A17/2c - Volume 2c: Technical Report: Ground …...A17/2c - Volume 2c: Technical Report: Ground...

A17/2c - Volume 2c: Technical Report: Ground Investigation

Transport and Works Act 1992

Boston Barrier Order

We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the environment.

Acting to reduce the impacts of a changing climate on people and wildlife is at the heart of everything we do.

We reduce the risks to people, properties and businesses from flooding and coastal erosion.

We protect and improve the quality of water, making sure there is enough for people, businesses, agriculture and the environment. Our work helps to ensure people can enjoy the water environment through angling and navigation.

We look after land quality, promote sustainable land management and help protect and enhance wildlife habitats. And we work closely with businesses to help them comply with environmental regulations.

We can’t do this alone. We work with government, local councils, businesses, civil society groups and communities to make our environment a better place for people and wildlife.

Published by:

Environment Agency Horizon House, Deanery Road, Bristol BS1 5AH Email: [email protected] www.gov.uk/environment-agency

© Environment Agency 2014

All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency.

Further copies of this report are available from our publications catalogue: www.gov.uk/government/publications

or our National Customer Contact Centre: T: 03708 506506

Email: [email protected].

http://www.gov.uk/environment-agency

http://www.gov.uk/government/publications

mailto:[email protected]

A17/2c - Volume 2c: Technical Report: Ground Investigation Report iii

Quality Assurance

Approvals

Name Title Date Version

SS Technical Director Geotechnics

12/08/2016 1

MT Senior Civil Engineer 12/08/2016 1

Project name Boston Barrier Tidal Project

Project 1B1S reference IMAN001472

Date 12 August 2016

Version number 1

Author LG

EIA Quality Mark

This Environmental Statement, and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out to identify the significant environmental effects of the proposed development, was undertaken in line with the EIA Quality Mark Commitments. The EIA Quality Mark is a voluntary scheme, operated by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), through which EIA activity is independently reviewed, on an annual basis, to ensure it delivers excellence in the following areas: EIA Management EIA Team Capabilities EIA Regulatory Compliance EIA Context & Influence EIA Content EIA Presentation Improving EIA practice To find out more about the EIA Quality Mark please visit:

www.iema.net/qmark

http://www.iema.net/qmark

A17/2c - Volume 2c: Technical Report: Ground Investigation Report iv

This page has been left intentionally blank.

Boston Barrier

Ground Investigation Report

February 2015

Environment Agency

335092 WCD WAM 01 A

pims/339200 Boston Barrier TWAO/Products/Design Products/GI/GIR

07 February 2015

Boston Barrier


Boston Barrier


February 2015

Environment Agency

Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay Peterborough PE2 5ZR

Mott MacDonald, Demeter House, Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2RS, United Kingdom

T +44 (0)1223 463500 F +44 (0)1223 461007 W www.mottmac.com

335092/WCD/WAM/01/A 07 February 2015 pims/339200 Boston Barrier TWAO/Products/Design Products/GI/GIR

Boston Barrier Ground Investigation Report

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

01 16 February 2015 L Griffith S Solera M Taylor First Draft for Comment

02 24 February 2015 L Griffith S Solera M Taylor Updated issue

Issue and revision record

Information Class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.



Chapter Title Page

Executive Summary i

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background __________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Objectives ___________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.3 Scope of Work _______________________________________________________________________ 2 1.4 Sources of Information _________________________________________________________________ 2 1.5 Parties Involved ______________________________________________________________________ 2 1.6 Limitation and Responsibilities for Information ______________________________________________ 3

2 Environmental Setting 5

2.1 Site Location and Design Details _________________________________________________________ 5 2.2 Topography __________________________________________________________________________ 7 2.3 Hydrology ___________________________________________________________________________ 8 2.4 Historical Maps _______________________________________________________________________ 8 2.5 Geological Information ________________________________________________________________ 10 2.6 Hydrogeology and Groundwater ________________________________________________________ 11 2.7 Potential Contamination _______________________________________________________________ 11

3 Ground Investigation Field and Laboratory Results 13

3.1 General ____________________________________________________________________________ 13 3.2 Ground Investigation Rationale _________________________________________________________ 13 3.3 Fieldwork __________________________________________________________________________ 13 3.4 Standards __________________________________________________________________________ 14 3.5 Service Inspection ___________________________________________________________________ 14 3.6 Investigation Techniques ______________________________________________________________ 15 3.7 In-situ Testing _______________________________________________________________________ 17 3.8 Sampling ___________________________________________________________________________ 17 3.9 Installations and Monitoring ____________________________________________________________ 18 3.10 Laboratory Testing ___________________________________________________________________ 18

4 Summary of Fieldwork Ground Conditions 21

4.1 Services ___________________________________________________________________________ 21 4.2 Structural Elements __________________________________________________________________ 22 4.3 Voids ______________________________________________________________________________ 23 4.4 Condition of the Lock _________________________________________________________________ 25 4.5 Summary of Strata Encountered ________________________________________________________ 26 4.6 Geological Cross Sections _____________________________________________________________ 28 4.7 Evidence of Contamination ____________________________________________________________ 29

5 Ground Conditions and Geotechnical Properties 31

Contents



5.1 Data Set ___________________________________________________________________________ 31 5.2 Definition of Parameters _______________________________________________________________ 32 5.3 Classification and SPT Data ____________________________________________________________ 35 5.4 Total Stress Data ____________________________________________________________________ 46 5.5 Effective Stress Results _______________________________________________________________ 52 5.6 Stiffness ___________________________________________________________________________ 55 5.7 Concrete Aggressivity Results __________________________________________________________ 56 5.8 Permeability Results __________________________________________________________________ 57 5.9 Groundwater Monitoring Results ________________________________________________________ 58 5.10 Summary of Parameters ______________________________________________________________ 62

6 Phase II Contaminated Land Assessment 63

6.1 Methodology ________________________________________________________________________ 63 6.2 Risks associated with commercial/ industrial proposed end use. _______________________________ 63 6.3 Soil Laboratory Results _______________________________________________________________ 65 6.4 Groundwater Laboratory Results ________________________________________________________ 68 6.5 Ground gas monitoring ________________________________________________________________ 70 6.6 Discussion of the Phase II Contamination Results __________________________________________ 71

7 Risk Register 78

8 Conclusions 81

8.1 Geology and Groundwater _____________________________________________________________ 81 8.2 General Geotechnical Profile ___________________________________________________________ 81 8.3 Geotechnical Parameters ______________________________________________________________ 81 8.4 Buried Structures ____________________________________________________________________ 81 8.5 Contamination_______________________________________________________________________ 81 8.6 Voids ______________________________________________________________________________ 82

9 Bibliography 83

Appendices 86

Appendix A. Location Plan _______________________________________________________________________ 87 Appendix B. Historical Information _________________________________________________________________ 88 Appendix C. Fieldwork Reports ____________________________________________________________________ 92 Appendix D. Geological Cross Sections _____________________________________________________________ 94 Appendix E. Parameter Plots _____________________________________________________________________ 95 Appendix F. Concrete Aggressivity Results __________________________________________________________ 98 Appendix G. Groundwater Results ________________________________________________________________ 102 Appendix H. Contamination Results _______________________________________________________________ 105 Appendix I. Contamination Risk Assessment Methodology ____________________________________________ 106 I.1 General ___________________________________________________________________________ 106 I.2 Classification of Risk ________________________________________________________________ 106 Appendix J. Conceptual Site Model _______________________________________________________________ 108



Appendix K. Effective Stress Shearbox Plots ________________________________________________________ 110 Appendix L. Tidal Variation of Groundwater in Alluvium on Left Bank ____________________________________ 112

i 335092/WCD/WAM/01/A 07 February 2015 pims/339200 Boston Barrier TWAO/Products/Design Products/GI/GIR


Mott MacDonald has been appointed by the Environment Agency (EA) to provide design services under

the Lot 3 WEM framework.

The town of Boston has historically been subject to flooding, particularly from the sea. In December 2013,

the area was hit by severe floods. The existing standard of protection at Boston is to a 1 in 50 (2%) chance

of flooding each year with the standard of protection at Boston determined by the condition of these

defences. The risk of tidal flooding is greater than the risk of fluvial flooding.

Mott MacDonald has been commissioned to progress the outline design to a preliminary design in order to

inform the environmental impact assessment which is key deliverable for the TWAO (Transport Works Act

Order). At the time of writing this report the preliminary design developed by Mott MacDonald has yet to be

formally approved by the Environment Agency, so the design considered is the outline design in the PAR

document [1].

Two phases of ground investigation were undertaken prior to Mott MacDonald’s engagement, one is 2010

by Soil Engineering [2] and one is 2012 by WYG Environment [3]. The third phase of ground investigation

was scoped by Halcrow Jacob Alliance (HJA) to identify and reduce the risks specifically associated with

the design proposed in the PAR [1]. The investigation was undertaken between September and November

2014 by WYG Environment [4]. Mott MacDonald has been commissioned by the Environment Agency to

assess the ground investigation contractors technical aspects of the tenders; supervise the ground

investigation and interpret the results of the ground investigation. The data gathered from all three phases

of investigation are summarised and presented in this Ground Investigation Report (GIR).

The results of the recent ground investigation carried out in the Port of Boston and along the Right

Embankment of the River Witham confirmed the geology presented in historical boreholes and previous

phases of ground investigation.

The geology typically comprised Made Ground overlying Alluvium which in turn overlies Glacial Till

deposits. In previous phases of ground investigation, Kimmeridge Clay has been identified within

boreholes.

The ground water on the Left embankment is tidally influenced and the range of this fluctuation is up to

3.5m during spring tides with the Alluvium being more sensitive to this than the Made Ground or the Glacial

Till. The groundwater is typically between 0.0 and 3.5m AOD, in relation to the ground level which is

typically 5.5mAOD. On the Right Embankment the groundwater is consistently approximately 3.0mAOD

(ground level is 6.4mAOD) and shows negligible influence from tides.

The list of uncharted buried structures within the Port of Boston is extensive. There is high risk of

encountering unchartered services. The tie-in anchors have been exposed in the Maud Foster to the wet

dock lock area. However, further work is required to identify the all the tie in anchors between the Knuckle

and the Barrier.

The key contamination risks on the site have arisen in the area of the historical slipway, within the Knuckle

and along the access road. It is recommended that gas protection measures be used for the proposed

control building and there is ongoing risk that asbestos may be present on the site.

Executive Summary



1

1.1 Background

Mott MacDonald has been appointed by the Environment Agency (EA) to provide design services under

the Lot 3 WEM framework.

The town of Boston has historically been subject to flooding, particularly from the sea. In December 2013,

the area was hit by severe floods from a tidal surge event. The existing standard of protection at Boston is

to a 1 in 50 (2%) chance of flooding each year with the standard of protection determined by the condition

of these defences.

The Boston Combined Strategy (BCS) comprises of a number of phases of work to reduce the risk to

people and the environment from tidal flooding and provide a safe and attractive navigation link to the

proposed Fens Waterways Link. Phase 3 of the BCS is to deliver a tidal barrier with the option to manage

water levels upstream of the barrier.

An outline design has been developed by HJA for the production of the Boston Barrage Barrier Works

Project Appraisal Report [1] prepared by the EA.

Mott MacDonald has been commissioned to progress the outline design to a preliminary design in order to

inform the environmental impact assessment which is key deliverable for the TWAO (Transport Works Act

Order). At the time of writing this report the preliminary design developed by Mott MacDonald has yet to be

formally approved by the Environment Agency, so the design considered is the outline design in the PAR

document [1].

The ground conditions will play a significant role in the costs and risks to the scheme. It is therefore

important to evaluate all the data available to identify and reduce these risks.

Two phases of ground investigation were undertaken prior to Mott MacDonald’s engagement; the first was

delivered in 2010 by Soil Engineering [2] and the second was delivered in 2012 by WYG Environment [3].

A third phase of ground investigation was scoped by HJA to identify and reduce the risks specifically

associated with the design proposed in the PAR [1]. This third investigation was undertaken between

September and November 2014 by WYG Environment [4]. Mott MacDonald has been commissioned by

the Environment Agency to assess the ground investigation contractor’s technical aspects of the tenders;

supervise the ground investigation and interpret the results of the ground investigation. The data gathered

from all three phases of investigation are summarised and presented in this Ground Investigation Report

(GIR).

1.2 Objectives

The intrusive ground investigations were undertaken by specialist contractors to provide factual information

on the geotechnical, geo-environmental and groundwater conditions along the proposed alignment of the

flood wall and within the River Witham. The results of the phase 3 investigation are reported in the Factual

Ground Investigation Report [4].

1 Introduction



2

The objectives of this report are to:

summarise the geotechnical and geo-environmental information gathered from all three phases of

ground investigation,

identify and describe risks associated with the ground and groundwater conditions, and

provide Phase II contaminated land risk assessment based on the PAR outline design, as per CIRIA

Report C552 [5].

This report must be read in conjunction with the Factual Reports for the three phases by Soil Engineering

[2] and WYG Environmental [3] [4].

1.3 Scope of Work

The scope of the works undertaken by Mott MacDonald geotechnical team on this project is as follows:

Review the ground investigation scope of works produced by HJA [6]

Review and advise on the technical aspects of the GI contractor tenders

Provide full time supervision for the investigation

Review and comment on the GI contractors Factual Report

Provide a ground investigation report on the ground conditions.

The following items are outside the scope of this work:

Asbestos guidance

Geotechnical design parameters.

1.4 Sources of Information

The information in this report has been taken from the following sources:

Factual information from three phases of ground investigations [2] [3] [4]

Published geological maps and memoirs [7] [8] [9]

An Envirocheck report purchased for the site [10]

1.5 Parties Involved

The client is:

Environment Agency

Kingfisher House

Goldhay Way

Orton Goldhay

Peterborough

PE2 5ZR

The phase 1 ground investigation contractor was:

Soil Engineering



3

Parkside Lane

Dewsbury Road

Leeds

LS11 5SX


WYG Environment

100 St John Street

London

EC1M 4EH


WYG Environment

Geneva Building

Lake View Drive

Sherwood Business Park

Annesley

Nottinghamshire

NG15 0ED

The current consultant/designer is:

Mott MacDonald

Demeter House

Cambridge

CB1 2RS

The previous consultant/designer was:

HJA

Endever House

Cygnet Park

Peterborough

PE7 8FD

1.6 Limitation and Responsibilities for Information

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the

above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other

purpose.



4

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or

being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission

in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary

intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from Mott MacDonald Ltd and

from the party which commissioned it.

To the extent that this document is based on information supplied by other parties, Mott MacDonald Ltd

accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client stemming from any conclusions based on

data supplied by parties other than Mott MacDonald Ltd and used by Mott MacDonald Ltd in preparing this

report.

To the extent that this document is based on information obtained in previous or recent ground

investigations, persons using or relying on it should recognise that any such investigation can examine

only a fraction of the subsurface conditions. In any ground investigation there remains a risk that pockets

or “hot-spots” of contamination or other hazards may not be identified, because investigations are

necessarily based on sampling at localised points. Certain indicators or evidence of hazardous substances

or conditions may have been outside the portion of the subsurface investigated or monitored, and thus may

not have been identified or their full significance appreciated.

Whilst the presence of asbestos, toxic mould or unexploded ordnance (UXO) identified during previous

ground investigation and analysis can be presented, no assessment has been included herein. A specialist

contractor must be appointed to address the potential issues and advise on risk or remedial measures.



5

2.1 Site Location and Design Details

The site is located in Boston, Lincolnshire. The proposed flood wall alignment goes through the Port of

Boston Estate, crosses the River Witham at the barrier location and travels down the embankment

opposite the Port Estate which is referred to as the Right Embankment. Figure 2.1 shows the general

arrangement of the scheme. A more detailed schematic, IMAN001472-POB-011 can be found in Appendix

A. Existing quay walls along the port include masonry, concrete and sheetpile walls. No obvious

accelerated low water corrosion was evidence on the sheetpile walls, but this was outside the scope of the

investigation.

Figure 2.1: Boston Barrier Site Location Plan

Source: [1]

The works have been divided into package orders, all of which are addressed in this report. Figure 2.2

shows the location of the package orders.

Figure 2.2: Location of package orders

2 Environmental Setting

Knuckle Barrier Location The Haven

South Forty Foot

Drain



6

Package order one (PO1) comprises works between Maud Foster Sluice and the Knuckle. The outline

design [1] proposes a 9.5m deep sheet piled wall as per Figure 2.3, a caisson gate across the lock

recessed into the north side of the lock, removal of part of the Knuckle and installation of the wall type

shown in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.3: Package order one flood wall design Figure 2.4: Package order one flood wall design

Source: [1] Source: [1]

Package order two (PO2) comprises a flood wall along the edge of the quay and a barrier control building.

The flood wall will be 1.55m high and will be supported by 300mm diameter micropiles extending 0.50m

into Glacial Till. It has been assumed for the purpose of this document that the piles will be bored CFA

piles.

Package order three (PO3) comprises works within the River Witham, both maintenance and capital

dredging for the barrier works.

Package order four (PO4) is situated along the Right Embankment, where the existing embankment level

of 6m AOD will be raised to 6.35m AOD and the wall will extend to 7.55m AOD. The outline design is to

have sheet piling extending to the Glacial Till for material to be placed behind the sheet pile to create a

wider access path as per Figure 2.5.



7

Figure 2.5: Outline design for Right Embankment

Source: [1]

Package order five (PO5) comprises the works for the access road to the barrier. This road runs parallel to

the railway line which runs from the swing bridge to the north of the port estate.

2.2 Topography

The topography is described within Appendix 4 of the Scoping Report [11] as consisting of predominantly

flat, low level land between 2 to 5 mAOD, with the exception of the raised flood embankments on the

banks of the Haven south of the Port of Boston. These are key topographical features at a level of

approximately 6 to 6.4 mAOD (about 3 m above the adjoining areas) and extend on the left hand bank

from Maud Foster Sluice, past Skirbeck to the Havenside Country Park; and from Black Sluice, past

properties on Wyberton Low Road and the Riverside Industrial Estate to the sea banks in the south east

opposite Havenside Country Park. The adjacent housing within Skirbeck (Fishtoft Road/River Way, etc.)

are located on lower ground at 2 to 3 mAOD behind these elevated defence embankments and a model

boating pond is a local landform feature set below the left hand flood embankment and Port of Boston haul

road.

Exposed mudflats and saltmarsh within the Haven estuary channel provide topographical variations

between the flood defences and built form of the Port of Boston and within the urban river channel within

the town centre to the north. The River Witham/Haven is the predominant watercourse within the study

area. South Forty Foot Drain to the south west meets the Haven at Black Sluice (see Figure 2.1). Maud

Foster Drain which meets the Haven at Maud Foster Sluice to the north (see Figure 2.1).



8

2.3 Hydrology

The River Witham is a tidal river which flows through the site, which in turn is named The Haven in the

area in front of the Port of Boston. The Envirocheck Report [10] designates the entire area as liable to

‘extreme flooding from rivers or sea without defences (Zone 2)’. Existing flood defences are identified as

running along the Right Embankment up to and across the Black Sluice. On the left hand side the flood

defences run from the swing bridge across the Port of Boston to the Wet Dock and on to the Maud Foster

Sluice. The report also shows that there are no areas on the site benefitting from the existing flood

defences.

The South Forty Foot Drain flows into the River Witham through the Black Sluice which is located to the

upstream of the proposed barrier location. Downstream of the barrier location the Maud Foster Drain flows

into the River Witham through the Maud Foster Sluice, although these drains are not especially linked to

the tidal flooding.

The scoping report for the Boston Combined Scheme [11] states that the high water spring tides are higher

than the ground level around the site which leads to tidal flooding. The risk of tidal flooding is far greater

than the risk of fluvial flooding.

2.4 Historical Maps

Historical maps from the Envirocheck Report [10] show the development of the port from 1888. The port

was built in 1884 prior to the publication of the first edition of the OS maps of the area. The development of

the site has been divided into package areas as per Figure 2.2 and have been summarised in Table 2.1. A

full table detailing the development of the site can be found in Appendix B; Table B.1

Table 2.1: Summary of information from historical maps

Package Year Development Structure

PO1 1888 Embankment with slope sloping away from the Jetty between the outer lock and Maud Foster.

Flood wall close to Maud Foster

PO1 1888 Railway running down centre of Knuckle Flood wall on the Knuckle

PO1 1888 South of the lock there is one small building at the end of the Knuckle and one large building at the Western extent of the Wet Dock.

Flood wall on the Knuckle

PO1 1906 Iron works shown to the North of PO1 Contamination

PO1 1906 Knuckle has a large building in the centre and a slim building running along the Southern edge.

Flood wall on the Knuckle

PO1 1938 Railway line extends from the Northern edge of the wet dock. Flood wall close to Maud Foster

PO1 1974 Line of quayside still extends back and is not in line with the bull nose of the lock. Potentially some temporary jetty structure in place.

Flood wall close to Maud Foster

PO1 1985 Line of quayside now in line with the bull nose quay. Flood wall close to Maud Foster/

Voiding

PO2 1888 A third of the way down the Wet Dock on the quayside there is no discernable quay Quay wall flood



9

Package Year Development Structure

structure but a cut back from the knuckle and then a slope from the port ground level to The Haven and a mud bank.

wall/ Contamination

PO2 1888 There is a ‘cut’ at the start of the bend in The Haven which appears to be the outflow from the channel which cuts across the port estate parallel to the river.

Quay wall flood wall/

Contamination

PO2 1906 Cut parallel to the quay edge with slope leading down to it. Quay wall flood wall/

Contamination

PO2 1906 Slipway orientated East West starting at the bend in River Witham approximately halfway down the Wet Dock. Appears to have a road constructed within it and a steep slope sloping down to the edge of it.


Contamination

PO2 1906 Channel running North South or parallel to the Haven on the Port Estate is named Baths Reservoir. There is a channel cut through the mud bank where it outflows into The Haven suggesting the water was moving

Dock road/ Contamination

PO2 1906 Public baths located where Frontier House and the Buoy yard are currently located. Quay wall flood wall

PO2 1951 Reservoir still extending behind public baths Quay wall flood wall

PO2 1956 No reservoir shown. The quayside has not been constructed and there is a sloping mud bank.


Contamination

PO3 1938 Structures are shown extending across the mud banks towards The Haven. Could be groynes or mooring posts.

Dredging

PO3 1956 As above the mud bank extends considerably into the Haven in front of the existing WD substation.

Dredging

PO4 1906 Building or compound area developed Flood wall Right Embankment

PO4 1938 Four circular structures, suspected tanks shown in the land adjacent to the embankment.

Flood wall Right Embankment/ contamination

PO5 1888 Shown as ‘Recreation Grounds’ with railway running from the swing bridge North East in the position of the current railway line.

Access road

PO5 1888 North of PO5 area is a large Reservoir surrounded by trees or vegetation. Access road/ contamination

PO5 1906 Reservoir label removed so reservoir potentially in filled. Access road/ contamination

PO5 1906 Railway sitting on top of embankment. Access road/ obstructions

PO5 1906 Dock office buildings constructed in the current positions. Access road

PO5 1938 Area developed to include a series of large buildings. Access road

PO5 1938 Railway sited on embankment at a higher level to the buildings. Access road

PO5 1951 Area now comprising smaller regular buildings spread either side of a road which run approximately East West.

Access road

PO5 1956 Area appears to be becoming more industrial with fewer larger buildings. Access road

Source: [10]



10

2.5 Geological Information

There is a much discrepancy between the geological sequence published by British Geological Survey

(BGS) in the geological maps [7] and memoirs [8] [9] and the geological sequence found in historical

boreholes and previous ground investigations [2] [3]. Table 2.2 summarises the strata descriptions found in

the sources listed above.

The 1:50,000 paper geological map of Boston and the online geology viewer show that the bedrock

geology is shallow dipping to the north east and comprises Oxfordian Age Ampthill Clay Formation (of the

Ancholme Clay Group) which is a mudstone. Kimmeridge Clay (also part of the Ancholme Clay Group)

which overlies the Ampthill Clay is shown on the geological map to outcrop to the 4km north east of the

site. The superficial geology specified on the paper geological map comprise Barroway Drove Beds.

The online BGS resources confirm the paper geological map with regard to the solid geology. However the

superficial deposits are described as Tidal Flat deposits.

Contrary to the above stratigraphical sequence and the historical borehole records, the borehole records

from phase 1 and 2 of investigation and the technical note produced by HJA state that the superficial

geology comprises Alluvial deposits. Underlying the Alluvium is Boulder Clay (now known as Glacial Till)

which in turn directly overlies Kimmeridge Clay, with no mention in the records of Ampthill Clay.

Conversely the geological maps do not show Glacial till (or indeed Boulder Clay) within the site. The typical

descriptions of all strata found within literature can be found in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Summary of Geological Information

Strata Typical Description

Depth below ground level

(m bgl) Thickness Comments

Barroway Drove Beds

Soft grey CLAY and silty CLAY At the surface Up to 12m 1:50,000 Geological Map

Ampthill Clay Formation

Grey shelly silty partly calcareous mudstone and silty mudstone

Approximately 20m

82m 1:50,000 Geological Map

Tidal Flat Deposits

Deposits comprising consolidated soft silty clay, with layers of peat, sand

and basal gravel.

Unknown Unknown BGS Online Geological Resources

Unnamed CLAY to silty CLAY, PEAT, SAND 0m 4.3 – 6.3m BGS Historical Borehole Records (TF34SW36 to 39)

Unnamed GRAVEL 6.3 to 7.3m 1.0m

BGS Historic Borehole Records (TF34SW36 to 39)

Boulder Clay Boulder Clay 7.3-8.3m Thickness not established. BGS Historic Borehole

Records (TF34SW36 to 39)

Boulder Clay No description 7.5m Thickness not established. BGS Historic Borehole

Records (TF34SW194)

Made Ground Silty sandy CLAY, sandy SILT, SILT, 0m 0.3 – 8.9m HJA (Halcrow) Technical



11

Strata Typical Description

Depth below ground level

(m bgl) Thickness Comments

fine SAND with fragmented bricks, concrete, stones, ashes and timber

Note on Geotechnical Historical Data

Alluvial Deposits

Soft to firm CLAY, SILT, fine SAND Up to 8.6m HJA (Halcrow) Technical Note on Geotechnical Historical Data

Boulder Clay Stiff to very stiff CLAY with boulders, chalk gravel, coarse chalk sand and

cobbles

Up to 19m in some borehole records and in others the full

thickness is not observed.

HJA (Halcrow) Technical Note on Geotechnical Historical Data

Source: [7] [8] [9] [12] [13]

2.6 Hydrogeology and Groundwater

Hydrogeological mapping presented in the Envirocheck Report [10] shows that the Tidal Flat Deposits and

Ampthill Clay Formation that underlie the site are classified by the Environment Agency (EA) as

Unproductive Strata; rock layers or drift deposits with low permeability that have negligible significance for

water supply or river base flow.

The Envirocheck Report also indicates that there are no groundwater abstractions within 1km of the site.

There are no Source Protection Zones within 1km of the site.

2.7 Potential Contamination

2.7.1 Landfill

A historical landfill site is present approximately 230m to the north west of PO2, in the area of the proposed

access road (PO5). The landfill site was called Bath Garden Area and the records presented in the

Envirocheck Report [10] and on the Environment Agency website indicate that this received inert waste.

2.7.2 Trade directory entries

A number of industrial uses have been identified in the surrounding area within the Envirocheck Report

[10], a summary of the active entries within 250m of the site have been summarised below:



12

Table 2.3: Trade directory entries within 250m of the site

Industrial land use Distance from the site (m) Direction

Agricultural Merchants 16 W

Oil fuel distributer 100 SW

Distribution services 117 SE

Printers 117 SE

Car dealers 217 SW

Car body repairs 211 S

Source: [10]

2.7.3 Hazardous substances

The Port of Boston holds consent for planning hazardous substances for ammonium nitrate and its

compounds (Envirocheck Report [10]).

2.7.4 Contaminated Land

Based on the information available and presented above, there is potential for contamination to be present

at the site from historical and current industrial use of the site and surrounding area. The main potentially

contaminative uses include the Dock, the historical docklands railway, industrial activities including a Saw

Mill and Iron Works, possible above/ below ground tanks, current electricity substation, infilled historical

channels and construction and demolition activities.

Based upon the Department of the Environment Industry Profile, potential contaminants at a dockyard

include heavy metals, sulphide, sulphate, cyanide , hydrocarbons, phenols, creosote , asbestos, ammonia

and its derivatives and solvents.

There is also a historical landfill site in the area of the access road (PO5), this landfill received inert waste.

However there is the potential for variable materials to have been used in this area which may pose a

contamination risk.



13

3.1 General

This section will summarise the phase 3 investigation completed by WYG Environment between 5th

September and 11th November 2014 which was supervised by Mott MacDonald. Details of the ground

investigations carried out as phase 1 and phase 2 is not covered in this section. For details of the fieldwork

undertaken as part of phases 1 and 2 the respective Factual Reports should be consulted [2] [3].

The exploratory hole location plan is presented in Appendix A, drawing IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-001

and on plans included in the Contractors Factual Report [4].

Geotechnical and geo-environmental laboratory testing schedules were completed by Mott MacDonald

during and on completion of the fieldwork. The final laboratory schedule was issued to the laboratory on

20th November 2014.

3.2 Ground Investigation Rationale

The phase 3 ground investigation was designed and scheduled by HJA, to provide sufficient information to

complete the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) and the Environmental Statement and to provide a

level of detail appropriate to enable a competitive design and build competition to be held [6].

The cable percussive boreholes were positioned to provide a suitable coverage of the flood wall alignment

down to the anticipated pile cut off, which is specified as within the Glacial Till in the outline design. Shored

trial pits were positioned target the existing tie in anchors which were located approximately on historic

plans of the Port of Boston. Non shored trial pits were located to provide coverage of the proposed access

road and the Fisherman’s Quay development.

The overwater sediment sampling works carried out in PO3 were located in positions supplied by the

Marine Management Organisation (MMO) in consultation with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and

Aquaculture Science (CEFAS). These samples were tested for contaminants in order to inform a decision

on a dredging and disposal licence for the capital and maintenance dredging works required as part of the

barrier construction. The laboratory scheduling and testing of these samples was completed by CEFAS

and the results were passed directly to the Client and the MMO, and did not appear in the Ground

Investigation Report by WYG [4].

3.3 Fieldwork

The number of each type of intrusive investigation technique is summarised in Table 3.1 divided into

package orders.

3 Ground Investigation Field and Laboratory Results



14

Table 3.1: Summary of intrusive investigation

Package Order CP RC CC TP VWPs Standpipe

Falling Head Test CBR/TRL Other

PO1 21

(plus 3 repeated location)

2 3 Vertical

4 Horizontal

10

(3 shored)

6 3 13 - Dive survey of lock

PO2 11

(plus 5 repeated location)

- - 11

(3 shored)

- 8 7 7 CBRs

6 TRLs

-

PO3 - - - - - - - - 8 Sonic sediment samples

PO4 1 - - - 1 2 1 12 TRLs 16 Window samples

2 CPTs

PO5 2 - 2 8 - - - 8 TRLs

Abbreviations: CP=Cable Percussive; RC=Rotary Core; CC=Concrete Core; TP=Trial Pit; VWP= Vibrating Wire Piezometer;

CBR=Californian Bearing Ratio; TRL=Transport Research Lab Probe; CPT=Cone Penetration Test.

3.4 Standards

The fieldwork and testing was carried out in accordance with the following standards:

BS5930:1999+A2; Code of Practice for Site Investigation [14]

BS EN 14688-2:2004; Identification and Classification of Soils [15]

BS EN 22476-3:2005; Geotechnical Investigation and Testing; Part 3: Standard Penetration Test [16]

3.5 Service Inspection

Prior to commencing site works a survey was undertaken by Tower Surveys to update and confirm the two

utility surveys undertaken by SUMO in 2010 [17] and 2011 [18]. The Tower Surveys works was specified

by HJA to identify voids and service and was undertaken in the areas of the ground investigation. The

survey comprised 3 components:

Topographical survey [19]

Bathymetric survey of the Lock [20]

GPR utility and void survey of the ground investigation areas [21]

However, during the fieldwork, discrepancies were identified between the SUMO utility drawings and the

Tower Surveys drawings and it would appear that the service plans were not combined. As such Mott

MacDonald produced a combined utility drawing [22]. It was also noted during fieldwork that there were

voids and utilities identified during intrusive works which were not identified during either survey and

consequently Tower Surveys was asked back to the site to resurvey specific areas. One area was in front



15

of the Customs house building where a void was found and the other was on the right bank where a power

cable was identified using the CAT scan.

Due to the dense services identified in the GPR survey in the Port of Boston and the size required for a

trial pit to be suitable for man-entry the position of each trial pit was excavated using a vacuum excavator

down to 1.2m. This technique was faster than hand digging and reduced the risk of service strikes.

The position of each borehole scanned with a cable avoidance tool (CAT) prior to excavating a hand dug

or vacuum excavated inspection pit to 1.2m or 1.5m respectively. The base of the pit was also scanned

using the CAT prior to commencing drilling.

3.6 Investigation Techniques

3.6.1 Cable Percussive Boreholes

A total of 43 cable percussive holes of nominal 150mm diameter were advanced through the subsurface

strata using cable percussive techniques to depths from 7.5m to 25m below ground level (bgl). Prior to

commencement a hand dug inspection pit was dug to 1.2m bgl. In 10 of the locations the inspection pit

was completed using a vacuum excavation tool to 1.5m bgl. The material recovered was logged and

sampled by a WYG Engineer at the time of drilling. The descriptions can be found within the borehole logs

in volume 2 of the Factual Report [4].

3.6.2 Rotary Boreholes

A total of 2 rotary core holes were drilled close to the northern side of the entrance to the lock using rotary

wire line techniques. The boreholes were drilled using a Commachio GEO205 and recirculated water flush.

3.6.3 Window Sample Boreholes

A total of 16 window sample boreholes were completed on the site, all along the Right Embankment within

PO4. The boreholes ranged in depth from 0.7m to 10.45m bgl. SPTs and sampling was carried out within

these holes as described in section 3.7. This technique was used instead of the planned CPTs due to the

proximity of services (see section 3.6.6).

3.6.4 Concrete Cores

Both vertical and horizontal cores were undertaken in the wet dock lock, using a bolt on hydraulic rotary

drill rig, producing cores of a nominal 70mm diameter. The 4 horizontal cores were undertaken from either

a crane basket or the dive boat at intervals specified by the on-site Mott MacDonald supervisor along the

southern wall of the lock. The depth drilled ranged from 0.8 to 2.0m. The 3 vertical cores within the lock

were drilled underwater with the same rig operated by personnel from Northern Divers. The original scope

[6] envisaged these cores being taken from a work boat. However, it was not possible to securely position

the work boat within the lock so for health and safety reasons the methodology was changed.



16

3.6.5 Trial Pits and Trenches

There were 29 trial pits were excavated to depth between 1.1m and 5.0m bgl within PO1, PO2 and PO5.

Of the 29 total, 15 were required to determine structural elements such as tie in anchors and 14 were

required to assess ground conditions. Of the 15 required to identify buried structures 6 were scheduled to

be suitable for man-entry. This required a larger excavation and for shoring to be placed within the

excavation. A WYG Engineer who has completed confined spaces training entered the pit to describe and

sketch any structural elements encountered. The sketches can be found within volume 3, Appendix I of the

Factual Report [4].

3.6.6 CPT Investigation

A total of 2 CPTs were undertaken along the Right Embankment (PO4) to a depth of 10m bgl. The tests

were carried out using a 20T capacity hydraulic penetrometer which was mounted onto a tracked rig.

The original scope [6] specified 16 CPT along the Right Embankment although due to safety concerns

regarding the proximity of services 14 were removed from the programme and replaced with window

samples.

The tests were carried out in accordance with BS EN 22476-1:2012 [16], BS EN 1997-2:2007 [23] and BS

EN 14688-1:2002 [15] using a 7.5T capacity piezoelectric cone with pore water measurement (CPTU).

3.6.7 CBR Tests and TRL Probes

7 CBRs and 26 TRL probes tests were carried out to assess the conditions where roads and hard standing

are required in the outline design. This comprised PO2 and PO5 areas.

3.6.8 Sediment Sampling

Sediment sampling within the River Witham was required for contaminant testing as per MMO and CEFAS

recommendation eight samples were taken using a sonic rig mounted to the stern of the spud leg work

boat, ‘The Fosser’. 50mm samples were obtained to depths between 1.5 and 3.0m. These samples were

logged and sub sampled by a WYG Engineer on board The Fosser prior to being frozen and dispatched to

the CEFAS laboratory in Lowestoft.

3.6.9 Road Cores

2 road cores were taken using a hand held rotary core rig to obtain samples 190mm diameter. The road

was cored to the top of the sub base and the sub base material was excavated and logged using the

vacuum excavator.



17

3.7 In-situ Testing

3.7.1 Standard Penetration Test

During advancement of the cable percussive and window sample boreholes, SPTs were taken at intervals

of 1.0m down to 5.0m into the Glacial Till and then at intervals 2.0m due to frequent refusal of the SPT

within the Glacial Till. The tests were undertaken in accordance with BS EN 22476-3 [16]. A total of 414

SPTs were undertaken across the site.

3.7.2 Falling Head Permeability Test

A total of 30 falling head tests were carried out during the ground investigation. 29 were undertaken during

the advancement of the cable percussive boreholes and 1 was undertaken in a window sample borehole

on the Right Embankment. The water level was raised to the base of the casing leaving a test zone of

typically 1.0m. The water level was then recorded using a level logger and the permeability rates then

calculated by WYG Environment.

3.8 Sampling

The number of samples taken is summarised in Table 3.2 as per the AGS version of the data received

from WYG Environmental accompanying the Factual Report [4]. In addition to these one asphalt sample

was taken in order to be classified as to its hazardous waste criteria.

UT100 samples were attempted throughout the investigation in order to provide a class 1 sample.

However, where the strata was very stiff or too gravelly, the thick walled U100 had to be employed in order

to obtain a sample.

Bulk and disturbed samples were taken by an WYG Engineer at the time of drilling. Environmental samples

required for contaminant testing were sub sampled at the time of drilling, then stored in cooler boxes prior

to a daily collection from the geo environmental testing laboratory.

Table 3.2: Summary of sampling

Package Order UT100 U100 Bulk

Disturbed Environmental Soil

Environmental Water

PO1 126 24 194 286 291 5

PO2 33 8 88 152 120 5

PO3 - - - - 16 -

PO4 8 1 (+8 undisturbed samples)

60 144 62 2

PO5 7 1 29 41 61 -

Total 174 45 371 623 550 12

Source: [4]



18

3.9 Installations and Monitoring

Ground water monitoring was undertaken across the site using both vibrating wire piezometers and slotted

standpipes containing level loggers. Table 3.3 summarises the monitoring locations. Where slotted

standpipes were used, bungs were also placed in the top of the HDPE pipe enabling gas monitoring.

Table 3.3: Summary of monitoring locations

Package Order Borehole Installation Type

Top of Response Zone

(m bgl)

Base of Response

Zone (m bgl)

Geological Stratum

PO1 03MFBH03 Vibrating Wire Piezometer - 11.00 GT

PO1 03MFBH05 Vibrating Wire Piezometer - 3.50 MG



PO1 03WDBH02 Vibrating Wire Piezometer - 10.25 AL

PO1 03WDBH09A Vibrating Wire Piezometer - 8.00 AL

PO1 03MFBH01 Standpipe with Level Logger 4.00 10.00 AL/GT

PO1 03MFBH01 Standpipe with Level Logger 0.50 3.00 MG

PO1 03WDBH01 Standpipe with Level Logger 5.00 8.00 AL

PO1 03WDBH08 Standpipe with Level Logger 5.00 15.00 AL/GT

PO2 03FWBH01 Standpipe with Level Logger 4.00 8.50 AL



PO2 03FWBH06 Standpipe with Level Logger 5.10 9.70 AL/GT


PO2 03BBBH01 Standpipe with Level Logger 0.50 4.00 MG

PO2 03BBBH02 Standpipe with Level Logger 0.50 2.00 MG

PO4 03RBBH01 Vibrating Wire Piezometer - 10.80 GT

PO4 03RBWS01 Standpipe with Level Logger 2.00 7.00 AL/GT

PO4 03RBWS03 Standpipe with Level Logger 1.00 8.00 MG/AL/GT

3.10 Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical laboratory testing of soil samples recovered from the investigation boreholes were scheduled

to provide necessary design parameters for the detailed design. The tests were carried out by UKAS

accredited laboratory, PSL. The standards used for each test can be found in Volume 5, Appendix T of the

Factual Report.

A summary of the geotechnical laboratory tests undertaken is presented in Table 3.4 and the results of the

tests can be found in volume 5 of the Factual Report [4].



19

Table 3.4: Summary of geotechnical testing

Geotechnical Test

No Tests

PO1

No Tests

PO2

No Tests

PO3

No Tests

PO4

No Tests

PO5

Moisture Content 332 172 - 291 66

Particle Density 12 8 - 4 4

Atterberg Limits 101 50 - 98 18

PSD 49 33 - 29 4

Compaction Test 2 10 - 2 3

UUT 46 10 - 7 -

CUT 16 12 - 6 -

Shearbox 2 9 - 2 -

Oedometer 8 - - 3 -

BRE Suite A - soil 45 19 - 11 4

BRE Suite A - water 17 5 - 2 -

BRE Suite E - soil 15 3 - - 2

Organic Matter Content 9 1 - 10 1

Geo environmental contaminant testing was also scheduled to identify and quantify where possible the

hazards identified during drilling. Testing was undertaken as per WYG test suites as described below. The

number of each test suite carried out in presented in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: WYG Testing Suites

WYG Test Suite Contaminants Tested For:

No. Tests

PO1

No. Tests

PO2

No. Tests

PO3

No. Tests

PO4

No. Tests

PO5

Total

WYG Soil Suite A

As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn. Water Soluble Boron Hexavalent Chromium pH Value Water Soluble Sulphate (2:1 Extraction Free Cyanide Phenols Monohydric PAH (16 Speciated) TPH (C8-C40)

14 13 - 10 6 60

WYG Soil Suite A ‘Boston’

As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn. Water Soluble Boron Hexavalent Chromium pH Value Water Soluble Sulphate (2:1 Extraction Free Cyanide Total Cyanide

31 15 - 4 9 42



20

WYG Test Suite Contaminants Tested For:

No. Tests

PO1

No. Tests

PO2

No. Tests

PO3

No. Tests

PO4

No. Tests

PO5

Total

Phenols Monohydric PAH (Fully Speciated CWG) TPH (C8-C40)

Asbestos Screen and Identification

Asbestos 8 9 - - - 17

Asbestos Quantity Analysis

Asbestos - 1 - - - 1

Organic Content

TOC 6 1 - 2 - 9

WYG Water Suite A

As, B, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn, pH Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 Sulphate EPH (C10-C40) Total Phenol BTEX/MTB MS

5 4 - 2 - 11

WYG Water Suite C

As above plus:

Fully speciated PAH

21 - - - - 21

CEFAS Testing Suite

As specified by CEFAS. - - 8 - - 8

As noted in Section 3.2, sediment samples taken in P03 were scheduled and tested directly by CEFAS and

tests and results are not included in this report.



21

4.1 Services

4.1.1 Service Strikes

Despite precautions as specified in section 3.5, some uncharted services were damaged during fieldwork

operations. The strikes can be attributed to a number of causes as specified below:

Conflicting information on SUMO [17] [18] and Tower Surveys [19] utilities plans,

Historical service plans kept by PoB not incorporated into service plans,

Utility survey completed by Tower Surveys not being completed at the time of designing the GI.

After the strikes changes in procedure were implemented as specified below:

Mott MacDonald produced a service plan which combined the SUMO and Tower Surveys information,

The EA requested that borehole inspection pit (as well the trial pit inspection pits) were excavated

using the vacuum excavator instead of hand digging.

WYG completed incident forms for the service strikes; these are included in Appendix C.

The EA requested that WYG produce a report on the effectiveness and practicalities of using vacuum

excavation on borehole locations [24].

4.1.2 Culvert

There were 2 rotary cores: 03LKRC01 and 03LKRC03, were drilled in their scheduled positions on the

north side of the lock to a depth of 12.3 and 15.26m. At a depth below ground of 8.2m they encountered a

loss of resistance which was later attributed to a culvert which is used to regulate the water level between

the lock gates. The culvert is shown in the as-built in Figure 4.1and Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.1: Plan view of culverts alongside the lock. Figure 4.2: Cross section through culvert on north side

of lock.

4 Summary of Fieldwork Ground Conditions



22

The culvert damage has been repaired and reinstated as per the details in section 3.4 of the WYG Factual

Report [4].

4.2 Structural Elements

4.2.1 Tie in Anchors

Volume 3, Appendix I of the WYG Factual Report [4] contains sketches of the tie in anchors found during

field work operations in addition to Table 3.2 of the Factual Report which summarises the structural

elements identified. This has been reproduced in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Structural elements identified in trial pits.

Trial Pit Structure

03MFTP01 Excavated to 1.1m depth confirmed details of concrete wall and blinding.

03MFTT02 Identified anchor tie at a depth of 1.6mbgl.

03MFTT03 Identified anchor tie at a depth of 1.52mbgl and assessed anchor block details.

03MFTT04 Identified anchor tie at a depth of 1.52mbgl.

03KKTP02 Excavated to 2.4mbgl and identified ground conditions behind wall. No ties identified.

03WDTP01 Identified foundation details of existing railway line.

03WDTP02 Identified foundation details of existing railway line.

03WDTP03 Identified anchor chain at 0.70 mbgl to 0.80 mbgl then extended pit west to depth of 2.3 mbgl and identified loose timber in excavation.

03WDTP04 Excavated to depth of 1.8mbgl. Historic foundations and drainage pipe encountered. No ties identified.

03WDTP05 Excavated to depth of 5 mbgl and extended to length of 6.2 mbgl. No ties identified.

03FWTP01 Anchor ties, chains and timber anchor block identified at a depth of approximately 1.0 mbgl.

03FWTP02/2A Group of 4 anchor ties identified at a depth of approximately 3.9 mbgl.

03FWTP03 Group of 4 anchor ties identified at a depth of approximately 3.6 mbgl.

03FWTP04 Excavated to a depth of 4.2mbgl and no ties encountered.

4.2.2 Historical Features

The slipway identified on historical maps (see section 2.4 for details) and photographs obtained from the

Port of Boston during fieldwork, Figure 4.3, was identified during the drilling of boreholes 03FWBH04 (and

its subsequent redrills). This was identified by an increase in Made Ground thickness, hydrocarbons and

the presence of timber at depth. The cross section PO2 on drawing IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-005

(Appendix D) also shows schematically the location of this feature and the increase in thickness of Made

Ground in this area. Also associated with this feature was an increase in contamination which is discussed

in section 6. The cut to the east of the slipway was also associated in the borehole records with an

increase in Made Ground.



23

Figure 4.3: Historical aerial photograph of the Port of Boston, issued to Mott MacDonald by the Port of Boston

Harbour Authority during fieldwork. Photo taken circa 1930.

4.2.3 Pylon (Transmissions Tower) Foundations

A further constraint on design that was identified in the phase 3 ground investigation fieldwork was the

proximity of the flood wall to the pylon foundation in the area of the Customs house. Western Power

Distribution were consulted during the investigation and they issued a drawing of a pylon foundation which

they believe to be similar to that found on the Port Estate. The drawing is of poor quality and included in

Appendix C, Figure C.1 .

4.3 Voids

During dive operations around the north side of the lock, a void was identified. The area was resurveyed by

Tower Surveys using the GPR technique to establish the extent of the voided area. Figure 4.4 shows an

extract from the revised GPR survey. Review of historical maps indicates that the void is due to outwash of

material due to poor connectivity between the newer jetty structure and the older bull nosed lock structure

(see photo in Figure 4.5.)



24

Figure 4.4: GPR survey showing extent of void Figure 4.5: Photo taken by divers showing entrance of

void

Figure 4.6: Divers cross section of the north lock wall showing the location of the void.



25

4.4 Condition of the Lock

During phase 3 fieldwork, the dive survey identified that the apron on the lock (which can be seen on

indicative sketch in Figure 4.7) was damaged and that boreholes in this area would be detrimental to the

structural integrity of the apron. Anecdotal reports from the divers suggest that the apron stonework has

been undercut due to scouring and that a subsequent impact may have occurred which has resulted in

‘large concrete pieces in this area’. The results of survey can be found in Appendix Q of the WYG Factual

Report [4].

Figure 4.7: Indicative sketch of the outer apron showing the area of scour from the WYG Factual Report [4].

The 7 concrete cores were taken through the south wall and the base of the lock during the phase 3

investigation. Details of the cores can be found in Appendix F of the Factual Report. The cores through the

wall showed brickwork then concrete in two of the holes and brickwork then made ground in the other two.

The thickness of brickwork was between 0.51m and 1.07m and was described by the WYG engineer in the

borehole log as medium to strong dark blue to red brown BRICKWORK.

The 3 vertical cores through the lock base identified sandstone blocks (dressing stone) overlying concrete

in turn overlying made ground. The thickness of the sandstone blocks was between 0.6m and 1.0m and

described in the borehole records as strong to very strong yellow brown coarse grained SANDSTONE.

Where concrete was encountered it was described as weak to medium strong (5-50MPa) grey

CONCRETE. The Made Ground is variable; with coarse GRAVEL and silty CLAY identified in the borehole

logs.



26

4.5 Summary of Strata Encountered

The geological strata encountered during the fieldwork confirmed the geological sequence found during

previous ground investigation and as such the formation names used during phase 1 and 2 of the

investigation have been used here for consistency across the reporting.

The difference between the previous work and the published geology is that the published geology has

specified that the superficial deposits are Tidal Flat deposits or Barroway bed deposits overlying the solid

geology of Ampthill Clay whereas the current fieldwork and previous fieldwork have identified alluvial

deposits overlying Glacial Till not shown on either the paper 1:50,000 map [7] or the online geological

mapping resources [12]. Deeper boreholes in phases 1 and 2 have also identified the Glacial Till overlying

Kimmeridge Clay and not Ampthill Clay. Kimmeridge Clay was not sampled during the phase 3

investigation.

The geology codes used in the cross section are summarised in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Summary of geological codes used in interpretation and cross sections.

Geology Code 1 Description Legend

Geology Code 2 Description Legend

MGO Made Ground Other/Structures

MG Made Ground

MGSi Made Ground comprising silt

AL Alluvium

MGS Made Ground comprising sand

PE Peat

MGC Made Ground comprising clay

GT Glacial Till

MGG Made Ground comprising gravel KC Kimmeridge Clay

ALSi Alluvium comprising silt

ALS Alluvium comprising sand

ALC Alluvium comprising clay

ALG Alluvium comprising gravels

ALCO Alluvium comprising Clay and Organics

PEA Peat

GTG Glacial Till comprising sands and gravels

GTC Glacial Till comprising clay

KC Kimmeridge Clay

4.5.1 Typical Strata Descriptions

The material descriptions given in the borehole records in the Factual Report [4] have been summarised in

Table 4.3 to give typical descriptions. Kimmeridge Clay, essentially an extremely weak mudstone, was not

sampled during the phase 3 investigation so has not been discussed here. Although not relevant to the



27

current scheme proposal, because of its significant depth (approx. 27m), its strength is discussed in

Section 5.4.4 for completeness.

Table 4.3: Summary of borehole descriptions

Strata PO1 Typical Description

PO2 Typical Description




Made Ground

sandy silty GRAVEL overlying very soft

to soft sandy gravelly CLAY

hard standing overlying sandy

GRAVEL which in turn overlies

gravelly clayey SAND and then gravelly sandy silty CLAY The

gravel component comprises mixed material of brick,

flint, quartzite, sandstone, metal, glass, coal, chalk

N/A topsoil overlying alternating layers of

gravelly clayey SILT and soft silty

CLAY

Made Ground material in PO5

typically comprises gravel overlying clay. The gravel

typically comprises mixed material and

has been described in the

borehole logs as well compacted

Alluvium soft silty CLAY and clayey SILT with

varying minor constituents and gravel of fine to

coarse sub angular to sub rounded mudstone, flint,

chalk and wood.

soft CLAY but there is also loose

sand and silt present across the

area but not laterally

continuous

very soft silty CLAY

clayey SILT and silty CLAY with

organic material and peat

silty CLAY becoming gravelly

sandy CLAY

Glacial Till Firm to stiff becoming very stiff

gravelly CLAY. Gravels comprise

chalk and flint

As PO1 As PO1 As PO1 As PO1

4.5.2 Peat

Peat has not been classified as a separate stratum within the above definitions as it is not continuous and

not of a significant thickness in relation to the other strata. However, the influence of peat on settlement will

be disproportionate to its thickness and so it is described here. Pure peat is described as spongy to firm

amorphous to pseudofibrous, typically pseudofibrous PEAT. It was sampled in 12 boreholes in the phase 3

investigation at the following locations with the following thicknesses:

03MFBH07: 0.3m

03MFBH08: 0.2m

03WDBH05: 0.5m

03RBBH01: 0.5m

03RBWS03: 0.2m

03RBWS05: 0.2m

03RBWS07: 0.2m

03RBWS08: 0.3m



28

03RBWS09: 0.4m

03RBWS14: 0.1m

03RBWS17: 0.1m.

As the list shows, it is typically found along the Right Embankment with a typical thickness of 0.2m.

However, the peat layer is not continuous here and forms pockets or lenses. Cross section PO4 (1-2) in

Appendix D shows this visually.

4.6 Geological Cross Sections

Geological cross sections have been created which follow the alignment of the floodwall and cross the

River Witham at the barrier location. These sections can be found in Appendix D.

The cross sections show the approximate levels and thickness of strata across the site, which has been

summarised in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Summary of levels of strata as per package orders

Package Order Strata

Depth from ground

level to top

(m bgl) (Typical)

Depth from ground level to

base

(m bgl) (Typical)

Level of top

(m AOD)

(Typical)

Level of base

(m AOD)

(Typical)

Thickness

(m)

(Typical) Comments

PO1 Made Ground

0 2.2 - 6.6

(N/A)

5.5 (ground

level)

2.5 - 1.1 N/A So variable that no typical thickness is

given.

Across knuckle it is increasing to the

east.

Predominantly clay material

Alluvium 2.2-6.6

(N/A)

7.8-9.2

(8.5)

3.3- -1.1 (N/A)

-2.3- -3.7 (-3.0)

Glacial Till 7.8-9.2

(8.5)

>25 -2.3- -3.7 (-3.0)

>-19.5

PO2 Made Ground

0 1.8 - 6.5

(3.6)

5.5 – ground

level.

3.7 - -1

(1.9)

1.8 - 6.5

(3.6)

Typical thickness are excluding the

increase thickness associated with the slipway and the cut.

Alluvium 1.8-6.5

(3.6)

7.5 - 8.9

(8.5)

3.7- -1

(1.9)

-2.0 - -3.4

(-3.0)

2.8 – 6.7

(4.9)

Glacial Till 7.5 - 8.9

(8.5)

27 -2.0 - -3.4

(-3.0)

-21.5 18.5 Extent of Glacial Till only proven in 2

boreholes close to each other

PO4 Made Ground

0 3.8 - 6.0

(5.0)

4.5 - 6.4

(Ground

0.4 - 2.6 (1.0)

3.8 - 6.0

(5.0)



29

Package Order Strata

Depth from ground

level to top

(m bgl) (Typical)

Depth from ground level to

base

(m bgl) (Typical)

Level of top

(m AOD)

(Typical)

Level of base

(m AOD)

(Typical)

Thickness

(m)

(Typical) Comments

Level)

Alluvium 3.8 - 6.0

(5.0)

8.7 – 8.9

(8.8)

0.4- 2.6 (1.0)

-2.4 - -2.6

(-2.6)

2.9 - 4.9

(4.0)

Glacial Till 8.7 – 8.9

(8.8)

>28 2.4 - -2.6

(-2.6)

>-21.7 N/A

4.7 Evidence of Contamination

The following visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was identified during the ground investigation

works and has been recorded in the Factual Report [4]:

Table 4.5: Visual and olfactory evidence of contamination

Exploratory Hole Location

Depth (m bgl) Strata Drillers Description

03DRBH01 Package order 5

1.2 – 3.0 Made ground Blue Billy fragments

3.5 – 6.6 Made ground Strong hydrocarbon odour

03FWBH04A Package Order 2

6.0 – 6.5 Made ground Strong hydrocarbon odour associated with presence of wood

03FWBH04B 6.3 Made ground Strong hydrocarbon odour

03FWBH04C 6.1 Made ground Strong hydrocarbon odour

03FWBH06 0 – 0.3 Made ground Blue billy aggregate

03MFBH03 Package Order 1

0 – 0.3 Made ground Blue billy aggregate, slight hydrocarbon odour

5.0 Alluvium Possible acetate/ organic/ creosote odour

03WDBH05 Package Order 1 (Knuckle)


3.0 – 3.5 Alluvium Slight hydrocarbon odour

03WDBH10 0.3 - 0.6 Made ground Hydrogen sulphide odour

03WDBH11 3.0 Creosote odour

03DRTP01 Package Order 5

0.0 – 0.4 Made ground Blue billy

03DRTP02 0.0 – 0.9 Made ground Blue billy

1.0 – 3.1 Made ground Hydrogen sulphide odour and blue billy

03DRTP03 0.8 – 1.7 Made ground Strong hydrocarbon odour

1.7 – 2.5 Made ground Strong hydrocarbon odour and blue billy

03DRTP06 1.9 – 2.7 Made ground Strong hydrocarbon odour

03DRTP07 1.4 – 2.2 Made ground Slight hydrogen sulphide odour

2.9 – 4.0 Made ground Slight hydrocarbon odour

03DRTP08 0.95 – 2.0 Made ground Slight hydrocarbon odour

03FWTP01 Package 0.3 – 0.8 Made ground Slight hydrocarbon odour



30

Exploratory Hole Location

Depth (m bgl) Strata Drillers Description

03FWTP02 order 2 0.25 – 0.4 Made ground Possible blue billy and moderate hydrogen sulphide odour

0.95 Made ground Green spent oxide

03FWTP02A 0.25 – 0.5 Made ground Possible blue billy and moderate hydrogen sulphide odour

0.5 – 0.8 Made ground Possible blue billy

03FWTP03 0.2 – 0.4 Made ground Possible blue billy and moderate hydrogen sulphide odour

03FWTP04 0.0 – 0.13 Made ground Possible blue billy aggregate

03KKTP02 Package Order 1 (Knuckle)

0.9 – 2.0 Made ground Mild hydrocarbon odour

03MFTT02 Package Order 1

0.08 – 0.45 Made ground Blue billy aggregate and slight hydrogen sulphide odour


03WDTP01 Package Order 1 (Knuckle)

0.0 – 0.14 Made ground Slight hydrocarbon odour

03WDTP03 2.3 Made ground Strong hydrocarbon odour

03WDTP05 0.15 – 0.4 Made ground Blue billy aggregate

0.6 Made ground Timber in creosote/ diesel

Source: [4]



31

5.1 Data Set

Data collected from the phase 1 [2] and phase 2 [4] ground investigations have been combined with the

most recent Phase 3 [4] data to produce a database of information from which parameters can be derived

for the site. A total of 81 locations from phase 1 of investigation have been excluded from the database

because they are situated up to a kilometre upstream from the Barrier location, and therefore the

information is less relevant. A summary of the number of exploratory locations within the data set is set out

in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Summary of Locations in Database

Rotary Core

Window (less)

Sample

Cable Percussiv

e CPT Trial Pit Concrete

Core CBR Sonic Core

Rotary Core

Phase 1 - 4 23 - 6 - - -

Phase 2 7 7 2 - - - - -

Phase 3 -

PO1 2 - 24 - 11 7 - -

PO2 - - 15 - 11 - 7 -

PO3 - - - - - - - 8

PO4 - 16 1 2 - - 11 -

PO5 - - 2 - 8 2 8 -

Total 9 27 67 2 36 9 26 8

This section of the report should be read in conjunction with the cross sections which can be found in

Appendix D and the parameter plots in section Appendix E. A summary of the range of parameters and

typical values can be found in Table 5.5 in Section 5.10.

5 Ground Conditions and Geotechnical Properties



32

5.2 Definition of Parameters

5.2.1 Derived Parameters

In this Ground Investigation Report (GIR) material properties have been given in terms of Derived

Parameters in accordance with Eurocode 7. A Derived Value is a "value of a geotechnical parameter

obtained by theory, correlation or empiricism from test results” [25]

Characteristic Values have not been defined in the GIR as they are defined in Cl 2.4.5.2(3) [25] as: “The

characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter shall be selected as a cautious estimate of the value

affecting the occurrence of the limit state”. These values are selected with regards to the limit state that is

being designed for, and the structure that is being designed and their selection is therefore part of the

design process and should be presented in a Geotechnical Design Report (as yet not commissioned).

5.2.2 Equivalent N Values

All SPT N values from phase 3 of ground investigation have been corrected for energy losses due to the

rod and hammer assembly. The certificates of energy loss (Er) information from phases 1 and 2 have been

included in the respective reports and show an energy ratio range from 64% to 85%; however information

regarding the specific energy ratio for each SPT is not included in the Factual Reports [2] [3], thus N60

cannot be calculated. Despite this, the uncorrected values of SPT N values will still be included in analysis

as these N values are under estimating the strength as the Er is greater than 60%, which is the percentage

that the values are normalised to. If the Er is greater than 60% the N values will be increased, if the Er is

less than 60 the SPT N will be reduce. Therefire, the uncorrected SPT N values from phases 1 and 2 will

be conservative.

The correction to N60 has been taken from BS EN 22476-3:2005 [26] and is shown in Equation 5.1.

𝑁60 = 𝐸𝑟

60𝑁

Equation 5.1

SPT N results which reached a total of 50 blows and were then terminated have been extrapolated based

on the penetration on refusal using Equation 5.3.

𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑁60 =300

𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 50 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑁

Equation 5.2

The results from the unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests have been compared to the derived Cu from

SPT N results, which are obtained using the equation in Equation 5.3 from CIRIA Report 143 [27]. The

results are shown to be comparable.



33

𝐶𝑢 = 4.5𝑁60

Equation 5.3

5.2.3 Young’s Modulus (E)

Where not directly measured, Effective Young’s Modulus for normally consolidated granular soils has been

calculated using the formula in Equation 5.4, where the N60 is used.

𝐸′ = 1 ∗ 𝑁60

Equation 5.4

5.2.4 Atterberg Limits

The following correlations are suitable for use with cohesive material. A number of these are derived from

consistency indices, i.e. moisture content and liquid and plastic limit tests, which provide a useful

correlation with soil strength and stiffness indices [28].

The plasticity index is defined in Equation 5.5 as per Craig’s Soil Mechanics [29] .

𝐼𝑝 = 𝐿𝐿 − 𝑃𝐿

Equation 5.5

The liquidity index is defined in Equation 5.6 [29].

𝐿𝐼 = 𝑤 − 𝑃𝐿

𝐼𝑝

Equation 5.6

Where LI = liquidity index; w = moisture content; PL = Plastic Limit; LL = Liquid Limit

5.2.5 Over Consolidation Ratio

The over consolidation ratio (OCR) of a soil is the ratio of the maximum effective stress in the past to the

current value. A normally consolidated soil would have a ratio of unity. This can be related to the undrained

shear strength and effective overburden stress with the correlation in Equation 5.7 [30].



34

𝑂𝐶𝑅 = (

𝐶𝑢

𝜎′𝑣)

0.25∗ 1.25

Equation 5.7

Typical values for OCR are given in Table 5.2 [31]

Table 5.2: Over consolidation Ratios

Soil Type OCR

Lightly consolidated 1

Normally consolidated 1.5-3

Heavily consolidated >4

5.2.6 Effective Angle of Friction

Effective angle of friction has been calculated based on Equation 5.8 in from Barnes, 2000 [31]. Effective

apparent cohesive has been assumed as C’=0 as a cautious estimate of the soil conditions. The effective

stress parameters of σ1’and σ3’measured in consolidated undrained triaxial tests have been used to

produce P’Q’ plots from which φ’ can be derived using Equation 5.8 where θ is the angle of the slope of the

P’Q’ plot.

∅′ = sin−1 tan 𝜃

Equation 5.8

And

𝑃′ =1

2(𝜎′

1 + 𝜎′3)

𝑄′ =1

2(𝜎′

1 − 𝜎′3)

Equations 5.9 + 5.10



35

5.3 Classification and SPT Data

5.3.1 Made Ground Classification and SPTs

Made Ground is encountered across the whole site. The thickness and composition of Made Ground is

very variable. It can range between 0.3m and 9.40m thick across the site, Figure 5.1 shows the variation in

the composition. The results show that the clay content can range between 0% and 40%, the silt content

ranges from 7% to 33%, the sand content ranges from 11% to 95% and the cobble content from 0% to

25%.

Made Ground on the site can be summarised based on the approximate area on the site. This has been

broken down into package order.

Made Ground in PO1 can be characterised as sandy silty gravel overlying very soft to soft sandy gravelly

clay. The gravel comprises sub angular to sub rounded fine to coarse material of varying lithology’s

including quartzite, brick, limestone and flint . The greatest thickness of Made Ground in PO1 is in

03MFBH08, from ground level to 6.60mbgl.

Figure 5.1: Summary Plot of All PSD Results for the Made Ground.

Made Ground in PO2 can predominantly be characterised as hard standing overlying sandy gravel which

in turn overlies gravelly clayey sand and then gravelly sandy silty clay. The borehole logs from phase 3 of

ground investigation show the variability in the gravel, that it is fine to coarse, sub rounded to sub angular

and comprising of various materials including limestone, brick, quartzite, coal, glass, chalk, clinker,

mudstone, granite.



36

However in the following location there is also a layer of silt present, with thickness shown below:

03BBBH01: 2.2m; 1.7m

03FWBH01: 1.9m

03FWTP01: 0.5m

03FWTP02A: 0.5m; 1.0m

03FWTP04: 0.9m

Due to the location of these, it would appear that where sand or silt is found there has been ‘topping up’ of

the ground level close to the quayside.

There is no Made Ground present in PO3 as these samples were taken from the river and river channel

alluvial deposits are located at the surface.

Made Ground in PO4 comprises the embankment material along the right bank. This is built up from a level

of 1m AOD on the river side and 3m AOD on the south side away from the river. A typical cross section

through the embankment is shown in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Typical cross section through the embankment as detailed in the PAR document

Source: [1]

The Made Ground along the Right Embankment comprises topsoil overlying alternating layers of gravelly

clayey silt and soft silty clay. The gravel component comprises mixed material of brick, flint, quartzite,

sandstone, metal, glass, coal, chalk.

The Made Ground material in PO5 typically comprises gravel overlying clay. The gravel typically comprises

mixed material and has been described in the borehole logs as well compacted, most likely relating to the

current land use as an ad hoc car park. The consistency of the clay is described as firm to stiff, locally soft.

The natural moisture content of the Made Ground ranges from 10% to 70%. The A-Line chart in Figure 5.3

shows that the material ranges from low to very high plasticity, which again highlights the variability of the

material. The natural moisture content and the Atterberg test results are plotted together in Figure 5.4, this



37

shows that there is no correlation between plasticity and depth and that the range in liquid limit is from 27%

to 81% and the plastic limit is from 12% to 35%.

The SPT plots (Appendix E; Table E.1) within the Made Ground show no increase in equivalent SPT N

with depth. The N60 values are typically low, ranging from 1 to 30, with 90% of N60 values less than 10

regardless of the material type.

38 335092/WCD/WAM/01/A 07 February 2015 pims/339200 Boston Barrier TWAO/Products/Design Products/GI/GIR


Figure 5.3: Plasticity chart for the cohesive Made Ground material Figure 5.4: Liquid and Plastic Limits plotted with natural moisture content for the

cohesive Made Ground.

Source: GI Data Source: GI Data

CL

ML

MI

MHCI

CH MV

CV

CE

ME

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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

Pla

sti

cit

y I

nd

ex(%

)

Liquid Limit (%)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

De

pth

(m

)

Moisture Content (%)



39

5.3.2 Alluvium Classification and SPTs

The alluvial deposits as described in section 4.5.1 underlie the Made Ground deposits across the whole

site where there is Made Ground material. In the river channel the alluvial deposits are at the surface and

are not overlain by Made Ground. Organic material tests in the Alluvium indicate that the majority of the

samples have an organic content of 1.2 – 8.6% with two outlying samples having organic contents of 12

and 22% where peat within the Alluvium is sampled. These values largely fall within the medium-organic

soils range of 6-20% [14] and [32].

In 19 boreholes in all three phases, there are peat layers identified (see 4.5.2 for Phase 3) between 0.1m

and 0.7m thickness at depths between 1.6m and 8.8m below ground level which translates to levels of

between 1.4 mAOD and -3.3m AOD. The peat is described as ranging from amorphous to fibrous but is

most typically described as pseudofibrous.

A summary plot of all the PSD results in the Alluvium are presented in Figure 5.5. The Alluvium clay and

organic clay deposits have been grouped together as they appear to have similar grain size distributions

with between 3% and 54% clay, 7% and 50% silt, 0% and 75% sand and 0% and 20% gravel. These

samples have been classified as clay based on field descriptions and results of atterberg testing, and as

such there are samples where the grading suggests a sand but the material is behaving as a clay.

The grading curve for the sands (Figure 5.6) within the Alluvium shows that clay sized material can make

up between 0% and 37% of the total, the silt makes up 13% and 43%, the sand makes up 57% and 76%

and there is between 0 and 10% gravel.

Figure 5.5: Grading envelope for Alluvium clay and

organic clay material

Figure 5.6: Grading envelope for Alluvium sand material




40

Figure 5.7: Grading envelope for Alluvium silt material

Source: GI Data

In PO1 the Alluvium comprises soft silty CLAY and clayey SILT with varying minor constituents and gravel

of fine to coarse sub angular to sub rounded mudstone, flint, chalk and wood. The amount of gravel

appears to decrease with depth. Within the Alluvium in PO1 there are also layers of PEAT, SAND and

SILT. However, these are not laterally continuous. There are three locations within PO1 which contain

layers of pseudofibrous peat; these are 03MFBH07, 03MFBH08 and 03WDBH05 with thickness between

0.2m and 0.5m. There are two locations within PO1 which contain alluvial sand deposits; these are

03MFBH06 and 03MFBH10 which comprise medium dense silty clayey sand organic sand. There is a

significant amount of organic alluvial deposits in the P01 area, more than is found across the other

packages.

The alluvial deposits encountered in PO2 comprise predominately soft CLAY but there is also loose sand

and silt present across the area but not laterally continuous. The boreholes did not encounter any peat

along the quay and there are also less organic Alluvium deposits. Two boreholes had significant thickness

(between 3.7 and 4.9m at a depth of 5.0 and 5.2m below ground level) of sand present along the proposed

flood wall alignment; these are boreholes 03FWBH06 and 03FWBH09.

The layer of Alluvium in PO3 is relatively thin, comprising thicknesses of up to 4.60m of the current river

channel alluvial deposits. The deposits are described in the borehole records as very soft silty CLAY.

The PO4 alluvial deposits comprise clayey SILT and silty CLAY with organic material and peat.

Alluvium was only encountered in two of the boreholes along the proposed dock road (PO5). In these

borehole records it was described as silty CLAY becoming gravelly sandy CLAY.



41

The natural moisture content for all the alluvial material across the site typically ranges from 16% to 61%.

However, as Figure 5.8 shows, there as three values which exceed 61%. These are associated with

alluvial deposits with organic content or peat which due to its structure holds greater moisture.

The plasticity chart for the cohesive alluvial material (Figure 5.9) shows that as with the Made Ground

material there is a large variation in the plasticity of the cohesive alluvial deposits with samples tested

typically ranging from intermediate to high plasticity. There are some outlier/anomalous results which show

low and extremely high plasticity.

SPTs undertaken in the alluvial deposits show N60 values do not increase with depth from surface (bgl) or

with decrease in level (mAOD)(Appendix E; Table E.1). The typical range in N60 for Alluvium clay and

organic Alluvium clay is between 1 and 15. There are a few values higher than this but the borehole logs

show that these are associated with occasional gravels. The sand deposits with the Alluvium show a

greater range of values of N60, typically between 6 and 30.



Figure 5.8: Liquid and Plastic Limits plotted with natural moisture content for the

cohesive Alluvium.

Figure 5.9: Alluvium Plasticity chart for the cohesive Alluvium material.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

De

pth

(m

)


CL

ML

MI

MHCI

CH MV

CV

CE

ME

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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

Pla

sti

cit

y I

nd

ex(%

)

Liquid Limit (%)



43

5.3.3 Glacial Till Classification and SPTs

The Glacial Till is not shown to be present in the BGS online or paper mapping. However, historic

boreholes and previous phases of ground investigation has identified deposits at depth consistent with the

material found within phase 3 ground investigation.

Glacial Till was encountered at depths between -2 mAOD and -4mAOD and was proven to have a

maximum thickness of 16.75m at BRC07 and a minimum thickness of 13.85m at BRC05. The ground

investigation has indicated that the elevation of the top of the Glacial Till seems relatively uniform across

the site.

Typically there is a layer between 1.5m and 1.6m thick of medium dense to dense sands and gravel

overlying the firm to stiff gravelly clay, which has been classified as granular Glacial Till. The Glacial Till

clay is relatively consistently described at firm to still gravelly clay occasionally with minor constituents of

silt or sand. The gravels typically comprise flints and chalk.

The description of the Glacial Till across the site is fairly consistent. The material is assumed to be over

consolidated. Therefore, the classification in the report has been made site wide and not specifically for

each package order as with the Made Ground and the Alluvium. In addition, due to the variation in the

ground levels at which the strata has been encountered across the site, the geotechnical properties of the

till are in relation to level (mAOD) rather than depth (m bgl).

The grain size distributions in Figure 5.10 for the glacial sands and gravels show that the deposits have

little clay and silt component, between 0% and 10%; and 12% and 17% respectively. The percentage of

sand is between 31% and 68% and the percentage of gravel is between 5% and 44%. This contrasts with

the high percentages of clays and silts in the clay deposits as shown in Figure 5.11. The percentage of

clay is between 10% and 43%, silt is between 15% and 40%, sand comprises between 10% and 23% and

gravels make up 5% and 35%. Cobbles have also been identified in three PSD samples.



44

Figure 5.10: Grading envelope for Glacial Till sand

material

Figure 5.11: Grading envelope for Glacial Till clay

material


The natural moisture content for the Glacial Till typically ranges from 10% to 38% and the liquid limit and

plastic limits are well constrained with the liquid limit falling between 24% and 130% and the plastic limit

falling between 13% and 47%. As seen in Figure 5.13, the natural moisture content is close to or below the

plastic limit of the material. The results from the Atterberg limit tests show that the material is typically low

to intermediate plasticity (see Figure 5.12).

The SPT N60 for Glacial Deposits within the site are displayed in Appendix D; Table E.1. These have been

presented as N60 value with respect to level above Ordnance Datum as outlined above. The plot shows an

increase in N60 with depth with the lowest possible N60 being 18 at -2.85mAOD which increases to 48 at -

19.5m AOD. From a level of -10mAOD the majority of the SPTs encountered refusal. The wide spread of

data in the plot is typical of a gravelly material in a clay matrix.



Figure 5.12: Plasticity chart for the cohesive Glacial Till material Figure 5.13: Plasticity chart for the cohesive Glacial Till material


CL

ML

MI

MHCI

CH MV

CV

CE

ME

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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

Pla

sti

cit

y I

nd

ex(%

)

Liquid Limit (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

De

pth

(m

)




46

5.4 Total Stress Data

Due to the variability in the Made Ground results (refer to Figure 5.14 for the range of strength values

across the whole site), the results have been split into the various package orders. However, for the

Alluvium and Glacial Till deposits the degree of variability was less so a global plot for these deposits has

been used instead.

5.4.1 Made Ground Total Stress

In PO1 20 UUT tests have been undertaken in the Made Ground at depths between 1.5m and 6m bgl,

which when plotted against depth (refer to Appendix E) appear to show a decrease in strength with depth

with cu remaining constant from approximately 3m bgl. The range of cu in the top 3m is 25kPa to 81kPa,

the range from 3 to 6m below ground level is 4kPa to 48kPa.

There are 3 UUT tests located in the Right Embankment (PO4) give cu values of 41kPa to 103kPa.

There are 2 UUT tests undertaken in the made ground in PO5, these give cu values of 7 and 36kPa.

As discussed previously, the Made Ground is extremely variable in composition, plasticity and strength and

as such, any parameters which are required for design need to based on borehole data from the proximity

of the location of the structure and generalisations are difficult across the site or indeed an package order.



47

Figure 5.14: Undrained shear strength from UUTs undertaken in the Made Ground across the whole site.

Source: GI Data

5.4.2 Alluvium Total Stress

26 UUT tests were undertaken in the Alluvial deposits; the results are shown in Figure 5.15. The material

was sampled with thin walled U100 (UT100) sample tubes, which produce a class one sample [23].

There is no significant increase in cu with depth in the alluvium clay deposits; the results have also been

plotted against level and there is still no obvious correlation with depth. The results across the whole site

range from 4kPa to 57kPa (extremely low strength to medium strength). The summary plot of the alluvium

cu is included in Figure 5.15.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

De

pth

(m

bgl

)

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)



48

Figure 5.15: Undrained shear strength from unconsolidated UUTs undertaken in the Alluvium clay across the whole

site.

Source: GI Data

5.4.3 Glacial Till Total Stress

As discussed previously because the Glacial Till deposits have been sampled both where there is a

consistent ground level (between 5m AOD and 6m AOD) and underneath the River Witham where the

ground level is approximately -1m to 3.6m AOD, the test results show more correlation with depth when

plotted against level as shown in Figure 5.16. The Glacial Till deposits show a marked increase in strength

with depth, starting at 9kPa at -3m AOD and increasing to a minimum of 151kPa at -18.7m AOD. These

shear strengths are low bound values. There is likely to have been some disturbance during the sampling

process, which is exacerbated in these stiff gravelly deposits by the difficulty in obtaining thin walled U100

(UT100). Of the 40 UUT samples 20 have been taken from rotary core samples, 16 have been taken from

thick walled U100s and 4 have been taken using a thin walled U100 sampler as shown in Figure 5.16.

Although the evidence is by no means conclusive, it can be seen than the UT100 samples have generally

greater strengths than those sampled with U100 or core samples.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

De

pth

(m

bgl

)




Figure 5.16: Undrained shear strength from unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests

undertaken in the Glacial Till across the whole site

Figure 5.17: Comparison between Cu from UUT and from conversion SPT N values for

the Glacial Till material

-20

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Leve

l (m

AO

D)


Core Sample

U100

UT100

-20

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Leve

l (m

AO

D)


Cu from UUT

Cu from SPT N60



50

To validate the results from the triaxial tests which are known to have sampling errors the results of 4.5N

[27] are also plotted in Figure 5.17. At the shallower depth of Glacial Till the correlated cu values start at

83kPa (high strength) at -2.85m AOD and at the lower bound they increase in a linear manner at a with

depth to -9.65m AOD, 178kPa (very high strength). Deeper than -9.65m AOD the rate of increase with

depth is less with the lowest maximum shear strength being 216kPa (very high strength) at -19.5mAOD.

5.4.4 Kimmeridge Clay

The range of Cu as measured in UUTs for the Kimmeridge clay ranges from 36 kPa to 735 kPa. However

the majority of the values are within 118kPa and 324kPa (clay of extremely high strength to a rock of

extremely weak strength). The Cu = 4.5*N60 values have been plotted alongside the measured Cu values in

Figure 5.19. It is clear that the values are in a similar range but that the Cu values are lower than the 4.5N

values; this is likely due to sample disturbance during coring.



Figure 5.18: Undrained shear strength from unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests

undertaken in the Kimmeridge clay across the whole site

Figure 5.19: Comparison between Cu from UUT and from conversion SPT N values for

the Kimmeridge clay material

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Leve

l (m

AO

D)


Cu from UUT

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Leve

l (m

AO

D)




52

5.5 Effective Stress Results

5.5.1 Approach to displaying effective stress results

34 Consolidated Undrained tests have been undertaken in the site in the third phase of ground

investigation. These have either been performed as three tests at increasing cell pressures. The results

have been plotted as Lambe P’ Q’ plots [32] of stress paths, see Figure 5.20, Figure 5.21, Figure 5.22 for

Made Ground, Alluvium, Glacial Till respectively. An upper and lower bound line has been plotted on the

plots, taking into account outlier anomalous results. The expectant stress range is considered to be less

than 150kPa for the structures outlined in the PAR document. However, for alternative structures the

appropriate upper and lower bound lines of best fit should be reconsidered for the appropriate stress

range.

13 shearbox tests have also been undertaken in the site. These tests have shown a greater upper bound

(27 – 43% greater) for the effective stress for Made Ground, Alluvium and Glacial Till and there is a greater

spread of results for Alluvium. In general, the results of effective shear strength parameter for the shear

box test show higher values than those for triaxial testing because the shearing is plane strain rather than

3 dimensional as in the case of the triaxial test. These are presented in Appendix K.

5.5.2 Made Ground Effective Stress

The degree of scatter in the plot of Made Ground results is representative of the degree of variability in the

Made Ground deposits. The large range of φ’ shown in Figure 5.20 of 19° to 49° is typical of the ground

conditions and results from specified boreholes proximal to the particular structure at the specified depth

and stresses.



53

Figure 5.20: Made Ground P’ Q’ Plot

5.5.3 Alluvium Effective Stress

The range of φ’ given in the effective stress tests based on Equation 5.8 is between 25° to 42°. There were

three anomalous results in the alluvial data, the two highlighted are from 03FWBH09A at a depth of 6m

and review of the testing report shows an uncharacteristic high moisture content associated with organic

content.

y = 0.33x

y = 0.75x

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.5(σ1'-σ3')

(kP

a)

0.5(σ1'+ σ3') (kPa)

Upper bound

Lower bound



54

Figure 5.21: Alluvium P’ Q’ Plot

Source:

5.5.4 Glacial Till Effective Stress

The 6 CUT tests undertaken within the cohesive Glacial Till deposits show a strong correlation in Figure

5.16. The range of φ’ for the deposits is 25° to 38°. The lower bound value is lower than expected for an

over consolidated clay. However, some sampling disturbance as discussed in the UUT tests in 5.4.3 may

have led to some remoulding of the sample.

y = 0.4222x

y = 0.6667x

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250

0.5(σ1'-σ3')

(kP

a)

0.5(σ1'+σ3') (kPa)

samples show high moisture content

Upper Bound

Lower bound



55

Figure 5.22: Glacial Till P’Q’ Plot

5.6 Stiffness

5.6.1 Made Ground stiffness

5 oedometer tests were undertaken in the made ground deposits. These show a range in mv value of 0 to

1.50m2/MN over the stress range 10kPa to 120kPa. This value is in line with published data in Table 2.11

of [33] which gives a range of 0.30m2/MN to 1.50m

2/MN for soft clays. The effective Youngs Modulus for

the granular Made Ground can be estimated using the N60 value and the equation quoted in section 5.2.3.

This gives a range of E’ between 4 and 30MPa, with 80% of the data showing less than 10MPa.

5.6.2 Alluvium stiffness

12 oedometer tests were undertaken in the Alluvial (clay) deposits. The range of mv value in the clay

alluvium without organics is between 0 and 1.8m2/MN. For the alluvium with organic content the range is

larger, between 0 and 2.4m2/MN. For the silt alluvium the range is 0 to 0.35m

2/Mn. This is in line with

published data in Table 2.11 of Tomlinson [33] which give a range of 0.30m2/MN to 1.50m

2/MN for soft

clays.

The effective Youngs Modulus for the granular Made Ground can be estimated using the N60 value and the

equation quoted in 5.2.3. This gives a range of E’ between 3 and 48MPa.

y = 0.4167x

y = 0.6167x

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0.5(σ1'-σ3')

(kP

a)

0.5(σ1'+σ3' ) (kPa)

Upper bound

Lower bound



56

5.6.3 Glacial Till stiffness

4 oedometer tests were undertaken in the Glacial Till. These show a range in mv value of 0 to 2.6m2/MN.

The values in 03RBBH01 appear to be excessive and are not in line with published data. Discounting this

result the range is between 0 and 0.17m2/MN which is in line with published data in Table 2.11 of

Tomlinson [33] which give a range of 0.10 to 0.30m2/MN for boulder clay.

The effective Youngs Modulus for the granular Glacial Till can be estimated using the N60 value and the

equation quoted in 5.2.3. This gives a range of E’ between 14 and 55MPa.

5.7 Concrete Aggressivity Results

Chemical analyses were conducted on 75 soil samples to establish the concentration of soluble sulphate

(SO4) and pH value, which may cause aggressive attack on concrete used for construction. The workflow

specified in section C5 of the BRE Special Digest SD1 [34] has been followed and the results have been

summarised in Table 5.3. The characteristic SO4 values have been determined as the mean of the highest

20% of the results. As the site is underlain by Kimmeridge clay and it is a brownfield site additional analysis

is required to assess the total potential sulphate and the oxidisable sulphide. The full set of results this

assessment is based on is available in Table F.1 and Table F.2 in Appendix F.

Table 5.3: Classification steps for concrete aggressivity as per the BRE Special Digest SD1 procedure for

classification found in section C5 of the report.

Type of Ground Step Description Value Notes

Natural ground without pyrite

Step 1a Characteristic Value for Sulphate in Soils

900mg/l Mean of the highest 20% of the results.

Step 1b Characteristic Value for Sulphate in ground water

1400mg/l

Step 2a Design class for Soils DS-2 Table C1

3 of the results exceeded DS-2 and fell into DS-3 these were in the following locations: 03WDBH01 at 1.3m bgl;03FWBH04C at 1.00m bgl; 03FWBH04C at 1.5m bgl

Step 2b Design class for ground water DS-3 Table C1

Step 3 Site Design Sulphate Class DS-3 As the groundwater has a greater soluble sulphate level, this will determine the designation class for the site.

Step 4a Characteristic value for pH in soils 7.6

Step 4b Characteristic value for groundwater

7.0

Step 5 ACEC Class for the site AC-3 Mobile water as some tidal conditions.

Natural ground containing pyrite

Step 6 characteristic value for potential sulphate

3.6%



57

Type of Ground Step Description Value Notes

Step 7 sulphate class DS-5 Table C2

Step 8 Design Sulphate class for site DS-4 Taking into account the design class of less than DS-3 for the groundwater and water extracts.

Step 9 ACEC Class for the site AC-4 Table C1

Brownfield locations without pyrite

As the sulphate concentration in the extract and the groundwater is less than 3000mg/l the consideration of magnesium is not required.

Brownfield locations with pyrite

Step 10 As the pH is greater than 5.5 chloride and nitrate does not need to be considered.

5.8 Permeability Results

30 falling head tests were performed during the phase 3 ground investigation. The results from these are

summarised in Table 5.4 and are typical for the materials encountered.

Table 5.4: Permeability Results

Borehole Top depth

Base depth Geology

Permeability m/s

Average Permeability for soil type

m/s

Range of Permeability Values per soil type

m/s Comments

03FWBH04A 5.5 5.5 MGC 5.4x10-7

03RBWS10 0.5 3.5 MGC 1.0x10-8

03WDBH10 2.9 4 MGC 1.6x10-7

03WDBH11A 4 5 MGC 6.8x10-8 1.95x10-7 5.3x10-7

03WDBH09A 5.5 6 MGS 6.7x10-8 6.70x10-8 N/A

03BBBH03B 3.1 4 ALS 4.9x10-6

03FWBH01 4.4 5.2 ALC 3.3x10-6

03FWBH03 6.9 7.5 ALC 9.1x10-6

03FWBH04 3 3 ALC 1.6x10-7

03FWBH07 6 7 ALC 1.4x10-7

03FWBH09 4 5 ALC 1.7x10-6

03MFBH01 7 8 ALC 1.6x10-8

03MFBH09A 4.5 5 ALC 2.0x10-7

03WDBH02 4.9 5.5 ALC 1.6x10-7

03WDBH06 5.5 6 ALC 2.0x10-8

03WDBH10 7.1 8 ALC 4.9x10-7

03WDBH11A 6 7 ALC 3.0x10-8 1.70x10-6 9.1x10-6

03FWBH02 5.3 6 ALC/ALSi 1.7x10-6 - - Test across a strata



58

Borehole Top depth

Base depth Geology

Permeability m/s

Average Permeability for soil type

m/s

Range of Permeability Values per soil type

m/s Comments

boundary

03MFBH07 3 4 ALC/ALSi 3.9x10-8 - - Description is for clay but PSD says silt

03BBBH03B 6.9 8 ALS 4.3x10-6

03FWBH01 7.3 7.5 ALS 1.0x10-7

03MFBH10 8 8 ALS 1.0x10-7 1.50x10-6 4.2x10-6

03WDBH04 2.5 3.5 ALSi 2.3x10-7 2.30x10-7 N/A

03FWBH06 7.5 8.5 GTS 6.8x10-8

03MFBH09A 9 9 GTS 5.7x10-8 6.25x10-8 1x10-8

03FWBH06 10.6 12 GTC 3.2x10-8

03FWBH09 9 10 GTC 1.1x10-7

03MFBH05 10.6 12 GTC 1.6x10-7

03MFBH07 10 11.2 GTC 1.8x10-7

03WDBH06 8.5 9 GTC 1.0x10-7 1.16x10-7 1.5x10-7

5.9 Groundwater Monitoring Results

Groundwater has been monitored using either a slotted standpipe with a water level logger or a vibrating

wire piezometer installed in a sand filter. The range of water level encountered has been summarised in

Table G.1 in Appendix G, the graphical representation of the monitoring data can be found in the following

plots.

Where installations were founded in the Made Ground (03MFBH01 and 03MFBH05) the water level was at

two different levels, with 03MFBH01 on average being at 1.08m AOD and 03MFBH05 is at 4.60m AOD. It

is expected that the soft material in which the standpipe is located in 03MFBH05 may be holding water due

to the low permeability materials below causing this difference in water levels. The tidal influence on these

two installations was about the same with the average fluctuation in water level being 0.56m. The results

have been combined and are presented in Figure 5.23.



59

Figure 5.23: Groundwater monitoring results in the Made Ground

There are 12 installations founded in the Alluvium deposits, 10 slotted standpipes and 2 vibrating wire

piezometers. The monitoring in PO1 and PO2 has been plotted separately to PO4 because of the

difference in the location of these monitoring points. Within the PO1 and PO2 data set there are 7

monitoring points which show a minimum water level of approximately 0.0m AOD and a maximum water

level of approximately 3.5mAOD. These 7 monitoring points have a maximum tidal fluctuation of up to

3.5m during spring tides and 2.5m during neep tides for 03FWBH03 with other boreholes showing lesser

degrees of sensitivity to tides as shown in Figure 5.24 and in greater detail in Appendix L.

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

06

/09

/20

14

00

:00

13

/09

/20

14

00

:00

20

/09

/20

14

00

:00

27

/09

/20

14

00

:00

04

/10

/20

14

00

:00

11

/10

/20

14

00

:00

18

/10

/20

14

00

:00

25

/10

/20

14

00

:00

01

/11

/20

14

00

:00

08

/11

/20

14

00

:00

15

/11

/20

14

00

:00

22

/11

/20

14

00

:00

29

/11

/20

14

00

:00

06

/12

/20

14

00

:00

13

/12

/20

14

00

:00

Leve

l (m

AO

D)

Date

03MFBH05

03MFBH01



60

Figure 5.24: Groundwater monitoring results in PO1 and PO2 Alluvium

By contrast, the ground water monitoring in the Alluvium deposits on the right embankment show a much

lesser degree of tidal variation with a range of approximately 0.5m.

Figure 5.25: Groundwater monitoring results in PO4 Alluvium

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

06

/09

/20

14

00

:00

13

/09

/20

14

00

:00

20

/09

/20

14

00

:00

27

/09

/20

14

00

:00

04

/10

/20

14

00

:00

11

/10

/20

14

00

:00

18

/10

/20

14

00

:00

25

/10

/20

14

00

:00

01

/11

/20

14

00

:00

08

/11

/20

14

00

:00

15

/11

/20

14

00

:00

22

/11

/20

14

00

:00

29

/11

/20

14

00

:00

06

/12

/20

14

00

:00

13

/12

/20

14

00

:00

Leve

l (m

AO

D)

Date

03FWBH01

03WDBH02

03FWBH03

03FWBH09

03FWBH02

03FWBH06

03MFBH01

03WDBH08

03WDBH09A

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

06

/09

/20

14

00

:00

13

/09

/20

14

00

:00

20

/09

/20

14

00

:00

27

/09

/20

14

00

:00

04

/10

/20

14

00

:00

11

/10

/20

14

00

:00

18

/10

/20

14

00

:00

25

/10

/20

14

00

:00

01

/11

/20

14

00

:00

08

/11

/20

14

00

:00

15

/11

/20

14

00

:00

22

/11

/20

14

00

:00

29

/11

/20

14

00

:00

06

/12

/20

14

00

:00

13

/12

/20

14

00

:00

Leve

l (m

AO

D)

Date

03RBWS01

03RBWS03



61

There are 4 VWP installations founded in the Glacial Till on the left embankment and the results can be

seen in Figure 5.26 below. These show a lower degree of tidal influence to the Alluvium as expected due

to their lower permeability. There is approximately 2.0m of variation in the results of 03WDBH01 with the

remaining results showing less sensitivity. In this way, the variation of groundwater on the left embankment

is related to depth, material and overlying stratum on the left embankment and the variation of the

groundwater on the right embankment is not significant.

Figure 5.26: Groundwater monitoring results in Glacial Till

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

29

/08

/20

14

00

:00

05

/09

/20

14

00

:00

12

/09

/20

14

00

:00

19

/09

/20

14

00

:00

26

/09

/20

14

00

:00

03

/10

/20

14

00

:00

10

/10

/20

14

00

:00

17

/10

/20

14

00

:00

24

/10

/20

14

00

:00

31

/10

/20

14

00

:00

07

/11

/20

14

00

:00

14

/11

/20

14

00

:00

21

/11

/20

14

00

:00

28

/11

/20

14

00

:00

05

/12

/20

14

00

:00

12

/12

/20

14

00

:00

Leve

l (m

AO

D)

Date

03MFBH01 GTC

03WDBH01 Shallow

03WDBH08

03FWBH02



5.10 Summary of Parameters

Table 5.5: Parameter Summary Plot

Strata

Moisture Content (%) Plasticity

Liquid Limit

%

Plastic Limit

% N60 E’ (MPa) Cu c’ Phi’

Mv

M2/MN

Permeability

m/s

Ground Water Level

mAOD BRE Class

ACEC Class

Made Ground

10-70

(30*)

Low to Very High (N/A)

27-81 (N/A)

12-35 (N/A)

1-30

(3)

1-30 (3*)

4-103 (13*)

0 19-49

(33)

0-1.5 1.95x10-7

N/A DS-4 AC-4

Alluvium 16-61

(35*)

Intermediate to High (Intemediate)

22-111 (50)

12-47 (30)

1-15

(3)

6-30

(4*)

4-57 (16*)

0 25-42 (33*)

0-1.8 1.70x10-6

-1.7 – 4.25 (2.0)

Glacial Till

10-38

(18*)

Low to Intermediate (Low)

24-130 (42)

13-47 (18)

*** *** 9-151 (?)

0 25-38 (31*)

0-2.6 1.16x10-7

*Typical value

**Mean value

***Increases with depth, no typical value

N/A = No Typical or mean value applicable



63

6.1 Methodology

6.1.1 Scope of Ground Investigation

The strategy for the Phase II assessment of potential land contamination adopted in this report is based on

current guidance documents, in particular CIRIA Report C552 [5] which adopts the following approach:

Phase II Contaminated Land Risk Assessment: This involves intrusive ground investigation, in-situ

measurements, soil sampling and testing, and risk assessment involving data analysis, and the processes

of risk estimation and risk evaluation. Where the results of this phase indicate that areas of land

contamination are present that constitute unacceptable risks, consideration may then to be given to the

most appropriate means to minimise and manage these risks. Such means may be either physical, (e.g.

remediation of the land or containment of contaminants) and/or contractual (e.g. legal agreements to

apportion liability as part of property leases or sales). However, if significant uncertainties remain, they

may also include the requirement to better define the nature and scale of the risk(s) though further

investigation.

Potential sources of ground contamination have been identified above as heavy metals, sulphide, sulphate,

cyanide, hydrocarbons, phenols, creosote, ammonia and its derivatives, asbestos and solvents. The main

pollutant linkage at the site relating to human health is considered to be construction workers in direct

contact with potential contamination in the near surface soils and groundwater. The strata underlying the

site are designated as Unproductive Strata by the Environment Agency and therefore not considered a

sensitive receptor. Similarly, there is unlikely to be a groundwater pathway owing to the absence of mobile

groundwater.

6.2 Risks associated with commercial/ industrial proposed end use.

6.2.1 Standards Employed

The definition of ‘contaminated land’ and the regulatory background to the Phase II assessment

methodology is provided in Appendix I.

6.2.2 Contaminant Concentration Guideline Values

As a first stage of assessment, to address the potential risks to human health, the results of the analytical

testing on soil samples have been compared to currently available Contaminated Land Exposure

Assessment (CLEA) Soil Guideline Values (SGVs), published by the Environment Agency in Science

Report SC050021 (EA, 2009), where available. For the proposed development at the Boston Barrier, the

SGVs relating to commercial/ industrial end-uses have been applied as appropriate screening criteria to

inform this generic quantitative risk assessment.

6 Phase II Contaminated Land Assessment



64

For substances for which CLEA SGV values are not published, the results have been assessed using a

variety of guidance in accordance with current practice and these are presented below in order of

hierarchy:

i. Soil Guideline Values (SGV), published by the EA (EA, 2009)

ii. Land Quality Management (LQM)/ Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) Generic

Assessment Criteria (GACs) 2nd

Edition (LQM, 2009)

iii. Withdrawn SGV, published by the EA in the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA)

guidance (DEFRA, 2002)

iv. Contaminated Land Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE) Soil Generic Assessment

Criteria (CL:AIRE, 2009).

Risks to the aqueous environment (groundwater and surface water) are generally assessed in the UK by

reference to the Environment Agency’s Remedial Targets Methodology (EA, 2006). This allows remedial

target concentrations for leachate extracts and groundwater to be derived for selected contaminants. The

methodology is a tiered approach, with a remedial target being derived at the end of each tier, which would

provide sufficient protection of controlled water resources. Although there is considered to be no

groundwater source, pathway or receptor, there is potential for intrusive works to mobilise contaminants

bound to soil matrix that could migrate into the surface water feature(s) via surface water run-off

The Environmental Permitting Regulations (2010) aim to protect groundwater from pollution by controlling

the inputs of potentially harmful and polluting substances. The Regulations implement the Water

Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Groundwater Directive on the Protection of Groundwater

against Pollution and Deterioration (2006/118/EC). Substances controlled under these Regulations fall into

two lists:

Hazardous substances (H) are the most toxic and must be prevented from entering groundwater.

Non-hazardous pollutants (NH) are less toxic but could be harmful to groundwater, and the entry of

these substances into groundwater must be limited.

A hazardous substance is considered to be non-compliant if a concentration exceeding the EA’s Minimum

Reporting Value (MRV) or, where there is no published MRV the laboratory Method Detection Limit (MDL),

is found in groundwater.

Non-hazardous pollutants can be discharged to groundwater under a permit, but must not cause pollution.

The concentration level which is considered to cause pollution depends on the use of the receptor. For

surface water receptors, a non-hazardous pollutant is considered to be non-compliant if the concentration

exceeds the Environmental Quality Standard (EQS).

For the Boston Barrier site, the most significant receptor is considered to be the River Haven as there is no

groundwater source, pathway or receptor. Therefore the EQS values have been used for comparison in

the first instance, with consideration of drinking water standards (DWS) where no EQS are available.



65

6.3 Soil Laboratory Results

A total of 94 soil samples were analysed from the exploratory holes at the site from depths between 0.1m

and 8m bgl and the results are presented in Appendix H. Analysis included heavy metals, Polycyclic

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and BTEX. The majority of the

results were below the commercial/ industrial guidance values, although, the results discussed below are

either above the guidelines or are considered to be of high enough concentrations to be included for further

assessment with regard to construction workers or re-use/ disposal from site.

6.3.1 Asbestos

Asbestos containing material (ACM) was noted in the made ground from 0.9m bgl at 03FQTP06 (PO2)

during excavation. The laboratory results identified free fibres of chrysotile in the sample taken at this

depth within the made ground. The ACM was identified as chrysotile cement.

Samples from four other exploratory holes were analysed for asbestos but none was identified. It should

be noted that there is the potential for asbestos to be present at other locations along the route as a result

of historical land use and particularly previous demolition activities and infilling with made ground.

6.3.2 Heavy Metals

All heavy metal results were below the guidance values for a commercial/ industrial setting, with the

exception of copper and lead in one trial pit (03FWTP02) at 0.95m bgl and lead in one trial pit

(03FWBH04A) at 0.6m bgl (concentration of 5042mg/kg compared to a guidance value of 750mg/kg).

Both samples were located in PO2. These are considered likely to represent hotspots in the made ground

and the sample collected from 03FWTP02 was noted to be close to an old cable, which may be the cause

of the elevated localised concentrations.

6.3.3 PAHs

All PAHs were present below commercial/ industrial guidance values, with the exception of a few PAH

exceedances as detailed below. Benzo(a)pyrene was elevated in two exploratory holes 03DRTP03 (PO5)

and 03WDBH03 (PO1, Knuckle) at depths of 1.8m and 1.0m respectively. These exceedances were in

samples collected from the made ground. In addition, there appears to be a hotspot of PAH contamination

in the area of 03FWBH09 (PO2) where Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene and

Fluoranthene were present in concentrations above guidance criteria. This location corresponds to an

area where borehole logs identified wood with potential diesel contamination.

6.3.4 TPH

None of the results exceeded the commercial/industrial guidance values, although the samples

summarised below measured detectable concentrations, which may be indicative of soils with higher

concentrations than those sampled and as such, may require further consideration with regard to PPE



66

requirements at the site and the reuse/ disposal options of this material. The generic assessment criteria

for TPH is 1,600,000mg/kg (Aliphatics) and 28,000mg/kg (Aromatics), therefore the results below all fall

well below these concentrations.

Table 6.1: Noticeable concentrations of TPH

Exploratory hole Location Contaminant Concentration

(mg/kg) Depth (mbgl) Strata

03FQTP01 Package Order 2 TPH Aliphatic C21-C35

279 0.1 Made ground

TPH Aromatic C21-C35

978

03FWTP01 Package Order 1 (Knuckle)


513 0.4 Made ground

03MFBH04 Package Order 1 TPH Aromatic C21-C35

183 0.2 Made ground

03MFTT02 Package Order 1 TPH Aliphatic C21-C35

175 0.3 Made ground


365

03FWTP03 Package Order 2 TPH Aliphatic C21-C35

111 3.0 Made ground


187

03DRTP03 Package Order 5 TPH Aromatic C16 –C21

206 1.8 Made ground


514

03MFTT04 Package Order 1 TPH Aliphatic C21-C35

423 0.2 Made ground


1063

03WDTP01 Package Order 1 (knuckle)

TPH Aliphatic C16 –C21

235 0.1 Made ground

TPH Aliphatic C21-C35

2111

TPH Aromatic C16 –C21

270


2934

03WDBH03 Package Order 1 (knuckle)

TPH Aromatic C16 –C21

165 1.0 Made ground


582

03FQTP05 Package Order 2 TPH Aromatic C21-C35

276 0.1 Made ground

03FWBH09 Package Order 2 TPH Aromatic C16-C21

1093 0.5 Made ground



67

Exploratory hole Location Contaminant Concentration

(mg/kg) Depth (mbgl) Strata


602

03FWBH06 Package Order 2 TPH Total Aliphatics

938 0.4 Made ground

TPH aromatics C21-C35

1573

6.3.5 Soil contamination summary

Based on the visual and olfactory evidence of contamination recorded in Section 4.7 and the results of

laboratory analysis, the made ground appears to be the main source of contamination at the site. The

main areas where hotspots were identified were PO1, PO2 and PO5 and similar contaminants were

identified in all these areas.

The contamination identified is limited to localised hotspots of asbestos, metals and PAH within the made

ground. The presence of detectable heavy end TPH is found in samples collected across the site and

generally restricted to the made ground. The samples tested have not identified any concentrations over

commercial/ industrial soil guidance values, although may require further consideration with regard to

disposal/ re-use of the material and potential PPE requirements during construction.

The borehole logs have identified the presence of blue billy in the made ground samples collected across

the site. The source of this material is not clear, as it is most commonly associated with former town

gasworks as a by-product of gas production and comprises spent oxide and cyanide compounds. The

historical plans presented in the Envirocheck Report have not identified any gasworks in the immediate

surrounding area. As blue billy is a source of cyanide, it would be expected to be present in the soil

analysis. Cyanide, however, has not been identified in soil samples in concentrations above the laboratory

detection limit, with the exception of three samples (2.1 – 5.7mg/kg) along the access road. One of these

boreholes identified presence of blue billy in the borehole logs. There are currently no generic screening

criteria available for human health to compare with, although these concentrations may have an impact on

waste disposal.

6.3.6 Waste categorisation

The results of soil analysis have been assessed using the Hazwasteonline tool [35]. This tool uses the soil

analysis to identify potential areas of hazardous waste, if the material was removed for disposal during

construction. The tool only distinguishes between hazardous and non-hazardous waste, it does not

identify areas of inert waste. The majority of the soil samples tested comprised non-hazardous waste with

the following exceptions:



68

Table 6.2: Samples indicating potentially hazardous waste based on soils results

Exploratory hole Location on site Depth (m) Strata Comments

03DRTP03 PO5 1.8 Made ground Hazardous due to presence of benzo(a)pyrene concentration.

03DRTP02 2.0 Made ground Potentially hazardous due to presence of cyanides.

03DRTP05 2.0 Made ground Potentially hazardous due to presence of cyanides.

03WDTP01 PO1 (Knuckle) 0.1 Made ground Potentially hazardous due to presence of ethylbenzene.

03WDBH05 4.0 Made ground Potentially hazardous due to presence of lead.

03WDBH03 1.0 Made ground Hazardous due to presence of benzo(a)anthracene.

03WDBH11 3.0 Made ground Potentially hazardous due to presence of ethylbenzene.

03FWTP02 PO2 0.95 Made ground Hazardous due to presence of heavy metals

03DRTP03 PO5 1.8 Made ground Hazardous due to presence of benzo(a)anthracene and cyanides

03DRTP02 2.0 Made ground Potentially hazardous due to presence of cyanides

03DRTP05 2.0 Made ground Potentially hazardous due to presence of cyanides

03FWBH04A PO2 0.6 Made ground Hazardous due to presence of lead and zinc

03FWBH04B 6.3 Made ground Potentially hazardous due to presence of benzene and

ethylbenzene.

Source: [35]

It should also be noted that any soil which contains asbestos may be classified as hazardous waste and an

asbestos specialist may be required to advise on this prior to and during construction.

Proposed materials movement at the site is currently unknown, if materials re-use on site is required this

should be undertaken under a Materials Management Plan to ensure the material is suitable to be used in

the identified areas.

6.4 Groundwater Laboratory Results

Whilst there is considered to be no mobile groundwater present, water has been collected from the

Alluvium and Glacial Till. This water is considered to be an accumulation of soil leachate and could,

therefore, represent a potential source. Two rounds of water monitoring were completed in September/

October 2014 and January 2015 and the results are presented in Appendix H. The first monitoring visit

comprised sampling from 03WDBH01 from the alluvium and the glacial till deposits and also included two



69

grab samples taken from 03WDBH04 and 03WDBH03. The second monitoring visit included sampling

from eleven standpipes across the site installed in the Alluvium and the Glacial Till deposits.

6.4.1 Metals / metalloids

Heavy metal / metalloid contaminants were not identified in concentrations above the coastal/ estuarine

EQS with the following exceptions:

Dissolved zinc concentrations exceed the EQS of 40µg/l in one sample from 03WDBH03 however this

is understood to be a grab sample taken during drilling and therefore is unlikely to be indicative of

equilibrium groundwater conditions and may be influenced by suspended sediment;

Dissolved zinc exceeded the EQS in one sample from 03WDBH01D which was taken from the Glacial

Till (55.7ug/l).

There was one slight exceedance of dissolved copper at 03RBWS01 in the Alluvium. The EQS is 5ug/l

and the measured value is 6ug/l.

6.4.2 PAH

A number of PAH contaminants were encountered above laboratory detection limits during the second

monitoring visit. One sample showed exceedances during the first monitoring round however this is

understood to be a grab sample and may not represent a reliable result. The PAHs set out in Table 6.3

were identified in concentrations exceeding the laboratory detection limits during the second monitoring

round. There are no EQS values for coastal waters with which to compare the laboratory data.

Table 6.3: Exceedances of laboratory detection limits for PAH in water (second monitoring round)

Contaminant Exploratory holes Range of exceedances

(µg/l) Laboratory detection limit

(µg/l)

Acenaphthene 03FWBH01, 03FWBH02, 03FWBH03, 03FWBH06,

03FWBH09, 03MFBH01D, 03RBWS01, 03RBWS03,

03WDBH08

0.01 – 0.13 0.01

Acenaphthylene 0.01 – 0.02 0.01

Anthracene 0.01 – 0.07 0.01

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 0.01 – 0.41 0.01

Fluoranthene 0.01 – 0.05 0.01

Phenanthrene 0.01 – 0.05 0.01

Pyrene 0.01 – 0.18 0.01

Benzo(a)anthracene 03FWBH01, 03FWBH02, 03FWBH03, 03FWBH06,

03FWBH09, 03MFBH01D, 03RBWS01,03WDBH08

0.01 – 0.04 0.01

Benzo(a)pyrene 03FWBH03, 03FWBH06 0.01 – 0.05 0.01

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.01 – 0.05 0.01

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene 0.02 – 0.07 0.01

Benzo(ghi)perylene 03FWBH06 0.02 0.01

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.02 0.01

Fluorene 03WDBH01D, 03WDBH01S, 0.002 – 0.003 0.01



70

Contaminant Exploratory holes Range of exceedances

(µg/l) Laboratory detection limit

(µg/l)

03FWBH06

Naphthalene 03FWBH02, 03FWBH03, 03FWBH06, 03MFBH01D,

03RBWS01,03WDBH08

0.01 – 0.19 0.01

Source: [4]

6.4.3 TPH and BTEX

None of the samples analysed identified concentrations of TPH or BTEX above laboratory detection limits.

6.4.4 Sulphate

Sulphate concentrations were elevated above the EQS of 250mg/l in the majority of samples collected

from the Alluvium and Glacial Till. This is not unexpected, considering the close proximity to the coast and

the influence of saline water on the site.

6.4.5 Water contamination summary

The water collected from the Alluvium and Glacial Till has been shown to be impacted by low level PAH

contaminants and metals in hotspots, which are likely to reflect localised dissolution of these constituents

from the made ground and natural soils. The lack of TPH contamination in the water samples collected

from the Alluvium and Glacial Till, suggests that it may be confined to the made ground at the site.

6.4.6 Dewatering

If dewatering operations are required during construction it is likely that the water/groundwater will not be

suitable to be disposed of directly to ground or surface waters. Discussions with the Environment Agency

will be required to confirm a suitable solution.

6.5 Ground gas monitoring

Nine ground gas monitoring standpipes were monitored at the site on seven occasions between October

2014 and December 2014. One of these visits was completed in low atmospheric pressure conditions (ie.

below 1000mb). The ground gas monitoring measured concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and

oxygen. The results have been assessed according to CIRIA C665 guidance where a Characteristic

Situation (CS) is identified based upon the maximum gas concentration and the maximum gas flow rate.

The majority of boreholes monitored identified a CS1 – very low risk (results are included in the Factual

Report).

A CS2 was identified on a number of occasions at 03MFBH01D and 03MFBH01S due to presence of

elevated methane concentrations (1.0% - 52%) within the Alluvium and Glacial Till deposits. It is



71

considered likely that this is due to the presence of peat deposits within the alluvial materials. This location

is in PO1 and the contractor should take the presence of methane into account in their risk assessments to

ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) is used particularly in excavations. A CS2 was

also identified at 03BBBH01 in the made ground on two occasions due to elevated concentrations of

carbon dioxide (5.4 – 6.7%). This borehole targeted the area of the proposed control building and

therefore the results suggest that gas protection measures will be required in this building. Gas protection

measures should be designed in accordance with CIRIA C665.

6.6 Discussion of the Phase II Contamination Results

6.6.1 Phase II Contamination Results in Context

Based upon the visual and olfactory evidence of contamination recorded in Section 4.7 and the results of

laboratory analysis, the made ground appears to be the main source of contamination at the site. The

contamination identified is limited to localised hotspots of asbestos, metals and PAH within the made

ground. Presence of TPH is noted to be widespread across the site at low concentrations marginally

above detection, and generally restricted to the made ground, the samples tested have not identified any

concentrations over commercial/ industrial soil guidance values, although these detectable concentrations

may have an influence on the disposal/ re-use of the material and potential PPE requirements during

construction.

Hotspots have been identified in soils from PO1, PO2 and PO5 and generally comprise similar

contaminants. The hotspots identified within PO5 may be related to the historical landfill in the area.

The borehole logs have identified the presence of blue billy in the made ground across the site, the source

of this material is not clear as it is a by-product of gasworks sites. The historical plans presented in the

Envirocheck Report have not identified any gasworks in the immediate surrounding area. Blue billy is a

waste product of former gasworks and a source of cyanide. Despite this, cyanide was not identified in the

majority of soil samples in concentrations above the laboratory detection limit, with the exception of three

samples (2.1 – 5.7mg/kg), only one of which was in an area recorded as having blue billy present.

The water in the Alluvium and Glacial Till has been shown to be impacted by low level PAH contaminants

and metals in hotspots. The lack of TPH contamination in the groundwater suggests that it is likely to be

confined to the made ground soil at the site.

Ground gas monitoring has identified elevated concentrations of methane in PO1 and elevated

concentrations of carbon dioxide in PO2 in the area of the proposed control building. The control building

is likely to require gas protection measures to mitigate this risk.

6.6.2 Revised Conceptual Site Model

A key element of the Risk Assessment is the development of a conceptual site model (CSM) which may be

refined or revised as more information and understanding is obtained through the risk assessment



72

process. A CSM has been developed for the Boston Barrier site, based upon desk study data and ground

investigation information.

A summary of the potential Sources, Pathways and Receptors and the potential pollutant linkages based

on the information collected to date, is presented below:

6.6.2.1 Potential Contaminant Sources

S1 Existing made ground

S2 Historical and current industrial land use (on and off-site) including dock, the historical docklands

railway, industrial activities including a Saw Mill and Iron Works, potential for above/ below ground tanks,

current electricity substation, infilled historical channels

S3 Water (leachate) in the Glacial Till and Alluvium contamination beneath the site

S4 Historical landfill site in area of package order 5

S5 Potential leaks and spills during construction

S6 Presence of ground gas

6.6.2.2 Potential Contaminant Pathways

P1 Direct contact pathways

P2 Airborne routes (inhalation or ingestion of dust)

P3 Surface water run-off

P4 Transport through man-made pathways (drainage features, service conduits, future sheet piling

etc)

6.6.2.3 Potential Contaminant Receptors

R1 Construction and maintenance workers

R2 Future site users

R3: River Haven

R4 Fabric of buildings and infrastructure



73

Groundwater is not considered to be mobile, particularly as both the superficial and bedrock deposits

represent Unproductive Strata. Water samples collected from the Alluvium and Glacial Till are considered

as indicative of soil leachate and a potential source. Owing to the nature of the Unproductive Strata, lateral

or vertical migration is not considered to be a significant pathway.

6.6.2.4 Conceptual Model

The conceptual model is shown diagrammatically on Figure J.1 In Appendix J. And is summarised in Table

7.3.

Table 7.3: Current Conceptual Model for Boston Barrier

Source Transport Pathway Receptor


P1: Direct Contact pathways

R1: Construction and maintenance workers


R4: Fabric of buildings and infrastructure

P2 Airborne Routes R1: Construction and maintenance workers

P3: Surface water run-off

P4: Transport through man-made pathways

R3: River Haven


S2 Commercial/ industrial site use (on and off-site)

P1: Direct Contact pathways R1: Construction and maintenance workers



P3: Surface water run-off

P4: Transport through man-made pathways

R3: River Haven

S3 Leachate contamination

P3 Surface water run-off R3: River Haven



S4 Historical landfill site P3 Surface water run-off R3: River Haven



P2 Airborne Routes R1: Construction and maintenance workers

S5 Leaks and spills during construction

P3 Surface water run-off R3: River Haven



S6: Ground gas P2 Airborne Routes R1: Construction and maintenance workers


Risk assessment relating to asbestos is outside the scope of this study.



74

6.6.3 Construction Details

An overview of the outline design is included in section 2.1, the key elements of which are:

Sheet piling down to -11mAOD on the Right Embankment (PO4) which is within the Glacial Till.

Mini piling down to -4.24m AOD with the PoB, again into the Glacial Till (PO1 and PO2)

A barrier control building proximal to the barrier (PO2)

Removal of some the Knuckle (PO1).

It is understood from the above that the ground surface will remain hardstanding following construction.

The control building is likely to be piled due to the ground conditions to a depth of -4mAOD.

Plans relating to the proposed development considered for this report can be found in the PAR [1] .

6.6.4 Qualitative Risk Assessment

The risks have been evaluated using the criteria in Appendix G; I.2 (Risk Categorisation tables).

Summarises the potential risks at the site, using CIRIA guidance, based on results from the soil and

groundwater monitoring and using the identified sources, pathways and receptors.


335092/WCD/WAM/01/A 07 February 2015 pims/339200 Boston Barrier TWAO/Products/Design Products/GI/GIR 75

Table 6.4: Summary of Mitigated Contamination Risks for Boston Barrier


Potential Consequence

Probability of Consequence

Risk Classification Comments


S2: Commercial/ industrial land use

P1: Direct Contact

pathways

R1: Construction and maintenance

workers

Mild Low likelihood Low For construction/maintenance workers the probability of contact with contaminants is

assessed as low based on the assumption that, as is standard practice, the workers

will be wearing suitable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).


Mild Unlikely Very low Pathway not considered to be active due to presence of existing and future

hardstanding.


Medium Low likelihood Moderate/ low

Probability of consequence is assessed as low based on the assumption that materials

used during construction will be designed for the ground conditions and high

sulphate.

P2 Airborne

Routes


workers

Medium Unlikely Low Disturbance of soils is considered to be minimal based upon proposed sheet piling at the site. Assumes appropriate PPE will

be worn.

P3: Surface

water run-off

R3: River Haven

Mild

Low likelihood

Low

River Haven is tidal in this area and therefore is not considered to be

particularly sensitive.

S3 Leachate water contamination

P3 Surface water run-

off

R3: River Haven

Mild

Low likelihood

Low

P1: Direct Contact

pathways


workers













used during construction will be designed for the ground conditions

S4 Historical landfill site


off

R3: River Haven Mild Unlikely Very low

P1: Direct Contact

pathways


workers







used during construction will be designed for the ground conditions

P2 Airborne

Routes


workers




S5 Leaks and spills during construction


off

R3: River Haven

Mild

Unlikely

Very low

Construction should be completed under a Construction Environmental Management Plan to include methodology for avoiding

spills/ leaks and for sealing with any incidents.

P1: Direct Contact

pathways


workers




R4: Fabric of buildings and


Construction should be completed under a Construction Environmental Management







infrastructure Plan to include methodology for avoiding spills/ leaks and for sealing with any

incidents

S6: Ground gas

P2 Airborne

Routes


workers


Construction workers to have a safe system of work in place and appropriate

PPE.



Ground gas protection required in the control building to mitigate this risk.

Measures to be informed by CIRIA C665.



78

7 Risk Register



Table 7.1: Risk Register

Number Structure Threat Consequences IMP

AC

T

LIK

EL

IH

OO

D

RIS

K

1 All Outline Designer may not have passed on all geotechnical knowledge of the project to preliminary designers.

Some key ground information is lost. M M t

2 Flood Walls Depth of Glacial Till greater than identified Deeper piles required M L t

3 Flood Wall close to Maud Foster

Tie in anchors are damaged Quay wall may collapse H L t

4 Flood Wall close to Maud Foster

Voiding The voiding would make construction of the lock gates and flood wall very difficult.

M M t

5 Flood wall along quay wall

Contamination Hazard for construction workers not end users. L H t

6 Flood wall along quay wall

Obstruction due to slipway Difficulty in construction piles for the flood wall L M t

7 Dredging Works Obstructions identified on historical maps – potentially groynes and wrecks

Difficulty in dredging works L L t

8 Right Embankment flood wall

Peat Excessive M M t

9 Void Increase complexity of construction of the lock gate

Needs to be stabilised prior to construction, time and cost issues. M M t

10 Apron damage Constructing the lock gates leads to further damage to the apron

Increased cost and workload to repair the apron. M M t

11 Mini piles Lower than anticipated angles of friction in the alluvium and glacial till

Less assumed skin friction leading to necessity for bigger piles M L t

12 Mini piles Lower than anticipated undrained shear strength in the upper glacial till deposits

Affect the end bearing of any piles M L t

13 Access road Contamination from historical landfill Consequences for construction workers not end users. L M t

14 Unchartered Services Damaging a service during construction Injury of working. Stopping construction. Reducing operations of the port.

H M s

15 All General contamination Increased disposal cost and PPE provision for construction workers. See section 6.6.4.

Varied

16 Sheet pile Unable to achieve penetration due to gravels of flint in Glacial Till

Instability M L t



Number Structure Threat Consequences

IMP

AC

T

LIK

EL

IH

OO

D

RIS

K

17 Floodwalls Large seepage under flood wall due to lack of cut of wall

Flooding, piping failure H L t

Where: L = Low, M = Medium, H = High, s=significant ; t=tolerable



81

8.1 Geology and Groundwater

The results of the recent ground investigation in the Port of Boston and along the Right Embankment

confirmed the geology presented in historical boreholes and previous phases of ground investigation.

The geology typically comprised Made Ground overlying Alluvium which in turn overlies Glacial Till

deposits. In previous phases of ground investigation Kimmeridge Clay has been identified within

boreholes.

The ground water on the Left Embankment appears to be tidally influenced by the tides with a maximum

range of fluctuation of up to 3.5m (0mAOD to 3.5mAOD). The ground water within the Alluvium is more

sensitive to tidal fluctuations than the Made Ground or the Glacial Till which leads to a significant risk of

flooding behind or piping failure of the left bank flood walls due to their lack of cut-off. On the Right

Embankment, the same extent of tidal influence is not seen and the groundwater is consistently around

3.0m AOD.

8.2 General Geotechnical Profile

Throughout the site, the characteristic geotechnical profile can be summarised as varying depths of highly

variable made ground overlying varying thicknesses of Alluvium, overlying Glacial Till. The Glacial Till can

be found at a consistent level and is less variable in its geotechnical parameters, although the top 1.5m to

2m of the Glacial Till is either weathered or reworked such that the strength is lower. However, it quickly

becomes stiff to hard.

8.3 Geotechnical Parameters

This report has identified ranges of geotechnical parameters likely to be found within each package order

although it has been noted that there is a high degree of variability in both the Made Ground and the

Alluvium deposits. The Glacial Till shows slightly more consistent parameters. A summary of typical values

can be found in Section 5.10.

8.4 Buried Structures

The list of uncharted buried structures within the Port of Boston is extensive. There is high risk of

encountering unchartered services. The tie-in anchors have been exposed in the Maud Foster to the Lock

area; however further work is required to identify the entire tie in anchors between the Knuckle and the

Fisherman’s Quay. It is recommended that further investigation during the Design and Build stage of the

project be undertaken to minimise this risk.

8.5 Contamination

The key contamination risks on the site have arisen in the area of the historical slipway, within the Knuckle

and along the access road. These risks generally comprise hotspots of asbestos and metals within the

8 Conclusions



82

made ground and more widespread presence of TPH. It is possible that asbestos is present in other areas

of the site which have not been subject to testing. It is recommended that further investigation during the

Design and Build stage of the project be undertaken to minimise this risk, in particular to confirm the extent

of hydrocarbons in the Knuckle area if this section of the existing works is to be demolished as part of the

proposed works, and the presence of asbestos side wide.

A number of the soil samples tested would represent hazardous waste if removal from site was required,

this may represent an increased cost to the development. If re-use on-site is proposed additional testing

and risk assessment is recommended.

If dewatering operations are required during construction it is likely that the water/groundwater will not be

suitable to be disposed of directly to ground or surface waters. Discussions with the Environment Agency

will be required to confirm a suitable solution.

Based on ground gas monitoring it is recommended to use gas protection measures for the control

building.

Risks are generally considered to be low based on the assumptions set out in Table 6.3.

8.6 Voids

A void was found during the phase 3 investigation as the result of outwash of material on the north side of

the lock between the old bull nose and the straight edged quay. No other voids were found during the

investigation.



83

[1] Environment Agency, “Project Appraisal Repor for Boston Barrage Barrier Works,” 2013.

[2] Soil Engineering, “Ground Investigation at Boston Barrier and Haven Works - Phase 1 GI,” 2010.

[3] WYG Environment, “Boston Barrier Phase 2 Ground Investigation,” 2012.

[4] WYG Environment, “Boston Barrier Phase 3 Final Factual Ground Investigation Report,” 2015.

[5] D. J. Rudland, R. M. Lancefield and P. N. Mayell, “CIRIA C552: Contaminated Land Risk Assessment:

A guide to Good Practise,” CIRIA, London, 2001.

[6] Environement Agency , “Boston Barrier Phase 3 Ground Investigation Schedules,” June 2014.

[7] British Geological Survey, Boston Sheet 128 Solid and Drift Edition 1:50000 Geological Map, NERC,

1995.

[8] British Geological Survey, Geology of the country around kings lynn and the wash, NERC, 1994.

[9] Institute of Geological Sciences , British Regional Geology Eastern England from the Tees to the

Wash 2nd Edition, NERC, 1980.

[10] Envirocheck, “Envirocheck Report National Grid Reference: 533190, 342920,” December 2014.

[11] Environment Agency , “Boston Barrier Order Scoping Report (IMAN001472-BBOSR-ES-101),” 2011.

[12] British Geological Survey, “Geology of Britain viewer,” 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html. [Accessed 2 February 2015].

[13] Halcrow, “Boston Barrier and Haven Works Project; Geotechnical Interpretation of Historical Data;

WNBHBW/WHBHAV001,” 3 December 2009.

[14] British Standard; BS5930:1999+A2, “Code of Practise for Site Investigation,” 2010.

[15] European Normalised British Standard; BS EN 14688-2:2004, “Identification and Classification of

Soils,” 2004.

[16] European Normalised British Standard; BS22476-3:2005, “Geotechnical Investigation and Testing;

Part 3: Standard Penetration Test,” 2005.

9 Bibliography



84

[17] SUMO Services Ltd., “Utilities and Topograpical Details Haven Works - Site 6; Job Number:

SOR001054; Drawing Number: SOR001054-01_RevA,” March 2010.

[18] SUMO Services Ltd., “Boston GPR Surveys; Job Number: SOR0002840,” September 2011.

[19] Tower Surveys Ltd., “Port of Boston Topographical Survey as of 14/03/14; Job Number: R-S8433,”

March 2014.

[20] Storm Geomatics, “Port of Boston Bathymetric Survey; Job Number: 14TS11241/45,” June 2014.

[21] Tower Surveys Ltd., “Port of Boston GPR Survey; Job Number R-S8433,” May 2014.

[22] Mott MacDonald, “Boston Barrier Scheme Phase 3 Ground Investigation Services and Borehole

Locations; Drawing Number: IMAN001472-MM-3GI-001 to 005,” October 2014.

[23] European Normalised British Standard; BS EN 1997-2:2007, “Geotechnical Design; Part 2: Ground

Investigation and Testing,” 2010.

[24] WYG Environment, “Vacuum Excavation Inspection Pit Trial Report; Job number: A081319-1,”

November 2014.

[25] British Standards, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design — Part 1: General rules (BS EN 1997-1:2004),

2004.

[26] British Standard Institute, “British Standard; BS EN ISO 22476-3:2005; Geotechnical Investigation and

Testing Part 3: standard Penetration Test,” 2007.

[27] Clayton, CI, “The Standard Penetration Test (SPT): Method and Use, CIRIA Report 143,” CIRIA,

London, 1995.

[28] British Standards; BS 8002:1994, “Code of practice for Earth retaining structures,” 2001.

[29] R. Craig, Craig's Soil Mechanics, 7th ed., Abingdon: Spon Press, 2004.

[30] C. C. Ladd, R. Foote, K. Ishihara, F. Schlosser and H. G. Poulus, “Stress Deformation and Strength

Characteristics,” Proceedings Ninth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering, 1977.

[31] G. Barnes, Soil Mechanics Principles and Practice, Palgrave MacMillan, 2000.



85

[32] J. Harlén and W. Wolski, Embankments on Organic Soils, Elsevier, 1996.

[33] W. T. Lambe and R. V. Whitman, Soil Mechanics, SI Version, India: John Wiley & Sons, 1979.

[34] M. Tomlinson, Foundation Design and Construction, 7th ed., Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd, 2001, p.

49.

[35] BRE, Concrete in aggressive ground, 3rd ed., Watford: BRE Bookshop, 2005.

[36] One Touch Data, “http://www.onetouchdata.com/,” 2012. [Online]. Available:

http://www.onetouchdata.com/. [Accessed 4 February 2015].

[37] CIRIA, “STANDARD PENETRATION TEST,” in Shaft friction of CFA Shaft friction of CFA, Project

Report 86, London, CIRIA, 2003, p. 37.



86

Appendices

Appendix A. Location Plan _____________________________________________________________________ 87 Appendix B. Historical Information _______________________________________________________________ 88 Appendix C. Fieldwork Reports __________________________________________________________________ 92 Appendix D. Geological Cross Sections ___________________________________________________________ 94 Appendix E. Parameter Plots ___________________________________________________________________ 95 Appendix F. Concrete Aggressivity Results ________________________________________________________ 98 Appendix G. Groundwater Results ______________________________________________________________ 102 Appendix H. Contamination Results _____________________________________________________________ 105 Appendix I. Contamination Risk Assessment Methodology ___________________________________________ 106 Appendix J. Conceptual Site Model _____________________________________________________________ 108 Appendix K. Effective Stress Shearbox Plots ______________________________________________________ 110 Appendix L. Tidal Variation of Groundwater in Alluvium on Left Bank ___________________________________ 112



87

Appendix A. Location Plan



88

Table B.1: Information from historical maps

Package/Area Year Scale Development/Structures

Proposed Structure Affected and Implication

Whole

Site

1888 1:10,560 Wet dock present. Very little development in the port area.

Channel running parallel to the River Witham in the West.

Reservoir ‘Baths Reservoir’ located to the West of the channel.

Recreation grounds and fields to the West of the Port Estate.

Dock railway running from the swing bridge to both the North and South sides of the Wet Dock.

Pond shown right bank of The Haven. Wyberton Low road terrace houses built.

No further development between Wyberton Low road heading East. Saw mill at eastern extent of the wet dock.

Embankment North of the Wet dock appears to be closer to dock than its present location.

Boston Union Workhouse located between Maud Foster and the Wet dock.

Package 1

: M

aud F

oste

r to

Wet D

ock (

inclu

din

g K

nuckle

)

1888 1:10,560 Maud Foster Sluice present.

Embankment with slope sloping away from the Jetty between the outer lock and Maud Foster.

Railway running down centre of Knuckle.

Mud bank shown to be present in The Haven adjacent to the South of the Knuckle.

South of the Lock there is one small building at the end of the Knuckle and one large building at the Western extent of the Wet

Dock.

1906 1:10,560 No slope shown behind jetty Re-grading of surface between 188 and 1906

Jetty not extended to its current location but it is now straight edged with a mud bank in front of it.

It appears the Jetty is being developed at this time.

Harbourmasters building constructed in its present position. None.

Iron works shown to the North of PO1 Potential contamination issue (JULIE)

Knuckle has a large building in the centre and a slim building running along the Southern edge.

Foundations of building to be encountered

Mud bank in front of knuckle smaller than it was in 1888 MMO dredging licence application. Suspect

dredging works had been started.

1938 1:10,560 Harbourmasters office and customs house not shown. No consequence

Strange structures adjacent to the Jetty on top of the mud bank. Further input required. Likely no consequence

Railway line extends from the Northern edge of the wet dock. Potential to intersect with the recess required for the

new lock gate.

Building on knuckle reduced Demolition technique used?

1951 1:10,560 No significant developments


Appendix B. Historical Information



89



1974 1:10,000 Line of quayside still extends back and is not in line with the bull nose of the lock. Potentially some temporary jetty structure in

place.

1985 1:10,000 Line of quayside now in line with the bull nose quay. Voided area.

Package 2

: W

et D

ock to F

isherm

an’s

Quay

1888 1:10,560 A third of the way down the Wet Dock on the quayside there is not discernable quay structure but a cut back from the knuckle

and then a slope from the port ground level to The Haven and a mud bank.

Piled foundations for flood wall.

There is a ‘cut’ at the start of the bend in The Haven which appears to be the outflow from the channel which cuts across the

port estate parallel to the river.

Fisherman’s Quay and Flood Wall Foundations.

No development or buildings along quay edge

1906 1:10,560 Cut parallel to the quay edge with slope leading down to it. Cut infill materials not known could affect the flood wall foundations

Slipway orientated East West starting at the bend in River Witham approximately halfway down the Wet Dock. Appears to have a

?road constructed within it and a steep slope sloping down to the edge of it.

Significant feature which may have an impact on construction of the flood

wall foundations if the slipway has a concrete

base.

Channel running North South or parallel to the Haven on the Port Estate is named Baths Reservoir. There is a channel cut through

the mud bank where it outflows into The Haven suggesting the water was moving.

Significant feature which may have an impact on design of the flood wall

foundations if the channel is infilled with poor

material.

Public baths located where Frontier House and the Buoy yard are currently located.

Foundation of baths building could affect the

control building.

1938 1:10,560 Cut, slipway and channel all infilled or not shown on the map. Quay edge is show to be featureless from the knuckle to the bend

in the river past Frontier house.

The flood wall foundations will be extending through

the in filled areas. The fisherman’s quay platform

will be on top of the in filled channel, should be aware

of differential settlement due to different Made

Ground.

Baths not shown, potential been removed or have not been mapped; there are now just a few small buildings close to the

existing location of Frontier House.

1951 1:10,560 Cut, slipway, channel, public baths all shown on map As above

Reservoir still extending behind public baths As above.

1956 1:10,000 No reservoir shown. The quayside has not been constructed and there is a sloping mud bank.

1995 1:1,250

Packa

ge 3

:

Riv

er

Have

n

1888 1:10,560 Mud banks on both sides of the channel Barrier and dredging activities



90



1938 1:10,560 Structures are shown extending across the mud banks towards The Haven. Could be groynes or mooring posts.

Potential to encounter structures during dredging

or these structures may account for higher levels of TPH if soaked in a treating

agent.

1951 1:10,560 Mud in front of Wet Dock entrance extending from right embankment more than half the distance across The Haven.

Implications for dredging. Area known to have

significant build up of sediment.

1956 1:10,000 As above the mud bank extends considerably into the Haven in front of the existing WD substation.

Maintenance dredging implications.

Package 4

: R

ight E

mb

ankm

ent

1888 1:10,560 Embankment present. Sheet pile design.

Flood defence embankment dates to pre

1888.

Wyberton Low road terrace houses present

Potentially some large buildings present to the South of the embankment usage is unknown. Generally little development.

1906 1:10,560 Little development adjacent to embankment.

‘Saltings’ shown in front of the current WPD substation which means this an area which regularly floods.

Does not affect flood wall as this is an area of low

lying land.

Building or compound area developed Does not affect the structures.

1938 1:10,560 Four circular structures, suspected tanks shown in the land adjacent to the embankment

Marsh Lane. Potential for contamination (JULIE)



Package 5

: N

ort

h E

ast

of

Dock E

sta

te (

Pro

posed D

ock

Road)

1888 1:10,560 Shown as ‘Recreation Grounds’ with railway running from the swing bridge North East in the position of the current railway line.

North of PO5 area is a large Reservoir surrounded by trees or vegetation

Dock road

Greater extent of Made Ground where reservoir

has been infilled. Potentially soft material

used to infill.

1906 1:10,560 Reservoir label removed so reservoir potentially infilled

Railway sitting on top of embankment Has the railway ground level been lowered since

1906 or has the surrounding ground been

raised? Resulting in a significant accumulation of

Made Ground.

Dock office buildings constructed in the current positions. Does not affect new structures.

1938 1:10,560 Area developed to include a series of large buildings Foundations of buildings to be considered.



91



Railway sited on embankment at a higher level to the buildings. Potential for building foundations to ‘topped up’ with Made Ground to have the railway at ground level.

1951 1:10,560 Area now comprising smaller regular buildings spread either side of a road which run approximately East West.

1956 1:10,000 Area appears to be becoming more industrial with fewer larger buildings.



92

Figure C.1: Typical pylon piles as advised by Western Power Distribution

Source: Insert source text here

Appendix C. Fieldwork Reports



93

WYG Group CONFIDENTIAL Incident Report Form

Not to be released externally without prior approval from GroupSHEQ

WYG Group Health & Safety incorporating SHEQ Department creative minds safe hands

www.wyg.com Issue: 05 Date: 30/07/13

For details on how to complete this form please refer to Accident Reporting and Investigation Guidance.

Report Number: ( to be completed by Group SHEQ)

Part 1 – INITIAL DETAILS

Type of incident (tick relevant box)

Note: For all company vehicle incidents

the WYG fleet department must be notified and the fleet Incident report form completed

Final incident classification will be

conducted by Group SHEQ

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Non injury/ Non Damage/ Undesirable Event ‘An

unplanned or undesirable event that could have resulted in harm or

damage’

Injury Event / Damage Event (less than 7 days

not RIDDOR)

RIDDOR Reportable/ Notifiable Event

Fatality

(In the event of a fatality please notify Stuart Spooner

on 07500 814 440 with

immediate effect as well as following procedures)

Complete all parts in full Complete all parts in full Complete all parts in full Complete all parts in full

Address where incident occurred:

Port of Boston, Dock Road, Boston, PE21 6BN

Discipline: Geo-environmental Project Number: A081319-1

Date of Incident: 19/09/14 Time of Incident: 11:30

Date Reported: 19/09/14 Reported to: Simon Croxford

No. of days lost: 1 Previously Reported an Incident? no

Name of Reporting Person: Tim Youngl Staff Number: AE723

Name of Injured Person: none Staff Number: none

Occupation, Employers Name and Address: WYG Nottingham, Geneva Building, Lake View Drive, Sherwood Business Park, Annesley, Notts, NB15 0ED

Line Manager’s Name: Simon Croxford Staff Number: AE

Part 2 – INCIDENT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Description of Incident – To be completed by the Injured Person / Reporting Person. Full incident details to be submitted Who? What? When?

Where? Why? How?

Strike of a 3 phase electrical cable at Port of Boston. Method Statements, RA, services plans and Permit to dig all in place. Service plans were checked and known services were marked on the ground using line marker by Gary Sherriff. Trial Pit was marked up on ground with sufficient clearance each side from known services. Area was scanned with a CAT scan and pit was vacuum excavated to a depth of 1.0mbgl. A clay pipe was encountered in the southern side of the pit at a depth of approximately 1.0mbgl. The pit was relocated approximately 0.3m to north. Vacuum excavation continued to a depth of 1.2mbgl. The base of the pit was not scanned at 1.2 mbgl and our safe dig procedure has been amended to include CAT scanning at 0.3m depth intervals and at the base. On issue of permit to dig and completion of the above procedures the 18T rubber wheeled excavator commenced excavation. On

http://www.wyg.com/

http://thesource.wyg.com/wyg/Libraries/Accident+Reporting.nsf/LookupAll/3C5ABF7267295C858025793E0046E650/$File/Accident_Reporting_and_Investigation_Guidance_v8.docx





excavation the electrical cable was damaged by the excavator bucket resulting in a flash. It is understood that power was lost to the adjacent Buoy shed. TY informed Andy Lawrence Port of Boston, Bobby Sheldrake (Environment Agency), Lucy Griffith (Mott Macdonald) and Simon Croxford. Andy Lawrence provided contact number of electrician who has worked on Port previously. TY contacted and repair work to start Monday 22/09/14. On Monday morning the repair work was commenced but the electrician was unable to complete due to age of cable which is made of lead. Electrician returned Tuesday 23/09/14 and continued repair. WYG labourers hand dug to extend excavation to allow repair and electrician continued repair.

2.2 Injury Sustained: none

2.3 First Aid/Follow Up Treatment: none

2.4 Person completing this form – I agree that the above details are correct and a true representation of events.

Name: Tim Young

Signature:

Date: 23/09/14

Part 3 – INCIDENT DETAILS

3.1 Person(s) in Direct Control of the Workplace: Gary Sherriff

3.2 Relevant Information, Instructions and Training given before the Incident: Gary is Cat trained and

followed the safe dig procedure which included a service plan check, marking up of services on the ground and

vacuum excavation.

3.3 Plant and Equipment details: CAT scanner, Vacuum Excavation plant and 18T rubber wheeled excavator.

http://www.wyg.com/





3.4a Servicing and Maintenance Records: CAT Scanner Calibration - attached (include reference number and attach copies to this report)

3.4b Details and copies of Inspections, Thorough Examinations, Test Records: N/A (Include reference number and attach copies to this report)

3.5 Details of Protective Clothing and Equipment: N/A

3.6 Statement of Witness Names and Reference Numbers: N/A

3.7 Photographic Reference Numbers: (include file path of where photographs are stored) TBC

3.8 Relevant Documentation: (Indicate as applicable)

Project Specific Safety Plan: Completed : Yes Briefed : Yes

Available on Site Yes Followed : Yes

Risk Assessments: Completed : Yes Briefed : Yes

Available on Site : Yes Followed : Yes

Method Statements: Completed : Yes Briefed : Yes


Permits to Work: Completed : Yes Followed : Yes

Available on Site : Yes Briefed : Yes

3.9 Attachments: Indicate as applicable

Risk Assessments: Yes Method Statements: Yes

Project Specific Safety Plan: Yes Record of Site Induction: Yes

Record of Activity Briefing: No Photographs: Yes

Injured Parties and/or Statement of Witness: N/A External Accident Book/Form: N/A

Part 4 – INCIDENT CAUSATION ANALYSIS

4.1 Type of Event/Injury Associated with:

Moving Object Manual Handling

Moving Vehicle Exposure to Fire

Moving Machinery Exposure to Explosion

Fall From Height Hit Fixed Object

Fall on the Same Level Injured by an Animal

http://www.wyg.com/





Contact with Electricity Physical Assault

Contact with Harmful Substance Use of Hand tools

Contact with Buried Services Trapped by Collapse

Drowning/Asphyxiation Other:

4.2 Immediate Cause:

4.2a Unsafe Conditions: 4.2b Unsafe Acts:

Inadequate or Improper Protective Equipment Failure to Follow Procedures

Hazardous Environmental Conditions (inc weather) Unsafe/Improper use of equipment

Inadequate Guards or Barriers Operating Equipment without Authority

Defective Tools, Materials or Equipment Operating at Improper Speed

Inadequate Warning System Overriding Safety Devices

Inadequate or Excessive Illumination Failure to Use PPE Correctly

Extremes of Temperature Horseplay

Inadequate Ventilation Under the influence of Alcohol or Drugs

Poor Access or Egress Undue Haste

Inadequate Visibility Inattention

Unexpected Movement Using Hazardous Equipment

Inadequate Isolation Operating with Inadequate Training

Exposure to Noise Improper Physical Effort

Fire and Explosion Hazard Using Hand Tools Unsafely

Poor Housekeeping Using Defective Equipment

Projection Hazard Failure to Warn / Poor Communication

Heavily Congested Area Failure to Secure

Exposure to Radiation Improper Physical Act (Violence)

Other (Please specify): Other (Please specify): missed pit with sampler

4.3 Root Cause Analysis

Inadequate Management/Supervision Inadequate Training and/or Competence

Inadequate Resources (inc Staffing Levels) Inadequate Maintenance

Inadequate Subcontractor Vetting Abuse or Misuse by an individual

Inadequate Planning (RA’s / MS’s / PSSP’s) Lack of Commitment/Leadership

Inadequate System Procedure Inadequate Tools or Equipment

Poor Communications Other (Please specify): accident

4.4 Reasoning on the stated Cause Analysis: Although the correct permit to dig procedure was followed the

procedure did not include a cat scan of the base of the pit.

http://www.wyg.com/





Part 5 – AGREED & ACHIEVABLE RESULTS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

5.1 Action Required in Relation to Root Cause: The safe dig procedure has been amended to include Cat scanning

at 0.3m depth intervals and at the base of the pit at 1.2mbgl.

Person Responsible: All staff

Position: Site engineer

Target Completion Date:

22/08/14

Completion Date:

Signed Off:

5.2 Action Required in Relation to Root Cause:

Person Responsible: Position:


Completion Date: Signed Off:


Person Responsible:

Position:


Completion Date:

Signed Off:

5.4 Line Managers Sign Off – Confirming that the root cause and actions to prevent reoccurrence are suitable and sufficient and the incident has been suitably investigated:

Name: David Howes Signature:

Part 6 – HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGER COMMENTS

Has the investigation identified the basic causes of the Event? Click Here

Are the preventative actions SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and

Timely?) Click Here

Comments:

Reviewer’s Signature:

Print Name: Date:

http://www.wyg.com/





Circulation Required: Click Here Date Issued:

Reason:

http://www.wyg.com/
















damage’


not RIDDOR)


Fatality


on 07500 814 440 with







Date Reported: 13/10/14 Reported to: Lucy Griffith/Simon Croxford

No. of days lost: TBC Previously Reported an Incident? Yes

Name of Reporting Person: Emelye Towell Staff Number: AE7227

Name of Injured Person: None Staff Number: None





Where? Why? How?

Strike of a water main at the Port of Boston. Method Statements, RA, services plans and Permit to dig all in place. Service plans were checked and known services were marked on the ground using line marker by Emelye Towell. The water main was not marked on the ground as it couldnt be detected with the CAT scan. Emelye thought that the location of the water main was further from the grain tower. Borehole was marked up on ground with what Emelye Towell believed was sufficient clearance each side from known services. Area was scanned with a CAT scan and a permit to dig was issued then the hand dug pit was started with an intended base of 1.2mbgl. At approximately 0.7mbgl a sudden influx of water was noted. This quickly flooded the pit and produced a large puddle on the ground. Tim Young and Lucy Griffiths were both informed. TY contacted Andy Lawrence (Port of Boston) and he sent Bob (Port of Boston) to assess.

http://www.wyg.com/






The nearby hydrant was tested and the water pressure was low. The port were informed of this and the water was turned off. After the puddle soaked away the pit was bailed dry, the pit was measured as 0.7mbgl. The pit was then carefully cleared out of sediment and extended to search for a water pipe, which was located at 0.8mbgl.. The Port of Boston commenced repair of the water main on Tuesday 14/10/14.

2.2 Injury Sustained: None

2.3 First Aid/Follow Up Treatment: N/A


Name: Tim Young

Signature:

Date: 14/10/14


3.1 Person(s) in Direct Control of the Workplace: Emelye Towell

3.2 Relevant Information, Instructions and Training given before the Incident: Emelye is Cat trained and

followed the safe dig procedure which included a service plan check, marking up of services on the ground and

hand dug pit. Unfortunately she mis calculated the position of the water main and was unable to trace it using the CAT scan..

3.3 Plant and Equipment details: CAT scanner and hand digging tools.

http://www.wyg.com/































http://www.wyg.com/





























Other (Please specify): Other (Please specify):







Poor Communications Other (Please specify): Mistake on assessment

of service plans.

4.4 Reasoning on the stated Cause Analysis: Although the correct permit to dig procedure was followed a

mistake was made on assessment of the service plans. Unfortunately the water pipe was damaged using hand tools although at first the pipe could not be seen in the excavation and it is thought to have been damaged by

displacement of soil above the pipe and not directly.

http://www.wyg.com/






5.1 Action Required in Relation to Root Cause: Borehole positions to be updated to correct positions and with

service plan overlay by Mott Macdonald to reduce risk of human error in setting out boreholes.

Person Responsible: All staff

Position: Site engineer


ASAP

Completion Date:

Signed Off:


Person Responsible: Mott Macdonald Position:

Target Completion Date: ASAP



Person Responsible:

Position:


Completion Date:

Signed Off:


Name: Simon Croxford Signature:


Has the investigation identified the basic causes of the Event? Yes

Are the preventative actions SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely?)

Yes

http://www.wyg.com/





Comments:


Print Name: Date:


Reason:

http://www.wyg.com/
















damage’


not RIDDOR)


Fatality


on 07500 814 440 with







Date Reported: 24/10/14 Reported to: Lucy Griffith/Brian Smith

No. of days lost: None Previously Reported an Incident? Yes

Name of Reporting Person: Tim Youngl Staff Number: AE723

Name of Injured Person: None Staff Number: None





Where? Why? How?

Encountered defunct clay pipe in trial pit at a depth of 1.8 mbgl with some damage to top of one joint. Safe dig procedure was followed which included check service plans, cat scan and vacuum excavation to 1.2 mbgl. Excavated carefully to 1.8m and clay pipe was identified in excavation. Reported to John Walker (Port of Boston) who confirmed that pipe is defunct. Logged photographed and backfilled.

http://www.wyg.com/






2.2 Injury Sustained: None

2.3 First Aid/Follow Up Treatment: N/A


Name: Tim Young

Signature:

Date: 14/10/14


3.1 Person(s) in Direct Control of the Workplace: Gary Sherriff

3.2 Relevant Information, Instructions and Training given before the Incident: Gary is Cat trained and followed the safe dig procedure which included a service plan check, marking up of services on the ground and

hand dug pit. The defunct pipe was not shown on any plans and is likely associated with a building that has been demolished in the area.

3.3 Plant and Equipment details: CAT scanner, vacuum excavator and excavator.





http://www.wyg.com/






































http://www.wyg.com/


















Other (Please specify): Other (Please specify):







Poor Communications Other (Please specify): Old pipe not shown on

plans

4.4 Reasoning on the stated Cause Analysis: The service was defunct, below 1.2m bgl and not shown on any plans.


5.1 Action Required in Relation to Root Cause: None.

Person Responsible: Tim Young

Position: Project Manager


Complete

Completion Date:

Signed Off:


http://www.wyg.com/





Person Responsible: Position:

Target Completion Date: ASAP



Person Responsible:

Position:


Completion Date:

Signed Off:


Name: Simon Croxford Signature:


Has the investigation identified the basic causes of the Event? Yes

Are the preventative actions SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely?)

Yes

Comments:


Print Name: Date:


Reason:

http://www.wyg.com/



94

Appendix D. Geological Cross Sections

Track

59 Tanks

50

SKIRBECK

Dock

54

WB

El

Depot

34

Crane

Travell ing

35

WYBER

TON

LOW

RO

AD

Depot

Mud

Tanks

Mean High Water

14

2.4m

24

Sub Sta

Path (um)

Posts

46

60

WB

45

Mud

Depot

Mean High Water

57

WB

6 15

5.2m

14

Slopin

g mas

onry

36

BATH GARDEN

S

10

El Sub Sta

L Tower

Path (um)

Mean High Water

ETL

ETL

Tank

Mud

Mud

LEA

LAN

D

Path (um)

L Tower

5.5m

El Sub Sta

( fixed amber)

Water

Path (um)

3.0m

L Tower

Track

L Tower

Dock

ETL

L Tower

Tank

WAY

5.5m

Mud

Tank

Beacon

Mean High

Collects

Tank

81

132

2

PH

10 14

Maud Foster

1

154

140M

aud Foster Drain

WIN

DS

OR

BANK

127

142

138

12a

1a

15

12

139

11

1

15

14a

7

3.0m

11a

Dock Terrace

137

148

ST

NIC

143

The Haven

3

THE COURTY

ARD

Sluice

5

5.8m

Mud

12

ETL

37

DR

AKA

RD

S LA

NE

2.4m

Allot

The Haven

1

CH

AR

LES

STR

EET

TCB

1a

MHW

Gdns

Dock

15

Con

veyo

r

St John's

2a

PH

20

3.7m

59b

1

67

El Sub Sta

PC

ETL

11

98

WB

ALF

RE

D S

TREET

75

82

5.2m

ETL

69

18

Travel l ing Crane

59a

5.8m

3.0m

Silos

17

62

10

Lock

57b

112

6.1m

114 11657a

13

4.0m

72

16

59c

Mount Bridge

Mud

6

SKIRBECK ROAD

92

ETL

ETL

Maud Foster Drain

53

2

1

35

14

Buildings

6.1m

3.0m

Travelling Cranes

TCB

45

96

TCB

118

6.1m

94

11

El Sub Sta

120

ETL

ETL

MLW

MLW

MLW

MLW

Mast

The Old Bath House

Tanks

MLW

71

9147

The

5

61

12

Windings

1

17

1114

7

22

37

6

42

32

26

18

25

44

41

31

CCLW

Ward Bdy

ED and Ward Bdy

CCLW

Ward Bdy

CC

LW

Und

ED and Ward Bdy

ED and Ward Bdy

CD

CD

CCLW

Ward Bdy

ED and Ward Bdy

Jetty

The Haven

Haven East

Dock

Maud Foster Sluice

WYBERTON LOW ROAD

00

50

90

00

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

45048

6

00 50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

412 00

50

100 122

00

50

100

147

00

50

100

106

00

50

100

112

00

50

100

130

03FQCBR03

03FQCBR05

03FQCBR02

03FQCBR01

03FQCBR0703FQCBR06

03FQCBR04

03DRCBR05

03RBCBR01

03DRCBR08

03RBCBR04

03DRCBR06

03DRCBR03

03RBCBR07

03DRCBR02

03RBCBR05

03RBCBR09

03RBCBR11

03RBCBR06

03DRCBR07

03DRCBR01

03RBCBR10

03DRCBR04

03RBCBR08

03RBCBR02

03RBCBR03

03LKCC10

03LKCC0403LKCC05

03LKCC06

03LKCC12

03DRC01

03DRC03

03LKCC11

03WDBH08

03MFBH05

03BBBH03A

03FWBH03

03WDBH03

03MFBH09

03MFBH09A

03MFBH06

03FWBH04B

03FWBH01

03BBBH01

03FWBH06

03FWBH09

03MFBH10

03MFBH07

03BBBH02

03MFBH01

03FWBH04A

03FWBH04

03WDBH10

03MFBH03

03MFBH04

03WDBH0503WDBH01

03WDBH09

03FWBH07

03WDBH09A

03DRBH01

03MFBH0803WDBH02

03BBBH0303BBBH03B

03FWBH04C

03WDBH04

03RBBH01

03DRBH02

03FWBH02

03WDBH07

03WDBH06

03MFBH02

03WDBH11A

03WDBH11

BCP06

BCP07

BC-BH03

BB-BH04

BB-BH03

BB-BH05

BC-BH02

BB-BH06

BB-BH01

BB-BH02

BC-BH05

BC-BH06

BC-BH01

S3-BH02AS3-BH01

S3-BH02

03LKRC03

03LKRC01

BRC05

BRC01

BRC03

BRC07

BRC08

BRC04

BRC02

03BH02

03BH01

03BH03

C

E

D

A

B

SW01

SW03

SW02

03KKTP02

03FQTP06

03FQTP03

03FQTP01

03DRTP02

03FWTP01

03DRTP04

03FQTP05

03MFTT02

03DRTP07

03DRTP03

03DRTP06

03FWTP03

03DRTP05

03FQTP04

03FWTP02A

03FWTP04

03MFTT04

03MFTP01

03FWTP02

03FQTP02

03MFTT03

03DRTP01

03DRTP08

03WDTP0203WDTP03

03WDTP01

03WDTP04

03WDTP05

BB-TP02

BB-TP01

03RBWS12

03RBWS15

03RBWS17

03RBWS16

03RBWS09

03RBWS11

03RBWS08 03RBWS06

03RBWS0103RBWS10

03RBWS14

03RBWS03

03RBWS04

03RBWS02

03RBWS0703RBWS05

BWS06

BWS04

BWS01

BWS07BWS02

BWS05BWS03

BC-BH04

BC-BH04A

002A

006

005PO2

004

003

002

003

004

Key to symbols

App’dCh’k’dDescriptionDrawnDateRev

RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client

P:\Cambridge\Demeter\EVT\Pro jects\301603 Pledges Fishpass Study\CAD\Working Drawings\Civil\2D models\EA Logo.jpg

@A1

PLANSCALE 1:2500

P:\Cambridge\Demeter\EVT\Projects\339200 Boston Barrier TWAO\04 Drawings\Boston 3D models\Geotechnical\IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-001_Geo

TFW

Boston BarrierGeological Cross SectionsLocation Plan

L. Griffith

C. J. Easson

S. Solera

M. Taylor

-

S. Wilby

1:2500 PRE

IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-001

P1

Demeter HouseStation RoadCambridge, CB1 2RSUnited Kingdom

+44 (0)1223 463500+44 (0)1223 461007www.mottmac.com

© Mott MacDonald

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

125m 250m01:2500

Reference drawings

Rotary Core Sample Location

Vertical Concrete Core Sample Location

Trial Pit Location

Cable Percussive Borehole Location

California Bearing Ratio

Borehole Location

Window Sample Location

Cross Section drawings:IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-002IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-003IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-004IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-005IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-006

1. All SPT N Values are uncorrected.2. Existing ground levels are taken from:

Bathymetry Data (Jacobs No. B0523900/PA4 DWG-B0523900/PA4/3D/01)Lidar Data (© Environment Agency 2015 www.geomatics-group.co.uk)DTM Data (ESRI Data)

3. Borehole strip hatching as per geology code 1 (See section 4.5 of report).4. General hatching as per geology code 2 (See section 4.5 of report).

P1 06/03/2015 CJE Preliminary Issue SS SW

http://www.mottmac.com/

http://www.geomatics-group.co.uk)/

35

46

50

50

50

50

3.904.80

10.40

17.40

20.65

21.95

00.0

00

10.0

00

20.0

00

30.0

00

40.0

00

50.0

00

60.0

00

70.0

00

80.0

00

90.0

0090

.082

5.50

0

5.50

0

-4.0

00

-4.0

00

6.35

0

3.82

53.

792

48

50

50

2.50

16.70

38.70

146

3

8

1

4

1

0

13

18

0.10

1.30

3.55

6.005.00

8.90

10.45

4

7

3.50

54

1.20

66

12

12

50

14

18

16

22

32

24

43

50

47

50

50

50

50

50

50

26

50

45

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

2.55

16.90

20.00

10.40

27.00

50.00

BW

S03

Offs

et: 1

7.38

7

BRC

02O

ffset

: -5.

264

03B

BB

H03

Offs

et: 2

.599

03R

BW

S17

Offs

et: -

14.9

25

DO

ffset

: 15.

469 BR

C07

Offs

et: -

15.0

17BB

-BH

02O

ffset

: -13

.227

BRC

03O

ffset

: -19

.595

Assumed boundary of MadeGround extends paralleldown from quay wall

-2.2

77

-2.6

31

-2.9

13

-0.2

90

00.0

00

10.0

00

20.0

00

30.0

00

40.0

00

50.0

00

60.0

00

70.0

00

80.0

00

90.0

00

100.

000

110.

000

120.

000

130.

000

140.

000

147.

418

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

05.

500

Key to symbols


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client


P:\Cambridge\Demeter\EVT\Projects\339200 Boston Barrier TWAO\04 Drawings\Boston 3D

TFW

Boston BarrierGeological Cross SectionsSheet 1 - 5

L. Griffith

C. J. Easson

S. Solera

M. Taylor

-

S. Wilby

As Shown PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463500+44 (0)1223 461007www.mottmac.com

© Mott MacDonald


Reference drawings

Ground Level

Made Ground Other/Structures

Made Ground comprising silt

Made Ground comprising sand

Made Ground comprising clay

Made Ground comprising gravel

Alluvium comprising silt

Alluvium comprising sand

Alluvium comprising clay

Alluvium comprising gravels

Alluvium comprising Clay and Organics

Peat

Glacial Till comprising sand

Glacial Till comprising gravel

Glacial Till comprising clay

Made Ground

Alluvium

Peat

Glacial Till

Kimmeridge Clay

Borehole Strip Legend

Strata Legend

Water Strike and level after 20 minutes

44

8.20 Strata Depths

SPT Depths

Refer to DWG IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-001 - Location Plan







00.0

00

10.0

00

20.0

00

30.0

00

40.0

00

50.0

00

60.0

00

70.0

00

80.0

00

90.0

00

100.

000

105.

797

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

-4.0

00

-4.0

00

-4.0

00

-4.0

00

-4.0

00

-4.0

00

-4.0

00

-4.0

00-4

.000

Key to symbols


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client



TFW


L. Griffith

C. J. Easson

S. Solera

M. Taylor

-

S. Wilby

As Shown PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463500+44 (0)1223 461007www.mottmac.com

© Mott MacDonald


Reference drawings

Ground Level











Peat




Made Ground

Alluvium

Peat

Glacial Till

Kimmeridge Clay


Strata Legend


44

8.20 Strata Depths

SPT Depths








00.0

00

10.0

00

20.0

00

30.0

00

40.0

00

50.0

00

60.0

00

70.0

00

80.0

00

90.0

00

100.

000

110.

000

120.

000

129.

886

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

-3.5

00

-3.5

00

-4.0

00

-4.0

00

5.50

0

5.50

05.

500

8.90

15.00

2

2

3

5

7

6

7

21

36

32

4.20

8.40

11.50

13

13

10

4

4

26

29

32

48

50

50

43

8.50

15.00

37115691519355048424245

48

32

50

3836

0.100.401.50

4.30

6.607.707.908.609.2010.00

25.00

4.00

8.90

15.00

5.10

9

10

11

10

10

18

172142

39

50

41

50

45

43

50

45

44

35

45

48

50

50

50

9.00

25.00

10.00

03M

FBH1

0O

ffset

: -1.

781

03M

FBH0

8O

ffset

: -17

.912

03W

DTP

05O

ffset

: -18

.352

03W

DB

H08

Offs

et: -

5.32

1

BC

-BH

02O

ffset

: -15

.828

03W

DTP

02O

ffset

: 2.1

1003

WD

TP03

Offs

et: -

10.9

9203

WD

BH

09O

ffset

: -11

.728

BC

-BH

01O

ffset

: -6.

719

03W

DB

H09

AO

ffset

: -8.

785

03W

DB

H07

Offs

et: 1

2.27

3

00.0

00

10.0

00

20.0

00

30.0

00

40.0

00

50.0

00

60.0

00

70.0

00

80.0

00

90.0

00

100.

000

110.

000

120.

000

122.

115

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

5.46

6

5.23

5

5.71

7

6.29

8

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

06.

348

Key to symbols


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client



TFW


L. Griffith

C. J. Easson

S. Solera

M. Taylor

-

S. Wilby

As Shown PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463500+44 (0)1223 461007www.mottmac.com

© Mott MacDonald


Reference drawings

Ground Level











Peat




Made Ground

Alluvium

Peat

Glacial Till

Kimmeridge Clay


Strata Legend


44

8.20 Strata Depths

SPT Depths








00.0

00

10.0

00

20.0

00

30.0

00

40.0

00

50.0

00

60.0

00

70.0

00

80.0

00

90.0

00

100.

000

110.

000

120.

000

130.

000

140.

000

150.

000

160.

000

170.

000

180.

000

190.

000

200.

000

210.

000

220.

000

230.

000

240.

000

250.

000

260.

000

270.

000

280.

000

290.

000

300.

000

310.

000

320.

000

330.

000

340.

000

350.

000

360.

000

370.

000

380.

000

390.

000

400.

000

410.

000

420.

000

430.

000

440.

000

450.

000

460.

000

470.

000

480.

000

486.

492

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

0

5.50

05.

500

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

'Cut' identified in historicalmaps associated with increasedthickness of Made Ground.See Table 2.1 of report.

Increased thickness of Made Groundwith timbers and hydrocarbonsassociated with historic slipway.See Table 2.1 of report.

See information box onDWG IMAN001472-MM-GEO-DR-002

Level of Kimmeridge Clayassumed to be at -21m based onavailable borehole information

Key to symbols


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




TFW


L. Griffith

C. J. Easson

S. Solera

M. Taylor

-

S. Wilby

As Shown PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463500+44 (0)1223 461007www.mottmac.com

© Mott MacDonald





Reference drawings

Ground Level











Peat




Made Ground

Alluvium

Peat

Glacial Till

Kimmeridge Clay


Strata Legend


44

8.20 Strata Depths

SPT Uncorrected N Values




42

50

44

12

50

51

57

50

11

37

9

17.30

38

50

50

20

50

55

11

28.00

50

26.30

50

27

50

50

BB

-BH

05O

ffset

: -2.

984

4

10

7.45

1

1

1

5.8033

35

03R

BW

S09

Offs

et: 1

0.90

8

00.0

00

10.0

00

20.0

00

30.0

00

40.0

00

50.0

00

60.0

00

70.0

00

80.0

00

90.0

00

100.

000

110.

000

120.

000

130.

000

140.

000

150.

000

160.

000

170.

000

180.

000

190.

000

200.

000

210.

000

220.

000

230.

000

240.

000

250.

000

260.

000

270.

000

280.

000

290.

000

300.

000

310.

000

320.

000

330.

000

340.

000

350.

000

360.

000

370.

000

380.

000

390.

000

400.

000

410.

000

411.

759

5.92

2

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.08

4

5.62

6

5.91

1

6.27

1

6.35

0

6.10

2

6.25

2

6.15

0

6.09

3

5.49

1

5.87

2

6.31

3

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

0

6.35

06.

350

03R

BW

S17

Offs

et: 0

.366

56

1

04.10

6.00

9

7

1

1

1

23

2110.45

14

8

1

0.10

6.00

8.90

9

7

06.00

0.15

8

6

2

13

7

1

04

4.80

0.10

1

3

10.40

8.70 8.80

0

10.45

0.704.80

91.30

5.00

0

4.70

20

1.80

5.50

1

9.60

8

8

3.55

7

3

10.4518

18

10

10.45

8

53.80

0.08

8.70

28

1

0

1417

0.05

10.00

4

5.80

0.75

8.30

2

88

0

0.05

2.001

9

8.00

3.50

11

39

50

5.801.70

12

8.00

1

4.80

BB

-BH

06O

ffset

: 7.8

47

03R

BW

S12

Offs

et: 1

.700

03R

BW

S10

Offs

et: 1

.352

03R

BW

S14

Offs

et: 2

.056

03R

BW

S16

Offs

et: -

0.23

2

03R

BW

S15

Offs

et: -

0.62

0

03R

BW

S08

Offs

et: 2

.032

03R

BW

S11

Offs

et: 8

.929

Key to symbols


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client



TFW


L. Griffith

C. J. Easson

S. Solera

M. Taylor

-

S. Wilby

As Shown PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463500+44 (0)1223 461007www.mottmac.com

© Mott MacDonald


Reference drawings

Ground Level











Peat




Made Ground

Alluvium

Peat

Glacial Till

Kimmeridge Clay


Strata Legend


44

8.20 Strata Depths

SPT Depths










95

Appendix E. Parameter Plots



Table E.1: SPT N plots

Equivalent SPT N60 Vs depth below ground level

Made Ground Clay

Made Ground Sand

.

Made Ground Silt

Alluvium Clay

Alluvium Sand

.

Alluvium Silt.

Alluvium Clay Organic

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

De

pth

(m

bgl

)

N60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

De

pth

(m

bgl

)

N60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

De

pth

(m

bgl

)

N60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

De

pth

(m

bgl

)

N60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

De

pth

(m

bgl

)

N60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

De

pth

(m

bgl

)

N60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

De

pth

(m

bgl

)

N60



Equivalent SPT N60 Vs depth below ground level

Glacial Till Clay

Glacial Till Sands and Gravels

Kimmeridge Clay

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Leve

l (m

AO

D)

N60

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Leve

l (m

AO

D)

N60

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Leve

l (m

AO

D)

N60



98

Table F.1: pH and Soluble Sulphate Testing Results

Borehole

Soil

Depth

Sulphate as SO4 (2:1 Ext)

mg/l pH

Water

Sulphate mg/l pH

03MFBH04 0.2 93.9 11.23 03WDBH04 460.26 7.68

03MFBH04 0.3 NA 03WDBH01D 1179.01 7.02

03MFBH04 2.0 113.4 8.07 03WDBH01S 1043.96 7.34

03MFTT02 0.3 943.8 10.63 03WDBH01 679.89

03MFTT02 0.5 100.8 9.09 03WDBH03 925.67

03MFTT04 0.2 1146.4 10.28 03WDBH04

03MFBH01 1.0 66.6 8.66 03WDBH01D 1274.75 6.94

03MFTT04 1.3 NA 03WDBH01S 1158.1 7.07

03MFBH07 0.4 NA 03WDBH01

03MFBH07 1.2 71.4 8.79 03WDBH03

03WDTP01 0.1 192 7.86 03FWBH01 1130.46 6.95

03WDBH04 0.6 209 8.11 03FWBH02 953.46 7.1

03WDBH04 2.0 179.1 8.3 03FWBH03 314 7.45

03FQTP01 0.1 207.8 8.3 03FWBH06 281.23 7.31

03FWTP01 0.4 73.9 8.5 03FWBH09 211.23 7.31

03KKTP02 1.5 86.5 8.28 03MFBH01D 233.69 7.34

03KKTP02 2.0 80.3 8.26 03RBWS01 857.57 7.13

03FQTP03 0.50 74.9 9.2 03RBWS03 2151.52 7.13

03FQTP03 2.00 NA 03WDBH08 118.05 7.4

03WDBH05 0.50 NA

03WDBH05 2.00 216.6 7.89

03WDBH05 3.00 30 8.38

03WDBH05 4.00 70.3 7.95

03WDBH05 5.40 NA

03WDBH05 6.00 71.4 8.59

03WDBH05 8.00 NA

03WDBH07 0.50 58.3 8.41

03WDBH07 5.00 NA

03WDBH03 1.0 73.8 8.76

03WDBH03 7.0 NA

03WDBH08 0.1 344.1 10.49

03WDBH08 8.0 272.7 8.74

03FQTP04 1.0 102.7 8.5

03FQTP05 0.1 327.1 8.19

03FQTP05 1.0 43 8.72

03WDBH02 2.0 110.3 8.25

03WD BH09 2.4 102.2 8.15

03FQT P06 0.51 14.8 9.65

03WDBH10 1.3 1548 7.06

03FQTP06- Soil 0.90 NA

03FQTP06 0.90 NA

Appendix F. Concrete Aggressivity Results



99

Borehole

Soil

Depth


mg/l pH

Water

Sulphate mg/l pH

03FWTP03 3.00 188.1 7.42

03WDBH11A 4.0 110.9 7.83

03WDBH11 3.0 78.4 8.08

03FWTP02 0.9 110.3 8.24

03FWTP02 0.95 192.7 7.27

03WDBH11A 9.0

03DRTP03 1.8 575.2 8.32

03DRTP02 2.0 173.7 8.18

03DRTP05 2.0 31.9 8.03

03DRTP07 1.5 193.7 8.14

03DRTP08 0.5 7.47

03DRTP08 3.0 8.66

03FWBH09 0.50 58.4 9.02

03BBBH02 0.5 962.6 11.27

03BBBH03 1.0 1095.7 8.37

03BBBH01 2.0 61 8.56

03FWBH02 3.0 350.8 8.15

ASPHALT1 0.0 0

03MFBH05 0.5 341.6 8.10

03MFBH09 0.10 - -

03RBWS16 1.0 34.1 8.24

03RBWS17 0.2 50.9 8.11

03MFBH03 0.5 97.7 9.94

03BBBH03B 0.5 37.8 8.68

03FWBH06 0.4 1075.8 9.19

03WDTP04 0.5 81.1 8.45

03RBWS09 1.0 85.4 8.16

03RBWS11 0.1 156.5 8.06

03RBWS12 2.0 34 8.88

03RBWS14 0.2 11.5 8.68

03RBWS15 2.0 216.3 8.25

03RBWS16 1.0 130.7 8.19

03RBWS17 1.0 718.5 7.81

03RBWS18 1.0 65.8 8.34

03RBWS19 2.0 883.3 7.92

03RBWS20 2.0 88.8 8.38

03RBBH01 2.00 54.9 8.41

03FWBH04A 0.10 707.9 8.60

03FWBH04A 0.60 348.9 7.79

03FWBH04B 6.30 121.6 8.58

03FWBH04C 1.00 1658.8 7.75

03FWBH04C 1.50 1636.7 7.48



100

Borehole

Soil

Depth


mg/l pH

Water

Sulphate mg/l pH

03FWBH04C 2.00 324.9 8.01

03FWBH04C 6.20 772.7 7.66

03MFBH06 0.10 28.8 8.87

03MFBH08 1.00 - -

03MFBH03 3.5 62.5 7.97

03MFBH03 5.0 168.3 7.83

03MFBH03 6.5 188.4 8.10

03MFBH03 8.0 256.3 8.02

03MFBH03 8.5 153.8 8.89

03MFBH06 2.5 114.8 8.20

03MFBH09A 3.5 221.5 8.36

03MFBH10 2.0 220 7.91

Table F.2: Total sulphur and sulphate results and derived potential sulphate and oxidisable sulphide results

BH Depth total sulphur % total sulphate % Total Potential

Sulphate % oxidisable

sulphide %

03MFBH07 2.5 3.3 1.8 9.9 8.1

03MFBH06 8 1.4 0.27 4.2 3.93

03MFBH09A 7.5 1.3 0.32 3.9 3.58

03MFBH03 7 1.3 0.42 3.9 3.48

03MFBH05 12 0.98 0.23 2.94 2.71

03MFBH09A 14.5 0.89 0.13 2.67 2.54

03MFBH08 15 0.82 0.12 2.46 2.34

03MFBH08 18 0.79 0.12 2.37 2.25

03MFBH08 12 0.78 0.12 2.34 2.22

03MFBH06 7.5 0.42 0.19 1.26 1.07

03WDTP04 1 0.41 0.21 1.23 1.02

03MFBH06 6 0.43 0.32 1.29 0.97

03MFBH10 7 0.35 0.13 1.05 0.92

03MFBH06 10 0.33 0.11 0.99 0.88

03MFBH08 6 0.31 0.09 0.93 0.84

03MFBH03 4 0.34 0.19 1.02 0.83

03FWBH07 8 0.36 0.26 1.08 0.82

03MFBH03 3.5 0.34 0.2 1.02 0.82

03MFBH02 6.5 0.31 0.16 0.93 0.77

03FWBH07 6 0.34 0.26 1.02 0.76

03WDTP05 2 0.28 0.17 0.84 0.67

03MFBH05 9 0.24 0.09 0.72 0.63

03MFBH04 8.5 0.25 0.13 0.75 0.62

03MFBH03 1.5 0.22 0.09 0.66 0.57



101

BH Depth total sulphur % total sulphate % Total Potential

Sulphate % oxidisable

sulphide %

03MFBH08 9 0.2 0.06 0.6 0.54

03WDBH06 2 0.22 0.17 0.66 0.49

03MFBH03 5 0.2 0.16 0.6 0.44

03FWBH01 5 0.17 0.1 0.51 0.41

03MFBH06 1.5 0.16 0.11 0.48 0.37

03MFBH01 7 0.15 0.14 0.45 0.31

03MFBH08 3 0.11 0.05 0.33 0.28

03MFBH05 6.5 0.07 0.07 0.21 0.14

03DRBH02 1 0.07 0.08 0.21 0.13

03MFBH05 4.5 0.06 0.05 0.18 0.13

03MFBH03 10 0.06 0.05 0.18 0.13

03WDBH09A 6 0.07 0.1 0.21 0.11

03WDBH01 7 0.06 0.07 0.18 0.11

03MFBH03 9 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.1

03MFBH09A 4 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.1

03FWBH04 4.5 0.05 0.06 0.15 0.09

03MFBH07 6 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.07

03WDBH06 3 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.05

03DRBH01 1 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.04

03MFBH04 1.5 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.02

03FWBH01 3 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.01

03MFBH04 8.5 0.02 0.06 0.06 0

03MFBH06 3.5 0.05 0.25 0.15 -0.1



102

Appendix G. Groundwater Results



Table G.1: Summary of Groundwater Monitoring

Package Order Borehole

Installation Type

Level of top of response zone

(mAOD)

Level of base of response zone

(mAOD) Geology Monitoring

Period

Minimum Water Level

(mAOD)

Maximum Water Level

(mAOD)

Range

(m) Comment

PO1 03MFBH01 S.Pipe MG 11/09/14 to 3/12/14

0.83 1.33 0.5

PO1 03MFBH05 VWP MG 30/10/2014 to 3/12/2014

4.27 4.92 0.65

PO2 03FWBH06 S.Pipe 0.46 -4.14 AL/GT 31/10/14 to 3/12/14

1.34 2.62 1.28

PO1 03MFBH01 S.Pipe 1.93 -4.07 AL/GT 11/09/14 to 03/12/14

0.69 1.33 0.64

PO2 03FWBH02 S.Pipe 0.18 -4.82 AL 21/10/14 to 03/12/14

1.7 2.35 0.65 Confirm base depth

as in GT

PO1 03WDBH08 S.Pipe 0.58 -9.42 AL/GT 19/09/14 to 03/12/14

1.34 2.17 0.83

PO1 03WDBH09A VWP -2.52 AL 01/10/14 to 03/12/14

0.75 1.71 0.96

PO2 03FWBH09 S.Pipe -0.22 -3.22 AL 08/10/14 to03/12/14

1.35 2.46 1.11

PO2 03FWBH01 S.Pipe 1.49 -3.01 AL 30/09/14 to 3/12/14

1.3 2.78 1.48

PO1 03WDBH02 VWP -4.53 AL 08/10/14 to 3/12/14

0.88 4.25 3.37

PO2 03FWBH03 S.Pipe -0.62 -2.12 AL/MG 08/10/14 to 03/12/14

-0.3 4.08 4.38 Confirm as crosses

boundary with MG, borehole

located on historic 'cut'

could be influencing

results.

PO1 03WDBH01 S.Pipe 0.77 -2.23 AL -1.7 3.27 4.97

PO4 03RBWS03 S.Pipe 3.46 -3.54 MG/AL/GT 01/11/14 to 2.5 2.91 0.41



Package Order Borehole

Installation Type

Level of top of response zone

(mAOD)

Level of base of response zone

(mAOD) Geology Monitoring

Period

Minimum Water Level

(mAOD)

Maximum Water Level

(mAOD)

Range

(m) Comment

03/12/14

PO4 03RBWS01 S.Pipe 2.46 -2.54 AL/GT 01/11/14 to 03/12/14

2.47 3.21 0.74

PO1 03MFBH03 VWP -5.54 GT 07/11/14 to 14/11/14

-0.21 0.12 0.33

PO1 03MFBH08 VWP -7.4 GT 12/11/14 to 03/12/14

0.4 1.74 1.34

PO1 03MFBH10 VWP -5.19 GT 7/11/14 to 03/12/14

1.85 2.24 0.39

PO4 03RBBH01 VWP -4.44 GT 30/10/14 to 09/11/14

2.07 2.68 0.61



105

Appendix H. Contamination Results

Sample ID 03MFBH04 03MFBH04 03MFBH04 03MFTT02 03MFTT02 03MFTT04 03MFBH01 03MFTT04 03MFBH07 03MFBH07 03WDTP01 03WDBH04

Depth 0.2 0.3 2.0 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.0 1.3 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.6

COC No / misc

Containers V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Sampled Date 08/09/2014 08/09/2014 08/09/2014 08/09/2014 09/09/2014 10/09/2014 09/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 12/09/2014 12/09/2014

Sample Received Date 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 11/09/2014 11/09/2014 11/09/2014 12/09/2014 12/09/2014 13/09/2014 13/09/2014

J E Sample No 13-15 16-18 22-24 40-42 43-45 49-51 58-60 61-63 67-69 70-72 85-87 103-105

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4

Test Method Units LOD Com/Ind GAC

pH¹ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Fraction Organic Carbon NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Moisture Content 105C (% Dry Weight) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dry Matter Content Ratio 105°C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Free Cyanide TM89/PM45 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Total Cyanide #M TM89/PM45 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Sulphate as SO4 (2:1 Ext) #M TM38/PM20 g/l <0.0015 0.0939 NA 0.1134 0.9438 0.1008 1.1464 0.0666 NA NA 0.0714 0.192 0.209

Fibre Screen* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Asbestos Type NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Asbestos Type (2) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Asbestos Type (3) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Asbestos Gravimetric Quantification* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Asbestos PCOM Quantification* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Metals

Arsenic #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <0.5 640 20.1 NA 7.8 4 2.8 5 11.8 NA NA 9.7 14.4 12.9

Beryllium 420 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Cadmium #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <0.1 230 0.4 NA 0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.4 NA NA 0.1 1.2 <0.1

Chromium #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <0.5 5000 25.2 NA 30.7 19 6 24.6 25.3 NA NA 18.5 412.8 50.5

Hexavalent Chromium TM38/PM20 mg/kg <0.3 35 0.8 NA <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 NA NA <0.3 0.4 <0.3

Copper #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <1 71700 85 NA 13 2 7 4 95 NA NA 2 209 23

Lead #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <5 750 45 NA 15 <5 48 <5 89 NA NA 7 235 19

Mercury #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <0.1 3600 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 0.3 <0.1

Nickel #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <0.7 1800 18.4 NA 28.3 2 4.2 3.8 18 NA NA 8.8 217.3 30.8

Selenium #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <1 13000 <1 NA <1 2 <1 2 <1 NA NA <1 2 <1

Vanadium 3160 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Water Soluble Boron #M TM74/PM32 mg/kg <0.1 192000 0.9 NA 4.7 7 0.5 6.3 3.1 NA NA 1.2 6.1 4

Zinc #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <5 665000 119 NA 80 9 85 12 385 NA NA 27 1790 102

PAH MS

Acenaphthene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.05 3400 0.27 NA <0.05 <2.50 <0.05 <2.50 <0.05 NA NA <0.05 <2.50 <0.05

Acenaphthylene TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.03 84000 0.13 NA <0.03 <1.50 <0.03 <1.50 <0.03 NA NA 0.05 <1.50 <0.03

Anthracene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 530000 0.4 NA <0.04 <2.00 <0.04 <2.00 <0.04 NA NA 0.05 <2.00 <0.04

Benzo(a)anthracene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.06 90 2.67 NA <0.06 <3.00 0.09 <3.00 0.15 NA NA 0.21 <3.00 <0.06

Benzo(a)pyrene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 14 4.41 NA <0.04 <2.00 0.05 <2.00 0.12 NA NA 0.23 <2.00 <0.04

Benzo(b)fluoranthene TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.05 100 5.46 NA 0.07 <2.50 0.06 <2.50 0.15 NA NA 0.22 <2.50 <0.05

Benzo(ghi)perylene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 650 2.89 NA <0.04 <2.00 <0.04 <2.00 0.07 NA NA 0.09 <2.00 <0.04

Benzo(k)fluoranthene TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.02 140 2.12 NA 0.03 <1.00 0.02 <1.00 0.06 NA NA 0.09 <1.00 <0.02

Chrysene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.02 140 3.83 NA <0.02 <1.00 0.06 1.64 0.13 NA NA 0.2 1.07 <0.02

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 13 0.52 NA <0.04 <2.00 <0.04 <2.00 <0.04 NA NA <0.04 <2.00 <0.04

Fluoranthene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.03 230 4.46 NA 0.06 <1.50 0.09 1.97 0.18 NA NA 0.29 <1.50 <0.03

Fluorene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 64000 0.2 NA <0.04 <2.00 <0.04 <2.00 <0.04 NA NA <0.04 <2.00 <0.04

Indeno(123cd)pyrene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 60 3.12 NA <0.04 <2.00 <0.04 <2.00 0.07 NA NA 0.1 <2.00 <0.04

Naphthalene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 200 0.28 NA <0.04 <2.00 <0.04 <2.00 <0.04 NA NA <0.04 <2.00 <0.04

Phenanthrene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.03 22000 2.06 NA <0.03 <1.50 0.04 2.17 0.08 NA NA 0.06 <1.50 <0.03

Pyrene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.03 54000 3.68 NA 0.05 <1.50 0.08 1.98 0.14 NA NA 0.26 <1.50 <0.03

PAH 16 Total TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.6 36.5 NA <0.6 <30.0 <0.6 <30.0 1.2 NA NA 1.9 <30.0 <0.6

TPH CWG Aliphatics

>C5-C6 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3400 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 0.8 <0.1

>C6-C8 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 8300 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 0.1 <0.1

>C8-C10 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 2100 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

>C10-C12 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 10000 <0.2 NA <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.4 <0.2 NA NA <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

>C12-C16 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 61000 <4 NA <4 <4 <4 <8 <4 NA NA <4 18 <4

>C16-C21 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000 <7 NA <7 <7 <7 <14 <7 NA NA <7 235 <7

>C21-C35 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000 <7 NA <7 175 <7 423 <7 NA NA <7 2111 <7

>C35-C44 1600000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total aliphatics C5-44 28000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TPH CWG Aromatics

>C5-EC7 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 59000 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

>EC7-EC8 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3700 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

>EC8-EC10 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 17000 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 0.3 <0.1

>EC10-EC12 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 36000 <0.2 NA <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.4 <0.2 NA NA 176.6 <0.2 <0.2

>EC12-EC16 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 28000 <4 NA <4 <4 <4 <8 <4 NA NA 18 13 <4

>EC16-EC21 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000 20 NA <7 15 <7 69 <7 NA NA 13 270 <7

>EC21-EC35 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000 183 NA <7 366 <7 1063 <7 NA NA <7 2934 <7

>EC35-EC44 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total aromatics C5-44 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-44) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

GRO (>C4-C8) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA



EPH (C8-C40) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Mineral Oil (C8-C40) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BTEX/MTBE GC-FID

Benzene 95 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Toluene 4400 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Ethylbenzene 2800 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

m/p-Xylene 3200 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

o-Xylene 2600 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Phenol 1100000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

EPH >C8-C10 #M TM5/PM8 mg/kg <5 <5 NA <5 <25 <5 <25 <5 NA NA <5 <5 <5

EPH >C10-C12 #M TM5/PM8 mg/kg <10 <10 NA <10 <50 <10 <50 <10 NA NA <10 <10 <10

EPH >C12-C16 #M TM5/PM8 mg/kg <10 <10 NA <10 <50 <10 <50 <10 NA NA <10 47 <10

EPH >C16-C21 #M TM5/PM8 mg/kg <10 52 NA <10 <50 19 189 <10 NA NA <10 683 <10

EPH >C21-C40 TM5/PM8 mg/kg <10 487 NA <10 3190 187 5433 19 NA NA <10 8415 <10

EPH >C8-C40 TM5/PM8 mg/kg <30 539 NA <30 3190 206 5622 <30 NA NA <30 9145 <30

TPH CWG

Total aliphatics C5-35TM5/TM36/PM12/PM1

6mg/kg <19 28000 <19 NA <19 175 <19 423 <19 NA NA <19 2365 <19

Total aromatics C5-35TM5/TM36/PM12/PM1

6mg/kg <19 203 NA <19 381 <19 1132 <19 NA NA 208 3217 <19

Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35)TM5/TM36/PM12/PM1

6mg/kg <38 203 NA <38 556 <38 1555 <38 NA NA 208 5582 <38

Benzene # TM31/PM12 ug/kg <5 95 <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA <5 <5 <5

Toluene # TM31/PM12 ug/kg <5 4400 <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA <5 <5 <5

Ethylbenzene # TM31/PM12 ug/kg <5 2800 <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA <5 30 <5

m/p-Xylene # TM31/PM12 ug/kg <5 3200 <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA <5 80 <5

o-Xylene # TM31/PM12 ug/kg <5 2600 <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA <5 231 <5

Total Phenols HPLC TM26/PM21 mg/kg <0.15 <0.15 NA <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 NA NA <0.15 <0.15 <0.15

Other Tests

Natural Moisture Content PM4/PM0 % <0.1 8.8 NA 25.1 0.7 5.5 3.7 18.6 NA NA 6.4 2.1 18.3

pH #M TM73/PM11 pH units <0.01 11.23 NA 8.07 10.63 9.09 10.28 8.66 NA NA 8.79 7.86 8.11

Sample Type PM13/PM0 None Loam NA Clay Other Clayey Loam Loam Clay NA NA Clayey Loam Clayey Loam Clay

Sample Colour PM13/PM0 None Light Brown NA Dark Brown BlackMedium

BrownMedium Grey

Medium

BrownNA NA

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown

Other Items PM13/PM0 None stones,roots NAsand,stones,

roots

mostly

clinker,stonesmostly stones

stones,rootsS

20141028759stones,roots NA NA stones,roots Stones None

Asbestos Screen # NA NAD NA NA NA NA NA NAD NAD NA

Asbestos Screen (2) # NA NAD NA NA NA NA NA NAD NAD NA

Asbestos Level NA NAD NA NA NA NA NA NAD NAD NA

General Description (Bulk Analysis) NA soil/stones NA NA NA NA NA soil/stones soil/stones NA

Asbestos Containing Material NA None NA NA NA NA NA None None NA

Asbestos Containing Material (2) NA None NA NA NA NA NA None None NA

Mass of Dry Sample NA 47.6 NA NA NA NA NA 54.2 53.4 NA

Organic Matter TM73/PM11 pH units <0.01

* not UKAS and MCERTS accredited

Boston Barrier Phase 3

Environmental Sample Results - Soils

Sample ID

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers

Sample Type

Sampled Date

Sample Received Date

J E Sample No

Batch Number


pH¹

Fraction Organic Carbon

Moisture Content 105C (% Dry Weight)

Dry Matter Content Ratio 105°C

Free Cyanide TM89/PM45 mg/kg <0.5

Total Cyanide #M TM89/PM45 mg/kg <0.5

Sulphate as SO4 (2:1 Ext) #M TM38/PM20 g/l <0.0015

Fibre Screen*

Asbestos Type

Asbestos Type (2)

Asbestos Type (3)

Asbestos Gravimetric Quantification*

Asbestos PCOM Quantification*

Metals

Arsenic #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <0.5 640

Beryllium 420

Cadmium #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <0.1 230

Chromium #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <0.5 5000

Hexavalent Chromium TM38/PM20 mg/kg <0.3 35

Copper #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <1 71700

Lead #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <5 750

Mercury #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <0.1 3600

Nickel #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <0.7 1800

Selenium #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <1 13000

Vanadium 3160

Water Soluble Boron #M TM74/PM32 mg/kg <0.1 192000

Zinc #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <5 665000

PAH MS

Acenaphthene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.05 3400

Acenaphthylene TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.03 84000

Anthracene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 530000

Benzo(a)anthracene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.06 90

Benzo(a)pyrene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 14

Benzo(b)fluoranthene TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.05 100

Benzo(ghi)perylene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 650

Benzo(k)fluoranthene TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.02 140

Chrysene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.02 140

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 13

Fluoranthene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.03 230

Fluorene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 64000

Indeno(123cd)pyrene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 60

Naphthalene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.04 200

Phenanthrene #M TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.03 22000

Pyrene # TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.03 54000

PAH 16 Total TM4/PM8 mg/kg <0.6

TPH CWG Aliphatics

>C5-C6 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3400

>C6-C8 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 8300

>C8-C10 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 2100

>C10-C12 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 10000

>C12-C16 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 61000

>C16-C21 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C21-C35 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C35-C44 1600000

Total aliphatics C5-44 28000

TPH CWG Aromatics

>C5-EC7 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 59000

>EC7-EC8 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3700

>EC8-EC10 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 17000

>EC10-EC12 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 36000

>EC12-EC16 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 28000

>EC16-EC21 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC21-EC35 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC35-EC44

Total aromatics C5-44

Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-44)

GRO (>C4-C8)

GRO (>C8-C12)

GRO (>C4-C12)

EPH (C8-C40)

Mineral Oil (C8-C40)

BTEX/MTBE GC-FID

Benzene 95

Toluene 4400

Ethylbenzene 2800

m/p-Xylene 3200

o-Xylene 2600

Phenol 1100000

EPH >C8-C10 #M TM5/PM8 mg/kg <5




EPH >C21-C40 TM5/PM8 mg/kg <10


TPH CWG


6mg/kg <19 28000


6mg/kg <19


6mg/kg <38

Benzene # TM31/PM12 ug/kg <5 95

Toluene # TM31/PM12 ug/kg <5 4400

Ethylbenzene # TM31/PM12 ug/kg <5 2800

m/p-Xylene # TM31/PM12 ug/kg <5 3200

o-Xylene # TM31/PM12 ug/kg <5 2600

Total Phenols HPLC TM26/PM21 mg/kg <0.15

Other Tests

Natural Moisture Content PM4/PM0 % <0.1

pH #M TM73/PM11 pH units <0.01

Sample Type PM13/PM0 None

Sample Colour PM13/PM0 None

Other Items PM13/PM0 None

Asbestos Screen #

Asbestos Screen (2) #

Asbestos Level

General Description (Bulk Analysis)

Asbestos Containing Material

Asbestos Containing Material (2)

Mass of Dry Sample





03WDBH04 03FQTP01 03FWTP01 03KKTP02 03KKTP02 03FQTP03 03FQTP03 03WDBH05 03WDBH05 03WDBH05 03WDBH05 03WDBH05

2.0 0.1 0.4 1.5 2.0 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.40

V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

12/09/2014 16/09/2014 15/09/2014 15/09/2014 15/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014

13/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014

109-111 121-123 124-126 142-144 145-147 159-161 165-167 171-173 177-179 180-182 183-185 189-191

4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA




<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA

0.1791 0.2078 0.0739 0.0865 0.0803 0.0749 NA NA 0.2166 0.03 0.0703 NA







11.8 8 15.2 19.3 15.9 3.8 NA NA 13.3 9.7 7 NA


<0.1 0.4 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.8 NA NA 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA

59.3 28.2 31.2 40.4 43.4 45.6 NA NA 30.7 28.8 29.1 NA

<0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.7 <0.3 <0.3 NA NA <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 NA

23 24 123 247 126 38 NA NA 17 10 10 NA

58 39 213 93 70 8 NA NA 18 19 33 NA

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA

21.4 13.3 25.8 31.3 32.8 37.6 NA NA 20.2 19.9 17.9 NA

<1 2 1 <1 <1 1 NA NA <1 <1 <1 NA


2.4 4.5 5.8 6 6.9 3.6 NA NA 2.6 2 13.7 NA

548 213 784 188 224 477 NA NA 339 93 65 NA

<0.05 <1.00 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 NA NA <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 NA

0.38 <0.60 0.27 0.05 <0.03 <0.03 NA NA 0.06 <0.03 <0.03 NA

0.39 <0.80 2.09 0.18 0.12 <0.04 NA NA <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 NA

0.83 1.7 3.36 0.32 0.29 <0.06 NA NA 0.07 <0.06 0.09 NA

1.07 1.4 2.83 0.57 0.23 <0.04 NA NA 0.05 <0.04 0.13 NA

0.89 1.99 3.1 0.81 0.32 <0.05 NA NA 0.08 <0.05 0.17 NA

0.34 1.33 1.63 0.38 0.19 <0.04 NA NA <0.04 <0.04 0.08 NA

0.35 0.77 1.2 0.32 0.13 <0.02 NA NA 0.03 <0.02 0.07 NA

0.81 1.86 2.89 0.62 0.36 0.05 NA NA 0.07 <0.02 0.1 NA

<0.04 <0.80 0.28 0.08 <0.04 <0.04 NA NA <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 NA

1.59 2.58 7.89 1.01 0.85 0.06 NA NA 0.14 <0.03 0.06 NA

0.06 <0.80 0.29 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 NA NA 0.05 <0.04 <0.04 NA

0.33 1.05 1.68 0.4 0.15 <0.04 NA NA <0.04 <0.04 0.08 NA

<0.04 <0.80 0.82 0.46 0.1 <0.04 NA NA 0.19 <0.04 0.06 NA

0.69 0.95 3.85 0.43 0.6 <0.03 NA NA 0.17 <0.03 <0.03 NA

1.39 2.58 6.17 1.17 0.92 0.06 NA NA 0.12 <0.03 0.05 NA

9.1 16.2 38.4 6.8 4.3 <0.6 NA NA 1 <0.6 0.9 NA

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 0.1 NA

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA 6.1 0.6 7.4 NA

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 NA NA 389.9 <0.2 134.4 NA

<4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 NA NA 686 <4 205 NA

<7 12 <7 <7 <7 <7 NA NA 18 <7 <7 NA

<7 279 15 <7 <7 <7 NA NA <7 <7 <7 NA



<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA 0.2 <0.1 0.5 NA

<0.2 <0.2 0.7 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 NA NA 164.3 <0.2 47.5 NA

<4 <4 20 <4 <4 <4 NA NA 358 <4 91 NA

<7 66 295 <7 <7 <7 NA NA 38 <7 <7 NA

<7 978 513 17 <7 <7 NA NA <7 <7 <7 NA















<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA 107 <5 122 NA

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 NA NA 510 <10 401 NA

<10 17 17 13 <10 <10 NA NA 873 16 670 NA

<10 161 86 87 97 <10 NA NA 80 <10 53 NA

81 4082 306 360 329 <10 NA NA 62 <10 158 NA

81 4260 409 460 426 <30 NA NA 1632 <30 1404 NA

<19 291 <19 <19 <19 <19 NA NA 1100 <19 347 NA

<19 1044 829 <19 <19 <19 NA NA 561 <19 139 NA

<38 1335 829 <38 <38 <38 NA NA 1661 <38 486 NA

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA <5 <5 <5 NA

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA 7 <5 13 NA

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA 55 <5 109 NA

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA 127 24 363 NA

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA 43 10 40 NA

<0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 NA NA <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 NA

22.6 7.4 22.5 31.8 36.7 13.4 NA NA 19.7 21.2 28.1 NA

8.3 8.3 8.5 8.28 8.26 9.2 NA NA 7.89 8.38 7.95 NA

Clayey Loam Loam Clayey Loam Clay Clay Other Clay NA Clay Loamy Sand Clay Clayey Sand

Medium

Brown

Medium

BrownDark Grey Dark Brown

Medium

BrownMedium Grey

Medium

BrownNA

Medium

Brown

Medium

BrownDark Brown

Medium

Brown

Silt stones, roots KlinkerStones,

RootsStones

mostly clinker,

stonesstones,roots NA

stones, roots,

oilystones,roots

stones/brick,

rootsstones,roots

NA NA NAD NA NA NA NA



NA NA soil/stones NA NA NA NA

NA NA None NA NA NA NA

NA NA None NA NA NA NA

NA NA 54 NA NA NA NA

NA 3.4 NA NA NA NA 0.9

Sample ID

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers

Sample Type

Sampled Date


J E Sample No

Batch Number


pH¹







Fibre Screen*

Asbestos Type

Asbestos Type (2)

Asbestos Type (3)



Metals


Beryllium 420









Vanadium 3160


Zinc #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <5 665000

PAH MS


















TPH CWG Aliphatics

>C5-C6 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3400

>C6-C8 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 8300

>C8-C10 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 2100

>C10-C12 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 10000

>C12-C16 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 61000

>C16-C21 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C21-C35 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C35-C44 1600000


TPH CWG Aromatics

>C5-EC7 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 59000

>EC7-EC8 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3700

>EC8-EC10 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 17000

>EC10-EC12 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 36000

>EC12-EC16 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 28000

>EC16-EC21 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC21-EC35 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC35-EC44



GRO (>C4-C8)

GRO (>C8-C12)

GRO (>C4-C12)

EPH (C8-C40)


BTEX/MTBE GC-FID

Benzene 95

Toluene 4400

Ethylbenzene 2800

m/p-Xylene 3200

o-Xylene 2600

Phenol 1100000







TPH CWG


6mg/kg <19 28000


6mg/kg <19


6mg/kg <38







Other Tests






Asbestos Screen #


Asbestos Level




Mass of Dry Sample





03WDBH05 03WDBH05 03WDBH07 03WDBH07 03WDBH03 03WDBH03 03WDBH08 03WDBH08 03FQTP04 03FQTP05 03FQTP05

6.00 8.00 0.50 5.00 1.0 7.0 0.1 8.0 1.0 0.1 1.0

V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

17/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014

18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 18/09/2014 19/09/2014 19/09/2014 19/09/2014 19/09/2014 19/09/2014 19/09/2014 19/09/2014

192-194 198-200 230-232 245-247 288-290 312-314 318-320 348-350 400-402 410-412 416-418

6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA




<0.5 NA <0.5 NA <0.5 NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 NA <0.5 NA <0.5 NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

0.0714 NA 0.0583 NA 0.0738 NA 0.3441 0.2727 0.1027 0.3271 0.043







12.6 NA 15.3 NA 8.2 NA 5.4 7.6 11.9 13 13.3


<0.1 NA 0.5 NA 0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1

40.8 NA 64.7 NA 15.2 NA 44.1 18.8 21.3 31.6 19.3

<0.3 NA 0.4 NA <0.3 NA <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

18 NA 68 NA 25 NA 4 8 12 60 11

19 NA 56 NA 22 NA <5 8 27 80 29

<0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

39.9 NA 21.7 NA 9.6 NA 1.8 16.6 14.8 16.6 13.6

<1 NA <1 NA <1 NA 2 <1 <1 <1 <1


7.8 NA 4.6 NA 1.4 NA 1.6 7.4 2.2 3 1.9

89 NA 391 NA 104 NA 14 48 64 244 69

<0.05 NA <0.05 NA <2.50 NA <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <2.50 <0.05

<0.03 NA <0.03 NA 2.23 NA <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <1.50 0.07

<0.04 NA <0.04 NA 15.1 NA 0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <2.00 0.1

<0.06 NA <0.06 NA 40.31 NA 0.2 <0.06 0.14 6.55 0.37

<0.04 NA <0.04 NA 32.81 NA 0.16 <0.04 0.15 3.77 0.34

<0.05 NA <0.05 NA 40.44 NA 0.24 <0.05 0.17 5.86 0.53

<0.04 NA <0.04 NA 16.88 NA 0.1 <0.04 0.09 2.54 0.26

<0.02 NA <0.02 NA 15.72 NA 0.1 <0.02 0.06 2.28 0.2

<0.02 NA <0.02 NA 40.19 NA 0.21 <0.02 0.15 6.66 0.42

<0.04 NA <0.04 NA 2.49 NA <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <2.00 0.04

<0.03 NA <0.03 NA 93.12 NA 0.29 <0.03 0.24 11.28 0.64

<0.04 NA <0.04 NA 3.56 NA <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <2.00 <0.04

<0.04 NA <0.04 NA 19.3 NA 0.12 <0.04 0.09 2.42 0.26

<0.04 NA <0.04 NA <2.00 NA <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <2.00 <0.04

<0.03 NA <0.03 NA 48.98 NA 0.07 <0.03 0.09 3.56 0.26

<0.03 NA <0.03 NA 80.49 NA 0.26 <0.03 0.21 9.74 0.56

<0.6 NA <0.6 NA 451.6 NA 1.8 <0.6 1.4 54.7 4.1

<0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.2 NA <0.2 NA <0.2 NA <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

<4 NA <4 NA <4 NA <4 <4 <4 <4 <4

<7 NA <7 NA 12 NA <7 <7 <7 <7 <7

<7 NA <7 NA 54 NA <7 <7 <7 20 <7



<0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.2 NA <0.2 NA <0.2 NA <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

<4 NA <4 NA 6 NA <4 <4 <4 <4 <4

<7 NA <7 NA 165 NA <7 <7 <7 43 <7

<7 NA <7 NA 582 NA <7 <7 <7 276 58















<5 NA <5 NA <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<10 NA <10 NA <10 NA <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 NA <10 NA 20 NA <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 NA <10 NA 344 NA <10 <10 <10 40 75

<10 NA 57 NA 1133 NA 33 100 78 393 370

<30 NA 57 NA 1497 NA 33 100 78 433 445

<19 NA <19 NA 66 NA <19 <19 <19 20 <19

<19 NA <19 NA 753 NA <19 <19 <19 319 58

<38 NA <38 NA 819 NA <38 <38 <38 339 58

<5 NA <5 NA <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 NA <5 NA <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 NA <5 NA <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 NA <5 NA <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 NA <5 NA <5 NA <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<0.15 NA <0.15 NA <0.15 NA <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15

33.3 NA 17.2 NA 17.8 NA 9.7 27.6 12.9 5 10.2

8.59 NA 8.41 NA 8.76 NA 10.49 8.74 8.5 8.19 8.72

Clay Clay Clay Sand Clayey Loam Clay Clayey Silt Clayey Loam Loam Loam Sand

Medium

BrownDark Brown Light Brown Medium Brown

Medium

BrownMedium Grey Medium Grey Dark Brown Medium Brown Medium Brown Medium Brown

stones,oily stones,rootsstones,roots,

oily

stones,

moisturestones, roots stones,roots mostly stones stones,roots stones, roots stones, roots stones, roots

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

NA 6.8 NA 0.8 NA 3.9 NA NA NA NA NA

Sample ID

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers

Sample Type

Sampled Date


J E Sample No

Batch Number


pH¹







Fibre Screen*

Asbestos Type

Asbestos Type (2)

Asbestos Type (3)



Metals


Beryllium 420









Vanadium 3160


Zinc #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <5 665000

PAH MS


















TPH CWG Aliphatics

>C5-C6 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3400

>C6-C8 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 8300

>C8-C10 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 2100

>C10-C12 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 10000

>C12-C16 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 61000

>C16-C21 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C21-C35 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C35-C44 1600000


TPH CWG Aromatics

>C5-EC7 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 59000

>EC7-EC8 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3700

>EC8-EC10 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 17000

>EC10-EC12 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 36000

>EC12-EC16 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 28000

>EC16-EC21 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC21-EC35 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC35-EC44



GRO (>C4-C8)

GRO (>C8-C12)

GRO (>C4-C12)

EPH (C8-C40)


BTEX/MTBE GC-FID

Benzene 95

Toluene 4400

Ethylbenzene 2800

m/p-Xylene 3200

o-Xylene 2600

Phenol 1100000







TPH CWG


6mg/kg <19 28000


6mg/kg <19


6mg/kg <38







Other Tests






Asbestos Screen #


Asbestos Level




Mass of Dry Sample





03WDBH02 03WD BH09 03FQT P06 03WDBH10 03FQTP06- Soil 03FQTP06 03FWTP03 03WDBH11A 03WDBH11 03FWTP02

2.0 2.4 0.51 1.3 0.90 0.90 3.00 4.0 3.0 0.9

HIGH ASBESTOS RISKHIGH ASBESTOS

RISK

V J T V J T V J T V J T T T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

22/09/2014 19/09/2014 19/09/2014 23/09/2014 24/09/2014 24/09/2014 24/09/2014 25/09/2014 25/09/2014 25/09/2014

23/09/2014 23/09/2014 23/09/2014 24/09/2014 25/09/2014 25/09/2014 25/09/2014 26/09/2014 26/09/2014 26/09/2014

468-470 529-531 538-540 551-553 567 568 578-580 635-637 656-658 659-661

9 10 10 11 12 12 12 13 13 13

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA




<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 NA NA NA NA <0.5 NA <0.5 NA

0.1103 0.1022 0.0148 1.548 NA NA 0.1881 0.1109 0.0784 0.1103







9.9 7.2 4.6 14.7 NA NA 11.9 10.2 7.8 16.6


<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

43.4 46.7 43.7 42.7 NA NA 7.6 35.8 29.5 41.3

<0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 NA NA <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

12 27 49 16 NA NA 187 13 24 19

16 22 <5 15 NA NA 97 23 22 18

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

17.6 19 <0.7 34.3 NA NA 18.7 18 17.8 30.7

<1 <1 4 <1 NA NA 2 <1 <1 <1


2.6 4.6 2.2 9.7 NA NA 13.9 6 4.1 6.2

42 52 7 70 NA NA 475 51 56 79

0.19 1.86 <0.05 <0.05 NA NA <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

0.1 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 NA NA 0.06 0.09 <0.03 <0.03

0.58 0.73 <0.04 <0.04 NA NA 0.1 0.13 <0.04 <0.04

1.28 0.3 0.1 <0.06 NA NA 0.28 0.19 <0.06 <0.06

1 0.05 0.1 <0.04 NA NA 0.23 0.1 <0.04 <0.04

1.09 0.06 0.11 <0.05 NA NA 0.27 0.09 <0.05 <0.05

0.48 <0.04 0.05 <0.04 NA NA 0.14 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.42 0.03 0.04 <0.02 NA NA 0.11 0.04 <0.02 <0.02

1.08 0.19 0.07 <0.02 NA NA 0.25 0.14 <0.02 <0.02

0.1 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 NA NA <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

2.85 1.84 0.07 <0.03 NA NA 0.49 0.32 <0.03 <0.03

0.15 1.45 <0.04 <0.04 NA NA <0.04 0.08 <0.04 <0.04

0.54 <0.04 0.06 <0.04 NA NA 0.14 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

<0.04 0.76 <0.04 <0.04 NA NA 0.91 <0.04 0.06 <0.04

1.35 5.1 0.03 <0.03 NA NA 0.58 0.47 <0.03 <0.03

2.26 1.07 0.07 <0.03 NA NA 0.42 0.32 <0.03 <0.03

13.5 13.4 0.7 <0.6 NA NA 4 2 <0.6 <0.6

<0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA

<0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA

<0.1 0.3 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA

<0.2 <0.2 NA NA NA NA 6.3 NA <0.2 NA

<4 <4 NA NA NA NA 20 NA <4 NA





<0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA

<0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA <0.1 NA

<0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA NA <0.1 NA 0.2 NA

<0.2 1.3 NA NA NA NA 6.3 NA <0.2 NA

<4 18 NA NA NA NA 43 NA <4 NA

21 98 NA NA NA NA 90 NA <7 NA

58 13 NA NA NA NA 187 NA <7 NA















<5 <5 <5 <5 NA NA 62 18 <5 <5

<10 <10 <10 <10 NA NA <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 26 <10 <10 NA NA 53 <10 <10 <10

18 130 <10 <10 NA NA 138 32 <10 <10

34 13 25 119 NA NA 480 120 <10 18

52 169 <30 119 NA NA 733 170 <30 <30

<19 <19 NA NA NA 174 NA <19 NA

79 130 NA NA NA 326 NA <19 NA

79 130 NA NA NA 500 NA <38 NA

<5 <5 NA NA NA <5 NA <5 NA

<5 <5 NA NA NA <5 NA <5 NA

<5 <5 NA NA NA <5 NA 87 NA

<5 <5 NA NA NA <5 NA 67 NA

<5 <5 NA NA NA <5 NA 45 NA

<0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 NA NA <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15

14.1 29.5 0.9 34.2 NA NA 26.4 29.4 24.9 25.2

8.25 8.15 9.65 7.06 NA NA 7.42 7.83 8.08 8.24

Clayey Sand Clay Loam Clay NA NA Sandy Loam Clay Clay Clay

Light BrownMedium

BrownLight Grey Medium Grey NA NA Black

Medium

BrownMedium Brown Medium Brown

none none mostly stone sand NA NA stones silt silt none

Chrysotile Chrysotile NA

Trace Quantifiable NA

soil/stones cement NA

Free Fibres Asbestos Cement NA

51.7 54.5 NA

Sample ID

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers

Sample Type

Sampled Date


J E Sample No

Batch Number


pH¹







Fibre Screen*

Asbestos Type

Asbestos Type (2)

Asbestos Type (3)



Metals


Beryllium 420









Vanadium 3160


Zinc #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <5 665000

PAH MS


















TPH CWG Aliphatics

>C5-C6 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3400

>C6-C8 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 8300

>C8-C10 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 2100

>C10-C12 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 10000

>C12-C16 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 61000

>C16-C21 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C21-C35 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C35-C44 1600000


TPH CWG Aromatics

>C5-EC7 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 59000

>EC7-EC8 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3700

>EC8-EC10 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 17000

>EC10-EC12 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 36000

>EC12-EC16 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 28000

>EC16-EC21 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC21-EC35 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC35-EC44



GRO (>C4-C8)

GRO (>C8-C12)

GRO (>C4-C12)

EPH (C8-C40)


BTEX/MTBE GC-FID

Benzene 95

Toluene 4400

Ethylbenzene 2800

m/p-Xylene 3200

o-Xylene 2600

Phenol 1100000







TPH CWG


6mg/kg <19 28000


6mg/kg <19


6mg/kg <38







Other Tests






Asbestos Screen #


Asbestos Level




Mass of Dry Sample





03FWTP02 03WDBH11A 03DRTP03 03DRTP02 03DRTP05 03DRTP07 03DRTP08 03DRTP08 03FWBH09 03BBBH02 03BBBH03

0.95 9.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 3.0 0.50 0.5 1.0

V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Solid Solid

25/09/2014 26/09/2014 29/09/2014 01/10/2014 01/10/2014 01/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014 07/10/2014 08/10/2014 08/10/2014

26/09/2014 27/09/2014 01/10/2014 02/10/2014 03/10/2014 03/10/2014 04/10/2014 04/10/2014 08/10/2014 09/10/2014 09/10/2014

662-664 683-685 763-765 770-772 840-842 855-857 876-878 885-887 894-896 900-902 918-920

13 14 16 17 18 18 19 19 20 21 21

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

<0.5 NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.0 <0.5

NA NA 5.7 5.1 2.1 NA <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

0.1927 NA 0.5752 0.1737 0.0319 0.1937 0.0584 0.9626 1.0957

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

374.8 NA 11.8 17 22.2 16.9 7.6* 18.2 5.6 22.1 11.1

NA NA NA NA NA NA

2.2 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.8* <0.1 0.4 0.2 <0.1

9.8 NA 22.2 31.2 35.9 35.6 20.1* 47.9 43.7 40.1 31.6

6.5 NA <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

116900 NA 38 27 12 30 28* 13 41 57 15

3377 NA 30 45 16 99 116* 16 17 136 35

<0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.3 <0.1* <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1

109.7 NA 12.7 21.7 32.1 19.1 18.3* 30.7 48.4 19.2 17.5

8 NA 1 <1 <1 <1 <1* <1 <1 <1 <1

NA NA NA NA NA NA

2.1 NA 7.5 3.7 4.1 8 4.6* 6.5 1.5 1.4 2.1

7893 NA 74 79 70 119 293* 76 252 120 68

<0.50 NA 9.29 0.31 <0.05 3.42 <1.00D <0.05 11.68A 0.91 <0.05

<0.30 NA <1.50 0.22 <0.03 1.25 <0.60D <0.03 3.00A 1.15 <0.03

0.64 NA 16.85 1.51 <0.04 7.17 111.95A 4.28 <0.04

4.1 NA 52.25 2.71 <0.06 13.09 <1.20D <0.06 125.03A 9.17 0.09

5.13 NA 37.52 2.49 <0.04 11.46 <0.80D <0.04 87.78A 9.50 0.07

8.65 NA 46.73 2.92 <0.05 13.59 <1.00D <0.05 105.53A 10.64 0.09

1.57 NA 19.26 1.22 <0.04 5.38 <0.80D <0.04 36.97A 4.17 <0.04

3.37 NA 18.17 1.13 <0.02 5.28 <0.40D <0.02 41.04A 4.14 0.04

22.3 NA 43.31 2.72 <0.02 13.35 <0.40D <0.02 107.33A 8.83 0.07

<0.40 NA 2.57 0.21 <0.04 <0.80 <0.80D <0.04 6.07A 0.71 <0.04

79.77 NA 108.7 6.31 <0.03 36.44 <0.60D <0.03 369.05A 19.71 0.13

<0.40 NA 10.11 0.57 <0.04 3.41 <0.80D <0.04 8.64A 1.28 <0.04

1.31 NA 21.12 1.22 <0.04 5.64 <0.80D <0.04 43.44A 5.14 <0.04

<0.40 NA <2.00 0.5 <0.04 <0.80 <0.80D <0.04 <0.80A 1.14 <0.04

3.66 NA 65.58 4.69 <0.03 23.71 <0.60D <0.03 236.39A 13.93 0.08

79.88 NA 84.41 4.92 <0.03 28.72 0.95D <0.03 265.99A 15.62 0.11

210.4 NA 535.9 33.7 <0.6 171.9 <12.0D <0.6 1559.9A 110.3 0.7

NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1

NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1

NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1

NA NA <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 NA <0.2

NA NA <4 <4 <4 NA <4

NA NA <7 <7 <7 NA 50

NA NA 42 16 <7 NA 73

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA 123

NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1

NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1

NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1

NA NA <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 NA <0.2

NA NA 22 <4 <4 NA 27

NA NA 206 <7 <7 NA 1093

NA NA 514 40 <7 NA 602

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

165 <5 <5 <5 <10 <5 <5 <5

114 <10 <10 <10 <20 <10 <10 <10

196 42 11 <10 54 <10 12 <10

21595 315 161 <10 408 494 119 <10

36514 1161 944 <10 1570 1316 447 32

58584 1518 1116 <30 2032 1810 578 32

NA 42 <19 <19 NA

NA 742 40 <19 NA 1722

NA 784 40 <38 NA 1845

NA <5 <5 <5 NA <5

NA <5 <5 <5 NA <5

NA <5 <5 <5 NA <5

NA <5 <5 <5 NA <5

NA <5 <5 <5 NA <5

<3.00 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15

39 10.3 13.9 21.2 15.9 11.7 33.2 10.6 11.4 18.1

7.27 8.32 8.18 8.03 8.14 7.47 8.66 9.02 11.27 8.37

Clay Clay Loam Loam Clay Clay Clay Clay Sand Sandy Loam Clayey Sand

Medium BrownMedium

BrownDark Brown Dark Brown

Medium

Brown

Medium

BrownMedium Brown Medium Brown Medium Grey Medium Brown Light Brown

green tint to clay N/A Stones Stones nonesand and brick

fragmentstone,roots stones,roots stone and clinker stones sand

48.1 46.5

0.7

Sample ID

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers

Sample Type

Sampled Date


J E Sample No

Batch Number


pH¹







Fibre Screen*

Asbestos Type

Asbestos Type (2)

Asbestos Type (3)



Metals


Beryllium 420









Vanadium 3160


Zinc #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <5 665000

PAH MS


















TPH CWG Aliphatics

>C5-C6 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3400

>C6-C8 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 8300

>C8-C10 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 2100

>C10-C12 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 10000

>C12-C16 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 61000

>C16-C21 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C21-C35 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C35-C44 1600000


TPH CWG Aromatics

>C5-EC7 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 59000

>EC7-EC8 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3700

>EC8-EC10 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 17000

>EC10-EC12 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 36000

>EC12-EC16 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 28000

>EC16-EC21 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC21-EC35 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC35-EC44



GRO (>C4-C8)

GRO (>C8-C12)

GRO (>C4-C12)

EPH (C8-C40)


BTEX/MTBE GC-FID

Benzene 95

Toluene 4400

Ethylbenzene 2800

m/p-Xylene 3200

o-Xylene 2600

Phenol 1100000







TPH CWG


6mg/kg <19 28000


6mg/kg <19


6mg/kg <38







Other Tests






Asbestos Screen #


Asbestos Level




Mass of Dry Sample





03BBBH01 03FWBH02 ASPHALT1 03MFBH05 03MFBH09 03RBWS16 03RBWS17 03MFBH03 03BBBH03B 03FWBH06 03WDTP04 03RBWS09 03RBWS11 03RBWS12

2.0 3.0 0.0 0.5 0.10 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.1 2.0

V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Solid Solid Solid Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

09/10/2014 10/10/2014 20/10/2014 23/10/2014 23/10/2014 23/10/2014 23/10/2014 23/10/2014 23/10/2014 23/10/2014 24/10/2014 27/10/2014 27/10/2014 27/10/2014

10/10/2014 11/10/2014 21/10/2014 24/10/2014 24/10/2014 24/10/2014 24/10/2014 25/10/2014 25/10/2014 25/10/2014 25/10/2014 28/10/2014 28/10/2014 28/10/2014

936-938 967-969 973-975 987-989 996-998 1014-1016 1017-1019 1029-1031 1038-1040 1047-1049 1059-1061 1074-1076 1077-1079 1089-1091

22 23 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 - - - - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

0.0610 0.3508 0.3416 - 0.0341 0.0509 0.0977 0.0378 1.0758 0.0811 0.0854 0.1565 0.0340

9.5 13.6 14.0 - 13.8 16.0 2.1 14.4 3.2 10.5 13.4 9.8 11.5

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 0.2 7.0 0.2 0.8 <0.1 0.4 0.2 <0.1

30.5 35.5 39.3 - 42.2 42.1 8.7 43.8 37.5 31.2 45.8 28.9 33.5

<0.3 <0.3 <0.3 - <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

9 138 25 - 16 37 3 26 6 31 61 20 11

25 47 28 - 19 104 34 62 11 32 184 46 17

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

15.8 21.9 29.9 - 27.7 20.2 2.6 23.0 5.0 19.3 30.3 17.6 18.9

<1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 4 <1 <1 <1 <1

1.8 5.5 3.2 - 3.4 2.2 0.9 2.2 4.0 2.4 6.6 3.7 4.8

56 94 87 - 68 106 46 113 213 70 204 88 51

<0.05 <0.05 <2.50A <0.05 - <0.05 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 <2.50D <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

<0.03 <0.03 <1.50A <0.03 - <0.03 0.40 <0.03 0.04 <1.50D <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03

<0.04 0.06 <2.00A <0.04 - <0.04 0.44 <0.04 0.18 <2.00D <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.08

0.17 0.13 11.48A 0.10 - 0.09 2.28 <0.06 0.38 5.37D 0.12 <0.06 0.09 0.22

0.10 0.06 <2.00A 0.12 - 0.06 2.91 <0.04 0.20 4.78D 0.09 <0.04 <0.04 0.19

0.15 0.07 <2.50A 0.14 - 0.07 3.20 <0.07 0.38 9.16D 0.19 <0.07 0.10 0.33

0.05 <0.04 <2.00A 0.07 - <0.04 1.93 <0.04 0.11 2.76D 0.05 <0.04 <0.04 0.09

0.06 0.03 <1.00A 0.05 - 0.03 1.25 <0.02 0.11 2.56D 0.05 <0.02 0.03 0.09

0.12 0.09 2.42A 0.12 - 0.07 2.33 <0.02 0.27 6.09D 0.14 0.04 0.08 0.23

<0.04 <0.04 <2.00A <0.04 - <0.04 0.38 <0.04 <0.04 <2.00D <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.22 0.23 1.85A 0.20 - 0.10 4.23 <0.03 0.63 7.05D 0.17 <0.03 0.09 0.36

<0.04 <0.04 <2.00A <0.04 - <0.04 0.07 <0.04 <0.04 <2.00D <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.05 <0.04 <2.00A 0.07 - <0.04 1.97 <0.04 0.11 3.32D 0.05 <0.04 <0.04 0.11

<0.04 <0.04 <2.00A <0.04 - <0.04 0.13 <0.04 <0.04 <2.00D <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.11 0.10 3.81A 0.09 - 0.06 1.25 <0.03 0.46 4.00D 0.06 <0.03 0.05 0.27

0.18 0.16 2.01A 0.17 - 0.09 3.62 <0.03 0.47 7.03D 0.16 <0.03 0.05 0.27

1.2 0.9 <30.0A 1.1 - <0.6 26.5 <0.6 3.2 49.6D 1.0 <0.03 0.09 0.36

<0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.2 - - - - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

<4 - - - - <4 <4 <4

<7 - - - - <7 8 <7

<7 - - - - <7 930 <7

<19 - - - - <19 938 <19

<0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.2 - - - - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

<4 - - - - <4 <4 <4

<7 - - - - <7 48 <7

<7 - - - - <7 1525 <7

<19 - - - - <19 1573 <19

<38 - - - - <38 2511 <38

<5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <50A <5 <5 <5 <5

<10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <100A <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <100A <10 <10 <10 <10

43 <10 - <10 24 <10 <10 <100A <10 <10 <10 <10

122 <10 - 17 248 91 <10 5754A <10 <10 84 <10

165 <30 - <30 272 91 <30 5754A <30 <30 84 <30

<5 - - - - <5 <5 <5

<5 - - - - <5 <5 <5

<5 - - - - <5 <5 <5

<5 - - - - <5 <5 <5

<5 - - - - <5 <5 <5

<0.15 <0.15 <0.15 - <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15

23.1 25.3 <0.1 16.2 - 10.8 10.5 7.1 34.7 3.1 24.1 27.2 27.2 9.9

8.56 8.15 8.10 - 8.24 8.11 9.94 8.68 9.19 8.45 8.16 8.06 8.88

Clay Clay Clay - Clay Clay Sand Clay Sand Clay Clay Clay Clay

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown-

Medium

Brown

Medium

BrownLight Brown

Medium

BrownDark Brown

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown

sand and

stones

stones and

clinker

stones and

sand- stones

brick

fragment

and loam

stones none clinker sand stonesroots and

sand

stones and

sand

NAD

NAD

NAD

Sample ID

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers

Sample Type

Sampled Date


J E Sample No

Batch Number


pH¹







Fibre Screen*

Asbestos Type

Asbestos Type (2)

Asbestos Type (3)



Metals


Beryllium 420









Vanadium 3160


Zinc #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <5 665000

PAH MS


















TPH CWG Aliphatics

>C5-C6 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3400

>C6-C8 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 8300

>C8-C10 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 2100

>C10-C12 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 10000

>C12-C16 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 61000

>C16-C21 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C21-C35 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C35-C44 1600000


TPH CWG Aromatics

>C5-EC7 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 59000

>EC7-EC8 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3700

>EC8-EC10 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 17000

>EC10-EC12 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 36000

>EC12-EC16 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 28000

>EC16-EC21 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC21-EC35 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC35-EC44



GRO (>C4-C8)

GRO (>C8-C12)

GRO (>C4-C12)

EPH (C8-C40)


BTEX/MTBE GC-FID

Benzene 95

Toluene 4400

Ethylbenzene 2800

m/p-Xylene 3200

o-Xylene 2600

Phenol 1100000







TPH CWG


6mg/kg <19 28000


6mg/kg <19


6mg/kg <38







Other Tests






Asbestos Screen #


Asbestos Level




Mass of Dry Sample





03RBWS14 03RBWS15 03RBWS16 03RBWS17 03RBWS18 03RBWS19 03RBWS20 03RBBH0103FWBH04

A

03FWBH04

A

03FWBH04

B

03FWBH04

C

03FWBH04

C

03FWBH04

C

03FWBH04

C

0.2 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.00 0.10 0.60 6.30 1.00 1.50 2.00 6.20

V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J V J V J T V J T J T V J T V J T

Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

24/10/2014 24/10/2014 29/10/2014 29/10/2014 29/10/2014 29/10/2014 29/10/2014 30/10/2014 31/10/2014 31/10/2014 03/11/2014 03/11/2014 03/11/2014 03/11/2014 03/11/2014

28/10/2014 28/10/2014 30/10/2014 30/10/2014 30/10/2014 30/10/2014 30/10/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014

1092-1094 1101-1103 1125-1127 1130-1132 1160-1162 1163-1165 1166-1168 1178-1180 1190-1191 1192-1193 1194-1196 1197-1199 1200-1201 1202-1204 1205-1207

27 27 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

2.1 2.1 - - - - - - - - - - -

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 - - - - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

0.0115 0.2163 0.1307 0.7185 0.0658 0.8833 0.0888 0.0549 0.7079 0.3489 0.1216 1.6588 1.6367 0.3249 0.7727

10.5 17.8 13.1 10.9 12.5 12.7 9.6 12.3 2.2 106.0 21.1 13.2 25.6 22.4 14.4

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 1.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

26.5 49.0 32.3 48.4 29.4 39.2 29.8 36.2 30.6 68.4 45.1 28.6 30.0 28.0 30.8

<0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.6 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 2.5 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

17 20 12 13 12 17 8 12 4 515 25 16 25 11 12

24 22 20 27 21 32 19 122 6 5042 68 39 33 37 33

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

13.6 39.1 16.5 22.2 19.7 24.7 9.9 16.0 3.1 123.4 27.7 16.5 16.4 14.5 14.4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3 4 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1.2 4.0 4.2 9.2 6.0 5.1 2.5 2.1 4.0 11.4 14.2 4.8 9.1 10.8 13.4

64 86 56 61 57 71 50 63 47 2164 140 80 60 49 61

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50A <0.05 0.69 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.21

0.06 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.30A 0.09 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03

0.12 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.40A <0.04 0.19 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.39 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 0.07 0.15 <0.06 <0.06 <0.60A 0.31 0.11 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06

0.30 <0.04 0.06 <0.04 <0.04 0.13 <0.04 <0.04 <0.40A 0.57 0.08 0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.61 <0.07 0.09 <0.05 0.06 0.21 <0.05 0.06 <0.50A 0.70 0.12 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

0.15 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.10 <0.04 <0.04 <0.40A 0.46 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.17 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 0.02 0.08 <0.02 0.02 <0.20A 0.27 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

0.38 <0.02 0.10 <0.02 0.09 0.29 0.06 0.08 0.62A 0.43 0.13 0.08 0.05 <0.02 0.07

<0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.40A 0.18 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.65 <0.03 0.10 <0.03 0.09 0.40 0.05 0.09 <0.30A 0.35 0.47 0.08 <0.03 <0.03 0.14

<0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.40A <0.04 0.46 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.18 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.08 <0.04 <0.04 <0.40A 0.47 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.40A <0.04 3.47 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.33

0.39 <0.03 0.07 <0.03 0.08 0.28 <0.03 0.05 <0.30A 0.09 1.29 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.24

0.39 <0.03 0.09 <0.03 0.08 0.32 0.04 0.08 0.55A 0.35 0.33 0.07 <0.03 <0.03 0.10

0.51 <0.03 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 2.0 <0.6 <0.6 <6.0A 4.3 7.4 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 1.1

<0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 2.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.4

<0.2 - <0.2 <0.2 - - - - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 5.8

<4 - <4 <4 - - - - <4 <4 <4 <4 <4

<7 - <7 <7 - - - - <7 <7 <7 <7 <7

<7 - <7 <7 - - - - <7 <7 <7 <7 <7

<19 - <19 <19 - - - - <19 <19 <19 <19 <19

<0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 2.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.2 - <0.2 <0.2 - - - - 17.4 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 2.3

<4 - <4 <4 - - - - 41 <4 <4 <4 <4

<7 - <7 <7 - - - - 52 <7 <7 <7 16

<7 - <7 <7 - - - - 77 <7 <7 15 44

<19 - <19 <19 - - - - 189 <19 <19 <19 62

<38 - <38 <38 - - - - 189 <38 <38 <38 62

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <100D <5 20 <5 <5 <5 17

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <200D <10 52 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <200D <10 115 <10 <10 <10 <10

14 <10 <10 <10 <10 18 <10 <10 <200D 41 199 <10 <10 24 84

113 <10 <10 33 12 145 104 <10 8929D 406 537 129 <10 247 262

127 <30 <30 33 <30 163 104 <30 8929D 447 923 129 <30 271 363

<5 - <5 <5 - - - - 9 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 - <5 <5 - - - - 53 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 - <5 <5 - - - - 487 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 - <5 <5 - - - - 955 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 - <5 <5 - - - - 576 <5 <5 <5 <5

<0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15

6.3 13.5 12.2 42.3 11.8 21.2 19.2 17.5 8.2 47.2 57.0 37.1 30.4 38.7 74.5

8.68 8.25 8.19 7.81 8.34 7.92 8.38 8.41 8.60 7.79 8.58 7.75 7.48 8.01 7.66

Sand Clay Loam Clayey Loam Loam Loam Clayey Loam Clayey Loam Sand Sandy Loam Clay Clayey Loam Clay Clay Clayey Silt

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown

Medium

BrownDark Brown

Medium

Brown

Medium

BrownDark Brown

Medium

BrownDark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown

Medium

BrownDark Grey Dark Brown

clay lumps noneMedium

BrownStones

Stones,

RootsStones Stones Stones Stones

Clay,

Stones,

Ceramic

Roots Stones None None None

Sample ID

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers

Sample Type

Sampled Date


J E Sample No

Batch Number


pH¹







Fibre Screen*

Asbestos Type

Asbestos Type (2)

Asbestos Type (3)



Metals


Beryllium 420









Vanadium 3160


Zinc #M TM30/PM15 mg/kg <5 665000

PAH MS


















TPH CWG Aliphatics

>C5-C6 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3400

>C6-C8 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 8300

>C8-C10 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 2100

>C10-C12 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 10000

>C12-C16 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 61000

>C16-C21 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C21-C35 #M TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 1600000

>C35-C44 1600000


TPH CWG Aromatics

>C5-EC7 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 59000

>EC7-EC8 TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 3700

>EC8-EC10 #M TM36/PM12 mg/kg <0.1 17000

>EC10-EC12 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <0.2 36000

>EC12-EC16 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <4 28000

>EC16-EC21 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC21-EC35 TM5/PM16 mg/kg <7 28000

>EC35-EC44



GRO (>C4-C8)

GRO (>C8-C12)

GRO (>C4-C12)

EPH (C8-C40)


BTEX/MTBE GC-FID

Benzene 95

Toluene 4400

Ethylbenzene 2800

m/p-Xylene 3200

o-Xylene 2600

Phenol 1100000







TPH CWG


6mg/kg <19 28000


6mg/kg <19


6mg/kg <38







Other Tests






Asbestos Screen #


Asbestos Level




Mass of Dry Sample





03MFBH06 03MFBH08 03MFBH03 03MFBH03 03MFBH03 03MFBH03 03MFBH03 03MFBH0603MFBH09

A03MFBH10

0.10 1.00 3.5 5.0 6.5 8.0 8.5 2.5 3.5 2.0

V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

31/10/2014 03/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014

04/11/2014 04/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/11/2014

1208-1210 1223-1225 1325-1327 1328-1330 1334-1336 1340-1342 1343-1345 1349-1351 1367-1369 1373-1375

29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

- - - - - - - - 1.1 -

<0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 - - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - - - -

0.0288 - 0.0625 0.1683 0.1884 0.2563 0.1538 0.1148 0.2215 0.2200

5.3 - 11.6 10.7 18.1 15.5 11.2 15.5 14.6 13.5

0.2 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1

25.0 - 40.6 41.3 39.3 41.5 30.2 42.7 25.3 43.8

<0.3 - <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

57 - 16 15 17 13 11 17 15 18

13 - 20 18 16 23 9 18 10 21

<0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

7.6 - 25.0 28.0 25.2 23.6 17.8 33.4 22.2 39.9

<1 - <1 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1.1 - 7.8 11.6 15.8 12.5 8.7 26.4 4.2 7.1

87 - 70 70 66 61 44 79 47 82

<0.50A - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

<0.30A - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03

<0.40A - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

2.60A - <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06

2.65A - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

3.60A - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.08 <0.05 <0.05

1.79A - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

1.40A - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.02

2.60A - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.08 <0.02 <0.02

0.46A - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

4.01A - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.04 <0.03 <0.03

<0.40A - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

2.04A - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

<0.40A - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04

1.82A - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.03 <0.03

3.78A - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.05 <0.03 <0.03

26.8A - <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6

<0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - -

<0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - -

<0.1 - - <0.1 0.6 0.7 - - - -

<0.2 - - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - - - -

<4 - - <4 <4 <4 - - - -

<7 - - <7 <7 <7 - - - -

144 - - <7 <7 <7 - - - -

144 - - <19 <19 <19 - - - -

<0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - -

<0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - -

<0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - -

<0.2 - - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - - - -

8 - - <4 <4 <4 - - - -

101 - - <7 33 89 - - - -

571 - - <7 9 45 - - - -

680 - - <19 42 134 - - - -

824 - - <38 42 134 - - - -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

-

-

-

-

-

<100D - <5 <5 <5 16 <5 <5 <5 <5

<200D - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<200D - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<200D - <10 <10 28 147 <10 <10 <10 <10

3069D - 146 71 59 470 <10 <10 <10 <10

3069D - 146 71 87 633 <30 <30 <30 <30

<5 - - <5 <5 <5 - - - -

<5 - - <5 <5 <5 - - - -

<5 - - <5 <5 <5 - - - -

<5 - - <5 <5 <5 - - - -

<5 - - <5 <5 <5 - - - -

<0.15 - <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15

7.2 - 24.5 34.7 <0.1 74.9 10.2 35.4 8.7 41.6

8.87 - 7.97 7.83 8.10 8.02 8.89 8.20 8.36 7.91

Sand - Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay

Dark Brown -Medium

Brown

Medium

BrownDark Brown Dark Grey

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown

Medium

Brown

Stones, Silt - Stones Roots Roots Vegetation None None Stones None

NAD

NAD

NAD

Sample ID 03WDBH04 03WDBH01D 03WDBH01S 03WDBH01 03WDBH03 03WDBH04 03WDBH01D 03WDBH01S 03WDBH01

Depth 6.5

COC No / misc

Containers H N P G H N P G H N P G H N P G H N P G V H N P G H N P G

Sample Type Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water

Sampled Date 15/09/2014 30/09/2014 30/09/2014 09/10/2014 09/10/2014 08/01/2015 08/01/2015

Sample Received Date 17/09/2014 01/10/2014 01/10/2014 10/10/2014 10/10/2014 10/01/2015 10/01/2015

J E Sample No 148-151 725-728 729-732 948-951 952-955 43-48 55-58

Batch Number 5 16 16 22 22 1 1

Monitoring Round 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

Strata monitoredStrike sample? Glacial Till Alluvium Glacial Till Strike sample? Glacial till Alluvium Glacial till

Test Test Method Units LOD EQS (Coastal)

pH¹ pH¹ NA NA NA NA NA

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 #

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 # TM75/PM0 mg/l <1 692 362 2004 NA NA

Dissolved Organic Carbon Dissolved Organic Carbon NA NA NA NA NA

Chloride Chloride NA NA NA NA NA

Nitrate as NO3 Nitrate as NO3 NA NA NA NA NA

Nitrite as NO2 Nitrite as NO2 NA NA NA NA NA

Ammoniacal Nitrogen as NH3 Ammoniacal Nitrogen as NH3 NA NA NA NA NA

Ammoniacal Nitrogen as NH4 Ammoniacal Nitrogen as NH4 NA NA NA NA NA

Sulphate Sulphate NA NA NA NA NA

Total Cyanide Total Cyanide NA NA NA NA NA

Metals Metals

Dissolved Aluminium Dissolved Aluminium NA NA NA NA NA

Dissolved Antimony Dissolved Antimony NA NA NA <2 <2

Dissolved Arsenic #

Dissolved Arsenic # TM30/PM14 ug/l <0.9 25 <0.9 <0.9 <0.9 <0.9 <0.9 2.5 <0.9

Dissolved Barium Dissolved Barium NA NA NA 130.2 80.2

Dissolved Beryllium Dissolved Beryllium NA NA NA <0.5 <0.5

Dissolved Boron Dissolved Boron TM30/PM14 ug/l <2 7000 1331 1355 1763 1128 1479 1230 1189

Dissolved Cadmium #

Dissolved Cadmium # TM30/PM14 ug/l <0.5 2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.03 <0.03

Total Dissolved Chromium #

Total Dissolved Chromium # TM30/PM14 ug/l <0.2 - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Dissolved Copper #

Dissolved Copper # TM30/PM14 ug/l <3 5 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

Total Dissolved Iron Total Dissolved Iron 1 NA NA NA 1.1 1.0

Dissolved Lead #

Dissolved Lead # TM30/PM14 ug/l <0.4 3.2 6.1 1.8 4.4 1.2 <0.5 <0.5

Dissolved Molybdenum Dissolved Molybdenum NA NA NA 1.0 2.7

Dissolved Nickel #

Dissolved Nickel # TM30/PM14 ug/l <0.2 30 1.9 1.5 1.4 <0.2 16.5 8.3 4.1

Dissolved Selenium #

Dissolved Selenium # TM30/PM14 ug/l <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2

Dissolved Zinc #

Dissolved Zinc # TM30/PM14 ug/l <3 40 27 7 <3 <3 58 55.7 1.5

Mercury Dissolved by CVAF #

Mercury Dissolved by CVAF # TM61/PM38 ug/l <0.01 0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.19 NA NA

PAH MS PAH MS

Acenaphthene Acenaphthene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.02

Acenaphthylene Acenaphthylene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01

Anthracene Anthracene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01

Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.07 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(a)pyrene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.11 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(b)fluoranthene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Benzo(ghi)perylene Benzo(ghi)perylene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Chrysene Chrysene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.07 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene Dibenzo(ah)anthracene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Fluoranthene Fluoranthene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02

Fluorene Fluorene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02

Indeno(123cd)pyrene Indeno(123cd)pyrene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Naphthalene Naphthalene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.14 0.04 0.02

Phenanthrene Phenanthrene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.06

Pyrene Pyrene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.12 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02

PAH 16 Total PAH 16 Total TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.1 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2

PAH Surrogate % Recovery PAH Surrogate % Recovery TM4/PM30 % <0 92 76 83 88 87 98 97

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene Benzo(bk)fluoranthene TM4/PM30 ug/l <0.01 0.16 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01

TPH CWG TPH CWG Aliphatics

>C5-C6 >C5-C6 NA NA NA <5 <5

>C6-C8 >C6-C8 NA NA NA <5 <5

>C8-C10 >C8-C10 NA NA NA <5 <5

>C10-C12 >C10-C12 NA NA NA <5 <5

>C12-C16 >C12-C16 NA NA NA <10 <10

>C16-C21 >C16-C21 NA NA NA <10 <10

>C21-C35 >C21-C35 NA NA NA <10 <10

Total aliphatics C5-35 Total aliphatics C5-35 NA NA NA <10 <10

Aromatics TPH CWG Aromatics

>C5-EC7 >C5-EC7 NA NA NA <5 <5

>EC7-EC8 >EC7-EC8 NA NA NA <5 <5

>EC8-EC10 >EC8-EC10 NA NA NA <5 <5

>EC10-EC12 >EC10-EC12 NA NA NA <5 <5

>EC12-EC16 >EC12-EC16 NA NA NA <10 <10

>EC16-EC21 >EC16-EC21 NA NA NA <10 <10

>EC21-EC35 >EC21-EC35 NA NA NA <10 <10

Total aromatics C5-35 Total aromatics C5-35 NA NA NA <10 <10

Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) NA NA NA <10 <10

GRO (>C4-C8) GRO (>C4-C8) NA NA NA NA NA



EPH (C8-C40) EPH (C8-C40) NA NA NA NA NA

Mineral Oil (C8-C40) Mineral Oil (C8-C40) NA NA NA NA NA

BTEX/MTBE MS BTEX/MTBE MS

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether NA NA NA <0.1 <0.1

Benzene Benzene 30 NA NA NA <0.5 <0.5

Toluene Toluene 40 NA NA NA <0.5 <0.5

Ethylbenzene Ethylbenzene 20 NA NA NA <0.5 <0.5

p/m-Xylene p/m-Xylene 30 NA NA NA <1 <1

o-Xylene o-Xylene 30 NA NA NA <0.5 <0.5

Surrogate Recovery Toluene D8 Surrogate Recovery Toluene D8 NA NA NA 98 102

Surrogate Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene Surrogate Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene NA NA NA 97 105

Other

Phenol Phenol TM26/PM0 ug/l <0.5 7.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

EPH >C10-C12 #

EPH >C10-C12 # TM5/PM30 ug/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 NA NA

EPH >C12-C16 #


EPH >C16-C21 #


EPH >C21-C28 EPH >C21-C28 TM5/PM30 ug/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 NA NA

EPH >C28-C35 EPH >C28-C35 TM5/PM30 ug/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 NA NA

EPH >C35-C40 #


EPH >C10-C40 #


Sulphate #

Sulphate # TM38/PM0 mg/l <0.05 250 460.26 1179.01 1043.96 679.89 925.67 1274.75 1158.10

Total Cyanide Total Cyanide TM89/PM0 mg/l <0.005 0.014 <0.005 0.007 <0.01 <0.01

Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N #

Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N # TM38/PM0 mg/l <0.03 10.75 3.7 5 NA NA

pH #

pH # TM73/PM0 pH units <0.01 7.68 7.02 7.34 6.94 7.07

9.99

9.99

<9.99


Exceeding Environmental Quality Standard for Fresh Waters

Exceeding Environmental Quality Standard for Saline Waters

Below detection limit

Environmental Sample Results - Groundwater

Test

pH¹

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 #

Dissolved Organic Carbon

Chloride

Nitrate as NO3

Nitrite as NO2

Ammoniacal Nitrogen as NH3

Ammoniacal Nitrogen as NH4

Sulphate

Total Cyanide

Metals

Dissolved Aluminium

Dissolved Antimony

Dissolved Arsenic #

Dissolved Barium

Dissolved Beryllium

Dissolved Boron

Dissolved Cadmium #

Total Dissolved Chromium #

Dissolved Copper #

Total Dissolved Iron

Dissolved Lead #

Dissolved Molybdenum

Dissolved Nickel #

Dissolved Selenium #

Dissolved Zinc #

Mercury Dissolved by CVAF #

PAH MS

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(ghi)perylene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Indeno(123cd)pyrene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

PAH 16 Total

PAH Surrogate % Recovery

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene

TPH CWG

>C5-C6

>C6-C8

>C8-C10

>C10-C12

>C12-C16

>C16-C21

>C21-C35

Total aliphatics C5-35

Aromatics

>C5-EC7

>EC7-EC8

>EC8-EC10

>EC10-EC12

>EC12-EC16

>EC16-EC21

>EC21-EC35



GRO (>C4-C8)

GRO (>C8-C12)

GRO (>C4-C12)

EPH (C8-C40)


BTEX/MTBE MS

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

p/m-Xylene

o-Xylene

Surrogate Recovery Toluene D8

Surrogate Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene

Phenol

EPH >C10-C12 #

EPH >C12-C16 #

EPH >C16-C21 #

EPH >C21-C28

EPH >C28-C35

EPH >C35-C40 #

EPH >C10-C40 #

Sulphate #

Total Cyanide

Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N #

pH #

03WDBH03 03FWBH01 03FWBH02 03FWBH03 03FWBH06 03FWBH09 03MFBH01D 03RBWS01 03RBWS03 03WDBH08

V H N P G V N P G V H N P G V H N P V H N P G V H N P G H N P G V H N P G V H N P G

Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water

08/01/2015 08/01/2015 08/01/2015 08/01/2015 08/01/2015 08/01/2015 08/01/2015 08/01/2015 08/01/2015

10/01/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015 10/01/2015

1-5 6-10 11-16 17-21 22-27 28-33 34-37 38-42 49-54

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Alluvium Alluvium/ GT Alluvium Alluvium/GT Alluvium Glacial till Alluvium Alluvium Alluvium/glacial till

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA











<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

<0.9 1.4 <0.9 <0.9 <0.9 4.9 <0.9 1.4 <0.9

62.1 59.3 42.6 68.6 46.5 126.2 74.0 54.6 120.6

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

974 2046 623 1540 536 2001 1348 1748 857

0.61 <0.03 0.14 0.06 <0.03 0.06 0.16 0.09 <0.03

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

5 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 6 3 <3

3.0 3.8 0.5 2.8 2.9 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.5

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

0.6 0.4 1.9 8.8 5.3 7.0 3.9 2.7 7.9

6.1 3.7 5.2 3.0 5.5 11.3 5.0 9.7 6.7

<1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2

3.6 18.8 36.4 3.0 2.6 25.1 9.8 18.3 12.5


0.02 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01

<0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

0.02 0.41 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<0.01 0.06 0.05 0.19 <0.01 0.03 0.02 <0.01 0.01

0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

0.02 0.18 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03

0.2 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2

91 98 97 94 89 96 97 96 97

<0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<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 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

<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 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10






<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

94 93 92 92 94 93 96 93 97

103 102 100 102 104 102 98 102 104

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5








1130.46 953.46 314.00 281.23 211.23 233.69 857.57 2151.52 118.05

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01


6.95 7.10 7.45 7.31 7.31 7.34 7.13 7.13 7.40



106

I.1 General

The methodology for the Phase II assessment of potential land contamination adopted in this report is

based on current guidance documents, in particular CIRIA Report C552 (CIRIA, 2001).

I.2 Classification of Risk

The potential consequences of contamination risks occurring at this site are classified in accordance with

the following table, which is adapted from the CIRIA 552 guidance.

Table C.1: Classification of Consequence

Classification Definition of Consequence

Severe Short-term (acute) risks to human health.

Short-term risk of pollution of sensitive water resource or ecosystem.

Catastrophic damage to crops/buildings/property/infrastructure, including off-site soils.

Medium Medium/long-term (chronic) risks to human health.

Medium/long-term risk of pollution of sensitive water resource or ecosystem.

Significant damage to crops/buildings/property/infrastructure (on or off-site).

Contamination of off-site soils.

Mild Easily preventable, permanent health effects on humans.

Pollution of non-sensitive water resources.

Localised damage to crops/buildings/property/infrastructure (on or off-site).

Minor Easily preventable, non-permanent health effects on humans, or no effects.

Minor, low-level and localised contamination of on-site soils.

Easily repairable damage to crops/buildings/property/infrastructure.

The probability of contamination risks occurring at this site will be classified in accordance with Table C.2,

which is also adapted from the CIRIA guidance. Note that for each category, it is assumed that a pollution

linkage exists. Where a pollution linkage does not exist, the likelihood is zero, as is the risk.

Table C.2: Classification of Probability

Classification Definition of Probability

High Likelihood Circumstances are such that an event appears very likely in the short-term or almost inevitable in the long-term; or there is already evidence that such an event has occurred.

Likely Circumstances are such that such an event is not inevitable, but is possible in the short-term and is likely over the long-term.

Low Likelihood Circumstances are such that it is by no means certain that an event would occur even over a longer period, and it is less likely in the short-term.

Unlikely Circumstances are such that it is improbable that an event would occur even in the very long-term.

For each possible pollution linkage (source-pathway-receptor) identified, the potential risk can be

evaluated, based on the following principle:

Appendix I. Contamination Risk Assessment Methodology



107

Contamination risk = Probability of event occurring x Consequence of event occurring

This relationship can be represented graphically as a matrix (Table C.3), which is adapted from the CIRIA

guidance.

Table C.3: Overall Contamination Risk Matrix

Consequence

Severe Medium Mild Minor

Pro

bab

ility

High likelihood Very high risk High risk Moderate risk Low risk

Likely High risk Moderate risk Moderate risk Low risk

Low likelihood Moderate risk Moderate risk Low risk Very low risk

Unlikely Low risk Low risk Very low risk Very low risk

The definitions of the risk categories identified in the above matrix are given in Table C.4, together with the

investigatory and remedial actions that are likely to be necessary in each case. The risk categories apply to

each pollutant linkage, not just to each hazard or receptor.

Table C.4: Definition of Risk Categories and Likely Actions Required

Risk Category Definition and likely actions required

Very high Severe harm to a defined receptor is very likely, or has already occurred.

The risk is likely to result in a substantial liability.

Urgent investigation (if not already undertaken) is likely to be required.

Urgent remediation is likely to be required.

High Harm to a defined receptor is likely.

The risk, if realised, may result in a substantial liability.

Urgent investigation (if not already undertaken) is likely to be required.

Remediation is likely to be required in the long term, possibly sooner.

Moderate Harm to a defined receptor is possible, but severe harm is unlikely.

Investigation is likely to be required to clarify the level of potential liability and risk.

Some remediation may be required in the longer term.

Low Harm to a defined receptor is possible, but is likely to be mild at worst.

Liabilities could theoretically arise, but are unlikely.

Further investigation is not required at this stage.

Remediation is unlikely to be required.

Very low Harm to a defined receptor is unlikely, and would be minor at worst.

No liabilities are likely to arise.

Further investigation is not required at this stage.

Remediation is very unlikely to be required.



108

Appendix J. Conceptual Site Model



Figure J.1: Conceptual Site Model for Boston

0



110

Figure K.1: Made Ground P’ Q’ Plot (Shearbox)

Figure K.2: Alluvium P’ Q’ Plot (Shearbox)

y = 0.6571x

y = 0.9516x

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

She

ar S

tre

ss (

kPa)

Normal Stress (kPa)

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

y = 0.32x

y = x

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250

She

ar S

tre

ss (

kPa)

Normal Stress (kPa)

Upper bound

Appendix K. Effective Stress Shearbox Plots



111

Figure K.3: Glacial Till P’ Q’ Plot (Shearbox)

y = 0.46x

y = 0.92x

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

She

ar S

tre

ss (

kPa)

Normal Stress (kPa)

Lower bound

Upper bound



112

-5.0

0

-4.0

0

-3.0

0

-2.0

0

-1.0

0

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

28/10/2014 00:00

29/10/2014 00:00

30/10/2014 00:00

31/10/2014 00:00

01/11/2014 00:00

02/11/2014 00:00

03/11/2014 00:00

Level (mAOD)

Dat

e

03FW

BH

01

03W

DB

H02

03FW

BH

03

03FW

BH

09

03FW

BH

02

03FW

BH

06

03M

FBH

01

Appendix L. Tidal Variation of Groundwater in Alluvium on Left Bank

www.gov.uk/environment-agency

A17/2c - Volume 2c: Technical Report: Ground …...A17/2c - Volume 2c: Technical Report: Ground...

Documents

Transcript of A17/2c - Volume 2c: Technical Report: Ground …...A17/2c - Volume 2c: Technical Report: Ground...