Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MRS DEBORAH MARSHALL
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AT 5B HOPE TERRACE
EDINBURGH
REPORT ON GROUND INVESTIGATION
Client:
Mrs Deborah Marshall CONTRACT NO: 25085
Consulting Engineers:
Create Engineering LLP Date of Issue: 12 June 2019
15 Old Fishmarket Close Report Issue: Final
Edinburgh Report Type: Interpretative
EH1 1RW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
2. LOCATION OF SITE ............................................................................................... 2
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF SITE .................................................................. 2
3.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................. 2
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SITE............................................................................................ 2
3.3 GEOLOGY OF SITE ................................................................................................. 3
4. GROUND INVESTIGATION .................................................................................... 3
4.1 SITE WORK ........................................................................................................... 3
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................................... 4
5. GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED ............................................................. 5
6. COMMENTS ON THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .................................................... 6
7. GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................... 8
7.1 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 8
7.2 SAMPLE SELECTION ............................................................................................ 10
7.3 END USER RISK ANALYSES .................................................................................. 11
7.4 CHEMICAL ATTACK ON BURIED CONCRETE ........................................................... 16
7.5 GROUND GAS ..................................................................................................... 17
7.6 RADON ............................................................................................................... 18
7.7 CONSTRUCTION WORKERS .................................................................................. 18
7.8 GROUND-WATER ................................................................................................. 19
7.9 GEOCHEMICAL CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 22
References Total No of Text Pages: 24
Figure
APPENDIX A: PLANS
Location Plan A1
Site Plan A2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont’d
Figure
APPENDIX B: SITE WORK
Notes on Field Procedures
Key to Borehole and Trial Pit Records
Borehole Records (Nos. BH01, BH01A, BH01B, BH02 and BH03) B1 to B5
Trial Pit Records (Nos. TP01 to TP03) B6 to B8
SPT Hammer Energy Test Report TER83 B9
Results of Gas and Water Level Monitoring in Standpipes B10
APPENDIX C: GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
Notes on Laboratory Procedures
Laboratory Test Results C1 to C12
APPENDIX D: GEOCHEMICAL LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory Test Results D1 to D9
APPENDIX E: ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 1 of 24
MRS DEBORAH MARSHALL
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AT 5B HOPE TERRACE
EDINBURGH
INTERPRETATIVE REPORT ON GROUND INVESTIGATION
Contract No.25085 12 June 2019
1. INTRODUCTION
It is proposed build a single residential property at 5B Hope Terrace in Edinburgh.
On the instructions of Create Engineering LLP, Consulting Engineers to Mrs
Deborah Marshall, and to their specification, an investigation was made to provide
information on the ground conditions for foundation design and construction and in
relation to any geochemical contamination of the site. These purposes were the
significant factors in determining the scope of the investigation. No responsibility
can be taken for specific design proposals not detailed or advised at the time of
compilation of this report.
The comments given in this report and any opinions expressed therein are based
on the ground conditions encountered during the site work, on the results of any in-
situ or laboratory testing and any professional third party input. Whilst every effort
has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data supplied and any analysis or
interpretation derived from it, the possibility exists of variations in the ground,
ground-water and ground gas conditions around, below and between the extent of
the exploratory positions. No liability can be accepted for any such variations in
these conditions. Furthermore, any recommendations are specific to the
development as detailed in this Report and no liability will be accepted should they
be used for the design of alternative schemes, by third parties, without prior
consultation with Raeburn Drilling & Geotechnical Limited.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 2 of 24
The recommendations of this report are based on an interpretation of legislation,
Codes of Practice, guidance notes and current research opinion. Revision of such,
particularly in environmental matters, is developing rapidly. Although this report
endeavours to anticipate any such changes that may arise within the foreseeable
future, changes are liable to occur which may cause the report inadequately to
address the position at that time. Further, the situation may be subject to varied
interpretation by statutory authorities and others, for which Raeburn Drilling &
Geotechnical Limited /Terra Tek Limited cannot be responsible.
2. LOCATION OF SITE
The site lies in a residential area, on the northern side of Hope Terrace
(approximate National Grid reference NT252718). The existing house is located to
the north and the site comprises the remaining grounds facing Hope Terrace. More
residential properties are present to the east and west.
A plan showing the approximate location of the site is given in Figure A1 in
Appendix A.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF SITE
3.1 General
A desk study of the former land use of the site was outside the scope of this report.
3.2 Description of Site
As mentioned above, the site comprises the grounds of the existing No. 5 Hope
Terrace and lies between Hope Terrace on the south and the house on the north.
The ground surface rises gently to the north. Many mature trees are present.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 3 of 24
3.3 Geology of Site
The 1:10560 scale geological map for the area (Ref. 1) indicates the site to be
underlain with cohesive glacial till (i.e. boulder clay), overlying sedimentary bedrock
belonging to the Upper Old Red Sandstone. The map shows rock outcrops in the
area, so that the drift may be thin.
4. GROUND INVESTIGATION
4.1 Site Work
The site work was carried out on the 14th and 15th January 2019, in accordance with
the guidelines laid down in EN1997-2:2007 (Ref. 2), BS5930 (Ref. 3), BS10175
(Ref. 4) and in-house procedures. The results of the site work are given in
Appendix B.
Three boreholes (Nos. BH01 to BH03) were scheduled to be sunk by continuous
percussion boring. However, a rock obstruction was encountered at a depth of
1.40m at position BH01 and two further attempts (denoted BH01A and BH01B)
were made to advance this borehole. Both found similar obstructions. In addition,
three trial pits (Nos. TP01 to TP03) were excavated by hand. The borehole and
trial pit positions shown on the site plan (Fig. A2 in Appendix A). The depths of the
boreholes and trial pits, the descriptions of the strata encountered and comments
on the ground-water conditions are given in the borehole and trial pit records (Figs.
B1 to B8). The positions and depths of the boreholes and trial pits were determined
by the Consulting Engineers and were set out on site by Raeburn Drilling &
Geotechnical Limited, in conjunction with the Consulting Engineers.
Disturbed and 100mm diameter tube samples were taken at the depths shown on
the borehole and trial pit records, and were despatched to the depot at Hamilton for
examination, storage and testing. Each sample was uniquely identified and a
transmittal note system used throughout sample transfer. Geochemical soil
samples were taken directly into tubs or vials, filling the container completely such
that no voids were present. Geochemical samples were stored on site and
transported to the laboratory in coolboxes.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 4 of 24
Standard (split-barrel sampler) penetration tests (Ref. 5) were made to assess the
relative density or the hardness of the materials encountered. The values of
penetration resistance, given in the borehole records, are not corrected for energy
ratio, or in any other way. The references to relative density under the heading
"Description of Strata" in the borehole records are based on the field values of
penetration resistance uncorrected for the effects of overburden pressure. The
Hammer Energy Test Report is presented as Figure B9.
A nominal 50mm diameter perforated standpipe was installed in each of boreholes
BH01B, BH02 and BH03, details of which are given on the relevant records. Tests
were subsequently carried out to determine the methane, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, hydrogen sulphide and oxygen contents of the gas in the standpipes. In
addition, water level readings were scheduled, but the instruments remained dry
over the monitoring period. The results of the monitoring are given in Figure B10.
4.2 Laboratory Testing
A test schedule was submitted to and approved by the Consulting Engineers. The
laboratory testing was carried out by Terra Tek Limited, another company within the
Raeburn Group. Terra Tek Limited holds UKAS Accreditation for the scheduled
tests.
The geotechnical laboratory testing was carried out in accordance with BS1377
(Ref. 6). The results are given in Appendix C and comprised the following:
Description of Test Figures
Moisture Content Tests C1
Liquid and Plastic Limit Tests C1 to C6
Particle Size Distribution Tests C7 to C10
One-dimensional Consolidation Test C11
Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test C12
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 5 of 24
In addition, chemical contamination testing was carried out on four samples of
made ground/soil. The results are given in Appendix D and comprised the
following:
Description of Test Figures
Metals and Metalloids, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Sulphate and pH
D1
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) (USEPA 16) D2
TPHCWG and VPHCWG - Aliphatic/Aromatic Split D3 & D4
Asbestos Screen / Identification D5
NRA Leachate – Metals, Ammonia and pH D6
NRA Leachate - Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (USEPA 16) D7
NRA Leachate - TPHCWG Aliphatic/Aromatic Split D8
Finally, the pH values of an additional two soil samples were determined and the
results are given in Figure D9.
5. GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED
Beneath 0.30m to 0.50m of topsoil or made ground, the boreholes and trial pits
encountered glacial very sandy, clayey or very clayey, gravel or more occasionally
very gravelly very clayey sand. The trial pits were completed in the granular soil at
depths of 0.75m or 1.00m. Boreholes BH01, BH01A, BH01B, BH02 and BH03
encountered rock obstructions at depths ranging from 1.40m to 2.75m.
Made ground was found in only trial pit TP03, in which the material comprised
clayey sand and gravel.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 6 of 24
It is worth noting that the granular glacial soil was visually assessed as being fine
grained (i.e. gravelly sandy clay), but the test results subsequently have shown the
material to be granular, albeit generally very clayey. In this regard, it should be
recognised that with glacial soils of this type, comparatively small changes in the
clay, sand and gravel fractions can result in the material passing from cohesive to
granular, and vice-versa, when described strictly in accordance with BS5930 (Ref.
3).
On this basis, the results of the penetration tests indicate that the granular soil is
medium dense, dense and possibly even very dense.
Rock obstructions were found in the base of all five boreholes, typically at depths of
1.40m, 1.90m and 2.75m at positions BH01, BH02 and BH03, respectively.
However, penetration of 0.10m or less were obtained, so it was difficult to be
certain whether the rock was bedrock, rather than cobbles or boulders in the drift.
However, the geological map suggests that bedrock in the area could lie at shallow
depth, so that the former is more likely, although by no means certain.
Ground-water was not encountered in the boreholes or trial pits. Furthermore, the
standpipes in boreholes BH01B, BH02 and BH03 remained dry over the monitoring
period, with the tips at depths of 1.45m, 2.00m and 2.75m, respectively.
6. COMMENTS ON THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The foundation loadings should be taken below the layer of topsoil and made
ground. To allow for climatic conditions, pad or strip foundations in granular soils
should be placed at a minimum depth of 0.6m below final ground level. To make
good any disturbance caused during excavation, prepared formations in the natural
granular soils should be compacted prior to construction. Tamping with the back of
an excavator bucket should suffice in the case of the foundation excavations.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 7 of 24
As discussed in section 5, the grading analyses and index property tests have
shown the glacial soil to be granular, rather than fine grained as was visually
assessed. At its poorest, the granular soil was medium dense. There was one low
result from a triaxial compression test, but the consistency index on the clay matrix
was high, suggesting that the poor shear strength was due to sample disturbance.
Obviously, medium dense covers a range of strengths and it is therefore advised
that the prepared exposed formations are examined and any material with a shear
strength of less than 60kPa is removed and replaced with lean-mix concrete.
On this basis, pad and strip foundations constructed as discussed above, may be
designed to an allowable net bearing pressure of 120kPa. This value should
ensure the customary acceptable factor of safety of 3 against shear failure of the
ground and with its adoption the maximum total settlement associated with
foundations up to 1.2m wide should be less than 25mm.
Settlements in the granular soil will take place largely as the loadings are applied.
Differential movements will be dependent on variations in the foundation widths and
loading intensities and on the stiffness of the structure, as well as the ground
conditions.
Given the possible presence of bedrock at shallow depth, it would be advisable to
avoid stepped foundations at this site, whereby the glacial soil and comparatively
incompressible bedrock are present on either side. The layer of glacial soil should
be allowed to thin and thicken gradually, thereby minimising the worst possible
effects of differential movement. .
A lightly reinforced concrete ground bearing floor slab should be satisfactory,
provided the made ground and topsoil are removed and the slab is cast on a
blanket of well-compacted imported granular fill. The exposed formation in the
natural soil should be compacted.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 8 of 24
Support will be required to the walls of vertically sided foundation or service
excavations that extend below a depth of about 1.2m. Care should be taken to
ensure that adequate support is provided where vibratory compaction plant is used
in the base of an excavation or where excavations are made adjacent to existing
footings. However, excavations that are to be backfilled with lean-mix concrete,
and where man-access is not required, may stand unsupported for a sufficient
period to allow placement, provided the concrete is cast as soon as possible after
making the opening.
The evidence from the boreholes, trial pits and standpipes indicates that ground-
water should not be encountered in the foundation excavations. However, surface
water may still collect. To prevent the deterioration of prepared formations in the
presence of surface water, it would be advisable to place a blinding layer of
concrete or the foundation concrete itself, as soon as possible after excavating to
formation level.
7. GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Methodology
For the purposes of assessing the geochemical condition of a site, it is generally
accepted that a risk-based approach should be adopted. A Conceptual Site Model
should be built up from the results of a desk study. The model should be tested by
assessing the risk that a hazard is connected to a potential receptor by a pathway.
The site comprises the grounds of the existing dwelling at 5 Hope Terrace, which
lies to the north. Hope terrace lies to the south, with more residential properties to
the east and west. A female child will be the most sensitive receptor.
Once pollutant linkage has been demonstrated, the risk to each receptor should be
assessed. A tiered approach is advocated in most instances, whereby generic
guidelines are compared against an appropriate data set. If concentrations in
excess of these generic guidelines are found, a further, more detailed, but less
conservative, site specific risk assessment should be carried out.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 9 of 24
The risk to human health from long-term exposure to soils can be determined using
various relevant models. In this instance, the Contaminated Land Exposure
Assessment (CLEA) model has been used. Prior to using this, and indeed any
model, it is necessary to determine whether it is appropriate to the given situation.
The model uses defined land use types, which fall into the following categories:
residential, allotments and commercial/industrial. Residential is the most stringent,
but will be appropriate to this site. For the assessment of human health, the
procedures set out in CLR 11 (Ref. 7) and the Updated Technical Background to
the CLEA Model (Ref. 8) have been followed.
Screening has been carried out against Suitable For Use Levels (S4ULs) published
by the Land Quality Management (LQM) Group (Ref. 9). The most up to date
S4ULs have been used for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, selenium, copper,
mercury, nickel, zinc, petroleum hydrocarbons and polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
The exception to this is lead, for which a Site Specific Assessment Criteria (SSAC)
has been calculated using the CLEA Software Version 1.071 published by the
Environment Agency (Ref. 10).
The updated technical background to the CLEA model assumes that the data set is
representative of an “averaging area”. The CLEA model indicates that the top
1.00m of soil is critical for all pathways to humans, except for inhalation of volatile
contaminants. In this connection, the laboratory testing has been focussed on the
top 1.00m of soil. The entire site has generally been taken as the “averaging area”
as the site is comparatively small and the material was found to be consistent
across the whole site.
Sulphate and acid attack on buried concrete should be evaluated with reference to
BRE Special Digest 1 (Ref. 11).
The generation of methane, hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide gases is often associated with made ground, mine workings, residual
petroleum hydrocarbons or organic deposits. The risk associated with ground gas
should be assessed in accordance with CIRIA Report C665 (Ref. 12). In addition,
EH40/05 (Ref. 13) sets exposure limits for construction workers in excavations.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 10 of 24
In assessing the risk to ground and surface waters, the procedures set out in the
SEPA Position Statement (Ref. 14) and supporting guidance (Ref. 15) have been
followed.
7.2 Sample Selection
A residential development is planned for the site. Residential has the most
stringent guidelines with respect to ground contamination and moreover, it has
been assumed that there could be gardens and that vegetables will be grown for
home consumption. As such, end users are at risk mainly through ingestion and
inhalation of indoor and outdoor soil and dust.
Given the known history of the site, there were no targeted sources of
contamination as it was anticipated that the ground conditions would be consistent
across the site. This has proven to be the case. A non-targeted sampling strategy
of boreholes and trial pits was adopted. Three standpipes were installed within the
boreholes to enable any ground gases to be monitored and ground-water to be
monitored and sampled. In the event, the standpipes remained dry and gound-
water samples were not recovered.
Following site works, samples were selected for testing to assess the risks posed to
humans (end users and construction workers) and the proposed structures. Given
the consistency of the material across the site, a sample was taken from a depth of
0.30m or 0.50m, at four positions across the site. The following testing regime was
adopted for each of these four samples:
Metals, pH, SO4, Speciated PAH, TPHCWG, VPHCWG.and BTEX
The four samples were screened for asbestos.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 11 of 24
7.3 End User Risk Analyses
Following the procedures outlined in section 7.1, the last stage of the assessment
of data would be carried out based on the principles outlined in the CIEH/CL:AIRE
publication: Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical
Concentration, May 2008 (Ref. 16). The ESI Statistics Calculator (Ref. 17) was
designed to carry out the calculations outlined in the above document and has been
used in the following risk assessments.
The above documents consider sites to be contaminated until proven otherwise. In
essence, the objective is to decide whether the available evidence supports a
particular hypothesis, in this case, the Null Hypothesis where µ ≥ Cc (i.e. is the true
mean concentration, µ, equal to or greater than the Critical Concentration, Cc?). An
assessment is then undertaken to establish whether, on the basis of the available
data, the strength of the evidence favours the Null Hypothesis, or was an
Alternative Hypothesis (in this case µ < Cc) more likely to be true.
The calculator allows values to be set for concentrations which fall below the limit of
detection (non-detects), the values of which can significantly alter the data. In this
case, a value of half the limit of detection has been assumed. An upper confidence
level (UCL) was calculated and a required evidence level set, in this case 95%
which is common in the planning scenario, and the data was assessed for outliers.
Outliers are only removed from the data set if they are obviously the result of an
error which can be identified and explained, or indicate that there is more than one
soil population.
Two different assessment methods have been applied, depending on whether the
data is normally distributed (the one-sample t test) or non-normally distributed
(Chebychev Theorem).
Heavy Metals and Metalloids
Four samples were analysed for a heavy metals and metalloid suite comprising
arsenic, cadmium, total and hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, copper,
nickel, zinc, beryllium, vanadium, and boron.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 12 of 24
The Land Quality Management S4ULs for a residential with home grown
vegetables land use have been used for the following assessment and an SSAC for
lead has been calculated as discussed in sub-section 7.1.
The S4ULs used to assess heavy metals were derived for a pH range between 6
and 8. Outside this range, the S4ULs will be more or less conservative. The pHs
at this site ranged from ,5.6 to 6.5, with an average of 6.1, so that the S4ULs are
appropriate, although only marginally so.
The results for heavy metals for the whole site are summarised in the table below:
Determinant Maximum
Concentration (mg/kg)
Population Distribution
Test Type
Upper Confidence
Limit (mg/kg)
Suitable for Use Level (S4UL) or
SSAC (mg/kg)
Evidence level
against Null Hypothesis
Arsenic 29 Non-normal Chebychev 36 37 95%
Cadmium 0.84 Normal 1 sample t test 0.89 11 100%
Chromium <1 Non-normal Chebychev 0.5 910 100%
Lead 206 Normal 1 sample t test 191 191 95%
Mercury 0.59 Normal 1 sample t test 0.57 40 100%
Selenium 1.3 Normal 1 sample t test 1.5 250 100%
Copper 42 Non-normal Chebychev 61 2400 100%
Nickel 31 Normal 1 sample t test 31 180 100%
Zinc 181 Normal 1 sample t test 211 3700 100%
Beryllium 1.7 Normal 1 sample t test 1.9 1.7 90%
Vanadium 46 Normal 1 sample t test 46 410 100%
Boron 1.9 Normal 1 sample t test 1.8 290 100%
Hexavalent Chromium
0.6 Normal 1 sample t test 0.56 6 100%
With the exception of beryllium, the calculated Upper Confidence Limits are at or
below the S4ULs and the evidence level is 95% or more. As such, the risk from
these determinants has been assessed as low. The reverse was true of beryllium,
however, and in this case the risk has been assessed as medium.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 13 of 24
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Petroleum hydrocarbons are a complex mixture of carbon/hydrogen based
molecules of varying chain length with both aromatic and aliphatic fractions. The
aliphatic fraction often predominates, but the aromatic fraction is usually more toxic.
It is possible, therefore, that whilst the total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content is
comparatively high, the higher concentrations are in heavier less harmful bands.
To characterise the petroleum hydrocarbons, tests (TPHCWG) to determine the
carbon banding and the aliphatic and aromatic split were carried out on the four
samples.
The UK Approach for Evaluating Human Health Risks from Petroleum
Hydrocarbons in soils, SR P5-080/TR3 (Ref. 18) indicates that if elevated
concentrations are detected, analyses for petroleum hydrocarbon fractions should
be carried out and assessed against appropriate screening values. The document
considers that, even if the individual fractions are below the screening values, there
is the potential for additively of toxicological effects between fractions, giving rise to
the possibility of significant harm, so a further assessment is required. Suitable For
Use Levels (S4ULs) have been published by Land Quality Management for a series
of carbon bands, as per TPHCWG. These values have been used as the initial Tier
1 assessment.
This second assessment involves the calculation of the Hazard Index (HI). If the HI
is less than 1, then no further action is required. The HI is calculated using the
following equation:
HI = ∑ HQ = ∑measured concentration, Fi /GAC
where
HI= Hazard Index
HQ = Hazard Quotient
Fi = Fraction of Individual Compound (mg/kg)
GAC = Generic Assessment Criteria for individual Compounds (mg/kg).
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 14 of 24
The table below summarises the maximum concentrations found at the site,
together with the Upper Confidence Limits, compared with the S4ULs for a
residential with home grown produce land use and a soil organic matter (SOM)
content of 2.5%. In this connection, S4ULs are quoted for soil organic matter
contents of 1.0%, 2.5% and 6.0%. In the present case, SOM concentrations of
2.9% to 7.3% were measured with an average of 4.9%. A SOM of 2.5% has been
used in the analyses, as it is more protective than 6.0%.
The Upper Confidence Limits for all the carbon bands are significantly less than the
relevant assessment criteria. Given this, the Hazard Quotient has been calculated
for each determinant using the Upper Confidence Limit and is also given in the
table above. The Hazard Index has been calculated as 0.19 and the risk to human
end users from petroleum hydrocarbons is, therefore, considered to be low.
Carbon Band
Maximum Measured
Concentration (mg/kg)
Upper Confidence
Limit (mg/kg)
Suitable for Use Level
(S4UL) (mg/kg)
Evidence level against
Null Hypothesis
Hazard Quotient
Aliphatic C5 to C6 <0.01 0.005 78 100% 6.41E-05
Aliphatic C6 to C8 <0.01 0.005 230 100% 2.17E-05
Aliphatic C8 to C10 <1 0.5 65 100% 0.007692
Aliphatic C10 to C12 <1 0.5 330 100% 0.001515
Aliphatic C12 to C16 7 9 2400 100% 0.003833
Aliphatic C16 to C35 <1 .0.5 92000 100% 5.43E-06
Aliphatic C35 to C44 <1 0.5 92000 100% 5.43E-06
Aromatic C5 to C7 <0.01 0.005 140 100% 3.57E-05
Aromatic C7 to C8 <0.01 0.005 290 100% 1.72E-05
Aromatic C8 to C10 <0.01 0.005 83 100% 6.02E-05
Aromatic C10 to C12 1 1.2 180 100% 0.0065
Aromatic C12 to C16 42 56 330 100% 0.169697
Aromatic C16 to C21 2 2.5 540 100% 0.004648
Aromatic C21 to C35 <1 0.5 1500 100% 0.000333
Aromatic C35 to C44 <1 0.5 1500 100% 0.000333
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 15 of 24
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
Analyses for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) was undertaken on the four
samples. PAHs are often associated with ash and incomplete combustion.
Naphthalene is the most mobile compound in the group and benzo(a)pyrene and
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene are the most toxic. Suitable For Use Levels (S4ULs) have
been published by Land Quality Management for all sixteen PAH congeners. The
table below summarises the range of results for these compounds compared with
the assessment criteria, again for a soil organic matter content of 2.5%.
PAH Congener
Maximum Concentration
(mg/kg)
Population Distribution
Upper Confidence
Limit (mg/kg)
Suitable for Use Level
(S4UL) (mg/kg)
Evidence Level
against Null Hypothesis
Naphthalene <0.05 Non-normal 0.025 5.6 100%
Acenaphthylene <0.05 Non-normal 0.025 420 100%
Acenaphthene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 510 100%
Fluorene <0.05 Non-normal 0.025 400 100%
Phenanthrene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 220 100%
Anthracene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 5400 100%
Fluoranthene 0.21 Non-normal 0.26 560 100%
Pyrene 0.20 Non-normal 0.25 1200 100%
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.16 Non-normal 0.20 11 100%
Chrysene 0.18 Non-normal 0.22 22 100%
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.16 Normal 0.14 3.3 100%
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.13 Non-normal 0.17 93 100%
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.13 Non-normal 0.17 2.7 100%
Indeno(123-cd)pyrene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 36 100%
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 0.28 100%
Benzo(ghi)perylene <0.10 Non-normal 0.05 340 100%
As can be seen from the table, the S4ULs exceed the Upper Confidence Limits for
all the congeners and the evidence level is 100%. On this basis, the risk to end
users from polyaromatic hydrocarbons is considered low.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 16 of 24
BTEX
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene are often referred to collectively as
BTEX because they have closely related chemical structures and have similar fate
and transport properties. They are often used together in industrial and petroleum
products and commonly occur together in the environment as a result of related
pollution.
BTEX testing was undertaken on the four samples. In all cases, the measured
concentrations were below the limits of detection. As such, the risk from BTEX is
considered low.
Asbestos
The four samples were screened for asbestos. The results are given in Figure D5
in Appendix D. Asbestos not detected in any of these samples, nor was there any
visual evidence of the material in the boreholes or trial pits, nor on the ground
surface. As such, the risk due to asbestos is considered low.
7.4 Chemical Attack on Buried Concrete
The results of the chemical analyses on the four samples of made ground/soil
indicated soluble sulphate contents (as SO4 in 2:1 water/soil extracts) in the range
of less than 0.01g/l to 0.06g/l. The associated pH values were in the range 5.6 to
6.5. Tests on two other samples of natural soil produced pH values of 8.0 and 7.5.
BRE Special Digest 1: 2005 recommends precautionary measures with respect to
sulphate attack on concrete for a range of concentrations, for both ‘Greenfield’ and
‘Brownfield’ locations. The concentrations in the made ground and natural soil at
this site fall within the least onerous Class DS-1.
Consideration should also be given to the risk of acid attack on concrete. The
classification varies depending on whether the ground-water is static or mobile. In
the static conditions likely to apply at this site, the classification becomes AC-1s.
Provided the mixes are designed in accordance with the recommendations given in
Special Digest 1, the risk due to sulphate and acid attack on buried concrete is
considered low.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 17 of 24
7.5 Ground Gas
The generation of methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide or hydrogen sulphide
gases is often associated with made ground, organic deposits, mine workings or
residual petroleum hydrocarbons. Light fractions within any residual petroleum
hydrocarbons could also give rise to volatile organic compounds.
Methane is a flammable gas. It is explosive in air at a concentration above 5% by
volume (the so-called Lower Explosive Limit). Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas
that is heavier than air and can concentrate in open excavations or internal void
spaces. Carbon monoxide is both flammable and an asphyxiant. Hydrogen
sulphide can be associated with made ground, particularly material containing slag
and can be identified by humans by a ‘rotten egg’ smell.
With respect to the limiting concentrations, CIRIA Report C665 discusses the
concept of gas screening values (GSV), which are the product of gas
concentrations multiplied by gas volume flow. In essence, this approach considers
the likely gas flux, rather than simplistically looking at the maximum concentration,
which has had a tendency to lead to over design of gas protection measures. Once
determined, the GSV is used to determine which “Characteristic Situation” applies
and what, if any, gas protection measures are suitable to adequately protect a
development.
Gas monitoring in the standpipes has been carried out on six occasions and the
results are recorded in Figure B10 in Appendix B. Methane, carbon monoxide and
hydrogen sulphide were not detected. Carbon dioxide was found in all three
standpipes, with a maximum concentration of 1.1% in borehole BH03 on the first
visit. The introduction of oxygen into a borehole can result in an early spike in the
carbon dioxide readings, but this effect diminishes with time. Gas flows and
differential pressures were below the limits of detection. The first and second
monitoring visits were made at a time of low atmospheric pressure (i.e. <1000mb)
when gas generation is commonly at its worst.
Based on this set of data, the GSV has been calculated as 0.001l/hr for carbon
dioxide. This indicates Characteristic Situation 1 conditions, in which case gas
protection measures are not required.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 18 of 24
7.6 Radon
To assess whether there is a potential risk to end users from exposure to radon,
reference has been made to BR211 (Ref. 19). The document suggests that in most
cases, it is impractical to assess the severity of a radon problem on a particular site
accurately, until the building has been constructed and occupied. However,
information and reference maps are available for 1km squares related to the
National Grid.
Reference to these maps indicates that the site lies within a grid where there is a
Lower Probability Radon Area (less than 1% of homes are estimated to be at or
above the Action Level). Radon protective measure are not considered necessary.
7.7 Construction Workers
None of the recorded chemical concentrations should present a problem to
construction workers who will be exposed only in the short term. This also applies
to asbestos.
However, across the site, good standards of hygiene should be applied to ensure
that ingestion and dermal contact are minimised. These should include gloves and
overalls to prevent direct contact, in addition to site washing facilities.
In addition, gas monitoring should be undertaken in all excavations and confined
spaces. In this connection, carbon dioxide concentrations of up to 1.1% were
recorded in the standpipes. Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas and, with respect
to construction workers, EH40/2005 sets a 15 minute exposure limit of 1.5% by
volume and an eight hour exposure limit of 0.5%. Carbon dioxide is heavier than
air and can concentrate in open excavations. At worst, ventilation may be required.
On this basis and provided the comments above are addressed, the risk to
construction workers will be low.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 19 of 24
7.8 Ground-Water
The standpipes in boreholes BH01B, BH02 and BH03 were scheduled for ground-
water sampling. However, the tubes were not long enough to intercept the ground-
water table. As such, leachate testing was carried out on three of the original four
soil/made ground samples. This included the sample from borehole BH01 at
0.30m, which contained the highest levels of chemical contamination. The samples
were tested for a leachate suite comprising arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, selenium, copper, nickel, zinc, beryllium, vanadium, ammoniacal nitrogen,
pH, petroleum hydrocarbons (aliphatic/aromatic split) and speciated polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs).
SEPA Position Statement WAT-PS-10-01 describes site specific assessment
criteria and the way in which SEPA will assign them to high risk ground-water
pollutant inputs in a consistent and logical way. The generally accepted procedure
for assessing risks from potentially polluting inputs is to use the concept of source-
pathway-receptor.
A passive input can be considered here, resulting from previous activity that has
now ceased due to the historical nature of the site. From the SEPA on-line Water
Environment Hub, it is clear that the ground-water below the site lies in the
Morningside aquifer. The quality of this aquifer is shown as good and water
abstraction could be a possibility. As such, the ground-water should be considered
a potential receptor. Therefore, resource protection values are the most
appropriate set of thresholds for risk assessment purposes.
The Position Statement from SEPA provided assessment criterial for pollutant
inputs into ground-water. If these are not available, other standards have been
referenced. As ground-water was not encountered, the leachate results have been
used to assess the potential for contamination to impact on the ground-water. The
findings are summarised in the table below:
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 20 of 24
PAL: Protection of Aquatic Life: Freshwater
RPV: Resource Protection Value
PIW: Protection of Inland Waters
PSWfDW: Protection of Surface Waters
WHO DWG: WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality
EQS: Environmenal Quality Standard
Determinant
Maximum Concentration
Recorded (µg/l)
Guideline
Value (µg/l)
Standard
Exceedences
Arsenic 21.2 10 RPV Borehole BH01
Cadmium <0.04 5 RPV None
Chromium 0.47 50 RPV None
Lead 1.97 25 RPV None
Mercury <0.08 1 RPV None
Selenium <0.05 10 RPV None
Copper 7.1 50 PSWfDW None
Nickel 2.5 20 RPV None
Zinc 10.1 3000 PSWfDW None
Beryllium 0.08 4 RPV None
Vanadium 4.8 20 EQS None
Ammoniacal Nitrogen (as N) 900 5000 RPV None
Naphthalene <0.01 10 PAL None
Anthracene <0.01 0.1 PIW None
Benzo(b)fluoranthene <0.01 0.03 PSW None
Benzo(a)pyrene <0.01 0.01 RPV None
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene <0.01 0.002 PSW None
Fluoranthene <0.01 0.0063 EQS None
Benzo(ghi)perylene <0.01 0.03 PSW None
Petroleum Hydrocarbons Aromatic C5 to C6
<10 10 WHO DWG None
Petroleum Hydrocarbons Aromatic C6 to C8
<10 10 WHO DWG None
Petroleum Hydrocarbons Aromatic C8 to C16
<10 90 WHO DWG None
Petroleum Hydrocarbons Aromatic C16 to C35
<10 90 WHO DWG None
Petroleum Hydrocarbons Aliphatic C5 to C8
<10 15000 WHO DWG None
Petroleum Hydrocarbons Aliphatic C9 to C16
<10 300 WHO DWG None
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 21 of 24
With the exception of arsenic, the results were below the limits of detection or the
appropriate guideline value. To assess this risk further a risk assessment was
carried out.
This was carried out following the methods described by SEPA. The assessment
focused on the highest concentrations recorded in borehole 01. As the results are
for leachate, the assessment was carried out to consider how quickly the
contamination would attenuate as it moved through the soil column towards the
ground-water.
The hydraulic gradient was calculated assuming the pore-water would percolate
downwards, towards ground-water table. This was seen as a conservative
assumption. Having an assumed hydraulic gradient allowed a P20 (Ref. 20)
ground-water monitoring risk assessment to be carried out. The assessment is
included in the Site Specific Assessments in Appendix E.
In carrying out the P20 assessments, additional assumptions had to be made.
These are stated below;
• Pore-water would percolate down towards the ground-water,
• The width of the contamination plume is 10m, half the distance to the next
sample point,
• The aquifer thickness was taken as 0.40m, the thickness of the layer the elevated
concentrations came from,
• A bulk density of 2.00Mg/m3 was estimated from the site works,
• The porosity of 0.35n was taken for the correct soil type from Domenico, P.A and
Schwarts, F.W (1990).
• The hydraulic conductivity of 7x10-1 m/day was taken from Domenico, P.A and
Schwarts, F.W (1990).
The results indicated that if the maximum leachable potential was mobilised into
the pore-water, it would have naturally attenuated to below the RPV within 4.50m
of the source.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 22 of 24
To summarise, it is unlikely that the arsenic will present a risk to water quality and it
is reasonable to conclude that the risk to the water environment is low.
7.9 Geochemical Conclusions
Following the site works and laboratory testing, the risk assessment may be
presented as follows:
Source Pathway Receptor Risk
Outcome
Remediation
Required?
Toxic Metals
(made ground)
Ingestion, Inhalation,
Direct Contact Humans
Female Child Medium
(Beryllium) Yes (see below)
Construction
Worker Low No (see below)
Migration via permeable
strata or ground-water
Ground-water Low No
Surface Water Low No
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
(made ground)
Ingestion, Inhalation,
Direct Contact Humans
Female Child Low No
Construction
Worker Low No (see below)
Polyaromatic
Hydrocarbons
(made ground)
Ingestion, Inhalation,
Direct Contact Humans
Female Child Low No
Construction
Worker Low No (see below)
Migration via permeable
strata or ground-water
Ground-water Low No
Surface Water Low No
Leachable and
Mobile
Hydrocarbons
(made ground)
Migration via permeable
strata or ground-water
Ground-water Low No
Surface Water Low No
Soil Gases (from
any organic soil,
hydrocarbons,
made ground)
Migration via permeable
strata
Humans
Female Child Low No
Construction
Worker Low No (see below)
Buildings (fire, explosion) Low No (see below)
Asbestos
(demolition
rubble or made
ground)
Inhalation Humans
Female Child Low No
Construction
Worker Low No (see below)
Sulphates and
Corrosives
(demolition
rubble or made
ground)
Direct Contact
Buildings and Services Low No (see below)
Humans Female Child Low No
Radon Inhalation Human
Female Child Low No
Construction
Worker Low No
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 23 of 24
As noted earlier, the risks generally have been assessed as low, with a medium risk
with respect to beryllium. In some cases the low classification is dependent on
precautions being implemented, as discussed in the previous sub-sections and
summarised below.
• The risk to construction workers has been generally assessed as low.
However, it will be necessary to ensure that good standards of site hygiene
are employed in order to ensure that ingestion and dermal contact are
minimised. Gas monitoring during entry into excavations and confined
spaces should be undertaken. Ventilation may be required. It is worth
noting that these are standard procedures.
• The risk to buried concrete due to sulphate and acid attack has been
assessed as low, provided the mixes are designed in accordance with the
requirements of Special Digest 1, as detailed in sub-section 7.4.
A medium risk was identified with respect to beryllium. Three of the four samples
had concentrations just below the Suitable for Use Level (S4UL), which resulted in
the Upper Confidence Level (UCL) being slightly above. Remediation will be
required. The simplest solution would be to break the link between the source and
the receptor by providing a barrier. This could be hard paving on the roads and
paths, or a blanket of clean inert soil in the areas of soft landscaping. It is
commonly accepted that to be effective, this barrier should be about 1.0m thick, but
in the present case the measured beryllium concentrations were all below the
Upper Confidence Limit (UCL). The advice of the appropriate Local Authority
should be sought with respect to reducing the thickness of this capping layer.
P:\25085\Report\report.doc 1 of 1
REFERENCES
(1) 1:10560 scale Geological Survey of Great Britain (Scotland). Sheet NT27SE. (2) BS EN 1997-2. Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical design – Part 2 : Design assisted by laboratory testing.
2007. (3) BS5930: Code of Practice for Ground Investigations, British Standards Institution, 2015. (4) BS10175: Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites, British
Standards Institution, 2011 + A1:2013. (5) BS EN ISO 22476-3: Geotechnical investigation and testing. Field testing. Standard penetration
test, 2005. (6) BS1377 : Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, British Standards Institution,
1990. (7) DEFRA Publication CLR11. Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination. The
Environment Agency 2004. (8) Updated Technical Background to The CLEA Model. Science Report SC050021/SR3. August
2008. Environment Agency. (9) Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment, Land Quality Management
Limited, 2007. (10) The Soil Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment, Contaminated Land: (11) BRE Special Digest 1. Concrete in Aggressive Ground. Building Research Establishment. 2005. (12) Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gas to Buildings, CIRIA C665. (13) EH40/05. Occupational Exposure Limits. Health and safety Executive, 2003. (14) Position Statement WAT-PS-10-01 Assigning groundwater assessment criteria for pollutant inputs.
SEPA. June 2011. (15) Supporting Guidance (WAT-SG-53) Environmental Standards for Discharges to Surface Waters.
SEPA April 2013 (16) CL:AIRE Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration,
Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments, 2008. (17) Contaminated Land Statistics Calculator, ESI, 2008. (18) The UK Approach for Evaluating Human Health Risks from Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the Soil.
Science Report P5-080/TR3. (19) BRE376 Radon: Guidance on protective measures for new dwellings in Scotland. 1999.
(20) Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Land Contamination remedial Targets Worksheet. V. 3.2.
Environment Agency Updated August 2014.
Create Engineering LLP
Deborah Marshall
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
APPENDIX APLANS
Sty
le:
AP
PE
ND
IX A
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:23:
29
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
LOCATION PLAN
Crown CopyrightLicence No.
1000005786
Fig No:Originator
StatusChk & App
Sty
le:
RD
G_L
OC
AT
ION
_PLA
N
File
: P:\
GIN
TW
\PR
OJE
CT
S\2
5085
.GP
J
Prin
ted:
05/
03/2
019
09:5
8:00
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
m
Title:
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:
Final
A1WTG
RH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Originator
StatusChk & App
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:S
tyle
: A
3_S
ITE
PLA
N
File
: P:\
GIN
TW
\PR
OJE
CT
S\2
5085
.GP
J
Prin
ted:
05/
03/2
019
13:3
9:12
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
mS
tyle
: A
3_S
ITE
PLA
N
File
: P:\
GIN
TW
\PR
OJE
CT
S\2
5085
.GP
J
Prin
ted:
05/
03/2
019
13:3
9:12
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
m
Title:
SITE PLANA2
Fig No:
FinalWTG
RH
Create Engineering LLP
Deborah Marshall
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
APPENDIX BSITE WORKS
Sty
le:
AP
PE
ND
IX B
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:23:
58
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:
Create Engineering LLP
Deborah Marshall
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
NOTES ON FIELD PROCEDURES
Sonic drilling is employed as an alternative boring method for soft ground and rock. The sonic rig operates much like anyconventional top-drive rotary rig. The main difference is that a sonic drill rig has a specially designed hydraulically powered drillhead or oscillator which produces adjustable high frequency vibratory forces. Sonic samples are extruded direct to plastic linerbags or semi-rigid plastic liners for rapid inspection. Bulk and small disturbed samples are then taken from the plastic liner bags.
Trial pits are excavated by hand or machine for a number of purposes such as avoiding services, exposing foundations orobtaining a better view of shallow ground conditions.
Tube samples of cohesive soils are generally taken with a 100mm internal diameter open drive sampler known as a U100, with anarea ratio of 30%. The sampler is driven into the soil at the bottom of the borehole by a sliding hammer. After a sample is taken,the drive head and cutting shoe are unscrewed from the sample tube and any wet or disturbed soil removed from either end. Thesample tube is then sealed with wax and fitted with plastic end caps.
A range of more specialised equipment, e.g. thin walled open drive sampler (UT100), piston or foil samplers, may be used to obtainhigher quality samples in conditions where conventional open drive sampling is impracticable or unsatisfactory. The UT100sampler is specifically utilised to obtain class 1 samples of cohesive soils as required under BS EN1997-2.
Disturbed samples are taken from the boring tools or trial pits at regular intervals. The samples are sealed in airtight containers.Bulk samples are large disturbed samples from the boring tools, or from trial pits, generally where tube samples are unavailable.
The Standard Penetration Test, SPT, in accordance with BS EN ISO 22476-3, determines the resistance of soil to the penetrationof a split barrel sampler. A 50mm diameter split barrel sampler is driven 450mm into the soil using a 63.5kg hammer with a 760mmdrop, and the penetration resistance, the "N" value, is expressed as the number of blows required to achieve 300mm penetrationbelow an initial penetration of 150mm, the seating drive, through any disturbed soil at the bottom of the borehole.
In coarse soils, the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is conducted in the same manner as the SPT but using a 50mm diameter 60degree apex solid cone point to replace the split barrel sampler.
Where more accurate or longer term measurement of emissions is required, gas monitoring standpipes are installed in boreholes.
Determination and measurement of gases in the ground, commonly in relation to landfills, may be made directly from the groundsurface, where a hole is formed by driving a solid and rigid steel spike to depths normally in the range 1.0 to 1.5m. Gas emissionsare analysed using an appropriate portable analyser. However, research has shown that the small sample hole size and smearingeffects can give a false negative result.
A more accurate record of groundwater behaviour may be obtained from standpipes or standpipe piezometers.
(a) The trial pit or borehole is rarely left standing at the relevant depth for sufficient time for the water level to reach equilibrium.(b) A permeable stratum may have been sealed off by the borehole casing.(c) It may have been necessary to add water to the borehole to facilitate progress.(d) There may be seasonal, tidal or other effects at the site.
Borehole water levels are recorded, together with the depths at which seepages or inflows of groundwater are detected and theobservations noted on the borehole or trial pit records. These observations may not give an accurate indication of groundwaterconditions, for the following reasons:
Generally, peat probing is carried out using a Mackintosh Probe. The probe is pushed through the peat until resistance is met thenthe depth at which this occurred is recorded.
Gases
Groundwater
Sonic Drilling
Trial Pits
Samples and In-situ Tests
Peat Probing
Boring
The standard method of boring in soil for ground investigation is known as the cable tool method. It uses various tools worked on awire cable, typically a shell in non-cohesive soils such as sand and gravel, and a clay cutter in cohesive soils such as clay. Verydense soils, boulders or other hard obstructions are disturbed or broken up by chiselling and the fragments removed with the shell.Where the ground conditions require, the borehole is lined with driven steel casings of such sizes that the bottom of the borehole isnot less than 125mm diameter.
Where there are constraints upon access, alternative methods of soft ground boring are available. However, each has limitationsthat need to be taken into account when assessing their suitability and the ground conditions inferred from their results.
Rotary Drilling
Rotary drilling is employed to extend ground investigation beyond the practical limit of cable tool boring in hard formations,commonly rock. Core drilling is used to obtain continuous intact samples of the formation and is generally undertaken with doubletube swivel type core barrels fitted with tungsten or diamond bits as appropriate to formation type and hardness. Open-hole rotarydrilling using tricone rock roller bits or tungsten insert drag bits, or down-the-hole hammers, is carried out where more limitedinformation is sufficient, strata identification being made from cuttings only. Open-hole rotary drilling methods may also beemployed for fast penetration of soils where detailed sampling is not required, prior to coring at depth. Air or water is the flushingmedium normally used with rotary drilling methods. Where the ground conditions require, the borehole is lined with inserted ordrilled-in casing.
Sty
le:
NO
TE
S F
IELD
WO
RK
S
File
: P:\
GIN
TW
\PR
OJE
CT
S\2
5085
.GP
J
Prin
ted:
18/
04/2
019
09:2
4:10
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
m
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:
25085
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
LetterNominal Diameter (mm)
Borehole
Wooden plug
92
113
Non-standard
412
76
100
121
146
108
54
76
75
Bentonite
Bentonite/cement grout
Solid pipe
Slotted pipe
Piston sample
NOTE: Tube samples are 100mm diameter unless otherwise specified in the remarks. Suffix 'a' indicates sample not
SOIL SAMPLES
UP
limited recovery
Small Disturbed/Jar/Tub/Vial sample
Bag/Large Bag sample
Sample appropriate for geochemical analyses (tub)
B/LB
ET
CORE RECOVERY AND ROCK QUALITY
Rotary Open Hole Drilling through Soil / Rotary Open Hole Drilling through Rock
Ground-water sample
recovered; suffix 'b' indicates full penetration of sampler not obtained; suffix 'c' indicates full penetration of sampler but
UT (X)
General purpose tube sample; X No of blows to drive sampler
Thin walled push in sampler (type OS-T/W); X No of blows to drive sampler
# before a description indicates that it is based on the Driller's record.
Material legends are in accordance with ISO 710-1 and 710-2
LEGENDS
IN SITU AND FIELD TESTS
or'a' is blow/75mm for seating drive; 'b' is blows/75mm for test drive; (pen) is test drive penetration if less than 300mm.
California bearing ratio testCBR
K
HP
FV
HV
ID
Permeability test
Hand penetrometer test
Field vane test
Hand vane test
Density test
PID
D/J/T/V
RO-S/RO-R
FI
Flush: "Depth" indicates depth down to which recorded "Returns" relate
N/I
Solid Core Recovery: The core recovered as solid cylinders expressed as a percentage of the core run length
Rock Quality Designation: The core recovered as solid cylinders of length 100mm or more expressed as a percentage of core run length.
Fracture Index: The number of discontinuities expressed as fractures per metre
Non Intact
GROUND-WATER
Ground-water encountered
Depth to which ground-water rose
Ground-water cut off by the casing
Water sampleWS
Concrete
Spoil
TCR
SCR
RQD
N/R
Total Core Recovery: The total core recovered expressed as a percentage of the core run length
No Recovery (assumed)
W
DIMENSIONS
All dimensions in metres unless otherwise stated.
Core
Standard
N
H
P
SSand
Gravel
Porous element
U (X)
INSTALLATIONS (BACKFILL) ROTARY DRILLING SIZES
Standard penetration test (split barrel sampler(SPT)or cone (CPT)); X is the penetration (N) value;SPT=X a/b (pen)
CPT=X a/b (pen)
Moisture condition value testMCV
Photo Ionisation Detector (ppm)
KEY TO BOREHOLE AND TRIAL PIT RECORDS
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:S
tyle
: B
H T
P K
EY
F
ile:
P:\
GIN
TW
\PR
OJE
CT
S\2
5085
.GP
J
Prin
ted:
18/
04/2
019
09:2
4:04
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
m
0.30
1.50
Brown sandy clayey TOPSOIL with many roots. Sand is fine to coarse
Very dense reddish brown very sandy very clayey fine to coarseangular and subangular GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse
SANDSTONE recovered as brown silty sandy coarse angular gravel....at 1.50m: # sandstone obstruction
END OF BOREHOLE
14/01
0.300.400.50
1.00
1.20
1.50
0.40
1.401.50 Dry
End OfShift
SPT=82
ET, T, V,VBET, T, V,V
B, ET, T,V, VB, TU(308)
ET, T, V,V
1.50
14/12019
CasingDepth
Boring
Struck
To Depth
Chk & App
Remarks:
1:50
JW
Casing
Driller Fig No:
Scale
RC
FlushChisellingOriginator
HoleDiam.
Status Sheet 1 of 1
# Description based on Driller's log.An inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m to clear services.Ground-water was not observed to enter the borehole.The Penetration Tests were carried out using Trip Hammer TER83.The borehole was abandoned at a depth of 1.50m due to a sandstone obstruction. Borehole BH01A was attempted at an immediately adjacentlocation.
Final
From (m) To (m)TypeTime(hr)Water AddedGround-water
ReturnsToFromToFromCut OffTime(min)Rose To
WTG
105
B1
1.50 1.50
VerticalOrientation:
Contract No:Site:
Client:
Engineer:
Location:
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
25085
Equipment: Hand Tools, Boart Longyear Terrier 120
BH01
NS252818
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
1.20m1.50m
Inspection Pit toPercussion to
Depth
Pro
gres
s
Depth DepthType
Samples
Result
TestsDepth
Level
(m) Description of Strata
Sym
bol
Backfill
Lege
nd
Depth
Water
Sty
le:
BO
RE
HO
LE N
EW
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ+
44 (
0)16
98 7
1099
9
Prin
ted:
18/
04/2
019
09:2
4:36
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
m
5.11 /12.20.26.24
0.30
1.40
# TOPSOIL with roots
Reddish brown very sandy very clayey fine to coarse angular andsubangular GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse (descriptiontaken from the record for borehole BH01).
....at 1.40m: # sandstone obstructionEND OF BOREHOLE
14/01
0.35
1.40 DryEnd Of
Shift
1.40
14/12019
CasingDepth
Boring
Struck
To Depth
Chk & App
Remarks:
1:50
JW
Casing
Driller Fig No:
Scale
RC
FlushChisellingOriginator
HoleDiam.
Status Sheet 1 of 1
# Description based on Driller's log.An inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m to clear services.Ground-water was not observed to enter the borehole.The borehole was abandoned at a depth of 1.40m due to a sandstone obstruction. Borehole BH01B was attempted at an immediately adjacentlocation.
Final
From (m) To (m)TypeTime(hr)Water AddedGround-water
ReturnsToFromToFromCut OffTime(min)Rose To
WTG
105
B2
1.40 1.40
VerticalOrientation:
Contract No:Site:
Client:
Engineer:
Location:
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
25085
Equipment: Hand Tools, Boart Longyear Terrier 120
BH01A
NS252818
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
1.20m1.40m
Inspection Pit toPercussion to
Depth
Pro
gres
s
Depth DepthType
Samples
Result
TestsDepth
Level
(m) Description of Strata
Sym
bol
Backfill
Lege
nd
Depth
Water
Sty
le:
BO
RE
HO
LE N
EW
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ+
44 (
0)16
98 7
1099
9
Prin
ted:
18/
04/2
019
09:2
4:36
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
m
0.50
1.45
0.25
0.50
1.45
# TOPSOIL with roots
Reddish brown very sandy very clayey fine to coarse angular andsubangular GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse (descriptiontaken from the record for borehole BH01).
....at 1.15m: # sandstone obstructionEND OF BOREHOLE
14/01
0.35
1.45 DryEnd Of
Shift
14/12019
CasingDepth
Boring
Struck
To Depth
Chk & App
Remarks:
1:50
JW
Casing
Driller Fig No:
Scale
RC
FlushChisellingOriginator
HoleDiam.
Status Sheet 1 of 1
# Description based on Driller's log.An inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m to clear services.Ground-water was not observed to enter the borehole.A 50mm diameter perforated standpipe was installed to a depth of 1.45m.
Final
From (m) To (m)TypeTime(hr)Water AddedGround-water
ReturnsToFromToFromCut OffTime(min)Rose To
WTG
105
B3
1.45 1.45
VerticalOrientation:
Contract No:Site:
Client:
Engineer:
Location:
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
25085
Equipment: Hand Tools, Boart Longyear Terrier 120
BH01B
NS252818
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
1.20m1.45m
Inspection Pit toPercussion to
Depth
Pro
gres
s
Depth DepthType
Samples
Result
TestsDepth
Level
(m) Description of Strata
Sym
bol
Backfill
Lege
nd
Depth
Water
Sty
le:
BO
RE
HO
LE N
EW
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ+
44 (
0)16
98 7
1099
9
Prin
ted:
18/
04/2
019
09:2
4:37
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
m
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
Brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy clayey TOPSOIL with many rootsand rootlets. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarsesubangular of sandstoneMedium dense reddish brown very sandy very clayey fine to coarsesubangular GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse
SANDSTONE recovered as red gravelly slightly clayey fine to coarsesand....at 2.00m: # sandstone obstruction
END OF BOREHOLE
14/01
0.30
0.50
1.00
1.20
1.50
2.00 2.00
0.35
1.902.00 Dry
End OfShift
SPT=13
SPT>50
ET, T, V,VB, ET, T,V, V
B, ET, T,V, VB, TU(118)
ET, T, V,V
T 2.00
14/12019
CasingDepth
Boring
Struck
To Depth
Chk & App
Remarks:
1:50
JW
Casing
Driller Fig No:
Scale
RC
FlushChisellingOriginator
HoleDiam.
Status Sheet 1 of 1
# Description based on Driller's log.An inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m to clear services.Ground-water was not observed to enter the borehole.A 50mm diameter perforated standpipe was installed to a depth of 2.00m.The Penetration Tests were carried out using Trip Hammer TER83.
Final
From (m) To (m)TypeTime(hr)Water AddedGround-water
ReturnsToFromToFromCut OffTime(min)Rose To
WTG
105
B4
2.00 2.00
VerticalOrientation:
Contract No:Site:
Client:
Engineer:
Location:
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
25085
Equipment: Hand Tools, Boart Longyear Terrier 120
BH02
NS252818
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
1.20m2.00m
Inspection Pit toPercussion to
Depth
Pro
gres
s
Depth DepthType
Samples
Result
TestsDepth
Level
(m) Description of Strata
Sym
bol
Backfill
Lege
nd
Depth
Water
Sty
le:
BO
RE
HO
LE N
EW
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ+
44 (
0)16
98 7
1099
9
Prin
ted:
18/
04/2
019
09:2
4:37
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
m
2.2 /3.3.4.3
25 (20)/50 (10)
1.00
2.75
0.50
1.00
2.75
Brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy clayey TOPSOIL with many roots.Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse subangular ofsandstone
Medium dense and dense reddish brown very sandy very clayey fine tocoarse angular GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse
....at 2.75m: # sandstone obstructionEND OF BOREHOLE
14/01
0.200.30
0.50
1.00
1.20
1.50
2.50 2.00
0.40
2.75 DryEnd Of
Shift
SPT=24
SPT=38
BET, T, V,VB, ET, T,V, V
B, ET, T,V, VBU(201)
ET, T, T,V, VU(114)ET, T, T,V, V
B, TU(80) 2.75
14/12019
CasingDepth
Boring
Struck
To Depth
Chk & App
Remarks:
1:50
JW
Casing
Driller Fig No:
Scale
RC
FlushChisellingOriginator
HoleDiam.
Status Sheet 1 of 1
# Description based on Driller's log.An inspection pit was excavated by hand to a depth of 1.20m to clear services.Ground-water was not observed to enter the borehole.A 50mm diameter perforated standpipe was installed to a depth of 2.75m.The Penetration Tests were carried out using Trip Hammer TER83.
Final
From (m) To (m)TypeTime(hr)Water AddedGround-water
ReturnsToFromToFromCut OffTime(min)Rose To
WTG
105
B5
2.75 2.75
VerticalOrientation:
Contract No:Site:
Client:
Engineer:
Location:
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
25085
Equipment: Hand Tools, Boart Longyear Terrier 120
BH03
NS252818
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
1.20m2.75m
Inspection Pit toPercussion to
Depth
Pro
gres
s
Depth DepthType
Samples
Result
TestsDepth
Level
(m) Description of Strata
Sym
bol
Backfill
Lege
nd
Depth
Water
Sty
le:
BO
RE
HO
LE N
EW
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ+
44 (
0)16
98 7
1099
9
Prin
ted:
18/
04/2
019
09:2
4:38
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
m
12.9 /7.4.5.8
3.3 /3.9.13.13
Dry
0.40
0.75
# TOPSOIL
# Reddish brown gravelly sandy CLAY with sandstone
END OF TRIAL PIT14/1
201914/1
Remarks:
Fig No:
Scale
Chk & App
Cut OffTime(mins)Rose ToStruckGround-water
Status
Originator
1:50
Driller
Sheet 1 of 1
# Description based on Driller's log.Ground-water was not encountered.The walls of the pit stood vertical throughout excavation.
B6JW
WTG FINAL
RC
Backfill
Depth
Water
Depth
Sym
bolSamples and Tests
Result Lege
nd
Depth
SampleDescription of Strata
Pro
gres
s
Depth
Level
Typ
e (m)
VerticalOrientation:
Contract No:Site:
Client:
Engineer:
Location:
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
25085Trial Pit No.
Equipment: Hand Tools
TP01
NS252818
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
0.75m
Width - m Length - m
Hand Pit to
Sty
le:
TR
IALP
IT
File
: P:\
GIN
TW
\PR
OJE
CT
S\2
5085
.GP
J+44
(0)
1698
710
999
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:24:
53
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
Dry
0.30
1.00
0.30
1.00
Brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy clayey TOPSOIL. Sand is fine tocoarse. Gravel is fine to coarse angular of sandstone
Reddish brown very sandy clayey fine to coarse subangular andsubrounded GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is fine to coarse
END OF TRIAL PIT
B, ET, T, V, V
B, ET, T, V, V15/1
201915/1
Remarks:
Fig No:
Scale
Chk & App
Cut OffTime(mins)Rose ToStruckGround-water
Status
Originator
1:50
Driller
Sheet 1 of 1
Ground-water was not encountered.The walls of the pit stood vertical throughout excavation.
B7JW
WTG FINAL
RC
Backfill
Depth
Water
Depth
Sym
bolSamples and Tests
Result Lege
nd
Depth
SampleDescription of Strata
Pro
gres
s
Depth
Level
Typ
e (m)
VerticalOrientation:
Contract No:Site:
Client:
Engineer:
Location:
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
25085Trial Pit No.
Equipment: Hand Tools
TP02
NS252818
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
1.00m
Width - m Length - m
Hand Pit to
Sty
le:
TR
IALP
IT
File
: P:\
GIN
TW
\PR
OJE
CT
S\2
5085
.GP
J+44
(0)
1698
710
999
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:24:
54
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
Dry
0.50
1.00
0.20
0.50
1.00
MADE GROUND (reddish brown clayey fine to coarse sand and fine andmedium angular gravel of sandstone)
Reddish brown very gravelly very clayey fine to coarse SAND. Gravel is fineto coarse subangular and subrounded of sandstone
END OF TRIAL PIT
B, ET, T, V, V
B, ET, T, V, V
B, ET, T, V, V15/1
201915/1
Remarks:
Fig No:
Scale
Chk & App
Cut OffTime(mins)Rose ToStruckGround-water
Status
Originator
1:50
Driller
Sheet 1 of 1
Ground-water was not encountered.The walls of the pit stood vertical throughout excavation.
B8JW
WTG FINAL
RC
Backfill
Depth
Water
Depth
Sym
bolSamples and Tests
Result Lege
nd
Depth
SampleDescription of Strata
Pro
gres
s
Depth
Level
Typ
e (m)
VerticalOrientation:
Contract No:Site:
Client:
Engineer:
Location:
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
25085Trial Pit No.
Equipment: Hand Tools
TP03
NS252818
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
1.00m
Width - 0.50m Length - 0.50m
Hand Pit to
Sty
le:
TR
IALP
IT
File
: P:\
GIN
TW
\PR
OJE
CT
S\2
5085
.GP
J+44
(0)
1698
710
999
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:24:
54
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Fig No:Originator
StatusChk & App
Sty
le:
A4_
NA
ME
BO
X
File
: P:\
GIN
TW
\PR
OJE
CT
S\2
5085
.GP
J
Prin
ted:
18/
04/2
019
09:2
5:55
R
aebu
rn D
rillin
g an
d G
eote
chni
cal,
Whi
stle
berr
y R
d, H
amilt
on
ML3
0H
P T
el:
0169
8-71
1177
E
-mai
l: en
quiri
es@
raeb
urnd
rillin
g.co
m
Title:
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:
Final
B9WTG
FMR SPT HAMMER ENERGY TEST REPORT TER83
BH01B 22/01/19 00:00 984 0.00 0.90 19.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Occasional snow showers
29/01/19 00:00 979 0.00 0.70 19.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Occasional snow schowers
05/02/19 00:00 1011 0.00 0.20 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, frosty
12/02/19 00:00 1012 0.00 0.30 19.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast
19/02/19 00:00 1001 0.00 0.20 20.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast
26/02/19 00:00 1022 0.00 0.40 19.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, sunny
BH02 22/01/19 00:00 984 0.00 0.70 19.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Occasional snow showers
29/01/19 00:00 979 0.00 0.50 19.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Occasional snow schowers
05/02/19 00:00 1011 0.00 0.70 19.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, frosty
12/02/19 00:00 1012 0.00 0.60 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast
19/02/19 00:00 1001 0.00 0.20 20.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast
26/02/19 00:00 1022 0.00 0.10 20.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, sunny
BH03 22/01/19 00:00 984 0.00 1.10 19.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Occasional snow showers
29/01/19 00:00 979 0.00 0.80 19.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Occasional snow schowers
05/02/19 00:00 1011 0.00 0.40 19.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, frosty
12/02/19 00:00 1012 0.00 0.10 20.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast
19/02/19 00:00 1001 0.00 0.40 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, overcast
26/02/19 00:00 1022 0.00 0.00 20.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dry Dry, sunny
Remarks
RESULTS OF GAS AND WATER LEVELMONITORING IN STANDPIPES
BoreholeNo.
Sur
veye
dLe
vel (
m O
D)
Sty
le:
SP
IPE
MO
NIT
OR
ING
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:26:
23
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
Dep
th to
Bas
eof
Sta
ndpi
pe (
m)
Date
Diff
eren
tial
Pre
ssur
e(P
a)
CH4
(%vol)
Gas Composition
Atm
osph
eric
Pre
ssur
e(m
Bar
)
Depthto
Water(m)(m)
Flow
(l/hr)
CO2
(%vol)
O2
(%vol)
H2S(ppm)
CO(ppm)
JP
FinalWTG
B10Sheet 1 of 1
Engineer:
Client:
Fig No:Originator
Status
Site: Contract No:
Chk & App
Sty
le:
SP
IPE
MO
NIT
OR
ING
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:26:
23
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
Title:
Final
JP
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
WTG
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
B10
Create Engineering LLP
Deborah Marshall
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
APPENDIX CGEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
Sty
le:
AP
PE
ND
IX C
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:26:
38
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:
Create Engineering LLP
Deborah Marshall
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
NOTES ON LABORATORY PROCEDURES
TEST STANDARD
CLASSIFICATION TESTS
Determination of moisture content BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 3.2
Determination of liquid limit BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 4.3 and 4.4
Determination of plastic limit and plasticity index BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 5.3 and 5.4
Determination of bulk density BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 7.2
Determination of particle density (formerly specific gravity) BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 8.2 and 8.3
Sieve analysis by wet or dry sieving BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 9.2 and 9.3
Sedimentation by the pipette method BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 2 : 9.5
CHEMICAL TESTS
Determination of organic matter content BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 3 : 3.4
Determination of mass loss on ignition BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 3 : 4.3
Determination of sulphate content of soil and groundwater BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 3 : 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5
Determination of chloride content BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 3 : 7.2 and 7.3
Determination of pH value BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 3 : 9.5
COMPACTION-RELATED TESTS
Determination of dry density/moisture content relationship BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 4 : 3.3 to 3.6
Determination of moisture condition value (MCV) SDD Tech Memo SH7/83; SDD Appls Guide No.1 Rev. 1989
Determination of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 4 : 7.4
CONSOLIDATION AND STRENGTH TESTS
Determination of one-dimensional consolidation properties BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 5 : 3.5
Determination of undrained shear strength in triaxial compression BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 7 : 8.4 and 9.4
Lab Vane Tests BS 1377 : 1990
Shear Box Tests BS 1377 : 1990 : Part 7 : Clause 4
ROCK TESTS
Determination of point load strength DIHM based on ISRM Commission on Testing Methods, 1985
Determination of unconfined compressive strength DIHM based on ASTM D2938-86
LA Abrasion Tests BS EN 1097-2-2010 and BS 818 : Part 2 : 1990
Magnesium Soundness Tests BS EN 1367-2
Slake durability ISRM Suggested methods
Rock porosity / density ISRM Suggested methods
Sty
le:
NO
TE
S L
AB
OR
AT
OR
Y
File
: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:26:
45
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:
Non Engineering Sample
Description
Contract No 25085
Dry
Liq
uid
Lim
it
Pla
stic L
imit
Att
erb
erg
Cla
ssific
ation
Part
icle
Density
Atterberg limits
Lab P
roje
ct N
o B
22261-2
: 31/0
1/2
019 1
5:4
3:4
7
PSD
1.20
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL TESTS
Brown CLAY with some gravel.
Gravel is fine to coarse.
12 25 Oed
Brown sandy SILT with some gravel.
Gravel is fine to coarse.
6.3 25
Mg/m³
Shear
Str
ength
Other Tests
Total Stress
BH01 1.20 22
BH03 1.50
BH02
Angle
of
Shearing
Resis
tance P
hi
% kPa kPa
Density
% Mg/m³ Mg/m³
Notes
31/01/2019
Originator
PM
Opinions and interpretations are outside the scope
of UKAS accreditation Y
Appare
nt
Cohesio
n
C
Approved
Mois
ture
Conte
nt
Bulk
Pla
sticity I
ndex
Perc
enta
ge r
eta
ined
425µ
m
%
Brown silty clayey SAND with much
gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.
Versio
n 0
74 - 1
4/1
1/2
013
BH02 1.20
BH01 1.20
1121 - G
eote
chnica
l Test S
um
mary - B
22261-2
.xls
Exploratory
Hole
Depth
m
PSDBrown silty clayey SAND with much
gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.
32
12 16 CL 2.17 1.94 38
44
43
38 0.7
Y- Y YY Y Y YUKAS Accredited Test Y/N Y
13
Brown sandy SILT with much gravel.
Gravel is fine to coarse.
15 27
%
Y Y
tFigure C1
Sheet 1 of 2
See individual report
sheets
Test details are given on the 'Notes on Laboratory Procedures' sheet
B 469225
T 469226
B 469223
T 469224
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
Sample Identification
TSite
Client
Engineer
Sample
Ref
U 469227
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Non Engineering Sample
Description
Contract No 25085
Dry
Liq
uid
Lim
it
Pla
stic L
imit
Att
erb
erg
Cla
ssific
ation
Part
icle
Density
Atterberg limits
Lab P
roje
ct N
o B
22261-2
: 31/0
1/2
019 1
5:4
3:4
8
PSD
PSD16 13 24
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL TESTS
Brown silty clayey SAND with some
gravel and one cobble. Gravel is fine
to coarse.
22 27
Mg/m³
Shear
Str
ength
Other Tests
Total Stress
TP03 0.50 17
Angle
of
Shearing
Resis
tance P
hi
14
% kPa kPa
Density
29
% Mg/m³ Mg/m³
Notes
31/01/2019
Originator
PM
Opinions and interpretations are outside the scope
of UKAS accreditation Y
Appare
nt
Cohesio
n
C
Approved
Mois
ture
Conte
nt
Bulk
Pla
sticity I
ndex
Perc
enta
ge r
eta
ined
425µ
m
%
Brown silty clayey SAND with much
gravel. Gravel is fine to cobble
sized.
Versio
n 0
74 - 1
4/1
1/2
013
TP02 1.00
1121 - G
eote
chnica
l Test S
um
mary - B
22261-2
.xls
Exploratory
Hole
Depth
m
CL
Y- Y YY Y Y YUKAS Accredited Test Y/N Y
%
Y Y
tFigure C1
Sheet 2 of 2
See individual report
sheets
Test details are given on the 'Notes on Laboratory Procedures' sheet
B 469228
B 469229
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
Sample Identification
TSite
Client
Engineer
Sample
Ref
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Contract No.
Non Engineering Description :
Preparation :
Sample was determined to be Non-Plastic after preparation
Results :As Received Moisture Content : (BS1377:Part 2:Clause 3:1990) %Percentage retained on 425µm sieve : %Liquid Limit : %
Plastic Limit :
Equivalent moisture content of material passing 425µm sieve : %
tFigure C2
IG31/01/2019 Sheet 1 of 1
Liquid Limit (One Point Cone Penetrometer Method)Originator
Checked &
Approved
BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 5:1990
12
20
- L
LP
L B
H0
1 0
1.2
0
T -
B2
22
61
-2-4
69
22
4.x
ls :
Sa
mp
le I
D 4
69
22
4
Ve
rsio
n 0
51
- 0
8/1
1/2
01
3
T
Mo
or
La
ne
, W
itto
n,
Birm
ing
ha
m,
B6
7H
G
25
Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index & Liquidity Index
6.322
Non-Plastic
BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 4.4:1990
La
b P
roje
ct N
o B
22
26
1-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
01
9 1
5:4
3:5
2
8.1
BH01
1.20
T
Hole ID
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
Client Deborah Marshall
Engineer Create Engineering LLP
Brown sandy SILT with some gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.
Sample washed and air dried
25085Site 5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Liquid Limit (%)
Pla
stic
ity I
ndex
M L M I M H M V M E
C L C I C H C V C E
Contract No.
Non Engineering Description :
Preparation :
Sample was determined to be Non-Plastic after preparation
Results :As Received Moisture Content : (BS1377:Part 2:Clause 3:1990) %Percentage retained on 425µm sieve : %Liquid Limit : %
Plastic Limit :
Equivalent moisture content of material passing 425µm sieve : %
tFigure C3
IG31/01/2019 Sheet 1 of 1
Liquid Limit (One Point Cone Penetrometer Method)Originator
Checked &
Approved
BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 5:1990
12
20
- L
LP
L B
H0
2 0
1.2
0
T -
B2
22
61
-2-4
69
22
6.x
ls :
Sa
mp
le I
D 4
69
22
6
Ve
rsio
n 0
51
- 0
8/1
1/2
01
3
T
Mo
or
La
ne
, W
itto
n,
Birm
ing
ha
m,
B6
7H
G
27
Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index & Liquidity Index
1532
Non-Plastic
BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 4.4:1990
La
b P
roje
ct N
o B
22
26
1-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
01
9 1
5:4
3:5
9
22
BH02
1.20
T
Hole ID
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
Client Deborah Marshall
Engineer Create Engineering LLP
Brown sandy SILT with much gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.
Sample washed and air dried
25085Site 5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Liquid Limit (%)
Pla
stic
ity I
ndex
M L M I M H M V M E
C L C I C H C V C E
Contract No.
Non Engineering Description :
Preparation :
Results :As Received Moisture Content : (BS1377:Part 2:Clause 3:1990) %Percentage retained on 425µm sieve : %Liquid Limit : %
Plastic Limit : %Plasticity Index :
Equivalent moisture content of material passing 425µm sieve : %Liquidity Index :
Lab P
roje
ct
No B
22261-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
019 1
5:4
4:0
51220 -
LLP
L B
H03 0
1.5
0
U -
B22261-2
-469227.x
ls :
Sam
ple
ID
469227
121625
1312
Vers
ion 0
51 -
08/1
1/2
013
TSite
Client
Engineer
BH03
1.50
U
Hole ID
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Checked &
Approved
BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 4.3:1990
Sample washed and air dried
BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 5:1990
Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index & Liquidity Index
140.08
Brown CLAY with some gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.
Moor
Lane,
Witto
n,
Birm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
tFigure C4
IG31/01/2019 Sheet 1 of 1
Liquid Limit (Four Point Cone Penetrometer Method)Originator
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
23 24 25 26 27Moisture Content (%)
Pe
ne
tra
tion
of co
ne
(m
m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Liquid Limit (%)
Pla
stic
ity In
de
x
M L M I M H M V M E
C L C I C H C V C E
Contract No.
Non Engineering Description :
Preparation :
Results :As Received Moisture Content : (BS1377:Part 2:Clause 3:1990) %Percentage retained on 425µm sieve : %Liquid Limit : %
Plastic Limit : %Plasticity Index :
Equivalent moisture content of material passing 425µm sieve : %Liquidity Index :
Lab P
roje
ct
No B
22261-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
019 1
5:4
4:1
11220 -
LLP
L T
P02 0
1.0
0
B -
B22261-2
-469228.x
ls :
Sam
ple
ID
469228
142429
1613
Vers
ion 0
51 -
08/1
1/2
013
TSite
Client
Engineer
TP02
1.00
B
Hole ID
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Checked &
Approved
BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 4.3:1990
Sample washed and air dried
BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 5:1990
Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index & Liquidity Index
180.15
Brown silty clayey SAND with much gravel. Gravel is fine to cobble sized.
Moor
Lane,
Witto
n,
Birm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
tFigure C5
IG31/01/2019 Sheet 1 of 1
Liquid Limit (Four Point Cone Penetrometer Method)Originator
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28 29 30 31 32Moisture Content (%)
Pe
ne
tra
tion
of co
ne
(m
m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Liquid Limit (%)
Pla
stic
ity In
de
x
M L M I M H M V M E
C L C I C H C V C E
Contract No.
Non Engineering Description :
Preparation :
Sample was determined to be Non-Plastic after preparation
Results :As Received Moisture Content : (BS1377:Part 2:Clause 3:1990) %Percentage retained on 425µm sieve : %Liquid Limit : %
Plastic Limit :
Equivalent moisture content of material passing 425µm sieve : %
tFigure C6
IG31/01/2019 Sheet 1 of 1
Liquid Limit (One Point Cone Penetrometer Method)Originator
Checked &
Approved
BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 5:1990
12
20
- L
LP
L T
P0
3 0
0.5
0
B -
B2
22
61
-2-4
69
22
9.x
ls :
Sa
mp
le I
D 4
69
22
9
Ve
rsio
n 0
51
- 0
8/1
1/2
01
3
T
Mo
or
La
ne
, W
itto
n,
Birm
ing
ha
m,
B6
7H
G
27
Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index & Liquidity Index
2217
Non-Plastic
BS 1377:Part 2:Clause 4.4:1990
La
b P
roje
ct N
o B
22
26
1-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
01
9 1
5:4
4:1
9
27
TP03
0.50
B
Hole ID
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
Client Deborah Marshall
Engineer Create Engineering LLP
Brown silty clayey SAND with some gravel and one cobble. Gravel is fine to coarse.
Sample washed and air dried
25085Site 5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Liquid Limit (%)
Pla
stic
ity I
ndex
M L M I M H M V M E
C L C I C H C V C E
Figure C7
t Sheet 1 of 1
35.7
50
3.9
0.0063D10
Uniformity Coefficient
6.4
Silt
Clay
619.0
1260 -
PS
D B
H01 0
1.2
0
B -
B22261-2
-469223.x
ls :
Sam
ple
ID
469223
Vers
ion 0
59 -
24/0
6/2
013
Lab P
roje
ct
No B
22261-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
019 1
5:4
4:2
6
Moor
Lane,
Witto
n,
Birm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
T
Contract No 250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Site
Client
Engineer
Hole
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
% PassingNon Engineering Description
125.0 mm90.0 mm75.0 mm63.0 mm50.0 mm37.5 mm28.0 mm20.0 mm14.0 mm10.0 mm6.30 mm5.00 mm3.35 mm2.00 mm1.18 mm600 µm425 µm300 µm212 µm150 µm
63 µm20 µm
6 µm2 µm
15.8
D100
D60
Particle Diameter - mm
100100100100100
948776716763615958565553483830231610
6
42.1
Notes
OriginatorChecked &
Approved
CR31/01/2019
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONBS1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.2 - Wet Sieving
BS1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.4 - Sedimentation by Pipette
BH01
1.20
B
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Brown silty clayey SAND with much gravel. Gravel is fine
to coarse.
Sample Proportions - %
0.0
Particle Size
Sedimentation sample not pre-treated
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 6 20 60 200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Particle Size - mm
Perc
enta
ge P
assin
g -
%
CobblesClayFine Fine FineMedium Coarse Medium Coarse Medium Coarse
Silt Sand Gravel
Sedimentation sample not pre-treated
BH02
1.20
B
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Brown silty clayey SAND with much gravel. Gravel is fine
to coarse.
Sample Proportions - %
0.5
Particle Size
OriginatorChecked &
Approved
CR31/01/2019
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONBS1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.2 - Wet Sieving
BS1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.4 - Sedimentation by Pipette
% PassingNon Engineering Description
125.0 mm90.0 mm75.0 mm63.0 mm50.0 mm37.5 mm28.0 mm20.0 mm14.0 mm10.0 mm6.30 mm5.00 mm3.35 mm2.00 mm1.18 mm600 µm425 µm300 µm212 µm150 µm
63 µm20 µm
6 µm2 µm
21.0
D100
D60
Particle Diameter - mm
100100100100
98939288868279787471686461564840302113
9
29.0
Notes
T
Contract No 250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Site
Client
Engineer
Hole
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
1260 -
PS
D B
H02 0
1.2
0
B -
B22261-2
-469225.x
ls :
Sam
ple
ID
469225
Vers
ion 0
59 -
24/0
6/2
013
Lab P
roje
ct
No B
22261-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
019 1
5:4
4:5
9
Moor
Lane,
Witto
n,
Birm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
D10
Uniformity Coefficient
8.8
Silt
Clay
139.3
40.7
63
0.39
0.0028
Figure C8
t Sheet 1 of 1
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 6 20 60 200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Particle Size - mm
Perc
enta
ge P
assin
g -
%
CobblesClayFine Fine FineMedium Coarse Medium Coarse Medium Coarse
Silt Sand Gravel
Figure C9
t Sheet 1 of 1
38.3
75
4.4
0.0039D10
Uniformity Coefficient
7.5
Silt
Clay
1128.2
1260 -
PS
D T
P02 0
1.0
0
B -
B22261-2
-469228.x
ls :
Sam
ple
ID
469228
Vers
ion 0
59 -
24/0
6/2
013
Lab P
roje
ct
No B
22261-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
019 1
5:4
5:0
6
Moor
Lane,
Witto
n,
Birm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
T
Contract No 250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Site
Client
Engineer
Hole
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
% PassingNon Engineering Description
125.0 mm90.0 mm75.0 mm63.0 mm50.0 mm37.5 mm28.0 mm20.0 mm14.0 mm10.0 mm6.30 mm5.00 mm3.35 mm2.00 mm1.18 mm600 µm425 µm300 µm212 µm150 µm
63 µm20 µm
6 µm2 µm
9.0
D100
D60
Particle Diameter - mm
100100100
9695897867656462615955534943342922171212
7
41.0
Notes
OriginatorChecked &
Approved
CR31/01/2019
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONBS1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.2 - Wet Sieving
BS1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.4 - Sedimentation by Pipette
TP02
1.00
B
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Brown silty clayey SAND with much gravel. Gravel is fine
to cobble sized.
Sample Proportions - %
4.2
Particle Size
Sedimentation sample not pre-treated
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 6 20 60 200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Particle Size - mm
Perc
enta
ge P
assin
g -
%
CobblesClayFine Fine FineMedium Coarse Medium Coarse Medium Coarse
Silt Sand Gravel
Figure C10
t Sheet 1 of 1
55.1
75
0.54
0.0055D10
Uniformity Coefficient
7.1
Silt
Clay
98.2
1260 -
PS
D T
P03 0
0.5
0
B -
B22261-2
-469229.x
ls :
Sam
ple
ID
469229
Vers
ion 0
59 -
24/0
6/2
013
Lab P
roje
ct
No B
22261-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
019 1
5:4
5:1
2
Moor
Lane,
Witto
n,
Birm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
T
Contract No 250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Site
Client
Engineer
Hole
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
% PassingNon Engineering Description
125.0 mm90.0 mm75.0 mm63.0 mm50.0 mm37.5 mm28.0 mm20.0 mm14.0 mm10.0 mm6.30 mm5.00 mm3.35 mm2.00 mm1.18 mm600 µm425 µm300 µm212 µm150 µm
63 µm20 µm
6 µm2 µm
12.0
D100
D60
Particle Diameter - mm
100100100
9595959390888481807674706256473527201310
7
20.7
Notes
OriginatorChecked &
Approved
CR31/01/2019
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONBS1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.2 - Wet Sieving
BS1377:Part 2:1990 Clause 9.4 - Sedimentation by Pipette
TP03
0.50
B
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Brown silty clayey SAND with some gravel and one
cobble. Gravel is fine to coarse.
Sample Proportions - %
5.2
Particle Size
Sedimentation sample not pre-treated
0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 6 20 60 200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Particle Size - mm
Perc
enta
ge P
assin
g -
%
CobblesClayFine Fine FineMedium Coarse Medium Coarse Medium Coarse
Silt Sand Gravel
Non Engineering Description:
15 % 14 %
Assumed
Degree of saturation %
20±2°C
Pressure Range
kPa
0 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 200
200 - 400
400 - 50
Duration
days
1
1
1
1
1
Specimen taken 50mm below top of (U100) tube by vertical extrusion with horizontal orientation
Cv (log time)
m²/year
3.45
unable to assess
Cv (root time)
m²/year
4.70
10.13
5.37
Final Moisture Content
Final Voids Ratio
2.68 Mg/m³
unable to assess
1.35
3.18
2.22
Initial Voids Ratio
Initial Bulk Density 2.12 Mg/m³
0.453
0.107
0.072
0.021
6.57
Particle Density
Voids ratio (e)
0.424
0.412
C sec
881.84 Mg/m³
Specimen Dimensions
Laboratory temperature
0.377
19.82mm x 74.94mm dia
Mv
0.387
ONE DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATIONBS1377:PART 5:1990
OriginatorChecked &
Approved
KP31/01/2019 t
Figure C11
Sheet 1 of 1Moor
Lane,
Witto
n,
Birm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
Lab P
roje
ct
No B
22261-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
019 1
5:4
5:2
0
Ve
rsio
n 0
62
- 1
1/0
5/2
01
1
T1510 -
OE
D B
H03 0
1.5
0
U -
B22261-2
-469227.x
ls :
Sam
ple
ID
469227
Brown CLAY with some gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse.
0.387
Engineer
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
SiteContract No 25085
Hole ID
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
BH03
1.50
U
Client
0.170
m²/MN
0.397
Initial Dry Density
0.395
Initial Moisture Content
0.370
0.380
0.390
0.400
0.410
0.420
0.430
1 10 100 1000
Effective Pressure (kPa)
Vo
ids R
atio
(e
)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
• C
oe
ffic
ien
t o
f C
on
so
lida
tion
m²/
yr
(T
50
)
Phi
kPa
°0.7
Sample Details
Dry Density Mg/m³
Sample Condition
162.6
3
8.0
38
0.20
Brown CLAY with some gravel. Gravel is fine
to coarse.
Shear Strength Parameters
C
Undisturbed specimen taken
100mm below top of tube
Create Engineering LLP
Hole
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
BH03
1.50
U
1.23 1.23
Membrane Correction
Test Details
Membrane Thickness mm
0.45
2
0.20
4.3 6.8
Cell Pressure kPa 100 200
Maximum Deviator Stress kPa 77 88
Non Engineering Description
Shear Strength kPa 38
Brittle
4344
UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED MULTISTAGE
TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION
tFigure C12
86
1.23
400
0.40
12
0.27
2.17
0.20
1.94
1
83.7
Bulk Density
Vers
ion 0
34 -
22/1
1/2
012
TSite
Client
Engineer
Diameter mm
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Moisture Content %
Mode of Failure
Strain at Failure %
Rate of Axial Displacement %/min
kPa
Mg/m³
Moor
Lane,
Witto
n,
Birm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
Lab P
roje
ct
No B
22261-2
: 3
1/0
1/2
019 1
5:4
5:3
0
OriginatorChecked &
Approved
Height mm
Comments
Undisturbed
1730 -
UU
TX
L B
H03 0
1.5
0
U -
B22261-2
-469227.x
ls :
Sam
ple
ID
469227
AT31/01/2019
Contract No. 25085
Deborah Marshall
Stage
BS 1377 : Part 7 : 1990 Clause 9
Sheet 1 of 2
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500Normal Stress - kPa
Shear
Str
ess -
kP
a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Strain - %
Devia
tor
Str
ess
- k
Pa
Moor
Lane, W
itton, B
irm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
Lab P
roje
ct N
o B
22261-2
Contract No 25085
Checked &
Approved
AT31/01/2019
Site 5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Hole
Sample Ref
Depth (m)
Sample Type
#R
EF
!
T1730 -
UU
TX
L B
H03 0
1.5
0 U
- B
22261-2
-469227.x
ls
Engineer
Client
BH03
1.50
U
Sheet 2 of 2
Figure C12
tOriginator Please note that these photographs are intended to show the
failure mode, and do not necessarily show accurately the
colouration of the soil.
1
2
Create Engineering LLP
Deborah Marshall
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
APPENDIX DGEOCHEMICAL LABORATORY TESTING
Sty
le:
AP
PE
ND
IX D
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:27:
51
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:
2140 - S
uite
Maxi S
OIL
- B22261 0
1.x
ls
HoleDepth
m
BH03 0.50
Lab P
roje
ct No B
22261 : 2
9/0
1/2
019 1
7:1
7:2
1
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
0.50
TH
Checked &
Approved
31 181
Figure D1
Sheet 1 of 129/01/2019
Originator
Vers
ion 0
10 - 2
9/0
1/2
009
TP02 0.30
BH01 0.30
TP03
0.6 4.3 0.06
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg %
5.8
23 50 0.69 41 1.9 0.3
441.49
29 173 1.69 46 <1.0
6.5
<1.0
5.6
0.6 <0.01
0.020.3 3.9
26 156 1.49 42 6.51.2 <0.3 2.5 0.01
0.8428.7
mg/kg mg/kg
<1 206 41
mg/kg
0.59
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
1.3
0.13 <0.5
TP1740.05 ~1 1.0 0.3 0.1
M U UM N M
0.01
MTP169 TP019
T 469206
T 469210
T 469198
T 469202
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
Sample Identification
TSite
Client
Engineer
Sample
Ref
t
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
g/l
0.60 <1 17
6.2 0.84 <1
6.2
98 0.38 1.3 42
0.125.2 0.74 <1 66 0.6 40
17
Bery
llium
pH
0.5 0.10 1 1
Ars
enic
Cadm
ium
Chro
miu
m
Lead
Zin
c
Merc
ury
Sele
niu
m
Copper
Nic
kel
Vanadiu
m
Boro
n (
wate
r solu
ble
)
Hexavale
nt
Chro
miu
m
Tota
l org
anic
carb
on
TP1370.10 0.5 1
TP137TP137 TP137 TP137 TP137
25085Contract No
TP137 TP137Limits of Detection
Terra Tek Analysis Method TP137MM M
TP137 TP032 TP0400.51
Sulp
hate
(w
ate
r solu
ble
in
2:1
extr
act)
as S
O4
TP137Accreditation M=Mcerts U=UKAS N=No accreditation M MMM M M
RESULTS OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION TESTS -
SOIL
KEY
* - deviating result (refer to Appendix S2 for details)
^ - result expressed on as-received basis
^ - result expressed on as-received basis
TP045 TP045TP045 TP045
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method TP045 TP045
POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (USEPA 16) -
SOIL
KEY
* - deviating result (refer to Appendix S2 for details)
25085Contract No
Tota
l P
AH
s (
US
EP
A 1
6)
TP045 TP045 TP045MM M M M
TP045 TP0450.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100.10
Dib
enzo (
ah)
anth
racene
Benzo (
ghi) p
ery
lene
Benzo (
a)
anth
racene
Chry
sene
Benzo (
b)
fluora
nth
ene
Benzo (
k)
fluora
nth
ene
Phenanth
rene
Anth
racene
Benzo (
a)
pyre
ne
Indeno (
1,2
,3 -
cd)
pyre
ne
Naphth
ale
ne
Acenaphth
yle
ne
Acenaphth
ene
Flu
ore
ne
Flu
ora
nth
ene
Pyre
ne
<0.10 <0.10
<0.05 <0.05 <0.10
<0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.05 <0.10
<0.05
<0.05 <0.10 <0.10
<0.05
<0.05 <0.10 <0.05
<0.10
Create Engineering LLP
mg/kgmg/kg mg/kg
tTP045
Sample
Ref
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
Sample Identification
TSite
Client
Engineer
T 469198
T 469202
T 469206
T 469210
M M M M MTP045 TP045TP045 TP045
1.3
M MMMMTP045
M M
0.10 0.100.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10
mg/kg
<0.10
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
<0.10<0.05 0.21
<0.10
<0.05 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
<0.05 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <1.3<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.05 <0.05
<0.05 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <1.3
0.18
<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.05 <0.05
<0.10 <1.3<0.05 <0.05 <0.10 <0.10<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.05
mg/kg mg/kg
0.13 <0.10 <0.10 <1.3
mg/kg mg/kg
0.16 0.16 0.13
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
<0.10
Vers
ion 0
08 - 1
9/0
6/2
007
TP02 0.30
BH01 0.30
TP03
0.20
Figure D2
Sheet 1 of 129/01/2019
OriginatorChecked &
Approved
Accreditation M=Mcerts U=UKAS N=No accreditation
Lab P
roje
ct No B
22261 : 2
9/0
1/2
019 1
7:1
7:2
4
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
0.50
DAB
2150 - P
AH
s S
OIL
- B22261 0
1.x
ls
HoleDepth
m
BH03 0.50
Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method
Accreditation U=UKAS N=No accreditationTP126 TP126TP126 TP126 TP126
25085Contract No
TP126 TP1261 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
TP
H (
Aro
matics >
C16-C
21)
TP
H (
Aro
matics >
C21-C
35)
TP
H (
Aro
matics >
C35-C
40)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics >
C21-C
35)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics >
C35-C
40)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics C
8-C
10)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics >
C10-C
12)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics >
C12-C
16)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics >
C16-C
21)
1
<1 <1 <1 <1
<1 <1
<1 <1 <1
<1
<1 <1 <1
<1 <1<1 <1 <1
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
TP
H (
Aro
matics >
C10-C
12)
TP
H (
Aro
matics >
C12-C
16)
<1
<1 <1 <1
U U
t
Sample
Ref
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
Sample Identification
TSite
Client
Engineer
V 469199
V 469203
V 469207
V 469211
U UUTP126
U
TPHCWG - SOIL
UU UTP126 TP126 TP126
U U
1 1
mg/kg
<1
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
<1
mg/kg mg/kg
7 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1 Yes<1
Yes
Yes
<1 <1 <1 <1
2 <1 <1 <1
<1
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Vers
ion 0
10 - 1
8/0
2/2
009
TP02 0.30
BH01 0.30
TP03
Figure D3
Sheet 1 of 129/01/2019
Originator
42 2
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
0.50
DAB
Checked &
Approved
2210 - T
PH
CW
G S
oil - B
22261 0
1.xls
HoleDepth
m
BH03 0.50
Lab P
roje
ct No B
22261 : 2
9/0
1/2
019 1
7:1
7:2
7S
am
ple
receiv
ed
in
ap
pro
pri
ate
co
nta
iner
KEY
* - deviating result (refer to Appendix S2 for details)
^ - result expressed on as-received basis
Yes<1
<5
KEY
* - deviating result (refer to Appendix S2 for details)
^ - result expressed on as-received basis
2215 - V
PH
CW
G - S
oil - B
22261 0
1.x
ls
HoleDepth
m
BH03 0.50
Lab P
roje
ct No B
22261 : 2
9/0
1/2
019 1
7:1
7:2
9
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
0.50
DAB
Checked &
Approved
<10 <5
Figure D4
Sheet 1 of 129/01/2019
Originator
Vers
ion 0
10 - 1
8/0
2/2
009
TP02 0.30
BH01 0.30
TP03
Yes
Sam
ple
receiv
ed
in
ap
pro
pri
ate
co
nta
iner
µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg
<10 <5 <5 <5
<5
Yes
<10 <5 <5 <5 Yes
<10 <5 <5 <5 Yes
469199
<10
µg/kg µg/kg
<10 <10 <5
µg/kg
<10
µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg
<5
5 5
MMM MMMTP154 TP154
MTP154 TP154 TP154
VPHCWG - SOIL
MMM M
Sample Identification
V
V
TSite
Client
Engineer
Sample
Ref
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
469207
V 469203
V 469211
t
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
<5 <5
<10
<10 <10 <10
<10 <10
<10
<10 <10
<10
<10
<5 <5
<10<10 <10 <10 <10 <5 <5
TP
H (
Alip
hatics C
5-C
6)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics C
6-C
8)
TP
H (
Aro
matics C
6-C
7)
TP
H (
Aro
matics C
7-C
8)
TP
H (
Aro
matics C
8-C
10)
Benzene
Eth
ylb
enzene
m &
p -
Xyle
ne
o -
Xyle
ne
Tolu
ene
MT
BE
10 10 10 10 10 5 5 510TP154
25085Contract No
Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method
Accreditation U=UKAS N=No accreditationTP154 TP154TP154 TP154 TP154
2700 - A
sbesto
s - B
22261 0
1.x
ls
HoleDepth
m
BH03 0.50
Lab P
roje
ct No B
22261 : 2
9/0
1/2
019 1
7:1
7:3
2
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
0.50
TH
Comments
Figure D5
Sheet 1 of 129/01/2019
OriginatorChecked &
Approved
Vers
ion 0
08 - 1
9/0
6/2
007
TP02 0.30
BH01 0.30
TP03
%
~None
~None
~None
None ~
ND
ND
ND
ND
* - deviating result (refer to Appendix S2 for details)
S/CU
0.001~ ~
US/C
KEY
T 469206
T 469210
T 469198
T 469202
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
Sample Identification
TSite
Client
Engineer
Sample
Ref
tU
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Asbesto
s S
cre
en
25085Contract No
S/C
Quantification b
y P
hase
Contr
ast
Optical
Mic
roscopy
Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method
Accreditation M=Mcerts U=UKAS N=No accreditation
ASBESTOS SCREEN/IDENTIFICATIONND - no asbestos detected
D - asbestos detected
3140 - C
onta
min
atio
n N
RA
P1 - B
22261-3
01.x
ls
HoleDepth
m
BH03 0.50
Lab P
roje
ct No B
22261-3
: 18/0
3/2
019 1
5:3
4:0
7
10.1
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
TH
2.5
Figure D1
Sheet 1 of 118/03/2019
OriginatorChecked &
Approved
Vers
ion 0
08 - 1
9/0
6/2
007
TP02 0.30
BH01 0.30 0.08 4.8 0.5
0.6 6.9
6.8
µg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l
0.06 3.9
0.9 2.8 0.03 3.6 0.9 6.8
0.7 1.8
µg/l
<0.5
µg/l µg/l
7.15<0.5
µg/l
<0.08
µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l
21.2
10.8 <0.08
0.01 0.2 0.1 ~
RESULTS OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION TESTS - NRA LEACHATE
N N UN
ET 469205
ET 469197
ET 469201
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
Sample Identification
TSite
Client
Engineer
Sample
Ref
t
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
2.35
<0.04
<0.04 <0.04 <0.01
0.47 1.97
6.8 <0.04 0.07 3.740.40 <0.08 <0.5
Merc
ury
Sele
niu
m
Copper
Nic
kel
Zin
c
Bery
llium
Vanadiu
m
Am
monia
cal nitro
gen
pH
Ars
enic
Cadm
ium
Chro
miu
m
Lead
0.2 0.04 0.04 0.01
N NN
0.08 0.5 0.03 0.30.3TP078 TP020TP156 TP156 TP156 TP156 TP156
25085Contract No
Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method TP156
NN N N N NAccreditation U=UKAS N=No accreditationTP156TP156 TP156 TP156 TP156
Figure D6
3155 - P
AH
s N
RA
Suite
2 - B
22261-3
01.x
ls
HoleDepth
m
BH03 0.50
Lab P
roje
ct No B
22261-3
: 18/0
3/2
019 1
5:3
4:1
0
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
TH
Checked &
Approved
<10 <10
Figure D2
Sheet 1 of 118/03/2019
Originator
Vers
ion 0
08 - 1
9/0
6/2
007
TP02 0.30
BH01 0.30 <10 <10 <10 <160
ng/lng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l
<10
<10 <10 <10 <10
<10
<10
ng/l
<10 <10
<10
<10 <10 <10 <10
<10 <10
<10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10
<160
<160
ng/l ng/l
<10 <10 <10
ng/l
<10
ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l
<10
<10 <10
10 1010 10 10 10
N N NN N NTP112
POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (USEPA 16) - NRA LEACHATE
TP112TP112
ET 469205
ET 469197
ET 469201
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
Sample Identification
TSite
Client
Engineer
Sample
Ref
t
160
N
10
N
<10 <10 <10
<10
<10 <10
<10
<10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10
Indeno (
1,2
,3 -
cd)
pyre
ne
Chry
sene
Phenanth
rene
Anth
racene
Flu
ora
nth
ene
Pyre
ne
Benzo (
b)
fluora
nth
ene
Benzo (
k)
fluora
nth
ene
Benzo (
a)
pyre
ne
10
Naphth
ale
ne
Acenaphth
yle
ne
Acenaphth
ene
Flu
ore
ne
Benzo (
a)
anth
racene
10 10 10 10TP112 TP112 TP112
NNTP112 TP112
10
N N NN
10 10 10
N N NTP112
25085Contract No
Benzo (
ghi) p
ery
lene
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
ng/l
TP112 TP112TP112
Poly
nucle
ar
Aro
matic
Hydro
carb
ons (
tota
l)
TP112 TP112 TP112TP112 TP112
Dib
enzo (
ah)
anth
racene
Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method
Accreditation U=UKAS N=No accreditation
Figure D7
Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method
Accreditation U=UKAS N=No accreditationTP130 TP130TP130
N N
TP
H (
Aro
matics >
C35-C
40)
25085Contract No
TP155 TP155 TP130 TP130TP15510
N N NN
10
TP
H (
Aro
matics >
C21-C
35)
10 10 10 10 10TP155 TP155 TP130
NNTP130 TP130
N
10 10
TP
H (
Alip
hatics C
5-C
6)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics C
6-C
8)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics C
8-C
10)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics >
C10-C
12)
TP
H (
Aro
matics C
6-C
7)
TP
H (
Aro
matics C
7-C
8)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics >
C12-C
16)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics >
C16-C
21)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics >
C21-C
35)
TP
H (
Alip
hatics >
C35-C
40)
TP
H (
Aro
matics C
8-C
10)
TP
H (
Aro
matics >
C10-C
12)
TP
H (
Aro
matics >
C12-C
16)
TP
H (
Aro
matics >
C16-C
21)
<10 <10 <10<10 <10 <10
<10
<10
<10
<10 <10 <10
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
µg/l
t
Sample
Ref
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
Sample Identification
TSite
Client
Engineer
ET 469197
ET 469201
ET 469205
10
NTP130
TPHCWG ALIPHATIC/AROMATIC SPLIT - NRA LEACHATE
TP130N N NN N N
10 1010 10 10 10TP130
µg/l
<10
µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l
<10
µg/l µg/l
<10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10
<10<10 <10 <10 <10<10 <10 <10 <10
µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l
<10<10 <10 <10 <10<10
µg/l
Vers
ion 0
10 - 1
8/0
2/2
009
TP02 0.30
BH01 0.30
Figure D3
Sheet 1 of 118/03/2019
Originator
<10 <10
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
TH
Checked &
Approved
3210 - T
PH
CW
G C
5-C
40 N
RA
- B22261-3
01.x
ls
HoleDepth
m
BH03 0.50
Lab P
roje
ct No B
22261-3
: 18/0
3/2
019 1
5:3
4:1
3
Figure D8
1140 - B
RE
Suite
Soil - B
22261-2
01.xls
HoleDepth
m
BH02 1.20
Moor L
ane, W
itton, B
irmin
gham
, B6 7
HG
TH
Figure D1
Sheet 1 of 125/01/2019
OriginatorChecked &
Approved
Vers
ion 0
11 - 2
6/0
7/2
012
BH01 1.20
Lab P
roje
ct No B
22261-2
: 25/0
1/2
019 1
5:2
7:4
2
BRE SD1 SUITE - SOIL
T 469224
T 469226
Sample
Type
Lab
Sample
ID
Sample Identification
TSite
Client
Engineer
Sample
Ref
t
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
8.0
7.5
~
pH
TP019
25085Contract No
Limits of DetectionTerra Tek Analysis Method
MAccreditation M=Mcerts U=UKAS N=No accreditation
Figure D6Figure D9
Contract No
Notes
T 469206
469210
Deviating
Deviating
Deviating
Ve
rsio
n 0
17
- 2
2/0
1/2
01
5
TP02 0.30
BH01 0.30
80
50
- D
escri
ptio
ns
- B
22
26
1 0
1.x
ls
Mo
or
La
ne
, W
itto
n, B
irm
ing
ha
m, B
6 7
HG
BH03
29/01/2019TGH
La
b P
roje
ct N
o B
22
26
1 : 2
9/0
1/2
01
9 1
7:1
7:3
7
TP03 0.50
Depth
m
Checked &
Approved
0.50
T 469198
OriginatorAppendix S1
T
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
469202
Exploratory
Hole
Sample
Type
Sample
Ref
Sample Identification
Client
Engineer
Site
T
T
PR
IMA
RY
MA
TR
IX
Te
mp
era
ture
on
re
ce
ipt °
C
Date
Sampled
Deviating
Lab
Sample
ID
Ad
diti
on
al m
atr
ix
10.8
10.8
Se
co
nd
ary
Ma
trix
Clayey SAND Fine to medium gravel
Sandy CLAY Fine to medium gravel
Roots / twigs
10.8
Clayey SAND Fine to medium gravel
Fine to medium gravel
10.8
CLAY
17.3
% R
eta
ine
d 2
mm
% L
oss a
t 3
0C
10.5
19.2
6.4
16.2 17.1
13.4
Roots / twigs 29.4
E13009/1
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS
Sheet 1 of 1
The laboratory removes any material > 2mm prior to analysis. The quantity and nature of the material is shown as the secondary and additional matrix types in the above table.
Where a parameter cannot be determined in house it is our policy to use a UKAS/MCERTS accredited laboratory wherever possible. Terra Tek will assume responsibility for the quality of subcontracted tests and the performance of the subcontractor chosen. Where there is no known UKAS/MCERTS laboratory for a particular parameter, a laboratory listed within the Terra Tek Approved Subcontractors List, which is subject to performance assessment, will be selected.
Terra Tek are accredited for clay, sand and loam matrix types only, where they constitute the major component of the sample. Other coarse granular materials such as gravel, are not accredited where they comprise the major component of the sample.
Results are expressed on a dry-weight basis (samples dried at 30oC ± 5oC) except where stated.
1
2
3
4
Sample Identification
V Deviating
Deviations due to use of incorrect sample container are shown on result tables.
Pre
se
rva
tive
s u
sed
Date
Sampled
Deviating
Da
ma
ge
d c
on
tain
er
Deviating results are indicated within result tables.
Results reported for samples classified as deviating may be compromised. Deviation types are shown as "X" or "Yes" in the table above.
The absence of "X" or "Yes" in the table above indicates no reported deviations.
Sa
mp
ling
da
te h
as
no
t b
ee
n
pro
vid
ed
Deviating conditions
Depth
m
Exce
ed
ed
ma
xim
ium
ho
ldin
g
tim
e f
or
sele
cte
d t
est
(s)
Pre
se
nce
of
he
ad
sp
ace
in
sam
ple
via
l
Po
orly
fittin
g c
ap
or
lid
Sample
Type
Sample
Ref
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
469202
Client
Engineer
T
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
4691990.30
25085
T 469198
Contract NoSite
T
Exploratory
Hole
Lab
Sample
ID
29/01/2019TGH
La
b P
roje
ct N
o B
22
26
1 :
29
/01
/20
19
17
:17
:40
BH03 0.50
Ve
rsio
n 0
17
- 2
2/0
1/2
01
5
BH03 0.50
BH01 0.30
8051 -
Devi
atin
g s
am
ple
s -
SO
LID
- B
22261 0
1.x
ls
Mo
or
La
ne
, W
itto
n,
Birm
ing
ha
m,
B6
7H
G
BH01
V
469210
tAppendix S2
Checked &
Approved
DEVIATING SAMPLES - SOIL
469203
469207
469211
469206
Sheet 1 of 1
Originator
TP02 0.30 V
TP02 0.30 T
TP03 0.50 V
TP03 0.50 T
NOTES
Deviating
Deviating
Deviating
Deviating
Deviating
Deviating
BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes.
Yes
Determination of pentane/acetone extractable petroleum
hydrocarbons (C8 - C40) by GC/FID Yes
MEWAM method: Cyanide in Waters etcDetermination of total cyanide by steam
distillation/colorimetry.Yes Yes
BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes.
8100 -
Test
Meth
ods S
oil
- B
22261 0
1.x
ls
MCERTS
Accredited
Wet/Dry
Sample
Tested
Method
Code
ISO17025
Accredited
YesPreparation of soil samples for chemical analysis
Reference Description of Method
Engineer
Site25085
BS1881: Part 324, 1988: Testing ConcreteDetermination of elemental sulfur by soxhlet extraction and
titrimetry.
1. Terra Tek (Birmingham) are MCERTS accredited for clay, sand & loam matrix types only, where they constitute the major component of the sample. Other coarse granular
materials, ie gravel, are not accredited where they comprise the major component of the sample.
2. Results are expressed on a dry-weight basis (samples dried at 30°C ± 5°C) except where stated.
3. The laboratory removes any material >2mm prior to analysis. The quantity and nature of any material removed from samples is recorded and the information is available on
request.
4. The laboratory records the date of analysis of each parameter. This information is available on request.
5. Where a parameter cannot be determined in house it is our policy to use a UKAS/MCERTS accredited laboratory wherever possible. Terra Tek will assume responsibility for
the quality of subcontracted tests and the performance of the subcontractor chosen. Where there is no known UKAS/MCERTS laboratory for a particular parameter, a laboratory
listed within the Terra Tek Approved Subcontractors list, which is subject to performance assessment, will be selected.
Dry
Yes WetTNRCC Method 1005: 2001 (modified)
Determination of ammoniacal nitrogen by colorimetry.
Dry
MEWAM method: Determination of Thiocyanate
,1985Determination of thiocyanate by colorimetry Yes Yes Dry
Determination of acid soluble sulfides by steam
distillation/colorimetry.Yes Yes
Determination of water soluble sulfate in 2:1 water/soil
extractYes Yes Dry
Dry
Determination of water soluble boron by colorimetry Yes
DryDetermination of loss on ignition at 50-440°C by gravimetry Yes
Yes Yes
Dry
Dry
Dry
N/AYes
Dry
Determination of complex cyanide by calculation Yes Dry
Determination of polyaromatic hydrocarbons extractable in
dichloromethane, by GC/MSYes Yes Dry
APHA/AWWA, 19th edition: Method 3500Cr-D
BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes.
N/ASheet 1 of 2
Dry
Determination of organic matter by titrimetry. Yes Dry
Determination of acid soluble sulfate by gravimetry. Yes Yes
Determination of hexavalent chromium by colorimetry. Yes
Determination of Toluene Extractable Matter by soxhlet
extraction.Yes
TP042BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes.
TP046MEWAM method: Phenols in water and Effluents:
4-aminoantipyrine method
TP045GACHAMJA A.M. Chromatography and Analysis:
1992 9-11 (modified)
BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes.
Wet
Determination of Free Cyanide by steam
distillation/colorimetryYes
TP043
Dry
Determination of monohydric phenols by steam
distillation/colorimetryYes Yes Dry
TP047 MEWAM method: Cyanide in Waters etc
Checked &
Approved
tSUMMARY OF IN-HOUSE ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS
(SOIL)
Appendix S3
DryYes
T
MEWAM method: Cyanide in Waters etc
TP051 USEPA Method 9030B
TP032MAFF Book 427: The Analysis of Agricultural
Materials: Method 8
TP049
Determination of pH in 2.5:1 water/soil extract using pH
meter.
APHA/AWWA, 19th edition: Method 5520E
Vers
ion 0
26 -
21/0
5/2
009
TP019
GP001
Moor
Lane,
Witto
n,
Birm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
GP012
TP067
TP050
TP048
TP029
TP033
Notes
Originator
N/A
Lab P
roje
ct
No B
22261 :
29/0
1/2
019 1
7:1
7:4
3
TP072 In-house documented method
TP052
Contract No5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
TP041BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes.
TP040
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Client
BS EN 12457-3: Characterisation of Waste -
Compliance test for leaching of granular waste
materials and sludges (two-stage batch test)
Preparation of soil samples for two-stage leachate test
In-house documented method
Yes
USEPA Methods 8081B & 8141BDetermination of pesticides and herbicides in soil by
GC/MS SIM
Yes
BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes.
8100 -
Test
Meth
ods S
oil
- B
22261 0
1.x
ls
MCERTS
Accredited
Wet/Dry
Sample
Tested
Method
Code
ISO17025
Accredited
Determination of anionic detergent (MBAS) by colorimetry
Reference Description of Method
Engineer
Site25085
1. Terra Tek (Birmingham) are MCERTS accredited for clay, sand & loam matrix types only, where they constitute the major component of the sample. Other coarse granular
materials, ie gravel, are not accredited where they comprise the major component of the sample.
2. Results are expressed on a dry-weight basis (samples dried at 30°C ± 5°C) except where stated.
3. The laboratory removes any material >2mm prior to analysis. The quantity and nature of any material removed from samples is recorded and the information is available on
request.
4. The laboratory records the date of analysis of each parameter. This information is available on request.
5. Where a parameter cannot be determined in house it is our policy to use a UKAS/MCERTS accredited laboratory wherever possible. Terra Tek will assume responsibility for
the quality of subcontracted tests and the performance of the subcontractor chosen. Where there is no known UKAS/MCERTS laboratory for a particular parameter, a laboratory
listed within the Terra Tek Approved Subcontractors list, which is subject to performance assessment, will be selected.
Wet
USEPA Method 5021. Wisconsin DNR modified
GRO methodDetermination of volatiles in by GC/MS headspace Yes Selected Wet
Determination of glycols by GC/FID DI
Determination of polyaromatic hydrocarbons extractable in
dichloromethane, by GC/MS (with concentration stage)Dry
Wet
Determination of Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons/GRO. Yes
DryDetermination of water soluble chloride by titrimetry Yes
Wet
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Determination of carbonyls by GC/MS. Wet
Determination of acid extractable metals in soil by ICP-
OESSelected Selected Dry
BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes.
BS1377, Part 3, 1990: Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes.
N/ASheet 2 of 2
Dry
Extracted petroleum hydrocarbons from TP067 split into
aromatic and aliphatic fractions. Analysed by GC/FID.Yes Wet
Determination of water soluble chloride by titrimetry Yes Yes
Determination of carbonate in soil (rapid titration method)
Determination of Total & Speciated 7 PCB Congeners by
GC/MS SIMYes Yes
TP134 In-house documented method
TP145 USEPA Methods 3550C & 8270D
TP137 BS7755: Section 3.9: 1995/ISO 11466:1995
USEPA Methods 8100 & 8270D.
In-house method TP045
Wet
Determination of total & speciated WHO 12 PCB
Congeners by GC/MS SIM.
TP135
Wet
Determination of Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by
GC/MSYes Yes Wet
TP147 USEPA Methods 8082A & 3665A
Checked &
Approved
tSUMMARY OF IN-HOUSE ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS
(SOIL)
Appendix S3
T
USEPA Method 556
TP158 USEPA Method 1671
TP100Wisconsin DNR Modified GRO method, Method
for Determining Gasoline Range Organics
TP152
Determination of acid soluble chloride by titrimetry
USEPA Methods 8082A & 3665A
Vers
ion 0
26 -
21/0
5/2
009
TP098
TP073
Moor
Lane,
Witto
n,
Birm
ingham
, B
6 7
HG
TP074
TP154
TP150
TP099
TP110
Notes
Originator
N/A
Lab P
roje
ct
No B
22261 :
29/0
1/2
019 1
7:1
7:4
4Contract No
5B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
TP126 TNRCC Method 1006 (modified)
TP114
Deborah Marshall
Create Engineering LLP
Client
In-house documented methodDetermination of water soluble fluoride by ion selective
electrode
Create Engineering LLP
Deborah Marshall
250855B HOPE TERRACE, EDINBURGH
APPENDIX EENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Sty
le:
AP
PE
ND
IX E
F
ile: P
:\G
INT
W\P
RO
JEC
TS
\250
85.G
PJ
P
rinte
d: 1
8/04
/201
9 09
:30:
07
Rae
burn
Dril
ling
and
Geo
tech
nica
l, W
hist
lebe
rry
Rd,
Ham
ilton
M
L3 0
HP
Tel
: 01
698-
7111
77
E-m
ail:
enqu
iries
@ra
ebur
ndril
ling.
com
Engineer:
Client:
Site: Contract No:
Arsenic
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
(mg/kg)
Chromium
(mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg) Mercury
(mg/kg)
Selenium
(mg/kg)
Copper
(mg/kg)
Nickel (mg/kg) Zinc (mg/kg) Beryllium
(mg/kg)
37 11 910 191 40 250 2400 180 3700 1.7
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
11.575 0.755 0.5 96.75 0.305 0.8625 35 27.25 140 1.34
11.4263949 0.11357817 0 80.089013 0.22487033 0.525 12.0277457 3.5 60.8988232 0.44347116
0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Yes No No No No No No No No No
Non-normal Normal Single value Normal Normal Normal Non-normal Normal Normal Normal
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Evidence level required: 95%
-4.450222535 -180.4043907 N/A -2.353631203 -353.0479052 -949.0952381 -393.2573998 -87.28571429 -116.9152313 -1.62355542
Evidence level 95% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90%
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ ≈≥ Cc
61.213864 31.368386
Client/client ref: Create Engineering LLP
Project ref: 25085
Site ref: EDINBURGH, 5B HOPE TERRACE
Data description:
Contaminant(s): heavy metals
Test scenario: Planning
Date: 5 March 2019
User details: WTG
211.658532 1.861824436.4782503 0.88864535 0.5 190.989277 0.56960081 1.4802579
Standard deviation, s
Number of non-detects
Critical concentration, Cc
Notes
Distribution
Statistical approach
Set non-detect values to:
t statistic, t0 (or k0)
Base decision on:
Outliers?
Sample size, n
Sample mean,
Select dataset
Test scenario:
Result
(on true mean concentration, µ)
Upper confidence limit
Go to outlier test Show individual summaryBack to data
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Go to normality test
x
Evidence level
Client/client ref: Create Engineering LLP
Project ref: 25085
Site ref: EDINBURGH, 5B HOPE TERRACE
Data description:
Contaminant(s): heavy metals
Test scenario: Planning
Date: 5 March 2019
User details: WTG
Standard deviation, s
Number of non-detects
Critical concentration, Cc
Notes
Distribution
Statistical approach
Set non-detect values to:
t statistic, t0 (or k0)
Base decision on:
Outliers?
Sample size, n
Sample mean,
Select dataset
Test scenario:
Result
(on true mean concentration, µ)
Upper confidence limit
Back to data
x
Vanadium
(mg/kg)
Boron (mg/kg) Hexavalent
Chromium
(mg/kg)
410 290 6
4 4 4 0 0 0 0
43.25 1.025 0.3375 No Data No Data No Data No Data
2.21735578 0.67019898 0.18874586
0 2 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
No No No
Normal Normal Normal
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
-330.7994169 -862.3558394 -60.00131578
100% 100% 100%
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc
1.81361088 0.559593845.859122
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Napthalene
(mg/kg)
Acenaphthyle
ne (<0.05)
Acenaphthene
(mg/kg)
Fluorene
(mg/kg)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Anthracene
(mg/kg)
Fluoranthene
(mg/kg)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Benzo(a)anthr
acene (mg/kg)
chrysene
(mg/kg)
5.6 420 510 400 1200 5400 560 1200 11 22S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
0.025 0.025 0.05 0.025 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.0875 0.0775 0.0825
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.075 0.055 0.065
4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Single value Single value Single value Single value Single value Single value Non-normal Non-normal Non-normal Non-normal
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Evidence level required: 95%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -13997.75 -31997.66667 -397.1818182 -674.3846154
Evidence level 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc
Sample size, n
Sample mean,
Select dataset
Test scenario:
Result
(on true mean concentration, µ)
Upper confidence limit
Distribution
Statistical approach
Set non-detect values to:
t statistic, t0 (or k0)
Base decision on:
Outliers?
0.26435596 0.25095871
Client/client ref: Create Engineering LLP
Project ref: EDINBURGH, 5B HOPE
STREET
Site ref: 25085
Data description:
Contaminant(s): PAH
Test scenario: Planning
Date: 5 March 2019
User details: WTG
0.19736972 0.224164220.025 0.025 0.05 0.025 0.05 0.05
Standard deviation, s
Number of non-detects
Critical concentration, Cc
Notes
Go to outlier test Show individual summaryBack to data
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Go to normality test
x
Evidence level
Sample size, n
Sample mean,
Select dataset
Test scenario:
Result
(on true mean concentration, µ)
Upper confidence limit
Distribution
Statistical approach
Set non-detect values to:
t statistic, t0 (or k0)
Base decision on:
Outliers?
Client/client ref: Create Engineering LLP
Project ref: EDINBURGH, 5B HOPE
STREET
Site ref: 25085
Data description:
Contaminant(s): PAH
Test scenario: Planning
Date: 5 March 2019
User details: WTG
Standard deviation, s
Number of non-detects
Critical concentration, Cc
Notes
Back to data
x
Benzo(b)fluor
anthene
(mg/kg)
Benzo(k)fluora
nthene
(mg/kg)
Benzo(a)pyren
e (mg/kg)
indeno(1,2,3-
cd)pyrene
(mg/kg)
dibenzo(ah)an
thracene
(mg/kg)
benzo(ghi)per
ylene (mg/kg)
3.3 93 2.7 36 0.28 340S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL S4UL
4 4 4 4 4 4 0
0.065 0.05125 0.05125 0.025 0.05 0.05 No Data
0.06442049 0.0525 0.0525 0 0 0
2 3 3 4 4 4
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Yes Yes Yes No No No
Normal Non-normal Non-normal Single value Single value Single value
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
-100.433878 -3540.904762 -100.9047619 N/A N/A N/A
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc
0.14080242 0.1656711 0.025 0.05 0.050.1656711
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Aliphatic C5-
C6 (mg/kg)
Aliphatic C6-
C8 (mg/kg)
Aliphatic C8-
C10 (mg/kg)
Aliphatic C10-
C12 (mg/kg)
Aliphatic C12-
C16 (mg/kg)
Aliphatic C16-
C35 (mg/kg)
Aliphatic C35-
C44 (mg/kg)
Aromatic C5-
C7 (mg/kg)
Aromatic C7-
C8 (mg/kg)
Aromatic C8-
C10 (mg/kg)
78 230 65 330 2400 92000 92000 140 290 83
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
0.005 0.005 0.5 0.5 2.125 0.5 0.5 0.005 0.005 0.005
0 0 0 0 3.25 0 0 0 0 0
4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
No No No No Yes No No No No No
Single value Single value Single value Single value Non-normal Single value Single value Single value Single value Single value
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Evidence level required: 95%
N/A N/A N/A N/A -1475.615385 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Evidence level 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc
0.5 0.005
Client/client ref: Create Engineering LLP
Project ref: 25085
Site ref: EDINBURGH, 5B HOPE TERRACE
Data description:
Contaminant(s): TPHCWG
Test scenario: Planning
Date: 6 March 2019
User details: WTG
0.005 0.0050.005 0.005 0.5 0.5 9.20821078 0.5
Standard deviation, s
Number of non-detects
Critical concentration, Cc
Notes
Distribution
Statistical approach
Set non-detect values to:
t statistic, t0 (or k0)
Base decision on:
Outliers?
Sample size, n
Sample mean,
Select dataset
Test scenario:
Result
(on true mean concentration, µ)
Upper confidence limit
Go to outlier test Show individual summaryBack to data
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Go to normality test
x
Evidence level
Client/client ref: Create Engineering LLP
Project ref: 25085
Site ref: EDINBURGH, 5B HOPE TERRACE
Data description:
Contaminant(s): TPHCWG
Test scenario: Planning
Date: 6 March 2019
User details: WTG
Standard deviation, s
Number of non-detects
Critical concentration, Cc
Notes
Distribution
Statistical approach
Set non-detect values to:
t statistic, t0 (or k0)
Base decision on:
Outliers?
Sample size, n
Sample mean,
Select dataset
Test scenario:
Result
(on true mean concentration, µ)
Upper confidence limit
Back to data
x
Aromatic C10-
C12 (mg/kg)
Aromatic C12-
C16 (mg/kg)
Aromatic C16-
C21 (mg/kg)
Aromatic C21-
C35 (mg/kg)
Aromatic C35-
C44 (mg/kg)
180 330 540 1500 1500
4 4 4 4 4 0 0
0.625 11.25 0.875 0.5 0.5 No Data No Data
0.25 20.5121915 0.75 0 0
3 2 3 4 4
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Yes Yes Yes No No
Non-normal Non-normal Non-normal Single value Single value
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
-1435 -31.07907803 -1437.666667 N/A N/A
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc µ < Cc
55.9552849 2.5095871 0.5 0.51.16986237
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Carbon Band
Upper Confidence
Limit (mg/kg)
Suitable for Use
Level S4UL
(Residentail with
home grown
produce (mg/kg))
Hazard
Quotent
Aliphatic C5 to C6 0.005 78 6.41E-05
Aliphatic C6 to C8 0.005 230 2.17E-05
Aliphatic C8 to C10 0.5 65 0.007692
Aliphatic C10 to C12 0.5 330 0.001515
Aliphatic C12 to C16 9.2 2400 0.003833
Aliphatic C16 to C35 0.5 92000 5.43E-06
Aliphatic C35 to C44 0.5 92000 5.43E-06
Aromatic C5 to C7 0.005 140 3.57E-05
Aromatic C7 to C8 0.005 290 1.72E-05
Aromatic C8 to C10 0.005 83 6.02E-05
Aromatic C10 to C12 1.17 180 0.0065
Aromatic C12 to C16 56 330 0.169697
Aromatic C16 to C21 2.51 540 0.004648
Aromatic C21 to C35 0.5 1500 0.000333
Aromatic C35 to C44 0.5 1500 0.000333
Hazard Index 0.194762