 Brown sandy gravelly CLAY

Percentage Retained 37.5mm 0 %

Percentage Retained 20.0mm 0 % Samples Used Single sample tested

Grading Zone 1 Particle Density 2.53 Mg/m³Measured using

gas jar

Mould Type 1 LITRE Method of compaction Compaction using 2.5kg rammer

Maximum Dry Density 1.65 Mg/m³ Optimum Moisture Content 19 %

Method of Preparation: BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.6 Preparation of samples for compaction related test

BS 1377:PART 4:1990:3.2 Preparation of samples for compaction tests

Preparation Details: -2146826273

Method of Test: BS1377:Part 4:1990, clause 3.3, 2.5kg rammer

BS1377:Part 2:1990:8.2 Determination of Particle Density (Gas Jar method) 1464

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Dry

Density, M

g/m

3

Moisture Content, %

0 % Air Voids

5 % Air Voids

10 % Air Voids

Specimen Preparation

Condition Soaking details

Details Period of soaking days

Time to surface days

Amount of swell recorded mm

Initial Specimen details Bulk density Mg/m3 Dry density after soaking Mg/m3

Dry density Mg/m3

Moisture content % Surcharge applied kg

kPa

RESULTS

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1



Determination of California Bearing Ratio ( CBR )

Borehole /

Trial PitDepth (m) Sample

% Passing

20mm SieveDescription

TP01 0.30 B1 100% Brown sandy CLAY

REMOULDED Not soaked

Recompacted with specified standard effort using 2.5kg

rammer

1.87

1.48

26.2 4.2

3

Curve

correction

applied

CBR Values, % Moisture

Content2.5mm 5mm Highest Average

%

TOP No 6.5 5.5 6.5

6.0

25.5Approved

Paul CathcartBASE No 5.5 4.6 5.5 25.9

Method of Preparation: BS1377 : Part 4 : 1990, clause 7. Recompacted with specified standard effort using 2.5kg rammer

Method of Test: BS1377 : Part 4 : 1990, clause 7. Determination of California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

Remarks:

1464

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

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







Dry density Mg/m3


kPa

RESULTS

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /


% Passing


TP04 0.50 B1 100% Brown sandy CLAY



rammer

1.87

1.45

28.8 4.6

3

Curve

correction

applied



%

TOP No 7.1 5.9 7.1 28.8Approved




Remarks:

1464

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

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







Dry density Mg/m3


kPa

RESULTS

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /


% Passing


TP05 0.30 B1 97.60% Brown sandy gravelly CLAY



rammer

1.89

1.50

26.2 4.2

3

Curve

correction

applied



%

TOP No 8.6 6.6 8.6

8.7

26.0Approved




Remarks:

1464

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

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







Dry density Mg/m3


kPa

RESULTS

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /


% Passing


TP07 0.45 B1 97.50% Brown sandy gravelly CLAY



rammer

1.95

1.54

26.3 4.2

3

Curve

correction

applied



%

TOP No 6.9 5.6 6.9 25.5Approved




Remarks:

1464

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fo

rce A

pplie

d k

N

Penetration mm


Top data

Top values

Top correction

Base data

Base values

Base Correction

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1



Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test without measurement of pore pressure -

single specimen (Definitive Method)

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample Description

Orientation

BH2 2.20 U1 Brown gravelly CLAY

Original Length (mm) 428.07

Depth from Top (mm) 3.90

Condition Undisturbed

Vertical

Length (mm) 208.37

Diameter (mm) 102.24

Moisture Content (%) 16.50

Initia

l S

am

ple

Test Number 1

Bulk Density (Mg/m3) 2.21

Dry Density (Mg/m3) 1.90

Membrane Thickness (mm) 0.27

Membrane Type Latex

Rate of Strain (%/min) 1.9

Te

st

Results

Cell Pressure (kPa) 44

Axial Strain (%) 15

Membrane Corr. (kPa) 0.8

Deviator Stress, ( σ1 - σ3 )f

(kPa)461

Undrained Shear Strength,

cu = ½( σ1 - σ3 )f (kPa)230

Mode of Failure Compound

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.

Method of Preparation: BS 1377:PT1:1990:8.3 Preparation of undisturbed samples for testing or

BS 1377:PT1:1990:7.7.5.2 Preparation of disturbed samples for testing

Method of Test: BS 1377:PT2:1990:7.2 Determination of density by linear measurement.

BS 1377:PT7:1990:8.4 Determination of undrained shear strength in triaxial compression without

measurement of pore pressure (Definitive method) 1464

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 5 10 15 20

Corr

ecte

d D

evia

tor

Str

ess k

Pa

Axial Strain %

Deviator Stress v Axial Strain

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 200 400 600

Shear

Str

ength

kP

a

Normal Stresses kPa

Mohr Circles

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1



Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test without measurement of pore pressure -

single specimen (Definitive Method)

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample Description

Orientation

BH2 12.50 U4 Grey CLAY

Original Length (mm) 396.72

Depth from Top (mm) 36.07

Condition Undisturbed

Vertical

Length (mm) 208.47

Diameter (mm) 102.28

Moisture Content (%) 17.90

Initia

l S

am

ple

Test Number 1

Bulk Density (Mg/m3) 2.18

Dry Density (Mg/m3) 1.85

Membrane Thickness (mm) 0.29

Membrane Type Latex

Rate of Strain (%/min) 1.9

Te

st

Results

Cell Pressure (kPa) 250

Axial Strain (%) 14

Membrane Corr. (kPa) 0.83

Deviator Stress, ( σ1 - σ3 )f

(kPa)955

Undrained Shear Strength,

cu = ½( σ1 - σ3 )f (kPa)478

Mode of Failure Compound

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.

Method of Preparation: BS 1377:PT1:1990:8.3 Preparation of undisturbed samples for testing or

BS 1377:PT1:1990:7.7.5.2 Preparation of disturbed samples for testing

Method of Test: BS 1377:PT2:1990:7.2 Determination of density by linear measurement.

BS 1377:PT7:1990:8.4 Determination of undrained shear strength in triaxial compression without

measurement of pore pressure (Definitive method) 1464

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 5 10 15 20

Corr

ecte

d D

evia

tor

Str

ess k

Pa

Axial Strain %

Deviator Stress v Axial Strain

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 500 1000 1500

Shear

Str

ength

kP

a

Normal Stresses kPa

Mohr Circles

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1



DETERMINATION OF THE ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES

Borehole /


BH1 3.2 U2 Brown gravelly CLAY

Initia

l S

pecim

en Length of Sample (mm) 347.21 Diameter (mm) 75.02

Depth from top of specimen (mm) 81.80 Particle density (Mg/m³) 2.65 assumed

Condition of Sample: Undisturbed Swelling Pressure (kPa) 40

Orientation: Vertical Lab Temp. (°C) 22

Applied

Pressure

kPa

Mv

m2/MN

Cv

(t50, log)

m2/yr

Cv

(t90, root)

m2/yr

Csec Voids ratio Initial Final

Height (mm) 19.06 18.0240.0 - - - - 0.447

64 0.018 1.4 17 0.00042 0.44516.3 15.8

128 0.12 3 14 0.00071 0.435

0.098 2.6 7.3 0.0011 0.417

Water Content (%)

Bulk density (Mg/m³) 2.13 2.24512 0.089 2.3 9.2 0.0021 0.384

256

1.83 1.941,024 0.022

Dry density (Mg/m³)4.1 3.4 0.0027 0.369

Voids Ratio 0.447 0.369

Degree of Saturation (%) 97 114

Method of Preparation: BS 1377:Part 5:1990, clause 3.3 Preparation of specimen

BS 1377:Part 5:1990, clause 3.4 Preparation and assembly of apparatus

Method of Test: BS 1377:Part 5:1990, clause 4.3 Measurement of swelling presure

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

1464

eo

0.350

0.360

0.370

0.380

0.390

0.400

0.410

0.420

0.430

0.440

0.450

Void

s R

atio

0.001.002.003.004.005.00

1 10 100 1000 10000

Cv m

2/y

r(lo

g t

ime)

Applied Pressure kPa

Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /


BH1 5.2 U3 Grey gravelly CLAY

Initia

l S

pecim



Condition of Sample: Undisturbed Swelling Pressure (kPa)


Applied

Pressure

kPa

Mv

m2/MN

Cv

(t50, log)

m2/yr

Cv

(t90, root)

m2/yr


Height (mm) 19.28 18.400.0 - - - - 0.441

52 0.025 0.22 33 0.00045 0.44015.5 15.6

104 0.11 3.5 15 0.0007 0.437

0.11 3 13 0.00094 0.421

Water Content (%)

Bulk density (Mg/m³) 2.12 2.23416 0.066 3.4 9.1 0.0018 0.401

208

1.84 1.93832 0.045

Dry density (Mg/m³)1.8 10 0.00087 0.375





Method of Test: BS 1377:Part 5:1990, clause 3.5 Determination of the one-dimensional consolidation properties

1464

eo

0.350

0.360

0.370

0.380

0.390

0.400

0.410

0.420

0.430

0.440

0.450

Void

s R

atio

0.001.002.003.004.005.00

1 10 100 1000 10000

Cv m

2/y

r(lo

g t

ime)


Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /


BH2 4.2 U3 Grey gravelly CLAY

Initia

l S

pecim





Applied

Pressure

kPa

Mv

m2/MN

Cv

(t50, log)

m2/yr

Cv

(t90, root)

m2/yr


Height (mm) 19.06 17.890.0 - - - - 0.385

84 0.072 4 15 0.00068 0.37715.0 14.4

168 0.11 4.3 16 0.0011 0.364

0.076 5 15 0.0014 0.347

Water Content (%)

Bulk density (Mg/m³) 2.20 2.33672 0.043 3.1 13 0.0015 0.328

336

1.91 2.041,344 0.031

Dry density (Mg/m³)2.9 8.2 0.0019 0.300






1464

eo

0.290

0.300

0.310

0.320

0.330

0.340

0.350

0.360

0.370

0.380

0.390

Void

s R

atio

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.00

1 10 100 1000 10000

Cv m

2/y

r(lo

g t

ime)


Laboratory Test

Report 17629 / 1




Borehole /


BH3 1.2 U1 Brown / Grey gravelly CLAY

Initia

l S

pecim





Applied

Pressure

kPa

Mv

m2/MN

Cv

(t50, log)

m2/yr

Cv

(t90, root)

m2/yr


Height (mm) 19.01 17.970.0 - - - - 0.531

12 0.5 0.47 0.49 0.00017 0.52220.8 19.1

24 0.5 0.61 0.82 0.00062 0.522

0.43 1.5 1.5 0.002 0.497

Water Content (%)

Bulk density (Mg/m³) 2.09 2.1896 0.28 1.2 2.2 0.0021 0.477

48

1.73 1.83192 0.2

Dry density (Mg/m³)2.5 5.6 0.0027 0.448






1464

eo

0.440

0.450

0.460

0.470

0.480

0.490

0.500

0.510

0.520

0.530

0.540

Void

s R

atio

0.001.002.003.004.005.00

1 10 100 1000 10000

Cv m

2/y

r(lo

g t

ime)


Site:

Job Number:

Originating Client:

Test Report - 17629 /1

Page. 22

Incubator 2

17629

Shadbolt Consulting Ltd.

All opinions and interpretations contained within this report are outside of our Scope of

Accreditation.

Date: 20/12/2016




APPENDIX F

GAS AND GROUND WATER MONITORING RESULTS

SHADBOLT ENVIRONMENTAL

`

GROUNDWATER / GAS MONITORING RECORD SHEET

Job No:

Date:

Weather:

Instruments Used:

Monitored by:

Flow Atmospheric Water Base Remarks

CH4 CO2 CH4 CO2 O2 CO H2S Rate Pressure Depth Depth

(% vol) (% vol) (% vol) (% vol) (% vol) PPM PPM (l/hr) (mbar) (m bgl) (m bgl)

Ambient 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1011 - -

BH01 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1011 0.65 4.90 purged to 3.00mbgl

BH02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1011 0.59 4.75 purged to 3.00mbgl

BH03 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1011 0.97 4.78 purged to 3.50mbgl

1 The peak reading is the maximum recorded level during a monitoring event.

2 The steady reading is the level which remained constant after approximately 1 minute.

18 Bewick Road, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear NE8 4DP

Tel: 0191 478 3330 Fax: 0191 478 2545

Email: [email protected]

Site: Incubator 22507

14/12/2016

Notes:

Client: Urban and Civic

8C overcast with sunny intervals

GFM-435 + Dipmeter

T Shepherd

Borehole Peak 1 Steady 2

G:\Projects 2500 - 2599\2507 - Incubator 2, Alconbury\Environmental\2507- INCUBATOR 2 - Gas Monitoring Sheet - Dec 2016 Page 1 of 2

SHADBOLT ENVIRONMENTAL

`

GROUNDWATER / GAS MONITORING RECORD SHEET

Job No:

Date:

Weather:

Instruments Used:

Monitored by:

Flow Atmospheric Water Base Remarks

CH4 CO2 CH4 CO2 O2 CO H2S Rate Pressure Depth Depth

(% vol) (% vol) (% vol) (% vol) (% vol) PPM PPM (l/hr) (mbar) (m bgl) (m bgl)

Ambient 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 - 1018 - - -

BH01 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 1018 0.79 4.90

BH02 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 18.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1018 0.75 4.75

BH03 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1018 1.01 4.78

1 The peak reading is the maximum recorded level during a monitoring event.

2 The steady reading is the level which remained constant after approximately 1 minute.

18 Bewick Road, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear NE8 4DP

Tel: 0191 478 3330 Fax: 0191 478 2545


Borehole Peak 1 Steady 2

Notes:

Client: Urban and CivicCloudy

Site: Incubator 22507

19/12/2016

GFM-435 + Dipmeter

I McLean

G:\Projects 2500 - 2599\2507 - Incubator 2, Alconbury\Environmental\2507- INCUBATOR 2 - Gas Monitoring Sheet - Dec 2016 Page 2 of 2




APPENDIX G

THIRD PARTY INFORMATION

PBA Drawing No. 24213/026/01

Drawing No. 3377‐20‐06a (and accompanying notes)

1023

1041

1025

1047

1027

1029

1030

1032

1034

1049

1040

1042

1038

1036

1021

1020

1019

1018

1048

1046

1044

1055-1060

1017

1080

1006

1015

1013

1010

1000

999 1053

1003

10021008

1001

128125

123

4100

1043

41014102

4103

4104

1934105

205

4106

200201

199

20119

3055

3051

3053

3048

3052

3056

3058

107

106

111

108

3030

3031

3038

3036

3034

3032

165

158

164

93

94

101

100

96

97102 98

79

104

103 110

118

831832

833

834

831

764

791

792

793723

167

64

65

4001

4002

4003

4004

4000

209

TACAN P6

210

4112

4111

4110

4109

4108

4107

196

541

579

534

546

547

513

514

522

552

539

553

52652

4512

525

448

449

527

114113

148

149

519

540

520

521

517

518

528

122

3021

3019

3017

3014

3016

68

761

763

760

768

722

766

767

759

765

POL SITE B

771

762

73

786

787

141

137

132

133

138

140

154

144

139

749

7172

3

14

18

4

811

28

21

6

3236

29

30

13

15

16

56

57

52

44

61

43

4246

62

4523

51

3435

25

19

17

47

31

33

49

48

69

50

70

66

60

54

753

94924

715

3003

3001

30053004

3006

3011

3013

3008

8687

91

8590

88

83

P.O.L 8

P.O.L 9

EASTransformerCompound

IntakeSub-Stn

P.O.L 11

P.O.L 10

PP

B

20167

A

B

1

523

726

550

126

215

99

840

POL SITE D

POL SITE E

POL SITE G

1011

POL

751

POL

E

KK

LL

Y

G

TW 5S

12 RW

NW - SE INSTRUMENT RUNWAY

POL SITE C

1082

10

252254

250

256

251

734

705

705

704

704

20025

703

703 702

702

ALCONBURY AIRFIELD

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EXO

IL

EX O I LEX OI L

EXOIL

EXOI L

EXO IL

EXOI L

EXO IL

EXO

I LEX

OIL

EXO

ILEX

OI L

EXO

ILEX

OI L

EXO

IL

EXOI L EX O I L EX OI L EX O I L EX O I L

EX O I L

EXOI L

EXOI L

EX

OI L

EX O I L EX OI L

EX

OIL

EXOI L

EXOI L

EXOI L

EXO

I LEX OIL

EXOI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX O IL

EX OIL

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX

O I LEX O I L

EXO

IL

EXO

IL

EXO

IL

EXO

IL

EXO

I L

EXO

I L

EXO

I L

EXO

I L

EXO

I L

EXOI L

EXOI L

EXOI L

EXOI L

EXOI L

EXO

IL

EXO

IL

EXO

IL

EXO

IL

EXO

IL

EXOILEXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOI

L

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EX OI L

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOILEX

OIL

EXO IL

EXOIL

EXO

ILEX

O IL

EXOIL

EXOILEX

OIL

EX

OIL

EXO

IL

EX O I L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EXOIL

EXOIL

EX O I L

EX OI L

EXOI L

EX O I L EX OIL

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX O IL

EX OI L

EX OI L EX O I L EX O ILEX OI L

EX OI LEX O I L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI LEX O I L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EXO

IL

EX OI LEXO

IL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOI

L

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EX OI L

EXO

I L

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EX OI L

EXO

I L

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOI L

EXOIL

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX O I L

EX OIL

EX OIL

E X O I L EXOIL

EXOI L

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOIL

EXOI L

EXO I L

EXO I L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OIL

EX O I L

EXOIL

EXO IL

EX O I LEX OI L

EX OI LEX O I L

EX OIL

EXO

I L

EX

O I L

EX OI LEX O I L

EXOIL

EXO

IL

EX O ILEX

OIL

EXOIL

EX

O I L

EX OIL

EXO

IL

EXO

IL

EX OI L

EX

O I L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EX O I L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EXO

ILEX

OIL

EX OI L

EX OIL

EXOI L E X OI L

EXOI L

EXO

I L

EXOI L

EXOIL

EX

O I L

E

XOILEXOIL

EXOIL

EXOILEXOIL

EXOIL

EXOI L

EX O I L

EX OI L

EX O IL

EX OI L

EXO

IL

EX O I L

EX

OIL

EXO

I L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EX OI L

EXO

IL

EX O I L

EX

OI L

EXOI L

EXOI L

EX OIL

EXO

ILEXOIL

EXOIL

EX

OILEX

OI

LEXOIL

EX

O I L

EX

O I L

EXO IL

EXO I L

EX OI L

EX O

IL

KEY

AIRFIELD AREA SITE BOUNDARY

IDENTIFIED EXTENT OFCONTAMINATION FROM PREVIOUSTARGETED GROUND INVESTIGATION

JP8 FUEL PIPELINE NETWORKEX O I L

RW

30

NORTHAMPTONTel: 01604 878300 Fax: 01604 878333

Checked by

Drawing Issue Status

Date of 1st Issue

Drawing Number

Drawn by

Revision

DrawnMark Revision ChkdDate

File Location: j:\24213 alconbury\geo\04 cad & graphics\cad\dwgs\geo dwgs\24213-026-001.dwg

UTILITIES NOTE: The position of any existing public or private sewers, utility services, plant or apparatus shown on thisdrawing is believed to be correct, but no warranty to this is expressed or implied. Other such plant or apparatus may alsobe present but not shown. The Contractor is therefore advised to undertake his own investigation where the presence ofany existing sewers, services, plant or apparatus may affect his operations.

SCALING NOTE: Do not scale from this drawing. If in doubt, ask.

Reproduced from/based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey ®on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.Licence No. Year of Publication Owner/Purchaser of Mapping

user name: david maggs

Offices throughout the UK,continental Europe, Africa and Asia

© Peter Brett Associates LLP

www.peterbrett.com

ALCONBURY, CAMBRIDGESHIREEXTENT OF IDENTIFIED CONTAMINATIONFROM PREVIOUS TARGETED INTRUSIVEINVESTIGATIONS - AIRFIELD AREA

Client

URBAN & CIVIC

I N F O R M A T I O N

24213/026/001 -

17.08.2011

1:10,000

DJM

DBi

PBA LLP100021575 2006

A1 Scale

See I

nset

for E

aster

n Sec

tion o

f Site

InsetEastern Section of Site

Notes:

1. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with the PBA GroundStability and Phase 1 Contamination Land Desk Study report,dated August 2011.

Shadbolt Environmental

18 Bewick Road

Gateshead

Tyne & Wear

NE8 4DP

Tel: (0191) 478 3330


http://www.shadboltgroup.net

Documents

Incubator 2 Alconbury Weald - Microsoft · Incubator 2 Alconbury Weald Ground Investigation Interpretive Report January 2017 Type Ground Investigation Interpretative Report Client