Soils Limited 1 Capstan Square Contamination Assessment Report · 2016. 11. 22. · BS 5930:2015 and BS EN ISO 22476-2 2005+A1:2011 for WS/DP BS EN ISO 14688-1:2002+A1:2013 BS 10175:2011+A1:2013

Contamination Assessment Report

at 1 Capstan Square, Isle of Dogs, London E14 3EU

for Drawing and Planning

Reference: 15857/GIR

November 2016

Soils Limited 1 Capstan Square Contamination Assessment Report

Control Document Project

1 Capstan Square, Isle of Dogs, London E14 3EU Document Type

Contamination Assessment Report Document Reference

15857 Document Status

Final Date

November 2016 Prepared by

S J Bevins BSc (Hons), MSc, CEng MIMMM, FGS

First check by

Eur Ing R B Higginson BSc, PGDip, CEng, MICE, FGS. Second check by

N J Lambert BSc (Hons), CSci, CEnv, FGS, MIEnvSci.

This is not a valid document for use in the design of the project unless it is titled Final in the document status

box.

Current regulations and good practice were used in the preparation of this report. The recommendations

given in this report must be reviewed by an appropriately qualified person at the time of preparation of the

scheme design to ensure that any recommendations given remain valid in light of changes in regulation and

practice, or additional information obtained regarding the site.


Commission

Drawing and Planning commissioned Soils Limited to undertake a Contamination Assessment on land at 1 Capstan Square, Isle of Dogs, London E14 3EU. The scope of the investigation was outlined in the Soils Limited quotation reference Q18046, dated 4th October 2016. This document comprises the Contamination Assessment Report and incorporates the results, discussion and conclusions to this intrusive works. There was no instruction from the Client to undertake a Phase I Desk Study prior to this investigation.

Standards

The site works, soil descriptions and laboratory testing was undertaken in accordance with the following standards:

BS 5930:2015 and BS EN ISO 22476-2 2005+A1:2011 for WS/DP

BS EN ISO 14688-1:2002+A1:2013

BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 The chemical analyses were undertaken by QTS Environmental Limited in accordance with their UKAS and MCERTS accredited test methods or their documented in-house testing procedures. This investigation did not comprise an environmental audit of the site or its environs. Trial hole is a generic term used to describe a method of direct investigation. The term trial pit, borehole or window sample borehole implies the specific technique used to produce a trial hole.


Contents Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Objective of Investigation .................................................................................... 1

1.2 Location .............................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Site Description ................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Proposed Development ...................................................................................... 1

1.5 Anticipated Geology ............................................................................................ 2

1.5.1 Alluvium .............................................................................................................. 2

1.5.2 Lambeth Group ................................................................................................... 2

1.6 Limitations and Disclaimers ................................................................................ 2

Section 2 Site Works ..................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Proposed Project Works ..................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Actual Project Works ........................................................................................... 4

2.2 Ground Conditions .............................................................................................. 4

2.3 Ground Conditions Encountered in Trial Holes ................................................... 6

2.3.1 Made Ground and Topsoil .................................................................................. 6

2.3.2 Alluvium .............................................................................................................. 6

2.3.3 Lambeth Group ................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 7

Section 3 Determination of Chemical Analysis .......................................................... 8

3.1 Soil Sampling ...................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Determination of Chemical Analysis ................................................................... 8

Section 4 Qualitative Risk Assessment ...................................................................... 10

4.1 Assessment Criteria .......................................................................................... 10

4.2 Representative Contamination Criteria - Soil .................................................... 10

4.2.1 Asbestos ........................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Risk to Groundwater ......................................................................................... 11

4.4 Tier 1 Quantitative Risk Assessment ................................................................ 11

4.4.1 Soils .................................................................................................................. 11

4.4.2 Groundwater ..................................................................................................... 12

4.4.3 Soil Gas ............................................................................................................ 12

4.4.4 Verification Report ............................................................................................ 14

4.5 Remedial Objective ........................................................................................... 14


4.6 Development of Soil Remediation Strategy ....................................................... 14

4.6.1 Further Chemical Testing and Human Health Risk Assessment ....................... 15

4.6.2 Adoption of Cover System in Soft Landscaped Areas ....................................... 15

4.6.3 Excavation of Impacted Soil .............................................................................. 15

4.6.4 Excavation of All Made Ground......................................................................... 16

4.6.5 Hard Landscape Entire Site .............................................................................. 16

4.6.6 Engineering Capping System ........................................................................... 16

4.6.7 Asbestos ........................................................................................................... 16

4.7 Duty of Care ...................................................................................................... 17

4.8 Excavated Material ........................................................................................... 17

4.8.1 Risk Based Hazard Assessment of Waste ........................................................ 18

4.9 Re-use of Excavated Material On-site .............................................................. 18

4.10 Imported Material .............................................................................................. 19

4.11 Discovery Strategy ............................................................................................ 19

List of Figures

Figure 1 Site Location Map ......................................................................................... 22

Figure 2 Aerial Photograph ......................................................................................... 23

Figure 3 Trial Hole Plan .............................................................................................. 24

List of Tables Table 2.1 Final Depth of Trial Holes ................................................................................. 4

Table 2.2 Ground Conditions ........................................................................................... 5

Table 2.3 Final Depth of Topsoil/Made Ground ................................................................ 6

Table 2.4 Final Depth of Alluvium .................................................................................... 6

Table 3.1 Sampling Strategy ............................................................................................ 8

Table 3.2 Chemical Analysis Specification ....................................................................... 8

Table 4.1 Summary of Chemical Analysis of Soils Sample Exceedance ........................ 10

Table 4.2 Summary of Building Types ........................................................................... 12

Table 4.3 Gas Protection Score by CS and Type of Building ......................................... 12

Table 4.4 Gas Protection Score for Structural Barrier .................................................... 13

Table 4.5 Gas Protection Scores for Ventilation Protection Measures ........................... 13


Table 4.6 Gas Protection Scores for the Gas Resistant Membrane ............................... 14

Table 4.7 Risk Based Hazard Assessment of Waste ..................................................... 18

List of Appendices

Field Work

Appendix A.1 Engineers Logs

Chemical Laboratory Testing

Appendix B.1 Chemical Laboratory Results

Appendix B.2 General Assessment Criteria

Appendix B.3 Determination of Hazardous Waste Classification

Information Provided by the Client


1

Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Objective of Investigation Drawing and Planning commissioned Soils Limited to undertake a Contamination Assessment to supply the client and their designers with information regarding ground conditions for development that was appropriate to the settings present on the site. Soil samples were taken for chemical laboratory testing to enable recommendations for the safe redevelopment of the site and the protection of site workers, end-users, other environmental receptors and the public from any contamination identified. There was no instruction from the Client to undertake a Phase I Desk Study prior to this investigation. 1.2 Location The site was located at 1 Capstan Square, Isle of Dogs, London E14 3EU and had an approximate O.S Land Ranger Grid Reference of TQ 383 795. The site location plan is given in Figure 1. 1.3 Site Description The site comprised the side garden of an existing three-storey residential property of brick construction forming the end-of-terrace house. The garden area was grass surfaced with a mature Willow tree noted near to the southern boundary. Further semi-mature trees bushes were also noted to the south. The site was bounded by the existing house to the east and a metre-high brick wall with panel fence on top to all other directions. There was a walkway to the south with roads to the north and west. The surrounding land-use was predominately residential with localised commercial premises. The site was generally flat-lying and the surrounding area had very gentle downslope to the east towards the River Thames. An aerial photograph has been included in Figure 2. 1.4 Proposed Development The proposed development comprised the construction of a three-storey house immediately adjacent to No.1 Capstan Square. The property will comprise pedestrian access to the front with small soft landscaped gardens to the front, side and rear. Cycle parking is noted to side and car park spaces are provided off site. In compiling this report reliance was placed on drawing number CPSSQ_L301, dated October 2016 and was prepared by Drawing and Planning. Any change or deviation from the scheme outlined in the drawing could invalidate the findings and remediation


2

recommendations presented within this report. Soils Limited must be notified about any such changes. Development plans provided by the client are presented in Appendix C. 1.5 Anticipated Geology The 1:50,000 BGS map showed the site to be located directly upon the bedrock Lambeth Group with overlying superficial deposits of Alluvium. Given that the area is reclaimed, Made Ground is also likely to be present.

1.5.1 Alluvium Alluvium is the most recent river or estuarine deposit and generally comprises silty clays usually with an appreciable organic content. Lenses of sand and gravel are also commonly found, as are pockets of peat. 1.5.2 Lambeth Group The Lambeth Group (formerly known as the Woolwich and Reading Beds) is a sedimentary complex comprising a basal bed (the Bottom Bed) composed of glauconitic sand, sandy clay and gravel, with laterally variable sand and clay above. In the eastern part of the area the basal bed is mostly overlain by a shelly grey sandy clay or silty sand. Lignite, or brown coal, a carbonaceous rock composed of plant remains which has not been subject to the same intensity of heat and pressure as has ordinary coal, is occasionally found within the Lambeth Group, as are individual logs and groups of logs indicating the position of a former log jam, which was covered by sand and clay at the time of deposition.

1.6 Limitations and Disclaimers This Contamination Assessment Report relates to the site located at 1 Capstan Square, Isle of Dogs, London E14 3EU and was prepared for the sole benefit of Drawing and Planning (The Client). The report was prepared solely for the brief described in Section 1.1 of this report. Soils Limited disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report has been prepared by Soils Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client, incorporation of our General Conditions of Contact of Business and taking into account the resources devoted to us by agreement with the Client. The report is personal and confidential to the Client and Soils Limited accept no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report wholly at its own risk.


3

The Client may not assign the benefit of the report or any part to any third party without the written consent of Soils Limited. The ground is a product of continuing natural and artificial processes. As a result, the ground will exhibit a variety of characteristics that vary from place to place across a site, and also with time. Whilst a ground investigation will mitigate to a greater or lesser degree against the resulting risk from variation, the risks cannot be eliminated. The investigation, interpretations, and recommendations given in this report were prepared for the sole benefit of the client in accordance with their brief. As such these do not necessarily address all aspects of ground behaviour at the site. Current regulations and good practice were used in the preparation of this report. An appropriately qualified person must review the recommendations given in this report at the time of preparation of the scheme design to ensure that any recommendations given remain valid in light of changes in regulation and practice, or additional information obtained regarding the site. Ownership of land brings with it onerous legal liabilities in respect of harm to the environment. Contaminated Land is defined in Section 57 of the Environment Act 1995 as: Land which is in such a condition by reason of substances in, on or under the land that

significant harm is being caused or that there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused or that pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be caused. The investigation, analysis or recommendations in respect of contamination are made solely in respect of the prevention of harm to vulnerable receptors, using where possible best practice at the date of preparation of the report. The investigation and report do not address, define or make recommendations in respect of environmental liabilities. A separate environmental audit and liaison with statutory authorities is required to address these issues. Ownership of copyright of all printed material including reports, laboratory test results, trial pit and borehole log sheets, including drillers log sheets remains with Soils Limited. License is for the sole use of the client and may not be assigned, transferred or given to a third party.


4

Section 2 Site Works 2.1 Proposed Project Works The proposed intrusive investigation was designed to provide information on the ground conditions and to aid the design of foundations for the proposed residential development. The intended investigation, as outlined within the Soils Limited quotation (Q18046, dated 4th October 2016), was therefore to comprise the following items: 1 day windowless and dynamic probe boreholes with core recovery; Laboratory contamination testing.

2.1.1 Actual Project Works The actual project works were undertaken on 26th October 2016 and comprised: 4No. windowless sampler boreholes; 1No. dynamic probe; Laboratory contamination testing.

All four windowless sampler boreholes were backfilled with gravel and arisings upon completion. All trial hole locations have been presented in Figure 3. Following completion of site works, soil cores were logged and sub-sampled so that samples could be sent to the laboratory for contamination testing.

2.2 Ground Conditions On 26th October 2016 four windowless sampler boreholes (WS1 to WS4) were drilled, using a Premier Compact 110 windowless sampler borehole and dynamic probe rig, to depths ranging between 2.70 and 3.80m below ground level (bgl) at locations selected by Soils Limited using a development plan provided by the client. One dynamic probe, super heavy, (DP1) was driven prior and adjacent to its corresponding windowless sampler borehole to a depth of 8.00m bgl. The maximum depths of trial holes have been included in Table 2.1. All trial holes were scanned with a Cable Avoidance Tool (C.A.T.) and GENNY prior to excavation to ensure the health and safety of the operatives. Table 2.1 Final Depth of Trial Holes

Trial Hole Depth (m bgl)

WS1 2.70

WS2 3.70

WS3 3.00

WS4 3.80

DP1 8.00


5

The approximate trial hole locations are shown on Figure 3. The soil conditions encountered were recorded and soil sampling commensurate with the purposes of the investigation was carried out. The depths given on the trial hole logs and quoted in this report were measured from ground level. The soils encountered from immediately below ground surface have been described in the following manner. Where the soil incorporated an organic content such as either decomposing leaf litter or roots, or has been identified as part of the in-situ weathering profile, it has been described as Topsoil both on the logs and within this report. Where man has clearly either placed the soil, or the composition altered, with say greater than an estimated 5% of a non-natural constituent, it has been referred to as Made Ground both on the log and within this report. For more complete information about the soils encountered within the general area of the site reference should be made to the detailed records given within Appendix A, but for the purposes of discussion, the succession of conditions encountered in the trial holes in descending order can be summarised:

Made Ground/Topsoil (MG/TS) Alluvium (ALV)

Lambeth Group (LMBE) The ground conditions encountered in the trial holes are summarised in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Ground Conditions

Strata Epoch Depth Encountered

(m bgl)

Typical

Thickness

(m)

Typical Description

Top Bottom

TS/MG Recent G.L. 2.10 2.701 2.40 (where

proven)

TS: Grass over brown slightly

gravelly SILT with frequent

rootlets. Gravel is fine sub-angular

and sub-rounded flint and brick.

MG: Dark greyish brown gravelly

sandy SILT / silty SAND with

fragments of brick, ash, mortar,

glass and concrete. Gravel is fine

to coarse angular to sub-angular

flint. Locally with roots, brick

cobbles and fragments of wood.

ALV Quaternary 2.10 2.40 3.001 3.801

(inferred to

4.10 in DP1)

Not proven2 Very soft greenish grey silty CLAY

with dark grey organic material /

staining and rare rootlets. Organic

odour present locally.

LMBE Thanetian

Ypresian

4.10 8.00 Not proven2 Not directly encountered.

(Inferred in DP1)

Note: 1 Final depth of trial hole. 2 Base of strata not encountered


6

2.3 Ground Conditions Encountered in Trial Holes The ground conditions encountered in trial holes have been described below in descending order. The engineering logs are presented in Appendix A.1.

2.3.1 Made Ground and Topsoil Soils described as Topsoil were encountered in each of the four trial holes (WS1 to WS4) from ground level to depths ranging between 0.15 to 0.23m bgl. The Topsoil comprised brown slightly gravelly SILT with frequent rootlets. Gravel is fine sub-angular and sub-rounded flint and brick. The depth of Topsoil has been included in Table 2.3. Soils described as Made Ground were encountered in each of the four trial holes directly beneath the Topsoil to depths ranging between 2.10 (WS2) and 2.70m bgl (base of WS1). The Made Ground typically comprised dark greyish brown gravelly sandy SILT / silty SAND with fragments of brick, ash, mortar, glass and concrete. Gravel is fine to coarse angular to sub-angular flint. Locally with roots, brick cobbles and fragments of wood. No visual or olfactory indicators of contamination were noted. The depths of Made Ground have been included in Table 2.3. Table 2.3 Final Depth of Topsoil/Made Ground

Trial Hole Strata Depth (m bgl)

WS1 TS/MG 0.18 / 2.701

WS2 TS/MG 0.23 / 2.10

WS3 TS/MG 0.15 / 2.20

WS4 TS/MG 0.20 / 2.40

Note: 1 Final depth of trial hole

2.3.2 Alluvium Soils described as Alluvium were encountered directly beneath the Made Ground in three of the four trial holes, recorded to the full depth of the boreholes at 3.80m bgl, and inferred to 4.10m bgl in DP1. The Alluvium typically comprised very soft greenish grey silty CLAY with dark grey organic material / staining and rare rootlets. Organic odour present locally. The depth of Alluvium has been included in Table 2.4. Table 2.4 Final Depth of Alluvium


WS1 2.701

WS2 3.701


7


WS3 3.001

WS4 3.801

DP1 4.10

Note: 1 Final depth of trial hole.

2.3.3 Lambeth Group The soils of the Lambeth Group were not directly encountered in the boreholes, but were inferred between 4.10 and 8.00m bgl within DP1.

2.4 Groundwater Groundwater was only encountered within one trial hole (WS2) and was struck at a depth of 2.30m bgl. Changes in groundwater level occur for a number of reasons including seasonal effects and variations in drainage. Given the proximity of the River Thames, groundwater levels may be affected by tidal fluctuations, with time lag and attenuation. The investigation was conducted in October (2016), when groundwater levels should be rising from their annual minimum (lowest) elevation, which typically occurs around September. Groundwater equilibrium conditions may only be conclusively established, if a series of observations are made via groundwater monitoring wells.


8

Section 3 Determination of Chemical Analysis 3.1 Soil Sampling There was no instruction from the Client to undertake a Phase I Desk Study prior to this investigation. A non-targeted sampling strategy is appropriate when there is:

No adequate information available regarding the likely locations of contamination; No sensitive areas where there is a need for a high degree of confidence.

A targeted sampling strategy is appropriate when there is:

Adequate information available regarding the likely locations of contamination Sensitive areas where there is a need for a high degree of confidence.

Given that a Phase I Desk Study had not been undertaken at the site, no information on potential sources, pathways and receptors was available. As such, a non-targeted sampling pattern was adopted to screen the site for potential contamination. Table 3.1 outlines the sampling undertaken. Table 3.1 Sampling Strategy

Sample Strategy Proposed Use

WS1:0.80 General coverage Made Ground Beneath Dwelling

WS2:0.50 General coverage Made Ground Soft landscaped rear garden

WS3:0.50 General coverage Made Ground Soft landscaped side garden

WS4:0.40 General coverage Made Ground Soft landscaped front garden

3.2 Determination of Chemical Analysis The analysis suite chosen reflects typical contaminants associated with brownfield sites. Table 3.2 outlines the specification for each sample tested. Table 3.2 Chemical Analysis Specification

Substance Locations: Depths (m bgl)

WS1:0.50S WS2:0.50S WS3:0.50S WS4:0.40S

Asbestos Screen

Total Phenols

Total Cyanide

Organic Matter

pH

Metals

Metalloids

Organics

PAHs


9

TPH-CWG

BTEX

Notes: Metals: Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, CN, S, Cu, Zn, Bo, V. metalloids: As. organics: USEPA 16 speciated

PAH, TPH-CWG (speciated TPH), BTEX, VOC/SVOC Asbestos screening was undertaken in accordance with

HSG 248. S = Soil sample.


10

Section 4 Qualitative Risk Assessment 4.1 Assessment Criteria The assessment criteria used to determine risks to human health are derived and explained within Appendix B.2.

4.2 Representative Contamination Criteria - Soil The proposed development comprised the construction of a three-storey house immediately adjacent to No.1 Capstan Square. The property will comprise pedestrian access to the front with small soft landscaped gardens to the front, side and rear. Cycle parking is noted to side and car park spaces are provided off site. In compiling this report reliance was placed on drawing number CPSSQ_L301, dated October 2016 and was prepared by Drawing and Planning. Any change or deviation from the scheme outlined in the drawing could invalidate the findings and remediation recommendations presented within this report. Soils Limited must be notified about any such changes. The chemical laboratory results were compared against the representative contaminants concentration for human health receptor to Soil Guideline Values (SGV), Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SLs) or Suitable 4 Use Level (S4UL). Table 4.1 outlines the samples that have exceeded their relevant assessment criteria. The full laboratory report is presented in Appendix B.1. Table 4.1 Summary of Chemical Analysis of Soils Sample Exceedance

Substance Sample locations where SGV, C4SL or S4UL adopted were exceeded for the

Residential with Plant Uptake land-use scenario

Lead 3 samples between 275 and 473mg/kg against 200mg/kg WS1:0.80, WS2:0.50 and WS4:0.40

The guideline values are assessed against the Residential with Plant Uptake land-use scenario, which was considered the most appropriate land-use scenario, given the type of proposed redevelopment. To assess the potential toxicity to the human health receptor from the concentrations of organic compounds tested for, Soil Organic Matter (SOM) tests were undertaken on the samples submitted for chemical testing, which revealed SOM values of between 1.5% and 2.8%. For each soil sample tested, the Soil Organic Matter recorded was used to derive the appropriate guideline value for organic determinants. In summary, three samples tested showed concentrations in excess of the relevant C4SL for a Residential with Plant Uptake land-use scenario. In WS1:0.80, WS2:0.50 and WS4:0.40m bgl Lead was recorded at concentrations ranging between 275 and 473mg/kg against the Residential with Plant Uptake end-use C4SL of 200mg/kg.


11

None of the other substances tested recorded concentrations above the residential end-use screening values.

4.2.1 Asbestos Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) was detected within two samples, WS2:0.50 and WS4:0.40m bgl. The ACM was determined to comprise Loose Fibres: Chrysotile, Amosite and Crocidolite (WS2) and Amosite (WS4). As asbestos containing material was identified in two of the samples tested it is possible that asbestos is present in other areas of the site. If encountered, care must be taken to ensure any such material is separated and disposed of in an appropriate manner to a licensed waste facility.

4.3 Risk to Groundwater Given the environmental setting of the site the risk to groundwater is negligible, as detailed below: The site is underlain by Alluvium which is predominately clay and will therefore act

as a barrier to any contaminant migration;

There are no principal aquifers or source protection zones within the vicinity of the site;

The development of the site will reduce the amount of soft landscaping and therefore the potential for infiltration and leaching of contaminants;

The contamination identified in the soils analysis (Lead) is relatively immobile;

Remediation of the soils on site will reduce the amount of Made Ground. 4.4 Tier 1 Quantitative Risk Assessment A quantitative risk assessment is undertaken for soil, with a qualitative risk assessment undertaken for groundwater. The full laboratory chemical report is presented in Appendix B.2.

4.4.1 Soils Three samples tested showed concentrations in excess of the relevant C4SL for a Residential with Plant Uptake land-use scenario. In WS1:0.80, WS2:0.50 and WS4:0.40m bgl Lead was recorded at concentrations ranging between 275 and 473mg/kg against the Residential with Plant Uptake end-use C4SL of 200mg/kg. Furthermore, Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) was detected within two samples, WS2:0.50 and WS4:0.40m bgl. The ACM was determined to comprise Loose Fibres: Chrysotile, Amosite and Crocidolite (WS2) and Amosite (WS4).

The Tier 1 Quantitative risk assessment therefore established that there was a risk to the human health receptors of construction workers or future end-users.


12

4.4.2 Groundwater The Groundwater Risk Assessment established that there was no risk to the groundwater receptor given the environmental setting of the site and the soils analysis, as detailed in Section 4.3. 4.4.3 Soil Gas BS 8485:2015 Table D.1 sets out guidance on site characteristic situation (CS) to be assumed based on the total organic carbon (TOC) content of the Made Ground. The samples tested during this investigation recorded TOC ranging between 0.8 and 1.6%, which gives an assumed site characteristic situation of CS2, where basic gas protection measures are required. The risk of soils gas from alluvium is limited because organic matter in alluvium breaks down very slowly and the alluvium itself has very low permeability, being predominately clay. BS 8485:2015 defines four building types, which have been summarised in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Summary of Building Types

Type Summary Examples

A Private ownership with no building management

controls on alterations.

Private housing and some retail premises.

B Private or commercial property with central

building management control of any alterations.

Multiple occupancy.

Managed apartments, multiple occupancy

offices, some retail premises and pars of

some public buildings and parts of hotels,

hospitals.

C Commercial building with central building

management control of any alterations. Single

occupancy of ground floor and basement areas.

Offices, some retail premises, and parts of

some public buildings i.e. schools, hospitals,

leisure centres, parts of hotels.

D Industrial style building have large volume

internal space(s) that are well ventilated.

Retail park sales buildings, factory shop floor

areas, warehouses.

At the time of reporting, the proposed development was to comprise a residential development. Following the relevant guidance of BS 8484:2015 and based on the Characteristic Gas Situation and the type of building derived, the minimum gas protection score ranging between 0 and 7.5 should be determined in accordance with Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Gas Protection Score by CS and Type of Building

CS Minimum gas protection score (points)

High risk (A, B) Medium risk (C) Low risk (D)

1 0 0 0 0

2 3.5 3.5 2.5 1.5

3 4.5 4 3 2.5


13

4 6.5 5.5 4.5 3.5

5 - 6.5 5.5 4.5

6 - - 7.5 6.5

Notes: 1 Residential buildings should not be built on CS4 or higher sites unless the type of construction or site circumstances

allow additional levels of protection to be incorporated, e.g. high-performance ventilation or pathway intervention measures,

and an associated sustainable system of management of maintenance of the gas control system, e.g. in institutional and/or fully

serviced contractual situations. 2 The gas hazard is too high for this empirical method to be used to define the gas protection measures.

Based on Table 4.3 for a CS2 and for a building Type A, as proposed on this site, a gas protection score of 3.5 must be achieved. A combination of two or more of the three protection types, Structural Barriers, Ventilation Measures and Gas Resistant Membrane should be used to achieve the required score. A summary of the scores for each protection type, as outlined in BS 8484:2015 are presented in Table 4.4 to 4.6. These tables are given for information and the designer must refer to the full document in preparing the detailed design. Table 4.4 Gas Protection Score for Structural Barrier

Floor and substructure design Score 1

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

Cast in situ ground-bearing floor slab (with only nominal mesh reinforcement) 0.5

Cast in situ monolithic reinforced ground bearing raft or reinforced cast in situ suspended

floor slab with minimal penetrations

1 or 1.5 2

Basement floor and walls conforming to BS 8102:2009, Grade 2 waterproofing 3 2

Basement floor and walls conforming to BS 8102:2009, Grade 3 waterproofing 3 2.5

Notes: 1Scores are conditional on breaches of floor slabs, etc., being effectively sealed. 2To achieve a score of 1.5 the raft or

suspended slab should be well reinforced to control cracking and have minimal penetrations cast in. 3The score is conditional

on the waterproofing not being based on the use of a geosynthetic clay liner waterproofing product.

Table 4.5 Gas Protection Scores for Ventilation Protection Measures

Protection element/system Score

Pressure relief pathway (usually formed of low fines gravel or with a thin geocomposite

blanket or strips terminating in a gravel trench external to the building)

0.5

Passive sub floor dispersal layer:

Very good performance:

Good preformation:

2.5

1.5

Active dispersal layer, usually comprising fans with active abstraction (suction) from a

subfloor dilution layer, with roof level vents. The dilution layer may comprise a clear void

or be formed of geocomposite or polystyrene void formers

1.5 to 2.5

Active positive pressurization by the creation of a blanket of external fresh air beneath

the building floor slab by pumps supplying air to points across the central footprint of the

building into a permeable layer, usually formed of a thin geocomposite blanket.

1.5 to 2.5

Ventilated car park (floor slab of occupied part of the building under consideration is

underlain by a basement or undercroft car park)

4


14

Table 4.6 Gas Protection Scores for the Gas Resistant Membrane

Protection element/system Score

Gas resistant membrane meeting all of the following criteria:

sufficiently impervious to the gases with a methane gas transmission rate


15

4.6.1 Further Chemical Testing and Human Health Risk Assessment Further testing could be undertaken once the site strip has been completed.

4.6.2 Adoption of Cover System in Soft Landscaped Areas The BRE Cover Systems For Land Regeneration, Thickness Design of Cover Systems for Contaminated Land, BRE, March 2004, allows for the design of cover systems to impacted soils where the concentration of substances within the ground does not exceed any of the respective SGV, C4SL or S4UL by more than six times. In such a situation a maximum cover thickness of 600mm is given. However, the concentration of substances within the certified clean soil/topsoil, which comprises the cover system, determines the overall thickness of the system and can reduce the required thickness markedly below 600mm.

Where the concentration of substances within the ground does exceed any of the respective SGV, C4SL or S4UL by more than six then an engineered capping system would be required.

The concentrations of elevated contaminants outlined in Table 4.1 did not show any substances, which were greater than six times their respective guideline value.

4.6.3 Excavation of Impacted Soil It could be proposed to excavate and stockpile the impacted material on the site in preparation for classification and subsequent disposal off-site to a suitable licensed facility.

The initial excavations should be centred on the trial-holes with impacted soil and then extended in all directions, so that the impacted soils can be chased out. Once excavation has been completed validation would be required to prove all impacted soil has been removed. Validation would involve taking a representative number of samples from the sides and base of any excavation and then sent off for appropriate chemical analysis. The stockpiled soils must be placed on an impermeable liner with raised edges. During periods of rainfall, the stockpile must be covered over to minimise leaching and run-off into the underlying soils. Covering of the stockpile may be required to prevent fumes impacting receptors off-site. The remedial works must be inspected and independently validated by a suitable person. On completion of the development, a Validation and Closure Report must be supplied to both the Local Authority and the NHBC detailing the remediation works undertaken on the site. Any voids resulting from the removal of impacted soil must be backfilled with a suitable certified clean granular soil.


16

The developer/groundworker must be made aware of the need to address the risk from asbestos identified in this report; former use of the site and for the potential for additional sources of contamination not identified in the Phase I Desk Study or the Phase II Intrusive Investigation to be found within the site both during demolition and the excavation of trenches for services and foundations.

4.6.4 Excavation of All Made Ground Made Ground was encountered across the site to depths between 2.10 and 2.70m bgl (possibly deeper). Given the extent of the Made Ground encountered this opinion would be very expensive and require excavations to be supported. It is not considered further.

4.6.5 Hard Landscape Entire Site Hard landscaping the entire site could eliminate exposure pathways to contaminated soils for:

Direct soil and dust ingestion, Consumption of home-grown produce, Dermal contact, Inhalation of dust (indoor and outdoor), Migration through permeable soils (direct precipitation, overland flow and

through flow). This approach has been discounted as it is not appropriate to for the type of development proposed.

4.6.6 Engineering Capping System Given the presence of asbestos in two samples, and the amount of Made Ground recorded on site, it is recommended that an engineering capping system is adopted. It should comprise a geotextile and/or mesh underlying a 200mm thick layer of lightly compacted gap graded crushed concrete (5-75mm) or the like, with geotextile upper cover underlying 450mm thickness of clean certified.

4.6.7 Asbestos Asbestos-containing soils (ACSs) were identified at the site, with two out of four soil samples detecting asbestos material. The asbestos matrix identified was described as loose fibres. The asbestos types recorded were amosite, chrysotile and crocidolite. In collaboration with a licensed asbestos removal contractor consultation must made with the local authority to determine a remediation strategy. Asbestos-containing soils (ACSs) do not necessarily require removal or treatment, but would require a suitable capping layer to remain in-situ. All future works should have suitable health and safety procedures in place to protect workers from airborne asbestos fibres. If ACSs remain in-situ measures should be put in place to insure the risk of exposures is not increased, such as exposing buried asbestos at the surface. Given the depths of samples where asbestos has been identified (0.40 and 0.50m bgl), the ACSs must be removed from site and quantification of the asbestos is required. Waste containing asbestos will be


17

hazardous waste if it contains more the 0.1% by weight of asbestos, (CIRIA C733, Asbestos in soil and made ground: a guide to understanding and managing risks). Asbestos quantification is recommended on the soil samples where asbestos was identified, so an assessment can be carried out.

4.7 Duty of Care Groundworkers must maintain a good standard of personal hygiene including the wearing of overalls, boots, gloves and eye protectors and the use of dust masks during periods of dry weather. To prevent exposure to airborne dust by both the general public and construction personnel the site should be kept damp during dry weather and at other times when dust is generated as a result of construction activities. The site should be securely fenced at all times to prevent unauthorised access. Washing facilities should be provided and eating restricted to mess huts. 4.8 Excavated Material Excavated material must be classified with the Environment Agency for disposal at an appropriately licensed disposal facility. The requirements of Duty of Care and Health and Safety Guidance must be complied with. Both Producers and Waste Management companies must ensure compliance with the new Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) prior to landfill in hazardous, stable non-reactive cells and inert sites. These regulations govern the operation of landfill in England and Wales. Basic characterisation is the responsibility of the waste producer and compliance checking is generally the responsibility of the landfill operator. Therefore, landfill operators will be unlikely to accept waste that does not meet the Waste Acceptance Criteria for their class of site. There is an obligation to treat all soils destined for landfill, including non-hazardous waste. This treatment must now be documented and presented to the landfill operator or waste may be refused entry. Note that all liquids are banned from landfill. For the purposes of legal compliance, treatment must comprise three things (the three-point test):

1. It must be a physical, thermal, chemical or biological process. 2. It must change the characteristics of the waste. 3. It must do so in order to:

(a) reduce its volume, or (b) reduce its hazardous nature, or (c) facilitate its handling, or enhance its recovery.


18

4.8.1 Risk Based Hazard Assessment of Waste The analysis results of the chemical laboratory testing undertaken as part of report, prepared by QTS Environmental Ltd were used for the Hazardous Waste Classification process. The determination of the hazardous waste classification process is outlined in Appendix B.3.

Full results of the laboratory analysis and hazardous waste classification tool are given in Appendix B.1 with the samples classified as hazardous outlined in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Risk Based Hazard Assessment of Waste

Trial

Hole

Depth

(m bgl)

Certificate Description

(general)

Type/Waste

Code

HazWasteOnline

Classification

Hazardous Waste

WS1 0.80 16-51264 Brown sandy clay with

brick and concrete

17 05 03* Hazardous

WS2 0.50 16-51264 Brown sandy gravel with

stones and concrete

17 05 03* Hazardous


stones and concrete

17 05 03* Hazardous


stones and concrete

17 05 03* Hazardous

Note: 17 05 03* (Soil and stones containing hazardous substances)

Asbestos was encountered during this intrusive investigation. Waste containing asbestos would either need to be pre-treated on-site, removing the asbestos, before removing to landfill or sent to a specialist landfill which can deal with waste containing asbestos.

4.9 Re-use of Excavated Material On-site The re-use of on-site soils may be undertaken either under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 (EPR), in which case soils other than uncontaminated soils are classed as waste, or under the CL:AIRE Voluntary Code of Practice (CoP) which was published in September 2008 and is accepted as an alternative regime to the EPR. Under the EPR, material that is contaminated but otherwise suitable for re-use is also classified as waste and its re-use should be in accordance with the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 (EPR). Environmental Permit Exemptions (EPE) are for the re-use of non-hazardous or inert waste only; hazardous waste cannot be re-used under a permit exemption. EPE apply only to imported inert waste materials; inert material arising on site and recovered on site is not classified as waste and does not require an exemption. It is possible that materials arising on-site will be classified as inert and would not need an exemption. Environmental Permit Exemptions are only allowed for certain activities, placing controls


19

on the quantities that can be stored and re-used. The re-use of waste shall be within areas and levels defined in planning applications and permissions for the development. An EPE requires a site specific risk assessment for the receptor site to demonstrate that the materials are suitable for use, i.e. that they will not give rise to harm to human health or pollution of the environment. Under the CL:AIRE voluntary code of practice (CoP) materials excavated on-site are not deemed contaminated if suitable for re-use at specified locations or generally within the site. Material that may have been classified as hazardous waste under the EPR may be re-used. The CoP regime requires that a Qualified Person as defined under the CoP reviews the development of the Materials Management Plan, including review of Risk Assessments and Remediation Strategy/Design Statement together with documentation relating to Planning and Regulatory issues, and signs a Declaration which is forwarded to the Environment Agency and which confirms compliance with the CoP. Should it be necessary to import materials from another site where materials are excavated and which is not material from a quarry or produced under a WRAP protocol, then an EPE would be necessary for the imported material whether the work was managed under the CoP or the EPR. 4.10 Imported Material Any soil, which is to be imported onto the site, must undergo chemical analysis to permit classification prior to its importation and placement in order to ascertain its status with specific regard to contamination, i.e. to prove that it is suitable for the purpose for which it is intended. 4.11 Discovery Strategy There may be areas of contamination not identified during the course of the investigation. Such occurrences may also be discovered during the demolition and construction phases for the redevelopment of the site. Care should be taken during excavation works especially to investigate any soils, which appear by eye (e.g. such as fibrous materials, large amounts of ash and unusual discolouration), odour (e.g. fuel, oil and chemical type odours or unusual odours such as sweet odours or fishy odours) or wellbeing (e.g. light headedness and/or nausea, burning of nasal passages and blistering or reddening of skin due to contact with soil) to be contaminated or of unusual and/or different character to standard soils or those analysed. In the event of any discovery of potentially contaminated soils or materials, this discovery should be quarantined and reported to the most senior member of site staff or the designated responsible person at the site for action. The location, type and quantity must


20

be recorded and the Local Authority, and a competent and appropriate third party Engineer/Environmental consultant notified immediately. An approval from the Local authority must be sought prior to implementing any proposed mitigation action. The discovery strategy must remain on site at all times and must demonstrate a clear allocation of responsibility for reporting and dealing with contamination. A copy of the strategy must be placed on the health and safety notice board and /or displayed in a prominent area where all site staff are able to take note of and consult the document at any time. Any member of the workforce entering the site to undertake any excavation must be made aware of the potential to discover contamination and the discovery strategy.


21

List of Figures

Figure 1 Site Location Map ......................................................................................... 22

Figure 2 Aerial Photograph ......................................................................................... 23

Figure 3 Trial Hole Plan .............................................................................................. 24

List of Appendices

Field Work

Appendix A.1 Engineers Logs




Appendix B.3 Determination of Hazardous Waste Classification

Information Provided by the Client


22

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Job Number

15857

Project

1 Capstan Square, Isle of Dogs, London E14 3EU

Client

Drawing and Planning

Date

November 2016

Soils Limited 1 Capstan Square Ground Investigation Report

23

Figure 2 Aerial Photograph

Project

1 Capstan Square, Isle of Dogs,

London E14 3EU

Client


Date

November 2016

Job Number

15857


24

Figure 3 Trial Hole Plan

Project

1 Capstan Square, Isle of Dogs,

London E14 3EU

Client


Date

November 2016

Job Number

15857


Field Work Appendix A.1 Engineers Logs

Well WaterStrikesSample and In Situ Testing

Depth (m) Type ResultsDepth

(m)

0.18

2.40

2.70

Level(m AOD) Legend Stratum Description

Turf over brown slightly gravelly SILT with frequent rootlets. Gravel is fine sub-angular and sub-rounded flint and brick. TOPSOILDark greyish brown slightly silty gravelly SAND with fragments of brick, ash, mortar, glass and clinker. Gravel is fine to coarse angular to rounded fragments of granite, flint and mica. Sand is fine to coarse. Occasional rootlets. MADE GROUND

Clinker cobbles measuring circa 90mm diameter

Clinker and ash gravel deposit

Blackish grey slightly sandy silty CLAY with fragments of ash, mica and brick. Occasional rootlets. MADE GROUND

End of Borehole at 2.70m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.10 J

0.30 J+D

0.50 J+D

0.80 J+D

1.20 J+D

1.50 J

1.80 J+D

2.20 J+D

2.60 J+D

Soils LimitedNewton House, Cross Road, Tadworth KT20 5SR

Tel: 01737 814221 Email: [email protected] Log

Borehole No.

WS1Sheet 1 of 1

Project Name: 1 Capstan Square Project No.: 15857 Co-ords:Hole Type

WS

Location: London E14 Level:Scale1:50

Client: Drawing and Planning Limited Dates: 26/10/2016Logged By

TR

General Remarks:Roots observed to 2.70m bgl. No groundwater encountered. Unstable

Groundwater Remarks:

Borehole Type Sample TypesCP: Cable PercussiveWS: Windowless SamplerRC: Rotary Cored

In-Situ Testing

D: DisturbedB: BulkJ: JarW: WaterU: Undisturbed

SPT: Split spoon - Standard Penetration TestCPT: Cone - Standard Penetration Test



(m)

0.23

2.10

3.70


Turf over brown slightly gravelly SILT with frequent rootlets. Gravel is fine sub-angular and sub-rounded flint and brick. TOPSOILDark greyish brown slightly silty gravelly SAND with fragments of brick, ash, mortar, glass and clinker. Gravel is fine to coarse angular to rounded fragments of granite, flint and mica. Sand is fine to coarse. Occasional rootlets. Occasional plastic bag fragments and electrical cable measuring 118mm length. Occasional rootlets. MADE GROUND

Red insulated electrical wire circa 3mm diameterConcrete cobble measuring 90mm diameter



Blackish grey silty CLAY with occasional rootlets to 2.4m. ALLUVIUM

~10% recovery


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.20 J+D

0.50 J+D

0.80 J+D

1.20 J+D

1.80 J+D

2.20 J+D

2.80 J+D



Borehole No.

WS2Sheet 1 of 1


WS



TR

General Remarks:Roots observed to 2.40m bgl. Groundwater encountered at 2.30m bgl. Unstable.



In-Situ Testing





(m)

0.15

1.20

1.40

2.20

3.00


Grass over brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy SILT with frequent fine to coarse roots rootlets. Sand is fine. Gravel is fine sub-rounded to sub-angular flint and brick. TOPSOILGrey slightly sandy gravelly SILT. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to coarse sub-angular to angular flint, concrete and brick. Occasional brick cobbles. MADE GROUND

Black fine to medium ash fragments and carbonated material. MADE GROUNDDark grey slightly clayey slightly sandy silty fine to coarse angular flint and brick GRAVEL. Sand is fine to medium. Occasional fine to medium ash fragments. Rare rootlets to 1.80. MADE GROUND

Organic type odour

Very soft greenish grey slightly silty CLAY. Occasional dark grey possible organic staining. ALLUVIUM


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.10 J+D

0.50 J+D

0.90 J+D

1.30 J+D

1.80 J+D

2.10 J+D

2.80 J+D



Borehole No.

WS3Sheet 1 of 1


WS



OK

General Remarks:Fine to coarse roots and rootlets to 1.80m bgl. No groundwater encountered. Unstable



In-Situ Testing





(m)

0.20

0.50

2.40

3.60

3.80


Grass over brown slightly gravelly SILT with frequent fine roots rootlets. Gravel is fine sub-rounded to sub-angular flint and brick. MADE GROUNDGrass over brown gravelly SILT with frequent fine roots and rootlets to 0.20m. Gravel is fine to coarse sub-angular to angular flint and brick. A brick cobble at 0.30 and 0.40m. Occasional fine to coarse ash fragments. A medium fragment of wood at 0.20m. MADE GROUNDGrey slightly sandy very gravelly SILT becoming slightly clayey at 2.30m. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to coarse angular to sub-angular flint, brick and concrete. Two brick cobbles at 1.90m. Occasional fine to medium ash fragments. MADE GROUND

~30% recovery

Soft greenish grey slightly silty CLAY becoming firm at 2.80m. Occasional dark grey possible organic staining. Rare rootlets to 2.80m. ALLUVIUM

Organic type odour

Soft brown silty CLAY. ALLUVIUMEnd of Borehole at 3.80m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.10 J+D

0.40 J+D

0.90 J+D

1.80 J+D

2.20 J+D

2.80 J+D

3.30 J+D

3.80 J+D



Borehole No.

WS4Sheet 1 of 1


WS



OK

General Remarks:Fine roots and rootlets to 2.80m bgl. No groundwater encountered.



In-Situ Testing



Probe LogBorehole No.

DP1Sheet 1 of 1

Project Name: 1 Capstan SquareProject No.15857

Co-ords: -Hole Type

DP


Client: Drawing and Planning Limited Dates: 26-10-2016 - 26-10-2016Logged By

Remarks Fall Height

Hammer Wt

Probe Type

Cone Base Diameter

Final Depth

Log Scale

8.00

1:50

Depth(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Blows/100mm10 20 30 40

133

233

122

11

21

31

21

2111

322

411111

2111

211

22

13

22

32

322

322

333333

44

57

56

57

66

77

913

1718

1613

88

913

10

Torque(Nm)

5

10

20

80

120

120

140

150

Sam Bevins QTS Environmental Ltd

Soils Ltd Unit 1

Rose Lane Industrial Estate

Rose Lane

Lenham Heath

Kent

ME17 2JN

t: 01622 [email protected]

Site Reference: Capstan Square

Project / Job Ref: 15857

Order No: 15857/SB

Sample Receipt Date: 03/11/2016

Sample Scheduled Date: 03/11/2016

Report Issue Number: 1

Reporting Date: 09/11/2016

Authorised by: Authorised by:

Kevin Old Ela Mysiara

Associate Director of Laboratory Inorganics & ICP Section Head

Newton House

Cross Road

Tadworth

Surrey

KT20 5SR

QTS Environmental Report No: 16-51264

QTS Environmental Ltd - Registered in England No 06620874 Page 1 of 7

mailto:[email protected]

27/10/16 27/10/16 27/10/16 27/10/16

None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4


0.80 0.50 0.50 0.40

236340 236341 236342 236343

Determinand Unit RL Accreditation

Asbestos Screen N/a N/a ISO17025 Not Detected Detected Not Detected Detected

Sample Matrix Material Type N/a NONE Loose fibres Loose fibres

Asbestos Type PLM Result N/a ISO17025

Chrysotile,

Amosite,

Crocidolite

Amosite

pH pH Units N/a MCERTS 7.2 7.7 7.4 8.0

Total Cyanide mg/kg < 2 NONE < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

W/S Sulphate as SO4 (2:1) mg/l < 10 MCERTS 1790 1410 1100 1370

W/S Sulphate as SO4 (2:1) g/l < 0.01 MCERTS 1.79 1.41 1.10 1.37

Sulphide mg/kg < 5 NONE < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5

Organic Matter % < 0.1 MCERTS 1.5 2 2 2.8

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % < 0.1 MCERTS 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.6

Antimony (Sb) mg/kg < 1 NONE 2.3 12.9 2 5.2

Arsenic (As) mg/kg < 2 MCERTS 18 18 12 17

Beryllium (Be) mg/kg < 0.5 NONE 0.7 < 0.5 < 0.5 0.7

W/S Boron mg/kg < 1 NONE < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Cadmium (Cd) mg/kg < 0.2 MCERTS 0.5 0.2 3.5 0.4

Chromium (Cr) mg/kg < 2 MCERTS 17 16 11 15

Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg < 2 NONE < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

Copper (Cu) mg/kg < 4 MCERTS 479 617 1080 294

Lead (Pb) mg/kg < 3 MCERTS 275 473 175 337

Mercury (Hg) mg/kg < 1 NONE < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Nickel (Ni) mg/kg < 3 MCERTS 16 17 17 17

Selenium (Se) mg/kg < 3 NONE < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3

Vanadium (V) mg/kg < 2 NONE 38 36 25 31

Zinc (Zn) mg/kg < 3 MCERTS 552 396 1320 377

Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg < 2 NONE < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

Analytical results are expressed on a dry weight basis where samples are assisted-dried at less than 30OC

This report refers to samples as received, and QTS Environmental Ltd, takes no responsibility for the accuracy or competence of sampling by others.

The material description shall be regarded as tentative and is not included in our scope of UKAS Accreditation.

Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of UKAS Accreditation.

Asbestos Analyst: Graham Revell

RL: Reporting Limit

Pinch Test: Where pinch test is positive it is reported “Loose Fibres - PT” with type(s).

Subcontracted analysis (S)

Kent ME17 2JN

QTS Environmental Ltd '

Unit 1, Rose Lane Industrial Estate

Rose Lane

Lenham Heath

Maidstone

Tel : 01622 850410 '

Soil Analysis Certificate

QTS Environmental Report No: 16-51264 Date Sampled

Soils Ltd Time Sampled

Reporting Date: 09/11/2016 QTSE Sample No

Analysis carried out on the dried sample is corrected for the stone content

The samples have been examined to identify the presence of asbestiform minerals by polarising light microscopy and dispersion staining technique to In-House Procedures QTSE600 Determination of Asbestos in Bulk

Materials; Asbestos in Soils/Sediments (fibre screening and identification)

Site Reference: Capstan Square TP / BH No

Project / Job Ref: 15857 Additional Refs

Order No: 15857/SB Depth (m)


27/10/16 27/10/16 27/10/16 27/10/16


WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4


0.80 0.50 0.50 0.40

236340 236341 236342 236343


Naphthalene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Acenaphthene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Fluorene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Phenanthrene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS 0.73 0.80 0.54 0.41

Anthracene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 0.15 < 0.1 < 0.1

Fluoranthene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS 0.96 1.52 0.71 0.78

Pyrene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS 0.78 1.32 0.54 0.66

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS 0.27 0.73 < 0.1 0.36

Chrysene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS 0.43 0.80 0.29 0.44

Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS 0.49 1.14 0.37 0.63

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS 0.21 0.46 0.15 0.24

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS 0.32 0.80 0.18 0.38

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS 0.20 0.54 0.16 0.29

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg < 0.1 MCERTS 0.20 0.44 0.14 0.28

Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg < 1.6 MCERTS 4.6 8.7 3.1 4.5


Kent ME17 2JN

QTS Environmental Ltd


Rose Lane

Lenham Heath

Maidstone

Tel : 01622 850410 '

Soil Analysis Certificate - Speciated PAHs








27/10/16

None Supplied

WS2

None Supplied

0.50

236341


Aliphatic >C5 - C6 mg/kg < 0.01 NONE < 0.01

Aliphatic >C6 - C8 mg/kg < 0.05 NONE < 0.05

Aliphatic >C8 - C10 mg/kg < 2 MCERTS < 2




Aliphatic >C35 - C44 mg/kg < 10 NONE < 10

Aliphatic (C5 - C44) mg/kg < 30 NONE < 30

Aromatic >C5 - C7 mg/kg < 0.01 NONE < 0.01

Aromatic >C7 - C8 mg/kg < 0.05 NONE < 0.05

Aromatic >C8 - C10 mg/kg < 2 MCERTS < 2



Aromatic >C16 - C21 mg/kg < 3 MCERTS 6

Aromatic >C21 - C35 mg/kg < 10 MCERTS 19

Aromatic >C35 - C44 mg/kg < 10 NONE < 10

Aromatic (>C5 - C44) mg/kg < 30 NONE < 30

Total >C5 - C44 mg/kg < 60 NONE < 60


Kent ME17 2JN



Rose Lane

Lenham Heath

Maidstone

Tel : 01622 850410 '

Soil Analysis Certificate - TPH LQM Banded








27/10/16

None Supplied

WS2

None Supplied

0.50

236341


Benzene ug/kg < 2 MCERTS < 2

Toluene ug/kg < 5 MCERTS 15

Ethylbenzene ug/kg < 2 MCERTS < 2

p & m-xylene ug/kg < 2 MCERTS < 2

o-xylene ug/kg < 2 MCERTS < 2

MTBE ug/kg < 5 MCERTS < 5


Kent ME17 2JN



Rose Lane

Lenham Heath

Maidstone

Tel : 01622 850410 '

Soil Analysis Certificate - BTEX / MTBE








QTSE Sample No TP / BH No Additional Refs Depth (m)Moisture

Content (%)

236340 WS1 None Supplied 0.80 11.1


236342 WS3 None Supplied 0.50 7


Moisture content is part of procedure E003 & is not an accredited test

Insufficient Sample I/S

Unsuitable Sample U/S




Rose Lane

Lenham Heath

Maidstone

Kent ME17 2JN

Tel : 01622 850410 '

Soil Analysis Certificate - Sample Descriptions


Soils Ltd


Brown sandy gravel with stones and concrete

Order No: 15857/SB


Sample Matrix Description

Brown sandy clay with brick and concrete




Matrix Analysed

On

Determinand Brief Method Description Method

No

Soil D Boron - Water Soluble Determination of water soluble boron in soil by 2:1 hot water extract followed by ICP-OES E012

Soil AR BTEX Determination of BTEX by headspace GC-MS E001

Soil D Cations Determination of cations in soil by aqua-regia digestion followed by ICP-OES E002

Soil D Chloride - Water Soluble (2:1) Determination of chloride by extraction with water & analysed by ion chromatography E009

Soil AR Chromium - HexavalentDetermination of hexavalent chromium in soil by extraction in water then by acidification, addition of

1,5 diphenylcarbazide followed by colorimetryE016

Soil AR Cyanide - Complex Determination of complex cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry E015

Soil AR Cyanide - Free Determination of free cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry E015

Soil AR Cyanide - Total Determination of total cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry E015

Soil D Cyclohexane Extractable Matter (CEM) Gravimetrically determined through extraction with cyclohexane E011

Soil AR Diesel Range Organics (C10 - C24) Determination of hexane/acetone extractable hydrocarbons by GC-FID E004

Soil AR Electrical ConductivityDetermination of electrical conductivity by addition of saturated calcium sulphate followed by

electrometric measurementE022

Soil AR Electrical Conductivity Determination of electrical conductivity by addition of water followed by electrometric measurement E023

Soil D Elemental Sulphur Determination of elemental sulphur by solvent extraction followed by GC-MS E020

Soil AR EPH (C10 – C40) Determination of acetone/hexane extractable hydrocarbons by GC-FID E004

Soil AR EPH Product ID Determination of acetone/hexane extractable hydrocarbons by GC-FID E004

Soil AREPH TEXAS (C6-C8, C8-C10, C10-C12,

C12-C16, C16-C21, C21-C40)

Determination of acetone/hexane extractable hydrocarbons by GC-FID for C8 to C40. C6 to C8 by

headspace GC-MSE004

Soil D Fluoride - Water Soluble Determination of Fluoride by extraction with water & analysed by ion chromatography E009

Soil D FOC (Fraction Organic Carbon)Determination of fraction of organic carbon by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by

titration with iron (II) sulphateE010

Soil D Loss on Ignition @ 450oCDetermination of loss on ignition in soil by gravimetrically with the sample being ignited in a muffle

furnaceE019

Soil D Magnesium - Water Soluble Determination of water soluble magnesium by extraction with water followed by ICP-OES E025

Soil D Metals Determination of metals by aqua-regia digestion followed by ICP-OES E002

Soil AR Mineral Oil (C10 - C40) Determination of hexane/acetone extractable hydrocarbons by GC-FID fractionating with SPE cartridge E004

Soil AR Moisture Content Moisture content; determined gravimetrically E003

Soil D Nitrate - Water Soluble (2:1) Determination of nitrate by extraction with water & analysed by ion chromatography E009

Soil D Organic MatterDetermination of organic matter by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by titration with iron

(II) sulphateE010

Soil AR PAH - Speciated (EPA 16)Determination of PAH compounds by extraction in acetone and hexane followed by GC-MS with the

use of surrogate and internal standardsE005

Soil AR PCB - 7 Congeners Determination of PCB by extraction with acetone and hexane followed by GC-MS E008

Soil D Petroleum Ether Extract (PEE) Gravimetrically determined through extraction with petroleum ether E011

Soil AR pH Determination of pH by addition of water followed by electrometric measurement E007

Soil AR Phenols - Total (monohydric) Determination of phenols by distillation followed by colorimetry E021

Soil D Phosphate - Water Soluble (2:1) Determination of phosphate by extraction with water & analysed by ion chromatography E009

Soil D Sulphate (as SO4) - Total Determination of total sulphate by extraction with 10% HCl followed by ICP-OES E013

Soil D Sulphate (as SO4) - Water Soluble (2:1) Determination of sulphate by extraction with water & analysed by ion chromatography E009

Soil D Sulphate (as SO4) - Water Soluble (2:1) Determination of water soluble sulphate by extraction with water followed by ICP-OES E014

Soil AR Sulphide Determination of sulphide by distillation followed by colorimetry E018

Soil D Sulphur - Total Determination of total sulphur by extraction with aqua-regia followed by ICP-OES E024

Soil AR SVOCDetermination of semi-volatile organic compounds by extraction in acetone and hexane followed by GC-

MSE006

Soil AR Thiocyanate (as SCN)Determination of thiocyanate by extraction in caustic soda followed by acidification followed by

addition of ferric nitrate followed by colorimetryE017

Soil D Toluene Extractable Matter (TEM) Gravimetrically determined through extraction with toluene E011

Soil D Total Organic Carbon (TOC)Determination of organic matter by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by titration with iron

(II) sulphateE010

Soil AR

TPH CWG (ali: C5- C6, C6-C8, C8-C10,

C10-C12, C12-C16, C16-C21, C21-C34,

aro: C5-C7, C7-C8, C8-C10, C10-C12,

C12-C16, C16-C21, C21-C35)

Determination of hexane/acetone extractable hydrocarbons by GC-FID fractionating with SPE cartridge

for C8 to C35. C5 to C8 by headspace GC-MSE004

Soil AR

TPH LQM (ali: C5-C6, C6-C8, C8-C10, C10-

C12, C12-C16, C16-C35, C35-C44, aro:

C5-C7, C7-C8, C8-C10, C10-C12, C12-

C16, C16-C21, C21-C35, C35-C44)

Determination of hexane/acetone extractable hydrocarbons by GC-FID fractionating with SPE cartridge

for C8 to C44. C5 to C8 by headspace GC-MSE004

Soil AR VOCs Determination of volatile organic compounds by headspace GC-MS E001

Soil AR VPH (C6-C8 & C8-C10) Determination of hydrocarbons C6-C8 by headspace GC-MS & C8-C10 by GC-FID E001

D Dried

AR As Received

Kent ME17 2JN



Rose Lane

Lenham Heath

Maidstone

Order No: 15857/SB


Tel : 01622 850410 '

Soil Analysis Certificate - Methodology & Miscellaneous Information


Soils Ltd




Soils Limited August 2015 – Human Health Risk Assessment

1

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

1.1 Introduction

Human Health Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment (GQRA) involves the comparison

of contaminant concentrations measured in soil at the site with Generic Assessment

Criteria (GAC).

GAC are conservative values adopted to ensure that they are applicable to the majority

of possible contaminated site. These values may be published Contaminated Land

Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA) derived GAC derived by a third party or the

Environment Agency/ DEFRA. It is imperative to the risk assessor to understand the

uncertainties and limitations associated with these GAC to ensure that they are used

appropriately. Where the adoption of a GAC is not appropriate, for instance when the

intended land-use is at variance the CLEA standard land-uses, then a Detailed

Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA) may be undertaken to develop site specific

values for relevant soil contaminants based on the site specific conditions.

1.2 General Assessment Criteria

The Contaminated Land Regime reflects the UK Government’s stated objectives of

achieving sustainable development through the ‘suitable for use approach’.

1.2.1 Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA)

Current United Kingdom risk assessment practice is based on the Contaminated

Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA).

The CLEA Guidance comprises the following documents:

EA Science Report SC050021/SR2: Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants

in soil.

EA Science Report SC050021/SR3: Updated technical background to the CLEA model.

EA CLEA Bulletin (2009).

CLEA software version 1.04 (2009)

Toxicological reports and SGV technical notes.

The CLEA guidance and tools:

1. do not cover other types of risk to humans, such as fire, suffocation or explosion, or short-

term and acute exposures.

2. do not cover risks to the environment, such as groundwater, ecosystems or buildings.

3. do not provide a definitive test for telling when human health risks are significant.

4. are not a legal requirement in assessing land contamination risks. They are not part of the

legal regime for Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

1.3 Soil Guideline Values (2009)

The EA are publishing a series of SGV reports for a selection of common contaminants

relevant to the assessment of land contamination.

SGV’s are generic assessment criteria based on CLEA standard land-uses and can be

used to simplify the assessment of human health risks from long-term exposure to


2

chemical contamination in soil. They do not cover short-term exposure (i.e. construction

and maintenance workers), acute exposure or other risks such as fire, suffocation or

explosion, as might arise from an accumulation of gases such as methane and carbon

dioxide, or either odour or aesthetic issues.

SGV’s represent ‘trigger values’, indicators that soil concentrations above the SGV level

may pose a possibility of significant harm to human health. The converse, where soil

concentrations are less that the SGV, is that the long-term human health risks are

considered to be tolerable or minimal.

The CLEA guidance derives soil concentrations of contaminants above which (in the

opinion of the EA) there may be a concern that warrants further investigation. It does not

provide a definitive test for establishing that the risk is significant.

1.4 Ongoing development of CLEA based guidance

The EA is involved in a programme of publishing SGV’s and related toxicity data (the

TOX reports). As at July 2009 ten SGV’s and matching TOX reports had been published.

Soil Assessment Criteria (SAC’s) may be derived using toxicity data from the updated

TOX reports, where these are published, or from the original TOX reports. SGV reports

also take account of recent updates for plant uptake and other factors.

GAC’s developed by CLEA guidance and given in this report will need to be assessed against

updated TOX reports and SGV’s when these are published.

SGV reports may give values that differ from the GAC’s used in this report.

These variations may materially alter the remediation requirement for the site, requiring either an

increase or decrease in the extent, type and cost of remediation.

1.5 Phytotoxicity

CLEA guidance only addresses human health toxicity; assessment of plant toxicity

(phytotoxicity) is based on threshold trigger values obtained from the following source:

ICRCL 70/90: Notes on the restoration and aftercare of metalliferous mining sites for

pasture and grazing.

1.6 Other Generic Assessment Criteria

If an SGV is not available for a substance identified in the soil then the range of Generic

Assessment Criteria published from a collaborative research by Land Quality

Management Limited (LQM) and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH)

are used for example. In the case of Lead, Category 4 screening levels (C4SLs) have

replaced the AtRisk Soil SSV.

1.6.1 EIC/AGS/CL: AIRE

The report represents the collaborative effort of risk assessors from 26 EIC and

AGS member companies to produce generic assessment criteria (GAC) for soils

for human health risk assessment. The project involved the collation and review of

physico-chemical data, toxicological data and information on background


3

exposure for 44 contaminants sometimes encountered on land affected by

contamination in the UK and the derivation of GAC for 351 of these using the

CLEA model (v1.06). The GAC are intended to complement soil guideline values

(SGV) produced by the Environment Agency of England and Wales and the 2nd

edition GAC produced by LQM and CIEH (Nathanail et al, 2009). All three sets of

assessment criteria have been derived in general accordance with the

Environment Agency of England and Wales Contaminated Land Exposure

Assessment (CLEA) guidance and thus the combined efforts of these three

groups have resulted in a useful set of screening criteria for the assessment of

risks to human health from soil contamination for more than 120 potentially

contaminative substances.

1.6.2 CL: AIRE Category 4 screening levels (C4SLs) (2014)

A new statutory DEFRA guidance recently (i.e. August 2014) published some

GACs with a more pragmatic (but still strongly precautionary) approach in their

derivation called the Category 4 screening levels (C4SLs). These values provide

a higher simple test for deciding that land is suitable for use and definitely not

contaminated land. They are intended as generic screening values, (ii) they

describe a level of risk that whilst above ‘minimal’ is still ‘low’ and (iii) they provide

a ‘higher simple test’ for deciding that land is suitable for use and def

Soils Limited 1 Capstan Square Contamination Assessment Report · 2016. 11. 22. · BS 5930:2015 and BS EN ISO 22476-2 2005+A1:2011 for WS/DP BS EN ISO 14688-1:2002+A1:2013 BS 10175:2011+A1:2013

Text of Soils Limited 1 Capstan Square Contamination Assessment Report · 2016. 11. 22. · BS 5930:2015...

Schedule of Accreditation United Kingdom Accreditation … · Ready mixed concrete BS EN 206:2013 + A1:2016 BS 8500-1:2015 + A1:2016 BS 8500-2:2015 + A1:2016 . BSI Assurance UK Limited

General Information for Erection (G.I.E.) Painting Work...- (BS EN ISO 8501-1:2001 * BS 7079-A1:1989) ASTM : American Society for Testing and Materials ISO 8501: Corrosion Protection

American National Standards Institute - Plastics piping systems … · 2020. 3. 2. · Together with BS EN ISO 1452-1:2009, BS EN ISO 1452-2:2009, BS EN ISO 1452-3:2009 & BS EN ISO

BS ISO 11416

EN IT DE ES ISO 9001 – ISO 14001 – BS OHSAS 18001 · iso 9001 – iso 14001 – bs ohsas 18001 iso 9001 – iso 14001 – bs ohsas 18001 iso 9001 – iso 14001 – bs ohsas 18001

Accreditation...BS EN 13889+A1 RR-C271D BS 3551 BS EN 13414-1+A2 BS EN 13414-2+A2 BS EN 13414-3+A1 BS EN 1677-1+A1 BS EN 1677-2+A1

BS ISO 128

ISO A1 - SANBI

BS ISO 3867fa.parsethylene-kish.com/.../BS_ISO_3867_(2001).pdf · 2020. 1. 14. · BS ISO 3867 Author: BSI Subject: BS ISO 3867 Keywords: BS ISO 3867 Created Date: 20080331123102Z

BS EN 593-2009 +A1-2011

BS EN 14382-2005+A1-2009

FITTINGS RANGE. - alco-valves.com · ... iso 3016 | bs 2000-71.2 | iso 31 5 | bs en iso 837-1 | bs en iso228-1 | bs en iso 1179 | bs en iso 2719 | bs 200-34 | bs 2000-34 | bs en iso

BS A1 Oct 2011

ISO 9001 ISO 14001 BS OHSAS 18001 BS EN 1090 · PDF fileiso 27001 bs en 1090 pt2 iso 9001 iso 14001 bs ohsas 18001 weld inspector steven crisp contracts engineer jeremy whitehouse

DESIGNdocentes.uto.edu.bo/mruizo/wp-content/uploads/cap1-T2.pdf · national standards (e.g. see BS ISO 509, BS ISO 6780, BS EN ISO 445, BS EN 1726-1, BS EN 13545, 99/705213 DC, ISO

EN IT DE ES ISO 9001 – ISO 14001 – BS OHSAS 18001 · 2017-11-23 · iso 9001 – iso 14001 – bs ohsas 18001 iso 9001 – iso 14001 – bs ohsas 18001 the original version of

BS EN13889 2003 - A1 2008 - Manilha

BS-ISO 12241

BS EN 50395-2005+A1-2011

BS EN ISO 1421_1998

BS ISO 8943-2007

mutu in...ISO/IEC 27001, BS EN ISO 22000, BS ISO/IEC 20000, BS ISO 22301 dan BS OHSAS 18001 atau spesifikasi yang diterapkan organisasi. PAS ini tidak dimaksudkan untuk tujuan sertifikasi

BS EN ISO 1435

BS ISO 6603-1

BS ISO 4120-2004

BS ISO 12107-2003

Gabarito A1 - ELT0501N - BS - Variáveis Complexas.pdf

Scope -NAI066.pdf · BS EN BS EN 13157 BS EN BS EN ISO 3691-5 2015 BS EN 5744:1979 BS EN BS EN BS BS EN BS EN ISO BS EN 13414-1.2003+A2:2008 BS EN 13414-2Q003+A2Q008 BS ISO 4309:2010

BS EN 13355-2004 + A1-2009

Gulf Test2019_2021).pdfBS EN 13414- 3+A1 BS EN 1677 -1+A1 BS EN 1677- 2+A1 BS EN 1677- 3+A1 BS EN 1677- BS EN 1677 -5+A1 BS EN 1677- 6+A1 BS EN 1492- 1+A1 BS EN 1492- ElAC-ACC-FM-41,

Documents

Soils Limited 1 Capstan Square Contamination Assessment Report · 2016. 11. 22. · BS 5930:2015 and BS EN ISO 22476-2 2005+A1:2011 for WS/DP BS EN ISO 14688-1:2002+A1:2013 BS 10175:2011+A1:2013

Text of Soils Limited 1 Capstan Square Contamination Assessment Report · 2016. 11. 22. · BS 5930:2015...