CEMEX UK Cement Ltd Rugby Works: Climafuel Phases 1, 2 and ...

CEMEX UK Cement Ltd Rugby Works: Climafuel Phases 1, 2 and 3 Risk assessment and remediation strategy

REP/267787/001

Rev 1 | 6 August 2019

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. Job number 267787-00

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 9th Floor 3 St Paul's Place Norfolk Street Sheffield S1 2JE United Kingdom www.arup.com


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | 6 August 2019

\\GLOBAL\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\260000\267787-00\0 ARUP\0-03 GROUND ENGINEERING\0-03-08 REPORTS\REMEDIATION STRATEGY\20190806_CLIMAFUEL

REMEDIATION STRATEGY_REV 1.DOCX

Contents Page

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

1.1 Commission 3 1.2 Use of this report and limitations 3

2 The Site 4

2.1 Site description 4 2.2 Proposed development 4 2.3 Site history 7

3 Geoenvironmental setting 10

3.1 Geology 10 3.2 Hydrology and hydrogeology 10 3.3 Environmental information 10 3.4 Previous ground investigations 11

4 2019 Site investigations 13

4.1 Clancy Consulting 2019 geotechnical investigation 13 4.2 JPP 2019 geoenvironmental investigation 13 4.3 Laboratory testing 15 4.4 Installations and monitoring 15

5 Ground conditions 17

5.1 Introduction 17 5.2 Made ground 18 5.3 Alluvium 18 5.4 Rugby Limestone Member 19 5.5 Groundwater 19 5.6 Ground gas 19

6 Conceptual Site Model 21

6.1 Introduction 21 6.2 Sources 21 6.3 Receptors 22 6.4 Pathways 22 6.5 Plausible pollutant linkages 23 6.6 Summary 24

7 Environmental risk assessments 26

7.1 Introduction 26


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | 6 August 2019



7.2 Human health 26 7.3 Controlled waters 28 7.4 Ground gas 28 7.5 Soft landscaping 29 7.6 Buried structures and services 30 7.7 Updated conceptual site model 31

8 Remediation strategy 32

8.1 Scope 32 8.2 Control of risks during construction 32 8.3 Requirements for imported materials (general fill, topsoil) 34 8.4 Materials Management 35 8.5 Liaison with regulatory authorities 37 8.6 Site records 37 8.7 Verification reporting 37 8.8 Programme 38

9 Conclusions 39

References Appendices

Appendix A

Historical mapping extracts

Appendix B

Historical ground investigation (pre-2019)

Appendix C

2019 Ground investigations

Appendix D

Human health risk assessment

Appendix E

Soft landscaping assessment

Appendix F

Potable water supply pipe assessment

Appendix G


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | 6 August 2019



Hazardous waste assessment


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 1

Executive Summary Ove Arup and Partners Ltd (Arup) has been commissioned by CEMEX UK Operations Ltd to prepare a remediation strategy for the proposed Climafuel development at their Rugby Cement Works.

The proposed development comprises three elements, each of which is subject to a separate planning consent:

• Phase 1 physical laboratory building RBC/18CM026;

• Phase 2 packing plant extension RBC/18CM027, and

• Phase 3 RDF store and associated car parking RBC/18CM028.

This report presents a review of the findings from several phases of investigation relevant to the proposed development together with risk assessments which consider the potential impacts on human health, buildings, water supply pipes and new landscaping areas.

A remediation strategy has been developed for the proposed developments, as summarised below:

Source Receptor Pathways Proposed Mitigation

Made ground containing inorganic and organic contamination

Construction worker

Dermal contact, ingestion of soil, ingestion of fugitive dust

Construction workers to use appropriate PPE e.g. gloves, where necessary. Watching brief during earthworks to identify any areas of potential contamination

Inhalation of fugitive dust Dust control measures as appropriate e.g. damping down, grading stockpiles to prevent dust generation, road cleaning and ensuring bare surfaces are compacted and sealed. Appropriate PPE (e.g. dust masks) where necessary.

CEMEX staff on wider site/site visitors

Dermal contact with, and ingestion of, fugitive dust spread from construction areas

Dust control measures as necessary, e.g. damping down, grading stockpiles to prevent dust generation, road cleaning and ensuring bare surfaces are compacted and sealed.

Inhalation of fugitive dust blown from construction areas


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 2

Plants in soft landscaping areas

Uptake of phytotoxic compounds by vegetation

Visual screening of materials leaving construction areas prior to placement in soft landscaping areas

Buried Structures

Soil aggressive to concrete Use of protected concrete in foundations and structures in contact with the ground

Surface waters (Phase 1 only)

Runoff from stockpiled materials into surface watercourses Accidental spillages entering surface watercourses

Stockpiled material in Phase 1 to be managed appropriately Spill kits to be maintained during construction of Phase 1

This report is intended to discharge Condition 4 of planning consent RBC/18CM026, Condition 3 of planning consent RBC/18CM027 and Condition 3 of planning consent RBC/18CM028, all of which relate to the investigation, risk assessment and preparation of a remediation strategy and verification plan for the proposed scheme.

It should be noted that these conditions require submission to the local planning authority of the completed verification report, confirming that the measures identified in the remediation strategy have been implemented on site.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 3

1 Introduction

1.1 Commission Ove Arup and Partners Ltd (Arup) has been commissioned by CEMEX UK Operations Ltd. (CEMEX) to prepare a remediation strategy for the proposed redevelopment of part of their Rugby Cement Works, to create a new Climafuel facility.

This report provides a summary of the ground conditions at the site and presents the findings and recommendations of environmental risk assessments which have been undertaken for receptors identified in the conceptual model of the site. A remediation strategy has been produced to deal with any contamination where a potentially unacceptable risk has been identified, or if unforeseen contamination is encountered.

This report is intended to discharge Condition 4 of planning consent RBC/18CM026, Condition 3 of planning consent RBC/18CM027 and Condition 3 of planning consent RBC/18CM028, all of which relate to the investigation, risk assessment and preparation of a remediation strategy and verification plan for the proposed scheme.

1.2 Use of this report and limitations This report has been prepared by Arup on behalf of CEMEX in connection with the Rugby Works Climafuel project. It takes into account our Client’s particular instructions and requirements and is not intended for, and should not be relied upon by, any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party in relation to it. Reasonable skill, care and diligence have been exercised within the timescale available and in accordance with the technical requirements of the brief. Notwithstanding the efforts made by the professional team in preparing the report it is possible that other ground conditions or ground contamination may exist, as yet undetected, and consequently reliance on this report must be limited accordingly.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 4

2 The Site

2.1 Site description The Rugby Cement Works is located north-west of Rugby and is approximately centred on National Grid Reference SP487757, see Figure 1. The main site area is bound by Parkfield Road to the east; Lawford Road to the south; the flooded Lodge Farm Quarry to the west; and the Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line to the north. Two smaller areas of the site, located in the east, extend across Parkfield Road. These areas comprise a large chalk slurry tank, adjacent to Parkfield Road, and dewatering infrastructure associated with Parkfield Road Quarry east of the site. Site elevation was assessed from DEFRA LiDAR data [1]. Levels across the entire cement works range from 68mAOD, within the central depression, termed the ‘GRIP’, to 93mAOD in the south-west of the site. However, within the developed areas of the site (the areas comprising buildings and car parks), levels range between 80mAOD and 90mAOD.

The Rugby works consists of numerous operational buildings including plant, conveyors and gantries associated with the production of cement. In addition, there are on-site stores, a physical laboratory, offices and car parking. The cement production process at this site includes the burning of waste-derived Climafuel and waste tyres.

Figure 1: Site location and layout

2.2 Proposed development CEMEX is proposing to upgrade the Climafuel handling and feed facility process within the site. This upgrade will enable efficiencies to be put in place resulting in further reductions in the use of fossil fuels.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 5

The proposed development comprises three main elements (as shown in Figure 2) as follows:

• the construction of a new physical laboratory building (Phase 1);

• demolition of an existing laboratory building, erection of an extension to the packing plant sheds and proposed realignment (Phase 2) and

• demolition of an existing cement storage building and erection of a new refuse derived fuel (RDF) building and the relocation of car parking spaces (Phase 3).

The consented developments will be referred to by their phase numbers throughout this report and are discussed in further detail below.

Figure 2: Proposed development. Phase 1 (red), phase 2 (purple), phase 3 (blue)

2.2.1 Phase 1: New physical laboratory building Erection of a new physical laboratory building (planning reference: RBC/18CM026 [2]). This two-storey laboratory building will be located at the western end of the site, adjacent to existing office buildings and clinker silo. It will be a metal clad structure with dimensions of 10.1m x 22.9m x 5m. The location is shown in Figure 3.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 6

Figure 3: Proposed location of the phase 1 physical laboratory

2.2.2 Phase 2: Packing plant extension Demolition of an existing laboratory and erection of an extension to the packing plant sheds and proposed road realignment (Planning reference: RBC/18CM027 [2]). The western end of the existing packing plant building, located in the south of the site, is to be extended across the access road. The location is shown in Figure 4. It will be a metal clad structure with dimensions of 14.5m x 57m x 7m. Consequently, the one-way road system will be obstructed. To remedy this, the road on a parallel alignment, 14m west of the packing plant shed, is to be reconstructed. The new road will have a concrete surface and width of 6m.

Figure 4: Proposed location of the Phase 2 packing plant extension

2.2.3 Phase 3: RDF building Demolition of an existing cement storage building and construction of an RDF building and relocation of car parking spaces (Planning reference: RBC/18CM028


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 7

[2]). Located centrally to the site, the new RDF building will be steel-clad with dimensions of 77m x 35m, and a height of 18m at eaves level and 21m at its central ridge. The building will have a conveyor gantry and transfer tower which feeds a new bucket elevator head house. The location is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Proposed location of the Phase 3 RDF building

2.3 Site history A brief summary of the site history is provided below and in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8. Additional historical maps are provided in Appendix A.

• The site has been occupied by a cement facility, then called Portland Cement Works, since before 1913;

• The facility was linked to a railway line, which in turn was linked to the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford railway line until 1991. After which this minor linking line and the rail sidings within the cement facility were removed;

• The site has been historically quarried, with the workings extending beneath the proposed physical laboratory and RDF buildings, as shown on the 1955 historical map (Figure 6). The quarry void was subsequently infilled, and development of the cement plant has continued over the infilled quarry;

• In 1913 the facility footprint roughly comprised an area of 4ha and was situated in the south of the site. Progressively the facility expanded north and west and in 2018 the facility roughly comprised 11ha and made up all but the north-east of the site;

• In 1991 seven large tanks were present in the east of the site, since then four have been removed, however three large tanks remain, two within the old excavation pit (‘GRIP’ feature) and one east of Parkfield Road, and

• In 1913 shallow excavation spanned the north and north east of the site. Over time the excavation focused in the north-east of the site, forming the depression currently present. In 1991 a building was built within the GRIP excavation pit.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 8

Figure 6: Site map (1955) with the site boundary (red), and approximate locations of the three phases of development: Phase 1 (red), Phase 2 (purple), Phase 3 (blue). The map shows the large excavation pit located in the north east of the site (‘GRIP’); rail sidings, resent across the site, which link to the NE-SW trending rail line to the south east of the site; and the limited extent of the processing plant (in the south of the site).

Figure 7: Site image (1999): The image shows the extent of the facility and the historic ‘GRIP’ feature


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 9

Figure 8: Site image (2018): The image shows the current layout of the facility. Since 1999 the large covered conveyor system and associated buildings have been removed. The four tanks at the east of the site have also been removed.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 10

3 Geoenvironmental setting

3.1 Geology A review of the British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 scale plan for the Rugby area shows the site is underlain by superficial deposits of Quaternary river terrace deposits (in the east of the site), and alluvium (in a 50m wide strip in the centre of the site, associated with the Sow Brook). The remainder of the site is underlain by bedrock, the Rugby Limestone Member, part of the Blue Lias Formation.

The development history of the site suggests that made ground will be present under the site, which may include demolition rubble and quarry backfill.

3.2 Hydrology and hydrogeology The River Avon lies approximately 180m to the north of the site and meanders from east to west. The Sow Brook runs from south to north in the west of the site. The river Avon has been classified as having ‘good’ water quality and Sow Brook as having ‘fairly good’ water quality in 2001 [18] and ‘moderate’ chemical quality in 2016 [4].

Two small water bodies lie within the ‘GRIP’, in the centre-north east of the site and two large lakes are located east and west of the site.

The Environment Agency (EA) classifies the Blue Lias Formation, on which the site lies, as being a Secondary A aquifer [5]. The alluvial deposits are similarly classified as a Secondary A aquifer.

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

3.3 Environmental information

3.3.1 Landfills and waste management facilities There are no recorded historical landfills within the site boundary, however, it is known that the northern part of the site was historically a quarry, which was subsequently infilled.

There are two landfills within 250m of the site boundary: Parkfield Road/Rugby Cement Westside II landfill, located to the north-east of the site, licensed to The Rugby Group Ltd from 1979 to 2014 and Malpass Tip, located to the north of the site, licensed to Rugby Portland Cement Company Ltd from 1977 to 1991. Parkfield Road landfill was licensed to accept industrial wastes, although it has since been remediated an all waste removed, and Malpass Tip was licensed to accept inert wastes.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 11

3.3.2 Environmental permits and consents Data from an adjacent site [18] identified three discharge consents within the site boundary for discharges into the Sow Brook. They were issued on 16th June 1993 with reference AH8697. Further details can be found in Appendix B.

The site operates under environmental permit EPR/BL7248IH for cement and lime processes.

The water quality in Sow Brook is routinely monitored by CEMEX, with water sampling occurring near the northern site boundary.

3.3.3 Radon The site is not within an area where radon protection measures are necessary, according to the map information published by Public Health England on the UK Radon website [6].

3.3.4 Mining The site is not within an area where historical coal mining has occurred [7].

3.4 Previous ground investigations There have been several phases of ground investigation within the site as a result of the gradual redevelopment of the works:

• Weeks 2001 [8] IPPC Site Condition Report. Rugby Cement Works. This investigation covered the whole of the operational plant area and included soil and groundwater chemical analysis;

• Selected borehole logs from a 2005 Exploration Associates GI are included within the 2018 JPP report [9]. These logs are centred around the proposed Phase 3 (RDF) building;

• 2011 Listers investigation [3]. The purpose of the GI was to provide an assessment of the geotechnical engineering properties of the ground and to provide initial comments on the extent of any soil contamination in an area approximately 35m north of the proposed Phase 1 physical laboratory;

• JPP 2018 physical laboratory trench investigation Drawings 01 and 02. The purpose of this investigation was to record obstructions in the ground in advance of construction of the new physical laboratory building (Phase 1), and

• JPP 2018 [9] investigation. The purpose of the GI was to inform foundation design for the proposed new RDF store (Phase 3) and extension to the packing plant building (Phase 2). Fieldwork comprised nine rotary boreholes to maximum 11.5m bgl, five dynamic samples to a maximum of 1.5m bgl and laboratory chemical analysis of five soil samples.

The locations of historical ground investigations in the context of the proposed Phase 1-3 areas are shown in Figure 9 overleaf.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date

\\GLOBAL\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\260000\267787-00\0 ARUP\0-03 GROUND ENGINEERING\0-03-08 REPORTS\REMEDIATION STRATEGY\20190806_CLIMAFUEL REMEDIATION STRATEGY_REV 1.DOCX

Page 12

Figure 9 Existing relevant ground investigation points (pre-2019)


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 13

4 2019 Site investigations Two ground investigations were undertaken within the CEMEX site during June 2019 by Clancy and JPP. Both investigations were procured and managed by CEMEX specifically for the proposed Climafuel development. The data from these ground investigations is presented in Appendix D.

The locations of investigations carried out in 2019 are shown in Figure 10 overleaf.

4.1 Clancy Consulting 2019 geotechnical investigation

The Clancy investigation [10] was targeted at identifying geotechnical ground conditions to provide information for structural design of Phases 2 and 3. A small amount of contamination testing was also carried out.

The ground investigation comprised the following intrusive work:

• Five cable percussion boreholes, one borehole had rotary cored follow-on;

• Two window samples (one of which had to be moved three times due to refusals on concrete obstructions).

The ground investigation incorporated no standpipe installations.

4.2 JPP 2019 geoenvironmental investigation The purpose of the JPP investigation [11] was to obtain geoenvironmental information to inform a risk assessment and remediation strategy for Phases 1 to 3 of the proposed Climafuel development. The scope of the investigation was specified by Arup.

The ground investigation comprised the following intrusive work:

• Four cable-percussion boreholes, and

• Four window samples.

Samples of soil were taken for chemical laboratory testing and gas monitoring standpipes were installed in six locations, to allow for post-fieldwork gas monitoring.

In addition, two groundwater monitoring wells (MW5 and MW6) were installed to allow groundwater monitoring within the bedrock aquifer.

No groundwater samples have been collected by JPP for chemical analysis. Groundwater quality monitoring is required under the terms of the environmental permit and is outside the scope of this report.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date

\\GLOBAL\EUROPE\LEEDS\JOBS\260000\267787-00\0 ARUP\0-03 GROUND ENGINEERING\0-03-08 REPORTS\REMEDIATION STRATEGY\20190806_CLIMAFUEL REMEDIATION STRATEGY_REV 1.DOCX

Page 14

Figure 10 Investigation locations for the Clancy and JPP 2019 investigations


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 15

4.3 Laboratory testing Soil samples were taken for geotechnical and geochemical testing. Twenty samples from the Clancy investigation and sixteen from the JPP investigation were tested. The chemical laboratory testing specified during each ground investigation is summarised in Table 1 and Table 2 below.

Table 1 Clancy investigation soil testing summary

Geochemical Testing Samples Tested

Asbestos 11

Metals and metalloids (As, B, Be, Cd, Cr, Cr(VI), Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, V, Zn, pH)

16

Phenol 16

Free Cyanide 16

TPH-CWG (aliphatic and aromatic speciation) 16

PAH (US EPA Priority 16) 16

PCB 16

Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) 16

Table 2: JPP investigation soil testing summary

Geochemical Testing Samples Tested

Asbestos 14

Metals and metalloids (As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cr(VI), Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, Sb, V, Zn, pH)

13

Phenol 13

Free Cyanide 13

TPH-CWG (aliphatic and aromatic speciation) 13

PAH (US EPA Priority 16) 13

PCB 13

VOC and SVOC 2

Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) 4

4.4 Installations and monitoring Six gas monitoring standpipes were installed as part of the 2019 JPP investigation, two standpipes per phase development location. These installations were fitted with continuous gas monitors and monitored for a period of one month. A summary of the monitoring wells is provided in Table 3.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 16

Table 3: Summary table of installations

Phase No. Monitoring well reference

Response Zone (mbgl)

Response Zone Strata

Monitoring Type

1 BH1001 0.9 – 4.9 Made ground Gas

BH1002 0.9 – 5.9 Made ground + Alluvium (from 5.5mbgl)

Gas

2 WS2001 0.3 – 0.8 Made ground Gas

WS2002 1.1 – 2.8 Made ground Gas

3 BH3001 0.9 – 4.9 Made ground Gas

BH3002 0.9 – 4.9 Made ground, alluvium (from 3.1-4.2mbgl), and Rugby limestone formation (from 4.2 mbgl)

Gas


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 17

5 Ground conditions

5.1 Introduction The typical stratigraphy at the site was identified as made ground, occasionally overlying alluvial deposits (river terrace deposits), which was deposited over bedrock of the Rugby Limestone Member. A summary of the stratigraphy encountered for each of the phase location is provided in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. Further detail is provided in the following sections.

Table 4: Summary of stratigraphy beneath the Phase 1 location

Geological unit Typical description Typical depth to top of stratum (mbgl)

Thickness of stratum (m)

Made ground Grey sandy fine to course angular gravel of igneous lithology/sandstone/limestone, occasional fragments of coal and brick and cobbles of concrete

0 2.8-5.5*

Alluvium Stiff grey silty slightly gravelly clay. Gravel consists of coarse sub rounded flint/quartzite/mudstone

2.8 – 5.5 Not proven

*Note that material had been placed in the Phase 1 area to form a working platform prior to the JPP 2019 investigation, resulting in thicker made ground in this area


Geological unit Typical description Typical depth to top of stratum (mbgl)


Made ground Grey silty sandy dine to coarse gravel with fragments of brick, quartzite, mudstone, clinker wood, and concrete

0 0.3 to 2.9

Alluvium

Firm to stiff sandy gravelly clay with occasional rootlets and sub-rounded quartz

2.4 - 3 1.1 to 1.7

Rugby Limestone Member

Firm to stiff blue grey silty clay/weathered limestone

3 Not proven


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 18


Geological unit Typical description Typical depth to top of stratum* (mbgl)


Made ground Grey sandy fine to course angular gravel of igneous lithology/sandstone/limestone, occasional fragments of coal and brick and cobbles of concrete

0 0.3 to 9.3

Alluvium Firm to stiff grey slightly sandy and gravelly clay. Gravel consists of coarse sub-rounded to rounded flint and quartzite

0.9 – 1.3 (north of RDF building 3.1 (west of the RDF building)

0.6 to 2.1

Rugby Limestone Member

Extremely weak highly weathered grey mudstone with thickly spaced moderately strong to strong brown limestone bands

1.5 – 4 (north/west of RDF) 9.3 (adjacent)

Not proven

*The variation in strata depths results from the elevated ground which the current RDF building is located. Boreholes north and west of the RDF building were drilled on lower lying ground, hence the made ground thickness is less. One borehole (BH3002) was located adjacent (SE) of the RDF building and therefore represents the thickness of material through the elevated ground.

5.2 Made ground The site history indicated quarrying activity in the northern part of the CEMEX Rugby site, and consequently, the made ground beneath the site was expected to be of a significant thickness within formerly quarried areas, comprising materials derived on-site as a result of quarrying and cement manufacture.

Made ground was encountered in all exploratory holes. The made ground was noted to contain man-made artefacts including brick, wood, concrete, metal and coal. No visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was noted during the 2019 ground investigations, however TP3 from the 2001 Weeks investigation [8] (Phase 3 area) did note a strong diesel odour at 1.6mbgl.

5.3 Alluvium BGS data indicated that alluvium is not extensive across the site however the GI data evidences otherwise, with alluvium present at most locations and present at all three phase locations. Therefore, it may be more extensive than previously thought. It is made up of gravely, sandy, clayey river terrace deposits.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 19

5.4 Rugby Limestone Member The Rugby Limestone Member is made up of alternating grey argillaceous limestones and mudstones. It was encountered within numerous locations and the top of the unit was observed to be highly weathered.

5.5 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in both the made ground and Rugby Limestone Member during drilling. In the made ground, groundwater was encountered in BH1002 at 5.4m bgl as a slow inflow, and WM6 as a slow inflow at 2.4m bgl.

All other groundwater strikes were made within the Rugby Limestone Member bedrock, in BH3001 (9.1m bgl, fast inflow), BH3002 (3.4m bgl, medium inflow), MW5 (10.9m bgl and 16.9m bgl, fast inflow) and MW6 (5.6m fast inflow and 26.4m bgl).

The information from drilling suggests perched water is present in the made ground, whilst the main groundwater body is within the Rugby Limestone Member.

Groundwater was not sampled or tested as part of the 2019 ground investigations, as CEMEX are already fulfilling their requirements for routine groundwater testing as part of the obligations of the environmental permit for the operations at the site.

5.6 Ground gas Listers, 2011 [3] reported a high gas flow rate (13 l/hr) together with depleted oxygen and low concentrations of carbon dioxide from a single monitoring well to the north of the Phase 1 area. However, monitoring was only carried out on one occasion. Given the potential for thicker made ground within the backfilled quarry areas, gas monitoring was deemed necessary during the 2019 investigations. Continuous ground gas monitoring was undertaken in six monitoring wells over a period of one month. The results are summarised in Table 7 below.

Table 7 Ground Gas Monitoring Summary

Monitoring Well Ref.

Response zone

Maximum CH4 % v:v

Maximum CO2 %v:v

Maximum CO ppm

Maximum H2S ppm

Maximum Flow l/hr

Maximum GSV (l/hr)

Maximum Characteristic Situation

BH1001 Made ground

0.01 0.1 2.48 0.08 0.18 0.0002 CS1

BH1002 Made ground and alluvium

0.08 0.16 13.7 0.93 0.2 0.0003 CS1

WS2001 Made ground

0.01 0.03 10.93 0.02 0.54 0.0001 CS1


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 20

Monitoring Well Ref.

Response zone

Maximum CH4 % v:v

Maximum CO2 %v:v

Maximum CO ppm

Maximum H2S ppm

Maximum Flow l/hr

Maximum GSV (l/hr)

Maximum Characteristic Situation

WS2002 Made ground

0.11 0.28 1.61 0 1.54 0.004 CS1

BH3001 Made ground

0.01 0.47 5.45 0.03 2.62 0.01 CS1

BH3002 Made ground, alluvium and RLM

0.39 1.74 27.33 0 0.92 0.02 CS1


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 21

6 Conceptual Site Model

6.1 Introduction The Environment Agency has developed guidance that defines the approach for assessing and managing land affected by contamination (CLR11) [12]. The guidance presents a procedure to assess whether land is suitable for use. One of the key requirements in assessing this is the conceptual site model. A conceptual site model (CSM) is a method of describing the linkages between potential sources of contamination and receptors at a site. The conceptual model considers the interaction of contaminants in the natural environment and transport in media including soil, groundwater and air. The linkage between a potential source of contamination and a receptor is considered in the CSM and a risk exists and requires further investigation only if a complete pollutant linkage is identified.

6.2 Sources Potential sources of site-based contamination are principally associated with historical land uses which may have resulted in contamination. The primary potential contaminant source is historical operation of the cement works and associated works, facilities and tanks. Historical land uses are summarised in Section 2.3 of this report.

Ground investigations have identified that made ground is present across the site, which was found to contain various materials such as ash, coal and metals which may be potential sources of contamination with chemicals such as heavy metals, inorganics and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Asbestos was identified within a small number of soil samples. Potential contaminants are summarised in Table 8 below.

Table 8 Potential sources of contamination

Potential Source Potentially Contaminative Materials

Comments

Made ground from site operations including:

• Cement manufacture

• Rail sidings

• Quarry backfill

Asbestos Metals and metalloids including lead, arsenic, mercury, nickel, copper, zinc, iron Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) including lubricating oils, heating oils, petrol and diesel range organics Solvents (VOC and SVOC) Cyanide (free and complex) Phenol Extremes of pH

The ground investigations have identified materials such as ash, clinker and coal in the made ground. Asbestos was identified at WS1001, BH3, WS5 and it may also be present in other areas of contaminated soil not yet identified. Hydrocarbon odour was noted in one location within Phase 3.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 22

Potential Source Potentially Contaminative Materials

Comments

Historic demolition rubble in made ground

Asbestos Previous buildings within the site boundary may have contained asbestos, which may have become part of the made ground during demolition.

Perched groundwater within made ground/relic structures

Potential for leachable contaminants from made ground

Testing of soil leachate has typically not identified elevated concentrations of contamination in made ground

Made ground containing degradable materials

Hazardous ground gases (methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide)

Previous gas monitoring carried out by Listers (2011) identified high gas flow rate in one monitoring well. The site is within 250m of two historical landfill sites and the proposed developments are partially located over an infilled quarry.

6.3 Receptors Receptors both during construction and after completion of the development include:

• Construction workers;

• Future site users (staff and visitors);

• Groundwater within the Rugby Limestone Member (Secondary A aquifer);

• Sow Brook (passes through the western part of the site) and River Avon (150m north of site boundary);

• Buried structures, buildings and services;

• Plants in new soft landscaped areas.

6.4 Pathways Potential pathways that may be present during redevelopment and operation include:

• Human health – ingestion of soils and dust;

• Human health – inhalation of dust, vapour, fibres or ground gas;

• Human health – dermal contact with soils;

• Controlled waters – migration of dissolved or free phase contamination within groundwater (preferential flowpaths may exist such as abandoned drainage channels);


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 23

• Ground gas – ingress of ground gas into the new buildings. Of particular concern is the Phase 1 laboratory building, which has some small internal rooms. The other two proposed buildings are large sheds for industrial processes;

• Buildings and services – building materials such as concrete and plastic pipework may be subject to attack by aggressive ground conditions, where present.

6.5 Plausible pollutant linkages

6.5.1 Human health The whole site will be occupied by CEMEX and used for industrial purposes. The development includes the construction of three new buildings, together with new roads and car parking, following demolition of existing structures. The majority of the land will be covered with buildings and hardstanding, therefore human contact with soil is unlikely.

The construction phase will include excavation to the proposed ground level and for construction of foundations. During this phase dermal, inhalation and ingestion pathways will be present to construction workers and site neighbours.

Pathways linked to post-construction vary per development phase location:

• Phase 1: The physical laboratory will be surrounded by soft landscaping and therefore dermal, inhalation and ingestion pathways are likely present between future site users and near surface soils in this area;

• Phase 2: The packing plant will have a concrete/hard floor and will be surrounded by asphalt. Therefore dermal, inhalation and ingestion pathways are likely not present between future site users and near surface soils, and

• Phase 3: The RDF facility will have a concrete/hard floor and will be surrounded by asphalt. However, the replacement car parking is to have a small amount of re-landscaping associated with it. Therefore dermal, inhalation and ingestion pathways may be present between future site users and near surface soils in any landscaped areas associated with Phase 3.

6.5.2 Controlled waters There is a potential for pathways to exist between any mobile contaminants in the made ground and groundwater within the Rugby Limestone Member, a Secondary A aquifer, as the made ground has been noted to directly overlie the bedrock.

The proposed Drainage Strategy [13] does not allow for infiltration drainage through the existing made ground for the proposed new Climafuel developments, and the site will be mostly hard surfaced. Therefore, no significant pathways for the leaching of contaminants from soil into the Rugby Limestone Member aquifer will exist post-construction.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 24

Sow Brook runs through the site and therefore a potential pathway exists between contaminants and the water feature, particularly any contaminants released from surface run-off of stockpiles during construction. It should be noted that only the Phase 1 development is located next to Sow Brook, with the other two phases of development located in the centre of the site. The site drainage system diverts water to the GRIP from where it is pumped to CEMEX’s treatment plant at Parkfield Road before discharge to Sow Brook.

The primary controlled water receptor within the site is the Sow Brook.

6.5.3 Planting Plants being grown in new soft landscaping areas, such as those around Phase 1, or the new car parking associated with Phase 3, may be at risk of phytotoxicity from any contamination present within the soil or groundwater, via root uptake of dissolved contaminants or leaf uptake of vapours.

6.5.4 Buildings, building materials and services A potential pollutant linkage exists between below-ground building materials such as water pipes and concrete foundations and areas of contamination within the made ground. This may be of particular importance to any potable water supply pipes associated with the Phase 1 physical laboratory. The large buildings also have a potential risk of ground gas ingress.

6.6 Summary A summary of the plausible pollutant linkages requiring assessment in relation to the site is presented in Table 9 and Table 10 below.

Table 9: Potential pollutant linkages during construction (all phases)

Source Pathway Receptor Linkage?

Made Ground (containing solid contaminants, asbestos fibres and possible hydrocarbons)

→ Dermal contact → Construction worker Yes

Ingestion of soil/ soil dust

→ Yes

Inhalation of soil vapour → Yes

Inhalation of soil and soil dust

→ Construction worker Yes

→ User of wider CEMEX site

Yes

Temporary stockpiles of excavated arisings

→ Leaching and runoff Surface water drainage No

→ Sow Brook Yes (Phase 1 only)

Leaching and infiltration Shallow aquifer No

Shallow groundwater

→ Dermal contact Construction worker No

Ingestion of water Construction worker No


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 25


Inhalation of vapours Construction worker No

Ground gases → Ingress and accumulation of toxic, asphyxiating or explosive concentrations within excavations

→ Construction worker Yes

Table 10 Potential pollutant linkages during operation


Made Ground (containing solid contaminants and possible hydrocarbons from historical spills)

→ Dermal contact → Future site user in soft landscaping areas only Pathways broken where hard surfacing and buildings present

Yes

Ingestion of soil/ soil dust → Yes

Inhalation of soil vapour (no evidence of volatile contaminants)

No

Inhalation of soil and soil dust

→ Yes

Leaching and infiltration (Pathway prevented by buildings and hardstanding, no infiltration drainage proposed)

Shallow aquifer No

Direct contact → Buried structural concrete

Yes

→ Potable water supply pipes

Yes

Ground gases → Ingress and accumulation to toxic, asphyxiating or explosive concentrations within buildings

→ Future site user Building structures

Yes


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 26

7 Environmental risk assessments

7.1 Introduction Several plausible pollutant linkages have been identified at the site (Section 6). An environmental risk assessment has been undertaken for each of the receptors for which a plausible pollutant linkage has been identified. The process outlined in the CLR11 guidance [12] follows a tiered approach to assessing risk which begins with an initial screening assessment known as a generic quantitative risk assessment (GQRA). The GQRA makes use of published assessment criteria and when a soil/ groundwater concentration exceeds the screening value then further consideration is required. The GQRA is presented in the following sections.

The potential environmental risks have been considered in the context of a conceptual source-pathway-receptor (SPR) model of the site. A preliminary evaluation of the level of risk to each receptor from the identified plausible pathways and the level of mitigation that would be required for the proposed academic development is also provided.

Data from both the 2019 GI and historical GIs was included in the assessment, where it was located within 25m of the proposed development footprint.

7.2 Human health

7.2.1 Assessment A human health risk assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Environment Agency Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) framework. The CLEA software estimates human exposure to soil contaminants for those potentially living, working and/or playing on contaminated sites over long-time periods (chronic exposure). A detailed account of the risk assessments carried out for CEMEX are presented in Appendix D.

The soil chemical data was screened against generic assessment criteria (GAC) appropriate for commercial/industrial developments, which is considered appropriate for the proposed developments discussed in this report. At all locations, the soil organic matter (SOM) content was found to be less than 2.5% (the SOM for phases 1, 2 and 3 was 2.15%, 1.99%, and 1.88% respectively) and therefore generic assessment criteria at 1% SOM were used for screening.

Phase 1 No testing data was available in this area from previous ground investigation. Five samples of made ground from the JPP 2019 investigation were tested in this area. No exceedances of the soil screening criteria were identified. A fragment of asbestos containing material (ACM) was encountered in the soil from WS1001, in which 0.747% was chrysotile. No loose fibres were encountered in the soil samples from this area.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 27

Phase 2 Fifteen samples of made ground were tested as part of a range of investigations (JPP, 2019 (4); Clancy, 2019 (8); JPP, 2018 (1); Weeks, 2001 (2)). No exceedances of the soil screening criteria were identified, and no asbestos was identified in the samples tested.

Phase 3 Twenty-four samples of made ground from a range of investigations (Clancy, 2019 (12); JPP, 2019 (5); JPP, 2018 (5); Weeks, 2001 (2)). No exceedances of the soil screening criteria were identified, however asbestos fibres were encountered in two samples: BH3 and WS5, from the JPP 2018 investigation. The quantity of asbestos in both samples was <0.001% chrysotile.

7.2.2 Evaluation – Construction phase A plausible pollutant linkage was identified in the conceptual model relating to construction workers and users of the wider CEMEX site (direct contact/ingestion and inhalation) as excavation and re-use of made ground is to be undertaken during the redevelopment of the site.

Although ground investigations have good coverage of the three development sites, it is possible that areas of contamination may exist which have not yet been identified. Mitigation measures will be required to deal with the potential for encountering unidentified contamination during construction.

It is recommended that specific precautions are taken during any future earthworks to reduce potential exposure to potentially contaminated soils in accordance with the principle of ‘as low as reasonably practical’ (ALARP). This would include appropriate briefings, dust suppression and protective equipment (PPE). Risk assessments to protect construction workers and the use of good construction practices will be required.

Assuming that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented during construction, it is assessed that the risk of harm to construction workers and neighbours can be reduced to acceptable levels.

7.2.3 Evaluation - Operational phase The soil screening assessment did not identify any contaminants of concern in made ground soils which would pose an unacceptable risk to future site users. The asbestos contamination identified in WS1001 (ACM fragment), BH3 and WS5 are unlikely to pose a significant risk to the health of future site users. Any other areas of previously unidentified contamination will be dealt with during construction. No specific remediation is considered to be necessary to protect human health in the operational phase.

Assuming that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented during construction, it is assessed that the risk of harm to human health during operation will be negligible.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 28

7.3 Controlled waters A plausible pollutant linkage was identified between surface run-off from stockpiles during construction into the Sow Brook within the Phase 1 area. This remains a potential risk and any material stockpiles will need to be managed to ensure that soil or other construction materials are not washed directly into Sow Brook during construction.

7.4 Ground gas

7.4.1 Assessment The risk posed to new buildings by hazardous ground gases has been assessed in accordance with current good practice guidance, including CIRIA C665 [14].

A total of six gas monitoring wells were installed as part of the 2019 JPP investigation, all of which were fitted with continuous gas monitors that analysed for ground gases and flow at hourly intervals for four weeks.

The data used in the assessment included the monitoring data collected from these locations from 28th June to 29th July 2019. Monitoring wells WS2001 and WS2002, both of which are located within the proposed Packing Plant extension, incurred a period of unrecorded data due to problems with the batteries in both monitors. Therefore over 31 days of monitoring, WS2001 is missing 10.5 days of data and 4.5 days of data for WS2002.

The gas monitoring has not identified any significant concerns with respect to ground gases (carbon dioxide, methane and carbon monoxide), with the maximum concentration of methane being 0.39% v:v and carbon dioxide of 1.74%v:v, coupled with a maximum flow of 2.62l/hr. The data gives overall gas screening values which place the site within Characteristic Situation 1 in accordance with CIRIA C665 guidance, as shown in Table 7.

Detectable concentrations of carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulphide were also present in all standpipes, with the maximum concentration of carbon monoxide being 27.3ppm and hydrogen sulphide 0.93ppm. These values have been compared against the workplace exposure limits (WEL) considered relevant to this assessment, in Table 11 below. The comparison shows that the maximum recorded concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) was slightly in excess of the WEL, whilst hydrogen sulphide concentrations are well below the WEL. The maximum CO concentration were detected in the Phase 3 area, where the deepest fill is present, but where the sensitivity of the proposed development (i.e. the proposed RDF store) is low. It is expected that the new RDF store will have a significant amount of natural ventilation due to the nature of the materials being stored inside (i.e. refuse-derived fuel) and the low concentration of CO detected in the ground will not pose a significant risk to the development.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 29

Table 11 Concentrations of CO and H2S compared against WELs

Maximum concentration detected during monitoring

(ppm)

Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL), 8 hour exposure

(ppm)

Carbon monoxide 27.3 20

Hydrogen sulphide 0.93 5

7.4.2 Evaluation Based on an assessment of the peak gas concentrations and flows, and the calculated Gas Screening Values (GSV) for each monitoring well, the site falls within Characteristic Situation 1, or “very low risk or hazard potential”, as defined in CIRIA C665. The site is not recorded as being within an area at risk of radon gas. No special gas protection measures are considered to be necessary within the new building to protect against the ingress of ground gases, including carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide and radon gas.

7.5 Soft landscaping

7.5.1 Assessment A plausible pollutant linkage was identified between existing site soils and plants in future landscaping areas, including soft landscaping around Phase 1 and the new car parking provision in Phase 3. The risk to vegetation planted in soft landscaped soils materials derived from site won materials has been assessed, based on the guideline values in the 1998 MAFF document “The Soil Code” [15].

The Soil Code values are pH dependent. The average pH across all samples, and all phases, was found to be 8.68. Screening values relating to this pH were used and a single exceedance was found in WS5 at 0.5m depth (phase 3, JPP 2018), with zinc concentrations of 910mg/kg, compared to the screening criteria of 300mg/kg. A complete screening table can be found in Appendix E. This elevated zinc concentration was not typical of the other samples tested, all of which were well within the screening criterion.

It is also possible that areas of contamination may exist which have not yet been identified. Mitigation measures will be required to deal with the potential for encountering unforeseen contamination during construction.

7.5.2 Evaluation The assessment has identified that site-won materials are suitable to be re-used in the proposed soft landscaping areas without further treatment.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 30

7.6 Buried structures and services

7.6.1 Assessment A concrete assessment has been undertaken by both Clancy and JPP, following the guidance outlined in BRE Special Digest 1 [16].

Clancy’s assessment [10] was carried out using data from the JPP 2018 investigation for Phase 3. They concluded that the soil contains >0.3% pyritic materials. As such, the total potential sulphate content needs to be taken into account when assessing the potential for sulphate attack on buried concrete. For shallow foundations for the RDF, Clancy recommended DS-3, AC-3, and for made ground in the historic quarry, DS-4, AC-4.

JPP’s assessment [11] was carried out using data from their 2018 and 2019 investigations. Their conclusions are summarised in Table 12 below.

Table 12 Summary of JPP BRE SD1 concrete classification

Phase Made ground Rugby Limestone Member

Outside backfilled quarry

Inside backfilled quarry

1 (new physical laboratory)

DS-3, AC-3 N/A

DS-2, AC-2 (disturbed)

DS-3, AC-3 (undisturbed)

2 (packing plant extension)

DS-1, AC-1 N/A

3 (RDF store) DS-2, AC-2 DS-4, AC-4

A potential pollutant linkage exists between potable water supply pipes (and the water within) and potential contaminants in the made ground. An assessment of the potential impact on water supply pipes has been made, using the chemical testing data for the Phase 1 physical laboratory area and the UKWIR guidance [17], see Appendix G. The assessment confirms that if water supply pipes are to be laid at a depth of greater than 1.2m within Phase 1, or within natural materials, then PE (i.e. standard water supply pipe material) would be suitable.

7.6.2 Evaluation The concrete assessments carried out by Clancy and JPP have both confirmed the need for sulphate-resistant concrete specification for all new foundations within the site. The level of sulphate resistance depends on the nature of the founding material and area of the site.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 31

The potable water supply to the new physical laboratory building can be laid using standard PE pipe material. Therefore, no special mitigation measures are required with respect to the new water supply to the physical laboratory.

7.7 Updated conceptual site model The conceptual site model has been updated to consider the residual risk at the site. The updated CSM is presented in Table 13, which identifies the potential source-pathway-receptor linkages which are likely to be present during and post completion of the Climafuel development. Mitigation measures to deal with these linkages are discussed in Section 8, which presents the remediation strategy.

Table 13 Summary of identified pollutant linkages following risk assessment

Source Receptor Pathways


Construction worker Dermal contact, ingestion of soil, inhalation/ ingestion of fugitive dust, inhalation of vapours


Dermal contact, ingestion of soil, inhalation/ ingestion of fugitive dust, inhalation of vapours

Ecology Uptake of phytotoxic compounds by vegetation

Buried Structures Soil or groundwater aggressive to concrete

Surface waters Runoff from stockpiled materials into surface watercourses (Phase 1 area only) Accidental spillages entering surface watercourses (Phase 1 area only)


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 32

8 Remediation strategy

8.1 Scope This report has been produced to present the remediation strategy for the proposed Climafuel developments. The remediation strategy relates to planning application RBC/18CM026, RBC/18CM027, and RBC/18CM028, and the conditions relating to the management of potential contamination (Condition 4 of consent ref. 18CM026 and Condition 3 of consents ref. 18CM027 and 18CM028).

The works to be undertaken by the Principal Contractor, Fairport Engineering Ltd, comprise site preparation, drainage, utilities, foundations and superstructure construction works.

A summary of the identified pollutant linkages remaining following risk assessment is presented below:

The risk assessments have identified pollutant linkages during construction between:

• Made ground and construction workers;

• site workers within the CEMEX plant, who may be exposed to dust and mud dropped on internal roadways during construction;

• stockpiled or exposed soils or spilled materials and the Sow Brook, via runoff (Phase 1 area only).

During operation, linkages exist between:

• Buried concrete structures and aggressive materials in the ground i.e. sulphate;

• Buried water supply pipes (used for potable supply, Phase 1 only) and aggressive chemicals in the ground.

The measures set out in this remediation strategy are designed to mitigate these pollutant linkages.

8.2 Control of risks during construction Control of fugitive dust will be implemented and as a minimum the works will be undertaken in accordance with BRE best practice guidance. Any mobile treatment plant used or crushing and/or screening will require an Environmental Permit issued by the local authority under Section 3.5 Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The Principal Contractor, Fairport Engineering Ltd, or their nominated sub-contractor, will be responsible for obtaining the correct permits for the work.

Appropriate measures should be taken to protect construction workers. This may include training in and enforcement of hygiene procedures and the use of personal protective equipment, however, the principal means of control should be at source


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 33

i.e. damping down, grading stockpiles to prevent dust generation, road cleaning and ensuring bare surfaces are compacted and sealed. The use of PPE such as dust masks for dust protection, should be a last resort.

The site is located adjacent to a surface watercourse, Sow Brook, which has the potential to be impacted by any run-off of exposed soil or spillages which occur during construction. Appropriate steps must be taken to protect the quality of the brook. This may include the sheeting of stockpiled excavated materials, the construction of a temporary bund along the edge of the brook and the provision of spill kits on site.

Mitigation measures that will be used to counter the identified potential impacts of construction may include:

• procedures and protocols to prevent construction workers, visitors and neighbours on the wider CEMEX site from being exposed to contaminated materials;

• monitoring of excavation works to identify unforeseen areas of contamination; • systems to record and monitor the movement and deposition of waste

materials leaving or being transported to other parts of the site; • preventing dust generation or odour during excavation and handling of

potentially contaminated materials;

• preventing contaminated run-off entering the flood alleviation channel and timely management of leaks and spills.

Materials handling and storage areas will be actively managed under a Materials Management Plan (MMP), which is required for the re-use of arisings within the Old Raw Plant area, see Section 8.4 below. Prolonged storage of material on site will be avoided wherever possible.

8.2.1 Unforeseen contamination encountered during construction

Any material which is identified as potentially contaminated (for example by visual appearance or odour) during excavation or inspection of the formation should be excavated and stockpiled separately, to enable samples to be taken for chemical analysis to identify the nature and degree of contamination present and determine the appropriate disposal route for the material.

The base and sides of the excavation will be sampled to prove that the contamination has been removed to its fullest extent. The chemical analysis on the samples taken will depend on the nature of the contamination identified, but the list in Table 14 can be used as a basis.

Photographs will be taken of the excavation and the extents surveyed and recorded on a plan for inclusion in the verification report. Any areas of unexpected contamination will be notified to the Contaminated Land Officer at WCC, who should agree the approach being taken to deal with the contamination.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 34

8.3 Requirements for imported materials (general fill, topsoil)

If materials such as general construction fill or topsoil require bringing on to site, these also require testing to ensure that they meet the standards set in Table 14. The Contractor will demonstrate the material is not waste. The minimum number of samples required will be as follows:

• Materials from offsite sources including soil recycling facilities such as crushed concrete and brick for use as engineering fill: sampled at a rate of 1 per 250m3 with a minimum of six samples;

• Materials from greenfield sites: sampled at a rate of 1 per 250m3 or a minimum of three samples, whichever is greater;

• All virgin aggregate imports (i.e. quarried stone) do not need to be tested.

Table 14 Soil quality criteria for clean, imported materials to be used on site

Determinand Quality criteria for clean soils imported to site (mg/kg)

Derivation

Arsenic 40 Residential C4SL

Cadmium 3 MAFF

Chromium 400 MAFF

Copper 200 MAFF

Lead 300 MAFF

Mercury 1 MAFF

Nickel 110 MAFF

Selenium 3 MAFF

Zinc 300 MAFF

Asbestos No presence (<0.001%) Professional judgement value

TPH Aliphatic C5-C6 40 Arup Residential GAC, rounded




TPH Aliphatic C12-C16 500 Professional judgement value



TPH Aromatic C5-C7 1 Benzene C4SL, residential

TPH Aromatic C7-C8 800 Arup Residential GAC, rounded





REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 35

Determinand Quality criteria for clean soils imported to site (mg/kg)

Derivation

TPH Aromatic C16-C21 500 Professional judgement value

TPH Aromatic C21-C35 500 Professional judgement value

Benzo(a)anthracene 10 Arup Residential GAC, rounded

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4 Arup Residential GAC, rounded

Benzo(a)pyrene 5 Residential C4SL

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 45 Arup Residential GAC, rounded

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 0.3 Arup Residential GAC, rounded

Chrysene 30 Arup Residential GAC, rounded

Naphthalene 2 Arup Residential GAC, rounded

*professional judgement values have been used where the GAC is >500mg/kg. Whilst there may not be a risk to health at concentrations greater than this, there may be aesthetic issues with the soil.

8.4 Materials Management

8.4.1 Material re-use Approximately 19,500m3 of material is anticipated to be excavated during the three phases of development. It is proposed to re-use suitable materials to restore an area of the site to enhance the ecological value of the Old Raw Plant area, where an estimated volume of 12,000m3 is needed to create the required landform. The Old Raw Plant restoration area is located in the eastern part of the site close to Parkfield Road, as shown in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11: Proposed location of the Old Raw Plant restoration area

Any material re-use within this area will be in accordance with a Materials Management Plan (MMP). Materials re-use will be carried out under the


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 36

CL:AIRE Definition of Waste: Code of Practice1, which is a voluntary scheme designed to allow the beneficial re-use of suitable excavated material that would otherwise be classified as waste. The Code of Practice requires four factors to be met:

• The material will not create an unacceptable risk of pollution of the environment or harm to human health;

• the material is suitable for use without further treatment;

• the re-use of the material is not a probability, but a certainty;

• materials are only to be used in quantities that are necessary for the use, and no more.

It is believed that the re-use of excavated arisings from Phases 1 to 3 will meet these criteria.

In order for the materials to be re-used under the CL:AIRE Code of Practice [18], a MMP will be required for this operation. As the materials will be generated within the CEMEX site boundary and re-used within this boundary, the ‘Site of Origin’ scenario is appropriate. This will require the collection of appropriate records and data. Material movements will need to be logged in a material tracking register. The MMP will be prepared separately and submitted as part of the declaration to CL:AIRE that materials re-use is intended as part of this development scheme.

8.4.2 Offsite disposal Whilst retaining the excavated materials on-site is considered to be the most environmentally sustainable option, if materials are unsuitable or surplus to requirement within the Old Raw Plant area, they will need to be taken offsite for disposal.

CEMEX and their Principal Contractor, Fairport Engineering Ltd, will be responsible for identifying appropriate sites to accept excavation arisings from the Rugby site, and for segregating and classifying the surplus materials before being sent offsite. However, a preliminary assessment of the waste classification is presented in Appendix H, which has identified that one of the samples within the dataset for the three Phase areas would be classified as hazardous waste. The sample from WS1001 from the Phase 1 area contained a visible fragment of asbestos and would therefore be classified as hazardous waste if sent for disposal to landfill.

The remaining samples tested did not have hazardous properties. The WAC testing carried out by Clancy and JPP in 2019 indicates that the majority of material meets the criteria for disposal of inert waste, with a small number of samples from the JPP investigation being classified as non-hazardous waste.

1 CL:AIRE (2011) The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice. Version 2. Available online at: https://www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/dow-cop/28-framework-and-guidance/111-dow-cop-main-document

https://www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/dow-cop/28-framework-and-guidance/111-dow-cop-main-document

https://www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/dow-cop/28-framework-and-guidance/111-dow-cop-main-document


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 37

8.5 Liaison with regulatory authorities A close working relationship will be promoted at all times with the Regulatory Authorities (i.e. Warwickshire County Council Contaminated Land Officer (CLO)/ Environmental Health Officer (EHO) and the Environment Agency). Site visits by the Regulators will be encouraged and any concerns raised should be immediately investigated and addressed.

Warwickshire CLO/EHO will be notified of any unforeseen contamination encountered during the works and the measures taken to deal with this contamination, as required by the planning consent for each phase. The Verification Report will be submitted to Warwickshire County Council on completion, as required by the planning consent for each phase.

8.6 Site records Daily records including photographs will be kept by the Principal Contractor, Fairport Engineering Ltd, of site activities, extent of excavations, plant/personnel present on site, location of and material within stockpiles, test results, quantities of material removed from site and location of imported material. Records will be documented in the verification report, which will be completed following the works.

8.7 Verification reporting A verification report will be produced following completion of the works addressing the mitigation measures taken to address the risks identified in this risk assessment and remediation strategy report.

It is proposed that a single verification report will be prepared covering the entire proposed scheme (i.e. Phases 1, 2, 3) to address Condition 4 of planning consent RBC/18CM026, and Condition 3 of planning consents RBC/18CM027 and RBC/18CM028. If excavation arisings are re-used within the site, the verification report will also be required for submission to CL:AIRE, as this is a requirement of the Definition of Waste: Code of Practice (DoW:CoP) for the re-use of materials.

The report will be produced in line with CLR11 and the following information will be collated, where appropriate, and presented in the verification report:

• Details of works carried out and any previously unidentified contamination encountered;

• Demonstration of compliance and description of validation methods (in this case, visual checks of material are required during excavation and transport within or offsite);

• Copies of any laboratory testing carried out e.g. on unexpected contamination; • Monitoring and compliance results e.g. dust monitoring; • Photographic records of construction progress in each area, stockpiled

materials, unexpected contamination etc; • Materials tracking records (including checks on material quality, movement

and deposition) in accordance with the MMP;


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 38

• Confirmation of the removal of surplus materials off-site, if required (e.g. details of the waste carrier used, the site of disposal and waste transfer notes);

• Confirmation that the appropriate concrete specification has been used in new foundations;

• Confirmation that the appropriate pipe materials have been used for new potable connections, in accordance with Severn Trent requirements;

• Confirmation that remediation objectives have been met; • Description of final site conditions.

All of the data will be compiled during the site works and maintained on site along with records of any decisions made.

Upon completion of the works a verification report will be submitted to WCC for approval and discharge of planning condition 3 of each of the planning consents relevant to this work, and to CL:AIRE to satisfy the requirements of the DoW:CoP scheme.

8.8 Programme Phase 1 and Phase 3 are to be constructed concurrently, following discharge of planning conditions. Construction of Phase 2 will take place approximately eight weeks after the start of Phase 1.


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 39

9 Conclusions The environmental risk assessments presented in this report have identified that there are potential risks posed to human health, controlled waters, buried structures and services which require mitigation. These risks are typical of many brownfield redevelopments. A summary of the identified risks requiring mitigation are presented in Table 15 below.

Table 15 Summary of risks and proposed mitigation measures

Source Receptor Pathways Proposed Mitigation


Construction worker

Dermal contact, ingestion of soil, ingestion of fugitive dust

Construction workers to use appropriate PPE e.g. gloves, where necessary. Watching brief during earthworks to identify any areas of potential contamination

Inhalation of fugitive dust Dust control measures as necessary e.g. damping down, grading stockpiles to prevent dust generation, road cleaning and ensuring bare surfaces are compacted and sealed. Appropriate PPE (e.g. dust masks) where necessary.


Dermal contact with, and ingestion of, fugitive dust spread from construction areas

Dust control measures as necessary e.g. damping down, grading stockpiles to prevent dust generation, road cleaning and ensuring bare surfaces are compacted and sealed.

Inhalation of fugitive dust blown from construction areas

Plants in soft landscaping areas

Uptake of phytotoxic compounds by vegetation

Visual screening of materials leaving construction areas prior to placement in soft landscaping areas

Buried Structures

Soil aggressive to concrete Use of protected concrete in foundations and structures in contact with the ground.

Surface waters Runoff from stockpiled materials into Sow Brook (Phase 1 only)

Stockpiled material in Phase 1 to be managed appropriately


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | Date



Page 40

Source Receptor Pathways Proposed Mitigation Accidental spillages entering surface watercourses (Phase 1 only)

Spill kits to be maintained during construction of Phase 1

The remediation strategy presented in this report sets out the procedures which are to be followed during construction. This report is intended to discharge those parts of Condition 4 of planning consent RBC/18CM026, and Condition 3 of planning consents RBC/18CM027 and RBC/18CM028, all of which relate to the investigation, risk assessment and preparation of a remediation strategy and verification plan. It should be noted that these conditions require a completed verification report to be submitted to Warwickshire County Council, confirming that the measures identified in this remediation strategy have been implemented on site.

References


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | 6 August 2019



[1] Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Defra Survey Data Download. Link: https://environment.data.gov.uk/DefraDataDownload/?Mode=survey

[2] Warwickshire County Council, Planning Portal. Link: https://planning.warwickshire.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=205486&StartIndex=1&SortOrder=RGNDAT:D&DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES&BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E

[3] Listers CEMEX Rugby Ground Investigation, 2011, Report No: 11-06-030. File Name: 1106030 Rugby.Final.pdf , File Location: \\global\europe\Leeds\Jobs\250000\254718-00\2 Client\2-2 Incoming docs\Climafuel Replacement Project\GI docs\

[4] Environment Agency online data service https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/RiverBasinDistrict/9

[5] MAGIC online data service https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx

[6] Public Health England. UK Maps of Radon. Link: https://www.ukradon.org/information/ukmaps

[7] Coal Authority (GOV). Coal Authority interactive map. Link: http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/coalauthority/home.html

[8] Weeks, 2001, Rugby Condition Report, File name: Rugby (Final) Condition Report D2381, File location: \\global\europe\Leeds\Jobs\250000\254718-00\2 Client\2-2 Incoming docs\Rugby Site Monitoring docs\Weeks SCR 2001\Text

[9] JPP (2018) Proposed RDF System Upgrade CEMEX Rugby Cement Plant, Lawford Road, Rugby CV21 2RY

[10] Clancy Consulting (2019) Cemex Rugby, New Climafuel Store & Packing Shed Extension. Factual Site Investigation Report. Dated 17th July 2019.

[11] JPP (2019) Climafuel Project, CEMEX Rugby Cement Plant, Lawford Road, Rugby CV21 2RY. Site investigation report, Revision 0: July 2019. R-SI-11729G-1-0

[12] Environment Agency (2004) Model procedures for the management of land contamination. R&D Report CLR11.

[13] Stantec (2019) Rugby Climafuel Upgrade - Storage Facility - Detailed Drainage Design. 66859R3.

[14] CIRIA (2007) Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings. CIRIA Report C665

https://environment.data.gov.uk/DefraDataDownload/?Mode=survey

https://environment.data.gov.uk/DefraDataDownload/?Mode=survey

https://planning.warwickshire.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=205486&StartIndex=1&SortOrder=RGNDAT:D&DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES&BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E





https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/RiverBasinDistrict/9

https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/RiverBasinDistrict/9

https://www.ukradon.org/information/ukmaps

http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/coalauthority/home.html


REP/267787/001 | Rev 1 | 6 August 2019



[15] Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1998) The Soil Code: Code of good agricultural practice for the protection of soil

[16] BRE (2005) Concrete in aggressive ground. Special Digest 1, third edition. SD1:2005.

[17] UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply

Pipes to be used in Brownfield Sites Ref. 10/WM/03/21 CL:AIRE DoWCoP

[18] ESI consulting, Envirocheck Report, Order Number: 151667280_1_1, Parkfield Road Quarry Site

Appendix A

Historical mapping extracts


REP/267787/001 | Issue | 6 August 2019


REMEDIATION STRATEGY_ISSUE.DOCX

Page B1

1913

1925


REP/267787/001 | Issue | 6 August 2019



Page B2

1955

1984


REP/267787/001 | Issue | 6 August 2019



Page B3

1991

1999


REP/267787/001 | Issue | 6 August 2019



Page B4

2006

2018

Appendix B

Historical ground investigation (pre-2019)


REP/267787/001 | Issue | 6 August 2019



Page C1

B1 Historical ground investigation • Weeks 2001 IPPC Site Condition Report. Rugby Cement Works. Include

relevant logs and chemical testing data.

• Selected borehole logs from a 2005 Exploration Associates GI are included within the 2018 JPP report. These logs are centred around the proposed Phase 3 (RDF) building;

• 2011 Listers investigation. Relevant logs.

• JPP 2018 physical laboratory trench investigation. Relevant logs and chemical testing data.

• JPP 2018 investigation. The purpose of the GI was to inform foundation design for the proposed new RDF store (Phase 3) and extension to the packing plant building (Phase 2). Relevant logs and chemical testing data.

CC'

B

B'

AA'

1200

1280

1600

200

1400

1000

2200

20012

00600200

800

150

200

300

5000

6000

top of concrete (former foundation)

200m

m

NorthamptonT: 01604 781811

ManchesterT:0161 6822927

Milton KeynesT: 01908 889433

· Infrastructure Design· Structural Engineering· Planning Services· Geotechnical & Environmental· Surveying· Professional Advice

Title

Project

Drawing No:

Client

Rev:

Drawn By:

Chkd By:

Scale @A4:

Date:

Status:

JPP QA Document T10 R1

Project No.:

CEMEX UK Ltd

Cemex, Rugby

Physical laboratory trenchinvestigation - section views

MK

LC

1:200

23/10/2018

10723G 02

FOR

INFORMATION

Key:

:

Base drawings - Cemex Survey June 1995 Severn Trent, Drainage

Layout No. 11-5-0000-L-009-01

Concrete

Notes:

Concrete

Approximate extentof trench exavation

View A-A' Scale: 1:30

View B-B' Scale: 1:30

View C-C' Scale: 1:50

0.00m TOPSOIL0.20m GROUND MADE:sandy cobbly gravel of concrete and brick

pit

Excavated

0.00m TOPSOIL

0.30m MADEGROUND: sandycobbly gravels ofbrick and concrete.Rare to occasionalboulders ofconcrete

1.40m MADEGROUND: sandygravelly clay.Gravel consists ofmudstone,limestone with rarebrick and timber

0.00m TOPSOIL

0.30m MADE GROUND:sandy cobbly gravels of brickconcrete clinker and ash

1.00m MADE GROUND:sandy cobbly gravels of brickconcrete and aggregate

1.40m MADE GROUND: sandyslightly gravelly clay withsome brick fragments. Gravelconsists of mudstone andsiltstone

Excavated

Excavated

GROUND LEVEL

GROUND LEVEL

GROUND LEVEL

Pilereinforcementbar

Pilereinforcementbars

ash

AutoCAD SHX Text

J9

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.53

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.88

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.23

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.61

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.63

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.70

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.73

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.45

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.36

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.22

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.31

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Grass

AutoCAD SHX Text

Grass

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.48

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.29

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.33

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.45

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.25

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.27

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pile Locations

AutoCAD SHX Text

Ht 3.5m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Ht 2m

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

Presumed pile foundations

Presumed pile foundations

Western end of presumed pad foundation(partially exposed)

Eastern end of presumed pad foundation (partiallyexposed)

Remains of presumed wall

· Infrastructure Design

· Structural Engineering

· Planning Services

E: [email protected]: jppuk.net

NorthamptonT: 01604 781811

ManchesterT:0161 6822927

Milton KeynesT: 01908 889433

· Geotechnical & Environmental

· Surveying

· Professional AdviceTitle

Project

Drawing No:

Client

Revision:

Drawn By:

Chkd By:

Scale @A3:

Date:

Status:


Project No.:

CEMEX UK Ltd

Cemex, Rugby

Physical laboratory trench investigation

MK

LC

1:250

16/10/2018

10723G 01

FOR

INFORMATION

Approximate extent of trench exavation

Key:

Notice:

Base drawings - Cemex Survey June 1995 Severn Trent, Drainage Layout No. 11-5-0000-L-009-01

AutoCAD SHX Text

J9

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.79

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.73

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.53

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.13

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.22

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.88

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.23

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.61

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.21

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.08

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.63

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.70

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.98

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.73

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.70

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.61

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.13

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.44

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.38

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.23

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.45

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.36

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.22

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.34

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.31

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.87

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.62

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.66

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.53

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.54

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.66

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.67

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.71

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.67

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.63

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.50

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.78

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.75

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.69

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.66

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.71

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.69

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.24

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.24

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.54

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.35

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.47

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.24

AutoCAD SHX Text

Portacabin

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Duct

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Grass

AutoCAD SHX Text

Grass

AutoCAD SHX Text

P/R Fence

AutoCAD SHX Text

FL=85.36

AutoCAD SHX Text

Elec.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Elec.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Step

AutoCAD SHX Text

Step

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

81.35

AutoCAD SHX Text

80.88

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.48

AutoCAD SHX Text

82.79

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.29

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.33

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.45

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.51

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.59

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.13

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.61

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.36

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.25

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

83.27

AutoCAD SHX Text

80.00

AutoCAD SHX Text

80.76

AutoCAD SHX Text

80.73

AutoCAD SHX Text

80.76

AutoCAD SHX Text

80.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

81.08

AutoCAD SHX Text

80.67

AutoCAD SHX Text

79.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

80.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

81.14

AutoCAD SHX Text

82.75

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pile Locations

AutoCAD SHX Text

Ht 2.5m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Ht 3.5m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Ht 2m

AutoCAD SHX Text

Larssen sheet piles 400x250x10mm

AutoCAD SHX Text

Line of sleepers

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

JPP Geotechnical & Environmental Ltd

NORTHAMPTON MANCHESTER MILTON KEYNESUnit 4 | Ironstone Way | Brixworth 3rd Floor | 82 King Street 25 Linford Forum | Rockingham DriveNorthampton| NN6 9UD Manchester | M2 4WQ Linford Wood | Milton Keynes| MK14 6LYT: 01604 781811 T: 0161 682 2927 T: 01908 889433

T01

Infrastructure Design

Structural Engineering

Planning Services

Professional Advice

Geotechnical & Environmental

Surveying

Proposed RDF System Upgrade CEMEX Rugby Cement Plant

Lawford Road Rugby

CV21 2RY

Site Investigation

Revision 0: January 2019 R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐0

Proposed RDF System Upgrade CEMEX Rugby Cement Plant, Lawford Road, Rugby Site Investigation

R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 i January 2019 Revision 2

Proposed RDF System Upgrade CEMEX Rugby Cement Plant

Lawford Road Rugby

CV21 2RY

Site Investigation

JPP Geotechnical & Environmental Ltd, Unit 4, Ironstone Way, Brixworth, Northampton, NN6 9UD

T: 01604 781811 E: [email protected] W: jppuk.net

Report Reference Date

R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 Revision 2: January 2019

Report Originators

Prepared by

Phil Smith MEarthSci (Hons) FGS

Graduate Geo‐Environmental Engineer

[email protected]

Reviewed by

Lydia Crawford BSc (Hons) CEnv MIEnvSc FGS

Director

[email protected]

Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed

0 August 2018 First Issue

1 September 2018 Update for asbestos quantification testing

2 January 2019 Report assignment


R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 ii January 2019 Revision 2

Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Client instructions and reliance ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site proposals .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Investigation strategy and objectives ...................................................................................... 1

2.0 Desk Study .......................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Site description ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Geology .................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Hydrology and hydrogeology .................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Historic map search ................................................................................................................. 3 2.5 Infilled ground ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.6 Geological hazards ................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 Walkover Survey ................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 General description and boundaries ....................................................................................... 5 3.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 5

4.0 Site Photographs ................................................................................................................. 6

5.0 Ground Investigation .......................................................................................................... 8

5.1 Fieldwork ................................................................................................................................. 8

6.0 Ground conditions .............................................................................................................. 9

6.1 Proposed RDF Building ............................................................................................................ 9 6.2 Proposed Packing Plant Extension ........................................................................................ 10 6.3 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................... 10

7.0 Laboratory testing .............................................................................................................. 11

8.0 Engineering assessment ..................................................................................................... 12

8.1 Geotechnical laboratory results ............................................................................................ 12 8.2 Proposed foundations for RDF Store ..................................................................................... 13 8.3 Retaining wall parameters .................................................................................................... 15 8.4 Proposed Packing Plant extension ........................................................................................ 15 8.5 Concrete classification ........................................................................................................... 16 8.6 Pavement design ................................................................................................................... 16

9.0 Contamination ................................................................................................................... 17

10.0 Waste classification ........................................................................................................... 18

10.1 Hazardous or Non‐Hazardous Classification ......................................................................... 18 10.2 Classification under the Waste Acceptance Criteria ............................................................. 19

11.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 20

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... A

Drawings and Sections ........................................................................................................................ A

Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................... B

Fieldwork records – JPP Boreholes ..................................................................................................... B


R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 iii January 2019 Revision 2

Appendix C ...................................................................................................... C

Exploration Associates boreholes (1994/1995) .................................................................................. C

Appendix D .................................................................................................................................... D

Geotechnical laboratory testing ......................................................................................................... D

Appendix E ...................................................................................................................................... E

Chemical laboratory testing ................................................................................................................ E

Appendix F ...................................................................................................................................... F

Waste classification ............................................................................................................................. F


R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 1 January 2019 Revision 2

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Client instructions and reliance

1.1.1 JPP Geotechnical & Environmental Ltd were appointed by Beresford Dunne Consultants Ltd to carry out a ground investigation for a proposed RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) building and new feed system and an extension to the existing packing plant building. Our site investigations were carried out in July 2018 with this report produced in September 2018 and reissued to be assigned to a new civil consultant for the project in January 2019.

1.1.2 This report has been produced for the benefit of Beresford Dunne Consultants Ltd on behalf of our mutual client, CEMEX UK Ltd. This report has also been assigned for the benefit of Clancy Consulting Ltd further to instructions from Beresford Dunne Consultants Ltd in January 2019. JPP Geotechnical & Environmental Ltd will not accept liability for the third‐party use of the information herein without prior reliance agreed. This report is valid for 6 years from the date of issue however any significant changes to the proposals or followed legislation and guidance within this time could dictate review of our findings and recommendations.

1.1.3 Investigations have been carried out using reasonable care and judgement based on the development proposals and brief. There is a potential for ground conditions to vary from those encountered during our investigations and differ where not exposed by our investigations.

1.2 Site proposals

1.2.1 It is proposed to construct a new RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) store and new feed system. There is also a proposed extension to the existing packing plant building. The existing Special Products Store is to be demolished and ground levels reduced by some 4m to accommodate the new building. The existing physical laboratory building will be demolished to allow for the new access road route, replaced by the proposed packing plant extension. Proposed building outlines are shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix A.

1.3 Investigation strategy and objectives

1.3.1 The primary purpose of our investigation was to inform foundation design for the proposed new RDF store together with the proposed extension to the packing plant building. A full contamination assessment was considered outside of our scope although we have included a review of available desk study information and assessed chemical contaminants and asbestos with a view to risk to contractors during the construction phase. We have also provided a classification of waste soils for offsite disposal.

1.3.2 A topographical survey and buried service survey was carried out prior to proceeding with the site investigation. These are shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix A.



2.0 Desk Study

2.1 Site description

2.1.1 The full site address is Rugby Cement Plant, Lawford Road, Rugby and the approximate centre of the site is located at National Grid reference 448763 275667.

2.1.2 The subject site areas for our investigations occupies two areas within the Cemex site. These areas are indicated on the below OS plan. The first area comprises an existing building which is a Special Products Store and immediate surround, including hardsurfaced storage, access road and an unmade area at the base of a slope. The second is an access road and disused physical laboratory adjacent to the existing packing plant where the extension is proposed.

2.1.3 Site location plan

Figure 2.1: Envirocheck Mapping



2.2 Geology

2.2.1 The British Geological Survey map of the area indicates the site is Made Ground.

2.2.2 The bedrock below the site is recorded as Rugby Limestone Member comprising of mudstone and limestone interbeds.

2.3 Hydrology and hydrogeology

2.3.1 The bedrock deposits below the site are recorded to be a minor permeable aquifer, secondary A aquifer.

2.3.2 The site does not lie within a Source Protection Zone.

2.3.3 The nearest water surface feature is the Sow Brook 75m to 150m to the west of the subject site (within the wider Cemex site).

2.4 Historic map search

Site History overview

OS mapping dates

On Site Off Site

1865 to 1960s

The earliest historical mapping and imagery available shows the site was an early cement works and quarry from 1865. The site boundary is located on the base of the quarry bound by two N‐S trending tramways. Excavation of the quarry existed north of the train lines until the 1950s.

The surrounding area is agricultural fields with one train line less than 100m to the NW and a second less than 100m to the SW. Kilns and other assorted infrastructure related the quarry exist south of the site boundaries. A sewage farm was present less than 200m to the north east.

1960s to 1996

The majority of the quarry and site was infilled with the addition of further cement works infrastructure.

The surrounding areas of the quarry following disuse have been infilled by artificial ground or water. The quarry pit 100m north of the site location, north of the railway line was the last to be infilled in the late 1980s.

1996 to present day

From 1996 the Rugby cement works underwent an upgrade including the removal of infrastructure, the refurbishment of others and the addition of newer cement works infrastructure.

The land surrounding the site and adjacent areas has been reclaimed as water bodies and grassed land. Additional residential dwellings have been constructed 250m to the southwest.

Table 2.4



Figure 2.2: Aerial image of the cement plant dated 1999 – showing the former Kiln Chimney and Kiln house (present day car park). Proposed RDF Store indicated by red outline.

2.5 Infilled ground

2.5.1 The site and surrounding area are claimed from an infilled quarry and is mapped as artificial ground.

2.6 Geological hazards

2.6.1 The British Geological Survey records no landslides or mass movement deposits in the area surrounding the site location.

2.6.2 The site of the proposed RDF store is partially location within the extent of the infilled quarry.



3.0 Walkover Survey

3.1 General description and boundaries

3.1.1 The investigation areas were two locations within the wider Rugby Cement Works site. We have not carried out a walkover of the entire site. The general site is occupied by CEMEX Rugby with active haulage entering the site.

3.1.2 The area of the proposed RDF system upgrade is currently occupied by a smaller footprint RDF Store, surrounded by access roads to the east and north, hardstanding storage to the west and east and the main site car park to the south. The existing Special Products Store finished floor level is approximately 91m AOD and similar to surrounding levels to the east and north of the building, and the car park to the south between 0.2‐0.3m higher. At the western end of the building and to the north of the car park, the ground falls away sloping down to lower ground level approximately 3.5m lower than both the existing building floor level and car park. This slope corresponds with the relief of the historic backfilled quarry. The contours of the former quarry can be seen on Drawing 3 in Appendix A together with the proposed building outlines and thus subject site areas.

3.1.3 The area of the proposed extension to the packing plant will project from the western facing elevation of the existing building. This area is currently occupied by an existing blacktop surfaced access road and single storey physical laboratory building which was vacant at the time of our investigation. To the south and north is the access road and to the west is a hardstanding area, used for loading. Two silos are present to the north west.

3.2 Vegetation

3.2.1 There is some vegetation and immature trees at the western end of the existing Special Products Store building on the slope and at the top of the slope along the edge of the car park.



4.0 Site Photographs

Photograph 4.1: From the facility car park looking down at the lower eastern end of the subject area, taken from the south looking north with the existing Special Products Store building present in the right of the image.

Photograph 4.2: Looking northwest from the facility car park at the existing building



Photograph 4.3: Looking west along the northern elevation and concrete hardstanding area of the existing Special Products Store

Photograph 4.4: Looking south west, showing the site of the proposed extension to the packing plant on the left, the disused physical laboratory building is visible in the centre.



5.0 Ground Investigation

5.1 Fieldwork

5.1.1 Site investigations were carried out between the 16th to the 20th July 2018 and comprised the following activities.

9 x Rotary boreholes using a Comacchio GEO 205 to a maximum depth of 11.50m as a combination of dynamic sampling, open holing and coring

5 x Dynamic windowless sampling boreholes using a Dando Mini‐rig to a maximum depth of 1.5m (due to encountering obstructions)

Diamond coring of concrete surfacing at borehole positions

5.1.2 A buried service survey was also carried out prior to our site investigations. Each boreholes position was agreed with Cemex and scanned using a cable avoidance tool by a JPP engineer and a trained Cemex representative prior to positioning and proceeding. Our positions were limited, particularly to the north west of the existing building, by the presence of existing services.



6.0 Ground conditions

6.1 Proposed RDF Building

6.1.1 Rotary boreholes BH1 to BH5 were carried out to the west of the existing Special Products Store building at the base of the slope and in the area shown on a historic plan to be the batter of the historic quarry (refer to Drawing 3 in Appendix A). Made Ground was encountered in BH1 to BH4, ranging from 0.8 to 8.7m depth (deepening to the north west) comprising a mixture of grey and pinkish grey fine to coarse sands and gravel with a low cobble content, with gravel and cobbles of limestone, sandstone and granite and locally clinker down to a maximum of 1.2m depth. Below this was made ground comprising of dark grey and mottled brown slightly gravelly to gravelly sandy occasionally silty clays with gravel consisting of mudstone and limestone and rare brick. BH5 encountered concrete between 0.6‐1.2m depth which was rotary open holed to penetrate.

6.1.2 The dynamic windowless sampler boreholes were terminated due to presumed concrete obstructions. Window sampler WS1, WS2 and WS3 were located within the existing car park, adjacent to the existing Special Products store building at upper site levels, and encountered obstructions at 0.57m, 0.57m and 0.7m depth which is considered likely to be the former Kiln House and Kiln chimney bases (as shown on Drawing 2 in Appendix A). Position WS3 was proceeded with a rotary borehole BH6 which was unable to penetrate the concrete further at 1.3m depth. WS4 and WS5 also encountered obstructions at 0.7m and 1.5m respectively which the dynamic sampling was unable to penetrate. These were proceeded with rotary boreholes which for position WS4, BH7 was unable to penetrate the concrete further but for WS5 positions, BH9 penetrated the obstruction, encountered Made Ground to 3.2m depth and was terminated at 5.5m depth.

6.1.3 Beneath the Made Ground, in boreholes outside of the former quarry, the upper natural soils comprised firm to stiff clays becoming extremely weak mudstone thinly interbedded with medium strong limestone. Where deeper Made Ground was encountered, this extended onto mudstone thinly interbedded with limestone.

6.1.4 A summary of the depth of Made Ground and depth to bedded rock is provided in the following table with inferred levels relative to ground level. The subsequent table summarises the information from the Exploration Associates boreholes located in the vicinity of the proposed RDF building. These boreholes were carried out in 1994 and 1995, with the positions shown on Drawing 3 in Appendix A.



Summary of rotary borehole findings

Borehole Depth of Made Ground below ground level

Approximate Ground level

Relative natural soils level

Relative level of bedded rock

BH1 0.8 87.5 86.7 86

BH2 1.6 87.4 85.8 85.5

BH3 8.7 87.37 78.67 78.67

BH4 8.5 87.42 78.92 78.92

BH5 1.3 87.15 85.85 85.85

BH6 >1.3 91.2 ‐ ‐

BH7 >0.6 90.96 ‐ ‐

BH9 3.2 90.94 87.74 87.04

Table 6.1

Summary of Exploration Associates rotary boreholes findings (carried out 1994/1995)

Borehole Depth of Made Ground below ground level

Ground level Relative natural soils level

Relative level of bedded rock

R12 2.7 90.92 88.22 84.62

R11 2.4 90.91 88.51 84.21

R21 7.9 90.61 82.71 82.71

R10 26.1 90.77 64.67 64.67

R116 1.6 90.55 85.95 85.95

R141 4.9 90.95 86.05 86.05

Table 6.2

6.2 Proposed Packing Plant Extension

6.2.1 The southern area investigating the proposed extension to the packing plant, BH8 encountered reinforced concrete at ground level, approximately 180mm thick underlain by Made Ground comprising whiteish grey, grey and pinkish grey sand and gravels with gravel of limestone, clinker and granite to a maximum depth of 0.70m. Below this, Made Ground of brown mottled grey silty gravelly clays with gravel of limestones, mudstones and quartzites were encountered to a depth of 1.70m. Natural clay deposits were encountered beneath the Made Ground becoming extremely weak thinly bed mudstone thinly interbedded with limestone from 2.9m depth.

6.3 Groundwater

6.3.1 Groundwater was not encountered in the boreholes.



7.0 Laboratory testing

7.1.1 Geotechnical testing as follows:

Plasticity Index (1point)

Moisture content

Testing under BRE Special Digest 1

Unconfined Confined Compressive Strength of rock and clay

7.1.2 Chemical testing and sample screening were carried out for the following:

Metals, metalloids, inorganics and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Screening for asbestos containing material and fibres and quantification of fibres

Full 2‐Stage analysis under Waste Acceptance criteria



8.0 Engineering assessment

8.1 Geotechnical laboratory results

Summary of plasticity classification results

Sample reference and depth

Soil type Plasticity index %

Modified Plasticity Index %

Moisture Content %

Plasticity term

(Volume change potential)

BH1 0.9m Rugby Limestone Formation

25 25 27 Low (Medium)



BH2 2m Rugby Limestone Formation

19 19 18 Low (Low)

BH3 2.7m Made Ground 18 17.82 21 Low (Medium)

BH4 1.6m Made Ground 19 19 24 Low (Medium)

BH5 1.25m Made Ground 22 22 20 Low (Medium)




24 14.88 14 Low (Low)

Table 8.1

Summary of Uniaxial Compressive Strength of rock and clay

Sample reference and depth

Soil type Description Length of sample mm

Mode of Failure Unconfined Compressive Strength


Mudstone & Limestone

117.2 Axial cleavage 39.4 MPa






195.8 Single shear 24.8 MPa





Clay 196.5 Brittle 431 kPa


Clay 166.1 Brittle 535 kPa

Table 8.1



8.1.1 The results of Uniaxial Compressive strength testing are summarised in the preceding table. These were carried out on intact recovered rock samples. This is with the exception of two samples which were considered by the laboratory to be too soft to be treated as rock and so were tested as a clay. The tested rock samples were below the recommended length to diameter ratio for the testing due to the presence of cracks identified during sample preparation.

8.2 Proposed foundations for RDF Store

8.2.1 We understand that the proposed RDF Building will replace the existing building, occupying a larger footprint with a formation level of 87m, which is approximately 4m lower than the existing building finished flood level. Surrounding levels at the eastern and north of the existing building are similar to the present building, and the car park to the south between 0.2‐0.3m higher. At the western end of the building and to the north of the car park, the ground falls away sloping down to lower ground level approximately 3.5m lower. This corresponds with the historic quarry batter.

8.2.2 Foundations outside of backfilled quarry

8.2.2.1 Based on the proposed formation level of 87m (foundations at around 86m) and considering the level of natural clay and rock in the boreholes, borehole BH9 (Clay: 87.74 Rock: 87.04) together with Exploration Associates borehole R11 (Clay: 88.51 Rock: 84.21) and R12 (Clay: 88.22 Rock: 84.62), the formation level will essentially be located onto natural clay and, in some positions, onto natural mudstone with shallow foundations extending into natural clay or rock. A cross section west to east of our boreholes along the length of the proposed building is presented in Appendix A.

8.2.2.2 With a proposed founding level of an estimated 86m and the deepest clay Rugby Limestone Member encountered in EA borehole R11, clay soils beneath the foundation of approximately 1.8m will potentially be present.

Pad size Founding strata Allowable bearing capacity

3m x 3m Weathered Rugby Limestone Formation ‐ Clay

140

4m x 4m 100

5m x 5m 90

3m x 3m Extremely weak mudstone 300

4m x 4m 230

5m x 5m 190

Table 8.2

8.2.2.3 The above does not take into account the effects of removal of overburden for

proposed foundations and floor slab formation level. In order to assess the potential degree of settlement/heave effects on the foundations and floor slab, an assessment using loading information will be necessary.



8.2.3 Foundations within backfilled quarry

8.2.3.1 At the western most end of the proposed RDF store building, at existing lower ground levels, the building corner will extend within the historic backfilled quarry where Made Ground deepens moving north west. Cross sections south to north at the quarry end of the building and west to east across the length of the proposed building are provided in Appendix A. It is not considered possible to cantilever the building to such an extent in its current position and therefore a piled solution is necessary for this corner of the building. The remainder of the building would be located directly onto natural soils. A combined shallow clay or weathered rock bearing foundation solution with a deep piled foundation solution at the north western corner of the proposed RDF building where it extends over the quarry is therefore considered appropriate.

8.2.3.2 There is a potential for encountering obstructions within the Made Ground although buried concrete was only encountered in one position at the western end of the building. It is recommended that piling contractors are consulted to determine the most appropriate method of piling for the Rugby Limestone Member and into the historic quarry batter. It may be considered appropriate to adopt a suitable rake/inclination into the batter. This report, including the borehole records and laboratory testing, should be provided to piling contractors to allow them to review and provide recommendations. We recommend it is assumed that the natural bedded Rugby Limestone Formation is very stiff clay and extremely weak mudstone for design purposes.

8.2.3.3 Due to the sulphates within the Made Ground (refer to Section 8.4), additional protective measures are necessary where concrete extends through the Made Ground (DS‐5 ACEC‐5). Additional testing may allow reduction in the current classification.



8.3 Retaining wall parameters

8.3.1 The southern side of the proposed RDF building will require a retaining structure to the existing car park. It was not possible to confirm the ground conditions due to the presence of concrete obstructions which are likely to be the former kiln house base. A retaining wall is also proposed to the north east of the proposed building. The following parameters are based on the general ground conditions encountered to guide design however actual conditions to be retained may vary.

Retaining Wall Parameters

Parameter Soil type Value

Weight density Made Ground 16kN/m2

Rugby Limestone Formation ‐ Clay

18kN/m2

Rugby Limestone Formation – weak mudstone

20kN/m3

Angle of shearing resistance φ’

Made Ground – granular 290

Made Ground ‐ cohesive 260

Rugby Limestone Formation ‐ clay 250


230

K0 Earth pressure at rest Made Ground – granular 0.52 (1‐sinφ’)

Made Ground – clay 0.56 (1‐sinφ’)

Rugby Limestone Formation – clay

2


1.5

Table 8.3

8.4 Proposed Packing Plant extension

8.4.1 We understand that the existing physical laboratory building is being demolished and an extension to the adjacent packing plant. We were provided with foundation details for the most recent extension of the packing plant building with the detail drawing dated 2009. This shows the extension to be pad foundations for the subject elevation, 2 by 2m plan by 1m minimum depth and 0.9 x 0.9m plan by minimum 1m depth.

8.4.2 Borehole BH8 was carried out to the south of the existing physical laboratory building to the west of the proposed extension footprint. Made Ground extended to 1.7m depth where natural clay was encountered becoming extremely weak mudstone at 2.9m depth.



8.4.3 We suggest foundations extend a minimum 0.3m into the naturally deposited Rugby Limestone Formation to provide an allowable bearing pressure for a 1m x 1m pad of 200kNm2 and 120kNm2 for a 2 x 2m pad, located at 2m below ground level into the natural deposits.

8.5 Concrete classification

8.5.1 An assessment of laboratory test results following BRE Special Digest 1 ‘Concrete in aggressive ground’ for the Made Ground and natural Rugby Limestone Member.

For the Made Ground, total sulphate results were between 0.048 to 2.4g/l. The calculated oxidizable sulphide exceeded 0.3% in 3 of 6 samples. On this basis, total potential sulphate needs to be considered in determining the concrete classification with the highest TPS of 11.45%. Proposed foundations extending through Made Ground at the site should be classified as Design Sulphate Class DS‐5 and ACEC Class AC‐5. Additional testing may allow reduction in the current classification.

8.5.2 For the natural Rugby Limestone Member (clay and mudstone samples tested), total sulphate results of 1.2 and 0.23g/l were measured. The calculated oxidizable sulphide exceeded 0.3% in one of the samples therefore total potential sulphate has been considered in determining the concrete classification. The TPS was calculated as 0.75%. Proposed foundations extending into natural soils at the site should be classified as Design Sulphate Class DS‐3 and ACEC Class AC‐3 (with pH values of 8.2 and 8.6).

8.6 Pavement design

8.6.1 At present formation level, roads and hardstanding are generally located onto granular Made Ground however a reduction in level could mean formation is onto cohesive made ground.

8.6.2 An equilibrium CBR can be derived from the soil classification. Based on granular soils encountered near surface, groundwater at depth, an equilibrium subgrade CBR of 20% can potentially be achieved. For underlying cohesive Made Ground a CBR of <2% can potentially be assumed.

8.6.3 The Made Ground was encountered in an uncompacted state. The CBR will therefore need to be determined at formation following any reduction in site levels. Insitu testing is recommended at formation level to derive more accurate CBRs.

8.6.4 The soils should proof rolled and appropriately compacted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in Highways England Volume 1: Specification for Highway Works Series 600: Earthworks. With compaction either carried out to an end point specification or following a method specification.



9.0 Contamination

9.1.1 A full human health environmental risk assessment is outside the scope of works for this site. We have carried out some testing from samples within the Made Ground to assess the potential risk to human health of contractors during the construction phase.

9.1.2 On the basis that the site is industrial redevelopment, commercial/industrial is considered the most appropriate model for exposure following CLEA and the associated guideline values have been adopted for our Tier 1 Screening. These are considered to be screening values by which any exceedance should be further considered as to whether it presents a potentially unacceptable risk of harm to receptors identified by our conceptual model. We have directly compared the measured concentrations with the screening values.

9.2 Screening values adopted for our risk assessment are sourced from current guidance including Category 4 Screening Levels C4SL from DEFRA, Suitable 4 Use Levels S4ULs from LQM CIEH and Atkins ATRISK SSV (subscription, derived using CLEA Software) limits.

9.1.1 We have compared laboratory test results with guideline values for a commercial/industrial use for which all measured concentrations of metals, metalloids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons fall well below. Asbestos however has been identified within 2 samples in the form of amosite and chrysotile fibres. Quantification of both of these samples determined asbestos fibres to be <0.001% therefore does not present a significant risk of harm. We suggest that appropriate health and safety precautions are adopted where soils are exposed during the excavations for the construction phase. With vigilance of potential asbestos fibres and asbestos containing material. We recommend asbestos specialist advice is sought in this respect.



10.0 Waste classification

10.1 Hazardous or Non‐Hazardous Classification

10.1.1 Following WM3, we have carried out analysis of our laboratory test data from samples of Made Ground using HazWasteOnlineTM. Copies of the generated report are presented in Appendix F and chemical test results in Appendix F. This analysis determines soils to be hazardous due to concentrations of zinc.

10.1.2 This is however based on a worst‐case zinc compound of zinc chromate (historic yellow pigment used in primer paint). It is possible to interrogate the zinc compounds by carrying out a site‐specific assessment of what is likely to be present. In this case, it is not known the likely source of zinc within the Made Ground therefore a hazardous assessment should be considered appropriate

10.1.3 In addition to concentrations of chemical contaminants, the samples were also screened for asbestos containing material and asbestos fibres. This screening positively identified asbestos fibres in the form of chrysotile in borehole BH3 at 0.3m depth (laboratory quantified to be <0.001%) and in the form of amosite in borehole WS5 at 0.5m depth (laboratory quantified to be <0.001%).

10.1.4 In order to determine whether the soils are hazardous due to asbestos, it is necessary to determine the percentage of asbestos, with a threshold of 0.1% for hazardous waste. We have scheduled such testing on two samples where asbestos was identified which determined <0.001% of fibres therefore the soils are considered to be non‐hazardous for asbestos content. Should any visible clumps of fibres or asbestos containing material be identified then the soils should be classified as hazardous.

10.1.5 At this stage, it should be considered that the Made Ground soils are hazardous due to elevated zinc. The results of the quantification analysis determined that the soils are not hazardous due to asbestos content. Appropriate health and safety precautions will be necessary for construction operatives and to protect site users during construction.

10.1.6 Precautions should be adopted when excavating the Made Ground to the potential risk of asbestos fibres. Any pieces of suspected Asbestos Containing Material or fibrous debris or clumps that could be asbestos should be safely sampled and formally identified to determine whether the soils require classification as hazardous waste containing asbestos. Some ACM, where not in a friable condition, can be handpicked by a specialist and separately disposed of, leaving the remaining waste classified as asbestos free material.



10.2 Classification under the Waste Acceptance Criteria

10.2.1 One sample was submitted for laboratory testing under the waste acceptance criteria, full 2‐stage WAC. For sample BH9 at 1m depth, testing determines the sample to be accepted for landfill as Stable non‐reactive Hazardous Waste in non‐hazardous landfill (SNRHW), due to the initial human health classification of hazardous in the preceding assessment following WM3. We suggest that copies of the laboratory certificates are provided to the landfill operator to determine whether they can accept the waste.

10.2.2 The Rugby Limestone Formation deposits that are naturally occurring and not affected by artificial contamination can also be classified as inert for offsite disposal to landfill.



11.0 References

11.1 BN EN1997‐1:2004 +A1:2013 Eurocode 7 ‐ Geotechnical Design Part 1: General Rules

11.2 BS EN 1997‐2:2007 Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical Design Part 2: Ground investigation and testing

11.3 BS EN ISO 14688‐2:2004 Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification and classification of soil – Part 2: Principles for a classification

11.4 BS EN ISO 14689‐1:2003 Geotechnical Investigation and testing – Identification and classification of rock – Part 1: Identification and description

11.5 BS 1377‐2 1990 Soils for Engineering purposes classification tests

11.6 BS 5930:2015 Code of Practice for ground investigations

11.7 BS 8004:2015 Code of practice for foundations

11.8 BS 8002: 2015 Code of practice for earth retaining structures

11.9 MJ Tomlinson Foundation Design and Construction 7th Edition

11.10 BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – Code of Practice

11.11 The LQM/CIEH S4ULs for Human Health Risk Assessment

11.12 Contaminated Land Report 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination

11.13 Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management (Green Leaves III) DEFRA

11.14 CIRIA C552 Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – A Guide to Good Practice

11.15 BS3882:2015 Specification for Topsoil

11.16 BRE Special Digest 1 ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’

11.17 Interim Advice Note 73/06 Revision 1 (2009) Design Guidance for Road Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25)

11.18 BRE 365 Soakaway Design

11.19 Technical Guidance WM3 Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste (1st edition 2015)

11.20 Environment Agency – Waste Acceptance at landfills

11.21 Environment Agency ‐ Waste sampling and Testing for Disposal to landfill


R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 A January 2019 Revision 2

Appendix A Drawings and Sections

BH3

BH4

BH2

BH1

BH5

BH9/WS5

WS1

WS2

BH6/WS3

BH7/WS4

BH8





Northampton4 Ironstone Way, Brixworth,Northampton. NN6 9UDT: 01604 781811

Manchester3rd Floor, 82 King Street,Manchester. M2 4WQT:0161 6822927

Milton KeynesSuite 25 Linford Forum, Rockingham Drive,Linford Wood, Milton Keynes. MK14 6LYT: 01908 889433


· Surveying


Project

Drawing No:

Client

Rev:

Drawn By:

Chkd By:

Scale @ A1:

Date:

Status:


Project No.:

Beresford Dunne Consultants Ltd.

Cemex, RugbyRDF Feed System

Topographical Survey with Borehole Positionsand Proposed Layout

AM

LC

1:250

August 2018

10110G 01

FOR

INFORMATION

Key

Proposed RDF Building + packing plant extension

Windowless Sampler Borehole

Rotary Percussive Borehole

WS

BH

AutoCAD SHX Text

Bol

AutoCAD SHX Text

LC

AutoCAD SHX Text

LC

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

rwp

AutoCAD SHX Text

rwp

AutoCAD SHX Text

rwp

AutoCAD SHX Text

rwp

AutoCAD SHX Text

J1

AutoCAD SHX Text

J2

AutoCAD SHX Text

J3

AutoCAD SHX Text

J4

AutoCAD SHX Text

J5

AutoCAD SHX Text

448750E

AutoCAD SHX Text

448775E

AutoCAD SHX Text

448800E

AutoCAD SHX Text

448825E

AutoCAD SHX Text

448850E

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.26

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.20

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.20

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.10

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.10

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.11

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.13

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.11

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.11

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.14

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.17

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.87

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.87

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.87

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.88

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.86

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.88

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.82

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.78

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.83

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.80

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.22

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.17

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.17

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.28

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.27

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.27

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.98

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.02

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.02

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.04

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.03

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.03

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.08

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.02

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.29

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.29

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.86

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.87

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.86

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.00

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.02

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.00

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.15

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.31

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.25

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.52

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.50

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.77

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.27

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.32

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.56

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.51

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.83

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.03

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.37

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.77

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.86

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.53

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.51

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.24

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.74

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.80

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.47

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.46

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.44

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.48

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.57

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.75

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.72

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.66

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.80

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.76

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.54

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.46

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.51

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.49

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.59

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.56

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.56

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.63

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.70

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.76

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.68

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.62

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.86

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.59

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.53

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.45

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.47

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.41

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.39

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.36

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.45

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.78

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.75

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.86

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.88

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.32

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.81

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.03

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.83

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.63

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.64

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.79

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.77

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.67

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.10

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.10

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.50

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.50

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.56

AutoCAD SHX Text

92.36

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.50

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.42

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.20

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.34

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.13

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.49

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.02

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.74

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.86

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.98

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.13

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.14

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.26

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.22

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.14

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.21

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.30

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.38

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.62

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.77

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.34

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.34

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.17

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.15

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.10

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.10

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.03

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.98

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.00

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.00

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.87

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.81

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.08

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.20

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.88

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.73

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.52

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.68

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.24

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.48

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.03

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.30

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.03

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.03

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.03

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.23

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.38

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.20

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.22

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.10

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.30

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.39

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.41

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.44

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.41

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.37

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.30

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.34

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.46

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.49

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.53

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.45

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.60

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.52

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.50

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.41

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.28

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.37

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.42

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.51

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.50

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.54

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.38

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.32

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.20

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.29

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.31

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.17

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.04

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.11

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.02

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.70

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.46

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.59

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.80

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.17

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.74

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.57

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.68

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.98

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.86

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.88

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.81

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.27

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.61

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.59

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.02

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.49

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.60

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.53

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.63

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.73

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.71

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.70

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.97

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.10

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.31

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.31

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.56

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.00

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.51

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.58

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.72

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.41

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.50

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.34

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.58

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.28

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.10

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.13

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.75

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.30

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.40

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.16

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.00

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.62

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.76

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.53

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.00

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.82

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.20

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.21

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.15

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.75

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.24

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.27

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.88

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.00

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.17

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.06

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.94

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.01

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.31

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.26

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.33

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gravel

AutoCAD SHX Text

Block paving

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Tarmac

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

IC

AutoCAD SHX Text

IC

AutoCAD SHX Text

IC

AutoCAD SHX Text

svp

AutoCAD SHX Text

IC

AutoCAD SHX Text

IC

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Supports

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Duct

AutoCAD SHX Text

Tarmac

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Steps

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Ramp

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Conc

AutoCAD SHX Text

Steps

AutoCAD SHX Text

Container

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

IC's

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardstanding

AutoCAD SHX Text

Conc.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion baskets

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

Valves

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

CCTV

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Steps

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW=89.70

AutoCAD SHX Text

Retaining wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Sleeper wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

FL=90.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overgrown

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overgrown

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pallets In-accessible

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

CCTV

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 88.86

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 89.99

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 89.22

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 89.28

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.77

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.82

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.87

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 87.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 87.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 87.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Steps

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Supports

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 89.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 90.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

66.3 [20.7]

AutoCAD SHX Text

64.7 [22.3]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R10

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.2 [2.8]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R11

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.6 [2.0]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R12

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 116

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.05 [0.95]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 141

AutoCAD SHX Text

69.8

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 119

AutoCAD SHX Text

82.7 [4.3]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R21

BH3

BH4BH2

BH1

BH5

BH9/WS5

WS1 WS2 BH6/WS3

BH7/WS4

Existing Special Products Store

Former Kiln Base

Former Kiln House

Existing PackingPlant Building





Northampton4 Ironstone Way, Brixworth,Northampton NN6 9UDT: 01604 781811




· Surveying


Project

Drawing No:

Client

Rev:

Drawn By:

Chkd By:

Scale @ A1:

Date:

Status:


Project No.:



Existing and Former Structures with Proposed Layout

AM

CH

1:250

August 2018

10110G 02

FOR

INFORMATION

Key

Proposed RDF Building + Packing Plant Extension

Former Structure

Existing Structure



WS

BH

AutoCAD SHX Text

J1

AutoCAD SHX Text

J2

AutoCAD SHX Text

J4

AutoCAD SHX Text

J5

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.20d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.20d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.30d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.10d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.20d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.30d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.30d

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING RETAINING WALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.800

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-L1

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.800

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-F1

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-A1

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-L12

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-F12

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-A12

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-K14

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-F14

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-B14

AutoCAD SHX Text

66.3 [20.7]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 112

AutoCAD SHX Text

64.7 [22.3]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R10

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.2 [2.8]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R11

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.6 [2.0]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R12

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 116

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.05 [0.95]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 141

AutoCAD SHX Text

69.8

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 119

AutoCAD SHX Text

82.7 [4.3]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R21

AutoCAD SHX Text

J1

AutoCAD SHX Text

J2

AutoCAD SHX Text

J4

AutoCAD SHX Text

J5

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

66.3 [20.7]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 112

AutoCAD SHX Text

64.7 [22.3]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R10

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.2 [2.8]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R11

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.6 [2.0]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R12

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 116

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.05 [0.95]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 141

AutoCAD SHX Text

69.8

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 119

AutoCAD SHX Text

82.7 [4.3]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R21

BH3

BH4

BH2

BH1

BH5

BH9/WS5

WS1

WS2

BH6/WS3

BH7/WS4





Northampton4 Ironstone Way, Brixworth,Northampton NN6 9UDT: 01604 781811




· Surveying


Project

Drawing No:

Client

Rev:

Drawn By:

Chkd By:

Scale @ A1:

Date:

Status:


Project No.:



Proposed Layout Overlaid onto 1996 Drawing

AM

CH

1:200

August 2018

10110G 03

FOR

INFORMATION

Key

Proposed RDF Building + Packing Plant Extension



AMEC Design and Management Borehgole layout drawing Dated July 1996

WS

BH

AutoCAD SHX Text

Bol

AutoCAD SHX Text

LC

AutoCAD SHX Text

LC

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

rwp

AutoCAD SHX Text

J1

AutoCAD SHX Text

J2

AutoCAD SHX Text

J4

AutoCAD SHX Text

J5

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gravel

AutoCAD SHX Text

Block paving

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Tarmac

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Supports

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Duct

AutoCAD SHX Text

Tarmac

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Steps

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardstanding

AutoCAD SHX Text

Conc.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion baskets

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

CCTV

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Steps

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW=89.70

AutoCAD SHX Text

Retaining wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Sleeper wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

FL=90.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overgrown

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overgrown

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

CCTV

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.77

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.82

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.87

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 87.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 87.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 87.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Supports

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 89.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 90.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

Bol

AutoCAD SHX Text

LC

AutoCAD SHX Text

LC

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

rwp

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gravel

AutoCAD SHX Text

Block paving

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Tarmac

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Supports

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Duct

AutoCAD SHX Text

Tarmac

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Steps

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardstanding

AutoCAD SHX Text

Conc.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion baskets

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

CCTV

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Steps

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW=89.70

AutoCAD SHX Text

Retaining wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Sleeper wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

FL=90.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overgrown

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overgrown

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

CCTV

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.82

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Supports

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 89.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 90.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

225

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 85.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 87.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 85.26

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 87.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 84.75

AutoCAD SHX Text

(6) LV

AutoCAD SHX Text

CR's

AutoCAD SHX Text

(2) Comms

AutoCAD SHX Text

CR's

AutoCAD SHX Text

(4) Electric

AutoCAD SHX Text

CR's

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.60d

AutoCAD SHX Text

(4) Gattic

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH Covers

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.90d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.00d

AutoCAD SHX Text

(17) Ducts

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.10 - 2.00d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.90d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.00d

AutoCAD SHX Text

(19) Ducts

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.20 - 2.05d

AutoCAD SHX Text

(12) Gattic

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH Covers

AutoCAD SHX Text

(6) Ducts

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.10 - 1.30d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1W 0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

Silted

AutoCAD SHX Text

1W 0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

Silted

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.20d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.20d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.30d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.10d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.20d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.30d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.30d

AutoCAD SHX Text

This Area Was Not

AutoCAD SHX Text

Surveyed Due To

AutoCAD SHX Text

Vast Amounts Of

AutoCAD SHX Text

Foliage.

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTT

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pipe Visible

AutoCAD SHX Text

On Ground

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.60d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.90d

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 86.81

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.70d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.30d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.40d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.45d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.45d

AutoCAD SHX Text

Cables Located

AutoCAD SHX Text

Above Ground

AutoCAD SHX Text

CR

AutoCAD SHX Text

IC

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.70d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.55d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.55d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.40d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.55d

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTL

AutoCAD SHX Text

Seized

AutoCAD SHX Text

T-Scar

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.35d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.10d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.70d

AutoCAD SHX Text

2W 0.90d

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

3W 2 Empty

AutoCAD SHX Text

(1) Cable Cut

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.60d

AutoCAD SHX Text

2W 0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 87.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

450

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

2.99d

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTS

AutoCAD SHX Text

Flooded/Silted

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.48d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.40d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.90d

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 89.05

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 88.76

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.00d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.70d

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTL Seized

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.00d - 1.40d

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.55d

AutoCAD SHX Text

9W 0.90d

AutoCAD SHX Text

- 1.40d

AutoCAD SHX Text

6W 0.90d

AutoCAD SHX Text

- 1.40d

AutoCAD SHX Text

8W 0.90d

AutoCAD SHX Text

- 1.40d

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTL

AutoCAD SHX Text

Seized

AutoCAD SHX Text

Service Duct

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.60 - 0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 87.64

AutoCAD SHX Text

HL 89.82

AutoCAD SHX Text

HL Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

1W 1 Empty

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1W0.90d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1W 0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

Service Duct

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.90d - 1.00d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

Interceptor

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 85.54

AutoCAD SHX Text

Vent 90.32

AutoCAD SHX Text

Interceptor

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 85.42

AutoCAD SHX Text

Vent 90.33

AutoCAD SHX Text

Interceptor

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 85.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

Vent 90.26

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 89.59

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 90.18

AutoCAD SHX Text

100

AutoCAD SHX Text

100

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

33%%C

AutoCAD SHX Text

HL 90.64

AutoCAD SHX Text

Interceptor

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.87

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 86.41

AutoCAD SHX Text

Vent 90.37

AutoCAD SHX Text

No Pipes

AutoCAD SHX Text

Visible

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.65d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.60d

AutoCAD SHX Text

Service Duct

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.60d - 1.00d

AutoCAD SHX Text

Unable To Locate

AutoCAD SHX Text

Due To Dense

AutoCAD SHX Text

Foliage.

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.20d

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

EOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

(2) 150

AutoCAD SHX Text

525

AutoCAD SHX Text

225

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL 90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

IL 87.25

AutoCAD SHX Text

Electric

AutoCAD SHX Text

Alarms

AutoCAD SHX Text

Comms

AutoCAD SHX Text

Electric

AutoCAD SHX Text

Alarms

AutoCAD SHX Text

Comms

AutoCAD SHX Text

Electric

AutoCAD SHX Text

Alarms

AutoCAD SHX Text

Comms

AutoCAD SHX Text

Electric

AutoCAD SHX Text

Alarms

AutoCAD SHX Text

Comms

AutoCAD SHX Text

CR

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

50%%C

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pumping Station

AutoCAD SHX Text

WL 1.71d

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 2.45d

AutoCAD SHX Text

HL Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

HL Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.44d

AutoCAD SHX Text

HL Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.81d

AutoCAD SHX Text

PE 50mm

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTL MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

Seized

AutoCAD SHX Text

Audibly

AutoCAD SHX Text

Proven

AutoCAD SHX Text

1.00d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.70d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.90d

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.75d

AutoCAD SHX Text

2W 0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

1W 1Empty

AutoCAD SHX Text

- 0.50d

AutoCAD SHX Text

4W 2 Empty

AutoCAD SHX Text

0.55d - 0.80d

AutoCAD SHX Text

UTT Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

Disconnected

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

300

AutoCAD SHX Text

450

AutoCAD SHX Text

450

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

TFR

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

TFR

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

TFR

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

TFR

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

TFR

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gully

AutoCAD SHX Text

TFR

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gully

AutoCAD SHX Text

TFR

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gully

AutoCAD SHX Text

TFR

AutoCAD SHX Text

150

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING RETAINING WALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.800

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-L1

AutoCAD SHX Text

87.800

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-F1

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-A1

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-L12

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-F12

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-A12

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-K14

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-F14

AutoCAD SHX Text

91.400

AutoCAD SHX Text

RDFS-B14

AutoCAD SHX Text

66.3 [20.7]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 112

AutoCAD SHX Text

64.7 [22.3]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R10

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.2 [2.8]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R11

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.6 [2.0]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R12

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 116

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.05 [0.95]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 141

AutoCAD SHX Text

69.8

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 119

AutoCAD SHX Text

82.7 [4.3]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R21

AutoCAD SHX Text

Bol

AutoCAD SHX Text

LC

AutoCAD SHX Text

LC

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

rwp

AutoCAD SHX Text

J1

AutoCAD SHX Text

J2

AutoCAD SHX Text

J4

AutoCAD SHX Text

J5

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gravel

AutoCAD SHX Text

Block paving

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Tarmac

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Supports

AutoCAD SHX Text

O/H gantry

AutoCAD SHX Text

Duct

AutoCAD SHX Text

Tarmac

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Storage bay

AutoCAD SHX Text

Steps

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardstanding

AutoCAD SHX Text

Conc.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Pipe

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion baskets

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

CCTV

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Steps

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW=89.70

AutoCAD SHX Text

Retaining wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

Sleeper wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Gabion wall

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

FL=90.93

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overgrown

AutoCAD SHX Text

Overgrown

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

CCTV

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.77

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.82

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.92

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.87

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.85

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.84

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.89

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.91

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.90

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 90.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 87.09

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 87.12

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

CL= 87.07

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Barrier

AutoCAD SHX Text

Hardcore

AutoCAD SHX Text

Concrete

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

g

AutoCAD SHX Text

Supports

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 90.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 89.19

AutoCAD SHX Text

TW= 90.65

AutoCAD SHX Text

90.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

89.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

88.0

AutoCAD SHX Text

66.3 [20.7]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 112

AutoCAD SHX Text

64.7 [22.3]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R10

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.2 [2.8]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R11

AutoCAD SHX Text

84.6 [2.0]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R12

AutoCAD SHX Text

85.95

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 116

AutoCAD SHX Text

86.05 [0.95]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 141

AutoCAD SHX Text

69.8

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA 119

AutoCAD SHX Text

82.7 [4.3]

AutoCAD SHX Text

EA R21

Project No: 10 110GLocation: RugbyClient: Cemex

Title: Cemex Cement Works

Engineer: PS and CH

ScaleVertical: 1:67Horizontal: 1:107

88 88

86 86

84 84

82 82

80 80

78 78

76 76

Chainage (m)

Offset (m)

Elevation (mAOD)

2.86

11.4

6

23.4

7

0.19

0.33

0.19

87.5

0

87.4

6

87.2

3

75.00

Legend Key

Made Ground

Rugby Limestone Formation

No Core Recovery

0.35

0.80

1.50

1.962.10

3.00

6.00

BH1

(MADE GROUND)(MADE GROUND)

(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)

(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)(NCR)


0.80

1.20

1.60

1.90

2.25

2.49

3.00

6.00

BH2

(MADE GROUND)

(MADE GROUND)

(MADE GROUND)

(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)(NCR)(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)

0.400.60

2.50

3.10

8.70

9.08

10.00

10.70

10.98

11.50

BH3

(MADE GROUND)

(MADE GROUND)(MADE GROUND)

(MADE GROUND)

(MADE GROUND)

(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)(NCR)


(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)(NCR)

CLAY

CLAY

MDST

MDST

LMST

MDST

MDST

LMST

LMST

MDST

MDST

Project No: 10 110GLocation: RugbyClient: Cemex

Title: Cemex Cement Works

Engineer: PS and CH

ScaleVertical: 1:72Horizontal: 1:401

91 91

89 89

87 87

85 85

83 83

81 81

79 79

Chainage (m)

Offset (m)

Elevation (mAOD)

1.76

10.5

3

57.0

557

.05

98.0

198

.01

0.12

1.36

0.96

0.96

0.23

0.23

87.4

9

87.4

6

90.9

390

.93

90.9

490

.94

77.00

Legend Key

Concrete

Made Ground

Rugby Limestone Formation

No Core Recovery

1.20

8.50

10.00

BH4

(MADE GROUND)

(MADE GROUND)


0.80

1.20

1.60

1.90

2.252.49

3.00

6.00

BH2

(MADE GROUND)

(MADE GROUND)(MADE GROUND)(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)(NCR)(RUGBYLIMESTONEFORMATION)

0.45

1.50

2.50

3.20

3.90

5.50

BH9

(CONCRETE)

(MADE GROUND)

(MADE GROUND)

(MADE GROUND)



0.70

BH7

(CONCRETE)

CLAYMDST

MDST

LMST

MDST

MDST

CLAY


R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 B January 2019 Revision 2

Appendix B Fieldwork records – JPP Boreholes

Well Water Depth(m)

1.50 - 3.00

3.00 - 4.50

4.50 - 6.00

0.30

0.90

1.30

3.41 - 3.57

4.60 - 4.83

5.50 - 5.77

Type/FI

D

D

D

C

C

C

CoringTCR

40

94

93

SCR

32

92

86

RQD

21

92

86

Dia

met

erR

ecov

ery

(SPT

)

100mm

100mm

100mm

Depth(m)

0.35

0.80

1.50

1.962.10

3.00

6.00

Level(m)

87.15

86.70

86.00

85.5485.40

84.50

81.50

Legend Stratum Description

Grey fine to coarse SAND and fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL consists limestone and sandstone with some wood and plastic.(MADE GROUND)Pinkish grey sandy fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of limestone granite and clinker with a low cobble content of granite(MADE GROUND)Very stiff dark grey slightly sandy slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel consists of fine angular limestone with occasional thin beds of extremely weak mudstone.(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)Weak to medium strong grey mottled dark grey locally fossiliferous LIMESTONE(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)

Extremely weak to very weak dark grey mottled black rarely fossiliferous MUDSTONE(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)No Core Recovery(NCR)

Extremely weak to very weak dark grey mottled black rarely fossiliferous MUDSTONE with closely to medium spaced thin beds of weak to very weak grey limestone. Discontinuities set: 0 degrees medium spaced locally closely undulating planar rough.(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)

from 5.89m to 6.00m assumed zone of core lossEnd of Borehole at 6.000m

1

2

3

4

5

6

Rotary Core LogProject Name: Cemex Cement Works Client: Cemex Date: 16/07/2018

Location: Rugby Contractor: Dynamic Sampling Ltd Co-ords: E448757.00 N275665.00

Project No. : 10110G Crew Name: Drilling Equipment: Comacchio GEO 205

Borehole Number Hole Type Level Logged By Scale Page NumberBH1 RC 87.50m AoD PS 1:30 Sheet 1 of 1

RemarksNo groundwater encountered

Hole DiameterDepth Base Diameter

Casing DiameterDepth Base Diameter

ChisellingDepth Top Depth Base Duration Tool

Inclination and OrientationDepth Top Depth Base Inclination Orientation

Drilling FlushDepth Top Depth Base Type Colour Min (%) Max (%)

Well Water Depth(m)

2.00 - 3.00

3.00 - 4.50

4.50 - 6.00

0.10

0.50 - 0.90

1.30

1.50

1.80

2.00

3.22 - 3.35

4.58 - 4.82

Type/FIES

D

D

D

D

D

C

C

CoringTCR

49

74

83

SCR

10

65

83

RQD

10

65

77

Dia

met

erR

ecov

ery

(SPT

)

(26)

100mm

100mm

100mm

Depth(m)

0.80

1.20

1.60

1.90

2.25

2.49

3.00

6.00

Level(m)

86.66

86.26

85.86

85.56

85.21

84.97

84.46

81.46


Grey fine to coarse SAND and fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL consisting of limestone and sandstone with some rare granite(MADE GROUND)

Pinkish grey fine to coarse SAND and fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL consisting of limestone granite and clinker with a low cobble content of granite(MADE GROUND)Dark grey sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel is consists fine to coarse angular of quartzite limestone and granite. (MADE GROUND)Very stiff dark grey mottled light brown silty CLAY(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)Extremely weak dark and very dark grey MUDSTONE(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)Weak light grey LIMESTONE (recovered as fine to coarse angular gravel and cobbles (drilling induced))(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)No Core Recovery(NCR)

Extremely weak to very weak dark and very dark grey MUDSTONE with closely to medium spaced thin beds of weak to medium strong light grey limestone. Discontinuities set: 0 to 5 degrees closely to medium spaced undulating planar rough.(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)

from 5.74m to 6.00m assumed zone of core loss

End of Borehole at 6.000m

1

2

3

4

5

6











Well Water Depth(m)

0.30

0.60

1.40

1.80

2.70

Type/FI

D

D

D

D

D

CoringTCR SCR RQD D

iam

eter

Rec

over

y(S

PT)

(17)

(24)

(28)

(34)

(39)

Depth(m)

0.40

0.60

2.50

3.10

Level(m)

86.83

86.63

84.73

84.13


Grey fine to coarse SAND and fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL consisting of limestone and sandstone with some rare granite(MADE GROUND)Pinkish grey fine to coarse SAND and fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL consisting of limestone granite and clinker with a low cobble content of granite(MADE GROUND)Dark brown becoming dark grey mottled brown sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel consists of fine to coarse angular to subrounded quartzite limestone and granite with rare brick fragments.(MADE GROUND)

Dark grey slightly sandy slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is fine to coarse angular of mudstone.(MADE GROUND)

Dark grey silty gravelly CLAY. Gravel is fine to coarse angular of mudstone and limestone.(MADE GROUND)

1

2

3

4

5

6





RemarksOpen hole drilling from 3.20m to 6.00m






Well Water Depth(m)

8.00 - 9.00

9.00 - 10.00

10.00 - 11.50

6.70

7.80

10.22 -10.39

10.61 -10.99

Type/FI

D

D

CoringTCR

88

8

65

SCR

16

8

61

RQD

16

0

61

Dia

met

erR

ecov

ery

(SPT

)

100mm

100mm

100mm

Depth(m)

8.70

9.08

10.00

10.70

10.98

11.50

Level(m)

78.53

78.15

77.23

76.53

76.25

75.73


Dark grey silty gravelly CLAY. Gravel is fine to coarse angular of mudstone and limestone.(MADE GROUND)

Extremely weak dark grey MUDSTONE(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)


No Core Recovery(NCR)

Very weak locally extremely weak dark grey MUDSTONE with closely to medium spaced thin beds of weak to medium strong grey limestone. Discontinuities set: 0 to 5 degrees closely spaced planar rough.(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)

Medium strong light grey rarely fosilliferous LIMESTONE(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)No Core Recovery(NCR)


7

8

9

10

11

12





RemarksOpen hole drilling from 3.20m to 6.00m






Well Water Depth(m)

1.60

Type/FI

ES

CoringTCR SCR RQD D

iam

eter

Rec

over

y(S

PT) Depth

(m)

1.20

Level(m)

86.29



Dark grey mottled brown slightly gravelly CLAY with ocassional sand partings. Gravel consists of fine to coarse angular to subrounded mudstone siltstone and some limestone.(MADE GROUND)

1

2

3

4

5

6





RemarksOpen hole from 2.00m to 8.50m depth.






Well Water Depth(m)

8.50 - 10.00

8.88 - 9.02

9.57 - 9.89

Type/FI

C

C

CoringTCR

100

SCR

100

RQD

100

Dia

met

erR

ecov

ery

(SPT

)

100mm

Depth(m)

8.50

10.00

Level(m)

78.99

77.49


Dark grey mottled brown slightly gravelly CLAY with ocassional sand partings. Gravel consists of fine to coarse angular to subrounded mudstone siltstone and some limestone.(MADE GROUND)

Extremely weak dark grey MUDSTONE with closely to medium spaced thin beds of medium strong locally weak light grey limestone. Discontinuities set: 0 to 5 degrees medium spaced planar rough.(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)


7

8

9

10

11

12





RemarksOpen hole from 2.00m to 8.50m depth.






Well Water Depth(m)

1.50 - 3.00

1.25

Type/FI

ES

CoringTCR

100

SCR

100

RQD

100

Dia

met

erR

ecov

ery

(SPT

)

100mm

Depth(m)

0.60

1.201.30

3.00

Level(m)

86.69

86.0985.99

84.29



CONCRETE: weak light grey

Dark grey slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel consists of fine to coarse angular limestone mudstone and quartzite. (MADE GROUND)Extremely weak becoming very weak dark grey MUDSTONE with closely to medium spaced thin beds of medium strong grey limestone. Discontinuities set: 0 to 5 degrees closely to medium spaced undulating planar rough.(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)


1

2

3

4

5

6











Well Water Depth(m)

1.20

Type/FI

D

CoringTCR SCR RQD D

iam

eter

Rec

over

y(S

PT) Depth

(m)0.10

0.50

1.30

Level(m)

91.14

90.74

89.94


BLACKTOPCONCRETE and MADE GROUND - refer to WS3

CONCRETE: light brown and grey. Presumed reinforcement at base.


1

2

3

4

5

6





RemarksContinued from WS3 from 0.50m. Terminated at 1.3m depth due to reinforced concrete obstruction






Well Water Depth(m)

Type/FI

CoringTCR SCR RQD D

iam

eter

Rec

over

y(S

PT) Depth

(m)

0.70

Level(m)

90.24


CONCRETE and MADE GROUND - refer to WS4


1

2

3

4

5

6





RemarksWS4 reached 0.70m depth. Rotary attempted open hole drilling and terminated at 0.70m depth due to reinforced concrete obstruction






Well Water Depth(m)

2.50 - 4.00

4.00 - 5.50

0.25

0.50

1.00

2.30

3.66 - 3.74

4.29 - 4.55

4.91 - 5.21

Type/FI

ES

D

D

D

C

C

C

CoringTCR

90

92

SCR

63

92

RQD

63

87

Dia

met

erR

ecov

ery

(SPT

)

(13)

(14)

100mm

100mm

Depth(m)

0.180.30

0.70

1.70

2.90

5.50

Level(m)

88.7688.64

88.24

87.24

86.04

83.44


CONCRETE: light grey fine to coarse subangular to rounded gravelWhiteish grey sandy fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of limestone and rare clinker(MADE GROUND)Pinkish grey fine to coarse SAND and fine to coarse angular to rounded GRAVEL consisting of limestone granite and clinker with a low cobble content of granite(MADE GROUND)Brown mottled light grey slightly gravelly rarely silty CLAY. Gravel consists of angular to subrounded fine to medium quartzite limestone and mudstone.(MADE GROUND)

Firm to stiff dark grey mottled light brown locally fossiliferous CLAY(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)

Extremely weak dark grey MUDSTONE with closely to medium spaced thin beds of medium strong locally weak light grey limestone. Discontinuities set: 0 to 5 degrees closely to medium spaced planar rough.(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)


from 5.38m to 5.50m assumed zone of core lossEnd of Borehole at 5.500m

1

2

3

4

5

6











Well Water Depth(m)

4.00 - 5.50

1.00 - 1.50

3.00

3.40

4.53 - 4.79

Type/FI

D

D

D

C

CoringTCR

99

SCR

99

RQD

99

Dia

met

erR

ecov

ery

(SPT

)

100mm

Depth(m)

0.45

1.50

2.50

3.20

3.90

5.50

Level(m)

90.48

89.43

88.43

87.73

87.03

85.43


CONCRETE hardstanding

MADE GROUND - Refer to WS5

Orangish brown gravelly fine to coarse SAND. Gravel consists of fine to medium subrounded to rounded limestone quartzite and mudstone.(MADE GROUND)

Brown and grey mottled light brown gravelly CLAY. Gravel consists of flint quartzite and limestone.(MADE GROUND)

Very stiff dark blueish grey locally fossiliferous CLAY(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)

Extremely weak dark grey silty MUDSTONE with closely to medium spaced thin to thick beds of weak light grey limestone. Discontinuities set: 0 to 5 degrees closely to medium spaced planar rough with some orange staining(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)


1

2

3

4

5

6











Well WaterStrikes

Sample and In Situ TestingDepth (m) Type Results

Depth(m)

0.19

0.35

0.57

Level(m)

90.98

90.82

90.60


CONCRETE hardstanding(MADE GROUND)

Light grey sandy GRAVEL. Gravel consists of fine to coarse angular to subangular limestone. (MADE GROUND)(MADE GROUND)

Light brownish grey sandy GRAVEL. Gravel consists of fine to coarse angular to subrounded limestone(MADE GROUND)


1

2

0.40 SPT 50 (25,/37,13,,)

Dynamic Sampling LogProject Name: Cemex Cement Works Client: Cemex Date: 17/07/2018


Project No. : 10110G Crew Name: Drilling Equipment: Premier Tracker

Borehole Number Hole Type Level Logged By Scale Page NumberWS1 WLS 91.17m AoD CH 1:10 Sheet 1 of 1

RemarksRefusal at 0.57m on concrete obstruction




Inclina on and Orienta onDepth Top Depth Base Inclination Orientation

Well WaterStrikes


Depth(m)

0.08

0.25

0.55

Level(m)

91.16

90.99

90.69


BLACKTOP hardstanding

Light grey sandy GRAVEL. Gravel consists of fine to coarse angular to subangular limestone. (MADE GROUND)(MADE GROUND)

Light brownish grey sandy GRAVEL. Gravel consists of fine to coarse angular to subrounded limestone(MADE GROUND)


1

2










Well WaterStrikes


Depth(m)

0.12

0.25

0.50

Level(m)

91.12

90.99

90.74


BLACKTOP hardstanding

Light grey sandy GRAVEL. Gravel consists of fine to coarse angular to subangular limestone. (MADE GROUND)(MADE GROUND)Brownish grey sandy GRAVEL. Gravel consists of fine to coarse angular to subrounded limestone(RUGBY LIMESTONE FORMATION)


1

2










Well WaterStrikes


Depth(m)0.02

0.35

0.70

Level(m)

90.92

90.59

90.24


BLACKTOP surfacingCONCRETE

Light brown sandy gravelly CLAY. Fine to coarse angular to subrounded limestone. (MADE GROUND)(MADE GROUND)


1

2










Well WaterStrikes


Depth(m)

0.45

0.60

1.50

Level(m)

90.48

90.33

89.43


CONCRETE hardstanding

Grey slightly clayey slightly gravelly SAND. Gravel consists of fine to medium angular to subangular mixed lithologies. (MADE GROUND)(MADE GROUND)

Yellowish brown sandy GRAVEL. Gravel consists of fine to coarse subangular to well rounded flint and quartz with occasional cobbles. (MADE GROUND)(MADE GROUND)


1

2

0.50 ES

1.00 SPT N=35 (1,2/5,8,10,12)

1.40 ES

1.50 SPT N=50 (10,12/14,13,14,9)



Project No. : 10110G Crew Name: Drilling Equipment: Permier Tracker


RemarksRefusal at 1.5m on unknown obstruction






R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 C January 2019 Revision 2

Appendix C Exploration Associates boreholes (1994/1995)


R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 D January 2019 Revision 2

Appendix D Geotechnical laboratory testing

Client: Client Reference:

Client Address: Job Number:

Date Sampled:

Date Received:

Contact: Date Tested:

Site Name: Sampled By:

Site Address:

Test ResultsLaboratory Reference: Depth Top [m]:

Hole No.: Depth Base [m]:

Sample Reference: Sample Type:

Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:

Legend, based on BS 5930:2015 Code of practice for site investigations

Plasticity Liquid Limit

C Clay L Low below 35

M Silt I Medium 35 to 50

H High 50 to 70

V Very high 70 to 90

E Extremely high exceeding 90

Organic O append to classification for organic material ( eg CHO )

Remarks:

Approved: Signed:

Date Reported:for and on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd

TEST CERTIFICATE i2 Analytical Ltd 7 Woodshots Meadow Croxley Green Business Park Watford Herts WD18 8YS

Determination of Liquid and Plastic LimitsTested in Accordance with BS1377-2: 1990: Clause 4.4 & 5: One Point Method

JPP 10110G 4 Ironstone Way

Brixworth Northampton

NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018

Anthony Paton 04/08/2018

Cemex, Rugby Not Given

Not Given

1010463 0.90

BH1 Not Given

Not Given D

Grey silty CLAY

Tested in natural condition

As Received Moisture Content [%]

Liquid Limit[%]

Plastic Limit[%]

Plasticity Index[%]

% Passing 425µm BS Test Sieve

27 49 24 25 100

Re-issue 1 - Description for UCS amended

03/09/2018

"Opinions and interpretations expressed here in are outside of the scope of the UKAS Accreditation.

This report may not be reproduced other than in full without the prior written approval of the issuing laboratory.

The results included within the report are representative of the samples submitted for analysis.

The analysis was carried out at i2 Analytical Limited, ul. Pionierow 39, 41-711 Ruda Slaska, Poland."

piotrowskid berrilldDariusz Piotrowski Darren BerrillPL Laboratory Manager

Geotechnical General Manager

CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT

Page 1 of 1 GF 232.1



Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:

Approved: Signed:






NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018



Not Given

1010464 1.30

BH1 Not Given

Not Given D

Grey silty CLAY



Liquid Limit[%]

Plastic Limit[%]

Plasticity Index[%]


26 44 21 23 100


03/09/2018







CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT




Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:

Approved: Signed:






NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018



Not Given

1010465 2.00

BH2 Not Given

Not Given D

Grey silty CLAY



Liquid Limit[%]

Plastic Limit[%]

Plasticity Index[%]


18 43 24 19 100


03/09/2018







CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT




Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:

Approved: Signed:






NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018



Not Given

1010466 2.70

BH3 Not Given

Not Given D

Grey slightly gravelly CLAY

Tested after >425um removed by hand


Liquid Limit[%]

Plastic Limit[%]

Plasticity Index[%]


21 39 21 18 99


03/09/2018







CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT




Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:

Approved: Signed:






NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018



Not Given

1010467 1.60

BH4 Not Given

Not Given D

Dark grey CLAY



Liquid Limit[%]

Plastic Limit[%]

Plasticity Index[%]


24 43 24 19 100


03/09/2018







CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT




Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:

Approved: Signed:






NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018



Not Given

1010468 1.25

BH5 Not Given

Not Given D

Grey CLAY



Liquid Limit[%]

Plastic Limit[%]

Plasticity Index[%]


20 41 19 22 100


03/09/2018







CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT




Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:

Approved: Signed:






NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018



Not Given

1010469 2.30

BH8 Not Given

Not Given D

Grey CLAY



Liquid Limit[%]

Plastic Limit[%]

Plasticity Index[%]


26 49 22 27 100


03/09/2018







CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT




Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:

Approved: Signed:






NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018



Not Given

1010470 3.40

BH9 Not Given

Not Given D

Mottled brown gravelly CLAY

Tested after >425um removed by hand


Liquid Limit[%]

Plastic Limit[%]

Plasticity Index[%]


14 46 22 24 62


03/09/2018







CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT




Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:

Test results

% % % % % Mg/m3 Mg/m3 Mg/m3

Not Given 0.90 Not Given D 27 100 49 24 25








Comments:

Approved: Signed:berrilld


TEST CERTIFICATE i2 Analytical Ltd 7 Woodshots Meadow Croxley Green Business Park Watford Herts WD18 8YS Summary of Classification Test Results



NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018



Not Given

Laboratory Reference

Hole No.

Sample

Soil DescriptionM/C

Atterberg DensityTotal

PorosityReference

Top depth[m]

Base depth[m]

Type% Passing 425um LL PL PI bulk PD

1010463 BH1 Grey silty CLAY



1010466 BH3 Grey slightly gravelly CLAY

1010467 BH4 Dark grey CLAY

1010468 BH5 Grey CLAY

1010469 BH8 Grey CLAY

Darren Berrill

1010470 BH9 Mottled brown gravelly CLAY

PL Laboratory Manager Geotechnical Section


03/09/2018

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





piotrowskidDariusz Piotrowski




Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:

Test ResultLaboratory Reference: Depth Top [m]:



Sample Description:

Test Number Rate of Strain %/minLength mm At failure Axial Strain %Diameter mm Unconfined Compressive Strength kPaBulk Density Mg/m3 Mode of FailureMoisture Content %Dry Density Mg/m3

Remarks

Notes: Axial compressive stress corrected for area change, and membrane effects (if used)

Comments:

Approved: Signed:

Dariusz Piotrowski Darren Berrill


TEST CERTIFICATE i2 Analytical Ltd7 Woodshots Meadow Croxley Green Business Park Watford Herts WD18 8YS

Unconfined Compressive Strength of soilTested in Accordance with BS1377: Part 7: 1990, clause 7.2

JPP 10110G

4 Ironstone Way Brixworth

NorthamptonNN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018


Not Given

1010474 4.91


BH8 Not Given

Not Given C

Dark grey sandy CLAY

1 1.0196.5 2.187.7 4312.12 Brittle15.01.84

Position within sample

Sample too soft for UCS on Rock - tested as UCS on Soil

03/09/2018






piotrowskid berrilld



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cor

rect

ed A

xial

Com

pres

sive

Str

ess

kP

a

Axial Strain %

Axial Compressive Stress v Axial Strain




Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:

Test ResultLaboratory Reference: Depth Top [m]:



Sample Description:

Test Number Rate of Strain %/minLength mm At failure Axial Strain %Diameter mm Unconfined Compressive Strength kPaBulk Density Mg/m3 Mode of FailureMoisture Content %Dry Density Mg/m3

Remarks

Notes: Axial compressive stress corrected for area change, and membrane effects (if used)

Comments:

Approved: Signed:



TEST CERTIFICATE i2 Analytical Ltd7 Woodshots Meadow Croxley Green Business Park Watford Herts WD18 8YS

Unconfined Compressive Strength of soilTested in Accordance with BS1377: Part 7: 1990, clause 7.2

JPP 10110G


NorthamptonNN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018


Not Given

1010475 4.53


BH9 Not Given

Not Given C

Dark grey slightly gravelly sandy CLAY

1 1.0166.1 8.086.9 5352.07 Brittle21.01.71

Position within sample

Sample too soft for UCS on Rock - tested as UCS on Soil

03/09/2018









0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Cor

rect

ed A

xial

Com

pres

sive

Str

ess

kP

a

Axial Strain %

Axial Compressive Stress v Axial Strain




Date Sampled:

Date Received:


Site Name: Sampled By:Site Address:

Test Results:Laboratory Reference: Depth Top [m]:



Sample Description:

Specimen Dimensions2 :

Diameter mmLength mmH/DOrientation of sample

Bulk Density2 Mg/m3Water Content1 %

Uniaxial Compression3 :

ConditionStress Rate MPa/sUCS MPa

Mode of failure:

Remarks:

Approved: Signed:

Darren Berrill



Determination of Uniaxial Compressive Strength of RockInternational Society for Rock Mechanics, The complete ISRM suggested methods for Rock

Characterization Testing and Monitoring, 2007, p153, part 1



NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018

Anthony Paton 09/08/2018Cemex, Rugby Not GivenNot Given

1010471 5.50

BH1 Not Given

Not Given C

Grey MUDSTONE & LIMESTONE

39.4

86.8177.22.0

Vertical

2.573.1

as received0.2538

03/09/2018





Sample is below recommended length:diameter ratioRe-issue 1 - Description for UCS amended


Note:1 - ISRM p87 test 1, water content at 105 ± 3 oC, specimen as tested for UCS, 2 - ISRM p86 clause (vii), Caliper method used for determination of bulk volume and derivation of bulk density, 3 - ISRM p153 part 1, determination of Uniaxial Compressive Strength ( UCS ) of Rock Materials, above notes apply unless annotated otherwise in the remarks. Compaction machine: VJ Tech AUTOCON - VJT 51-3011

Dariusz PiotrowskiPL Laboratory Manager Geotechnical Section


Single shear Multiple shear Axial cleavage Fragmented

Page 1 of 1 GF181.3



Date Sampled:

Date Received:






Sample Description:






Mode of failure:

Remarks:

Approved: Signed:

Darren Berrill







NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018


1010472 10.61

BH3 Not Given

Not Given C


24.8

86.7195.82.3

Vertical

2.533.0

as received0.2544

03/09/2018











Page 1 of 1 GF181.3



Date Sampled:

Date Received:






Sample Description:






Mode of failure:

Remarks:

Approved: Signed:

Darren Berrill







NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018


1010473 9.57

BH4 Not Given

Not Given C


13.3

86.4212.42.5

2.5141.7

as received0.2558

03/09/2018





Sample was wet inside the core. Sample is below recommended length:diameter ratioRe-issue 1 - Description for UCS amended






Page 1 of 1 GF181.3



Date Sampled:

Date Received:






Sample Description:






Mode of failure:

Remarks:

Approved: Signed:

Darren Berrill







NN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018


1010476 4.58

BH2 Not Given

Not Given C


58.2

86.588.21.0

2.592.5

as received0.2554

03/09/2018











Page 1 of 1 GF181.3



Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:

Test Results

Dia. Length H/D ConditionStress

Rate

Mode of

failureUCS

mm mm Mg/m3 % MPa/s MPa

1010471 Not Given 5.50 Not Given C 86.8 177.2 2.0 Vertical 2.57 3.1as

received0.2538 AC 39.4




received0.2544 S 24.8



Notes: Mode of failure :

Comments: Re-issue 1 - Description for UCS amended

Approved: Signed:




Determination of uniaxial compression test on rock - summary of resultsTested in Accordance with International Society for Rock Mechanics, The complete ISRM suggested methods for Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring, 2007

JPP 10110G


NorthamptonNN6 9UD

18-94193

Not Given

27/07/2018



Not Given

Laboratory

ReferenceHole No.

Sample

Description

Specimen Dimensions2Bulk

Density2

Water

Content1

Uniaxial Compression3

Remarks

ReferenceDepth

Top [m]

Depth

Base [m]Type

Orientation

of

sample

BH1 Grey MUDSTONE & LIMESTONESample is below recommended

length:diameter ratio





BH4 Grey MUDSTONE & LIMESTONESample was wet inside the

core. Sample is below recommended

03/09/2018





1 - ISRM p87 test 1, water content at 105 ± 3 oC, specimen as tested for UCS, 2 - ISRM p86 clause (vii), Caliper method used for determination of bulk volume and derivation of bulk density, 3 - ISRM p153 part 1, determination of Uniaxial Compressive Strength ( UCS ) of Rock Materials, above notes apply unless annotated otherwise in the remarks. Compaction machine: VJ Tech AUTOCON - VJT 51-3011

S - Single shear, MS - multiple shear, AC - Axial cleavage, F - Fragmented






R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 E January 2019 Revision 2

Appendix E Chemical laboratory testing

Philip Smith

t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404

e: [email protected] e:

Project / Site name: Samples received on: 27/07/2018

Your job number: 10110G Samples instructed on: 27/07/2018

Your order number: GPO1239 Analysis completed by: 24/08/2018

Report Issue Number: 2 Report issued on: 24/08/2018

Samples Analysed:

Signed:

Reporting ManagerFor & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.

Standard Geotechnical, Asbestos and Chemical Testing Laboratory located at: ul. Pionierów 39, 41 -711 Ruda Śląska, Poland.

Accredited tests are defined within the report, opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of accreditation.

Standard sample disposal times, unless otherwise agreed with the laboratory, are : soils - 4 weeks from reportingleachates - 2 weeks from reportingwaters - 2 weeks from reportingasbestos - 6 months from reporting

Excel copies of reports are only valid when accompanied by this PDF certificate.

Jordan Hill

5 soil samples

Cemex, Rugby

JPP4 Ironstone WayBrixworthNorthamptonNN6 9UD

i2 Analytical Ltd.7 Woodshots Meadow,Croxley Green Business Park,Watford, Herts, WD18 8YS

Replaces Analytical Report Number : 18-94303, issue no. 1

Analytical Report Number : 18-94303

[email protected]

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory.


Iss No 18-94303-2 Cemex, Rugby 10110G

Page 1 of 8

Analytical Report Number: 18-94303

Project / Site name: Cemex, Rugby

Your Order No: GPO1239

Lab Sample Number 1011057 1011058 1011059 1011060 1011061Sample Reference BH1 BH3 BH4 BH8 BH8Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 0.90 0.30 1.60 0.25 1.00Date Sampled Deviating Deviating Deviating Deviating DeviatingTime Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Analytical Parameter

(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 - < 0.1 - < 0.1Moisture Content % N/A NONE 17 - 14 - 14Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 0.33 - 0.37 - 2.0

Asbestos in Soil Screen / Identification Name Type N/A ISO 17025 - Chrysotile - - -

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 - Detected - Not-detected -Asbestos Quantification (Stage 2) % 0.001 ISO 17025 - < 0.001 - - -Asbestos Quantification Total % 0.001 ISO 17025 - < 0.001 - - -

General Inorganics

pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 8.2 - 7.8 - 8.8Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS - - - - < 1Total Sulphate as SO4 mg/kg 50 MCERTS 1100 - 38000 - 610

Water Soluble Sulphate as SO 4 16hr extraction (2:1) mg/kg 2.5 MCERTS - - - - 290Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS 0.23 - 2.4 - 0.15Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS 232 - 2350 - 147Water Soluble Chloride (2:1) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 47 - 66 - -Total Sulphur mg/kg 50 MCERTS 1700 - 20000 - -Ammonium as NH4 mg/kg 0.5 MCERTS 2.0 - 3.8 - -

Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS - - - - 0.6Water Soluble Nitrate (2:1) as N mg/kg 2 NONE < 2.0 - < 2.0 - -

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - - - - < 0.05

Total PAH

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS - - - - < 0.80




Page 2 of 8




Lab Sample Number 1011057 1011058 1011059 1011060 1011061Sample Reference BH1 BH3 BH4 BH8 BH8Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 0.90 0.30 1.60 0.25 1.00Date Sampled Deviating Deviating Deviating Deviating DeviatingTime Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Heavy Metals / Metalloids

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - - - - 12Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS - - - - < 0.2Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS - - - - < 4.0Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - - - - 32Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - - - - 29Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - - - - 12Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS - - - - < 0.3Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - - - - 23Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - - - - < 1.0Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - - - - 40

Magnesium (water soluble) mg/kg 5 NONE - - 120 - -




Page 3 of 8

18-94303

Cemex, Rugby

GPO1239

Methods:

Qualitative Analysis

Sample

NumberSample ID

Sample

Depth

(m)

Sample

Weight

(g)

Asbestos Containing

Material Types

Detected (ACM)

PLM Results

Asbestos by hand

picking/weighing

(%)

Total %

Asbestos in

Sample

1011058 BH3 0.30 198 Loose Fibres Chrysotile < 0.001 < 0.001

The analysis was carried out using our documented in-house method A006 based on HSE Contract Research Report No: 83/1996: Development and Validation of an analytical method to determine the amount of asbestos in soils and loose aggregates (Davies et al, 1996) and HSG 248. Our method includes initial examination of the entire representative sample, then fractionation and detailed analysis of each fraction, with quantification by hand picking and weighing.

The limit of detection (reporting limit) of this method is 0.001 %.

The method has been validated using samples of at least 100 g, results for samples smaller than this should be interpreted with caution.

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

Analytical Report Number:

Project / Site name:

Your Order No:

Certificate of Analysis - Asbestos Quantification

The samples were analysed qualitatively for asbestos by polarising light and dispersion staining as described by the Health and Safety Executive in HSG 248.

Quantitative Analysis

Both Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses are UKAS accredited.




Page 4 of 8



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample

NumberDepth (m) Sample Description *

1011057 BH1 None Supplied 0.90 Grey clay.1011058 BH3 None Supplied 0.30 -1011059 BH4 None Supplied 1.60 Grey clay.1011060 BH8 None Supplied 0.25 -1011061 BH8 None Supplied 1.00 Light brown clay and sand.

* These descriptions are only intended to act as a cross check if sample identities are questioned. The major constituent of the sample is intended to act with respect to MCERTS validation. The laboratory is accredited for sand, clay and loam (MCERTS) soil types. Data for unaccredited types of solid should be interpreted with care.

Stone content of a sample is calculated as the % weight of the stones not passing a 10 mm sieve. Results are not corrected for stone content.




Page 5 of 8



Water matrix abbreviations: Surface Water (SW) Potable Water (PW) Ground Water (GW) Process Water (PrW)

Analytical Test Name Analytical Method Description Analytical Method ReferenceMethod

number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Ammonium as NH4 in soil Determination of Ammonium/Ammonia/ Ammoniacal Nitrogen by the colorimetric salicylate/nitroprusside method, 10:1 water extraction.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton

L082-PL W MCERTS

Asbestos identification in soil Asbestos Identification with the use of polarised light microscopy in conjunction with disperion staining techniques.

In house method based on HSG 248 A001-PL D ISO 17025

Asbestos Quantification - Gravimetric Asbestos quantification by gravimetric method - in house method based on references.

HSE Report No: 83/1996, HSG 248, HSG 264 & SCA Blue Book (draft).

A006-PL D ISO 17025

Chloride, water soluble, in soil Determination of Chloride colorimetrically by discrete analyser.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests. 2:1 extraction.

L082-PL D MCERTS

Hexavalent chromium in soil Determination of hexavalent chromium in soil by extraction in water then by acidification, addition of 1,5 diphenylcarbazide followed by colorimetry.

In-house method L080-PL W MCERTS

Magnesium, water soluble, in soil Determination of water soluble magnesium by extraction with water followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on TRL 447 L038-PL D NONE

Metals in soil by ICP-OES Determination of metals in soil by aqua-regia digestion followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on MEWAM 2006 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil.

L038-PL D MCERTS

Moisture Content Moisture content, determined gravimetrically. In-house method based on BS1377 Part 2, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests

L019-UK/PL W NONE

Organic matter (Automated) in soil Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by titration with iron (II) sulphate.

BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests""

L009-PL D MCERTS

pH in soil (automated) Determination of pH in soil by addition of water followed by automated electrometric measurement.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests

L099-PL D MCERTS

Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in soil Determination of PAH compounds in soil by extraction in dichloromethane and hexane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards.

In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L064-PL D MCERTS

Stones content of soil Standard preparation for all samples unless otherwise detailed. Gravimetric determination of stone > 10 mm as % dry weight.

In-house method based on British Standard Methods and MCERTS requirements.

L019-UK/PL D NONE

Sulphate, water soluble, in soil (16hr extraction)

Determination of water soluble sulphate by ICP-OES. Results reported directly (leachate equivalent) and corrected for extraction ratio (soil equivalent).

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests, 2:1 water:soil extraction, analysis by ICP-OES.

L038-PL D MCERTS




Page 6 of 8





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Total cyanide in soil Determination of total cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)

L080-PL W MCERTS

Total sulphate (as SO4 in soil) Determination of total sulphate in soil by extraction with 10% HCl followed by ICP-OES.


L038-PL D MCERTS

Total Sulphur in soil Determination of total sulphur in soil by extraction with aqua-regia, potassium bromide/bromate followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, and MEWAM 2006 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil

L038-PL D MCERTS

Water Soluble Nitrate (2:1) as N in soil

Determination of nitrate by reaction with sodium salicylate and colorimetry.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewatern & Polish Standard Method PN-82/C-04579.08, 2:1 extraction.

L078-PL D NONE

For method numbers ending in 'UK' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in the United Kingdom.

For method numbers ending in 'PL' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in Poland.

Soil analytical results are expressed on a dry weight basis. Where analysis is carried out on as-received the results obtained are multiplied by a moisture

correction factor that is determined gravimetrically using the moisture content which is carried out at a maximum of 30oC.




Page 7 of 8

Sample Deviation Report

Sample ID Other_ID Sample Type Job Sample Number Sample Deviation Code test_name test_ref Test Deviation code

BH1 S 18-94303 1011057 a

BH3 S 18-94303 1011058 a

BH4 S 18-94303 1011059 a

BH8 S 18-94303 1011060 a

BH8 S 18-94303 1011061 ab Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in soil L064-PL b

Iss No:18-94303-2 Cemex, Rugby 10110GKey: a - No sampling date b - Incorrect container

c - Holding time d - Headspace e - Temperature Page 8 of 8

Tia Wray

t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404






Samples Analysed:

Signed:






[email protected]

Jordan Hill

2 soil samples

Rugby Cement



Replaces Analytical Report Number : 18-97239, issue no. 1




Iss No 18-97239-2 Rugby Cement 10110G

Page 1 of 6


Project / Site name: Rugby Cement


Lab Sample Number 1027960 1027961Sample Reference WS5 WS5Sample Number None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 0.50 1.40Date Sampled 17/07/2018 17/07/2018Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE 33 5.2Moisture Content % N/A NONE 18 7.7Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 0.85 1.2

Asbestos in Soil Screen / Identification Name Type N/A ISO 17025 Amosite -

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 Detected Not-detectedAsbestos Quantification (Stage 2) % 0.001 ISO 17025 < 0.001 -Asbestos Quantification Total % 0.001 ISO 17025 < 0.001 -

General Inorganics

pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 8.4 8.4Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1 < 1Total Sulphate as SO4 mg/kg 50 MCERTS 3600 250

Water Soluble Sulphate as SO 4 16hr extraction (2:1) mg/kg 2.5 MCERTS 1100 95Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS 0.55 0.048Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS 549 47.5Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS 6.0 0.1

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.22 < 0.05Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.49 < 0.05Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.41 < 0.05Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.23 < 0.05Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.33 < 0.05Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.45 < 0.05Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.19 < 0.05Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.27 < 0.05Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05

Total PAH

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS 2.59 < 0.80

Heavy Metals / Metalloids

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 20 12Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 2.0 < 0.2Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS < 4.0 < 4.0Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 26 20Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 120 18Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 73 10Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS < 0.3 < 0.3Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 67 19Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 910 56




Page 2 of 6

18-97239

Rugby Cement

GPO1297

Methods:

Qualitative Analysis

Sample

NumberSample ID

Sample

Depth

(m)

Sample

Weight

(g)

Asbestos Containing

Material Types

Detected (ACM)

PLM Results

Asbestos by hand

picking/weighing

(%)

Total %

Asbestos in

Sample

1027960 WS5 0.50 121 Loose Fibres Amosite < 0.001 < 0.001

The analysis was carried out using our documented in-house method A006 based on HSE Contract Research Report No: 83/1996: Development and Validation of an analytical method to determine the amount of asbestos in soils and loose aggregates (Davies et al, 1996) and HSG 248. Our method includes initial examination of the entire representative sample, then fractionation and detailed analysis of each fraction, with quantification by hand picking and weighing.

The limit of detection (reporting limit) of this method is 0.001 %.

The method has been validated using samples of at least 100 g, results for samples smaller than this should be interpreted with caution.

Both Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses are UKAS accredited.

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

Analytical Report Number:

Project / Site name:

Your Order No:

Certificate of Analysis - Asbestos Quantification

The samples were analysed qualitatively for asbestos by polarising light and dispersion staining as described by the Health and Safety Executive in HSG 248.

Quantitative Analysis




Page 3 of 6



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample


1027960 WS5 None Supplied 0.50 Black loam and sand with vegetation and stones.1027961 WS5 None Supplied 1.40 Light brown clay and sand with stones and gravel.






Page 4 of 6





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Asbestos identification in soil Asbestos Identification with the use of polarised light microscopy in conjunction with disperion staining techniques.

In house method based on HSG 248 A001-PL D ISO 17025

Asbestos Quantification - Gravimetric Asbestos quantification by gravimetric method - in house method based on references.

HSE Report No: 83/1996, HSG 248, HSG 264 & SCA Blue Book (draft).

A006-PL D ISO 17025

Hexavalent chromium in soil Determination of hexavalent chromium in soil by extraction in water then by acidification, addition of 1,5 diphenylcarbazide followed by colorimetry.

In-house method L080-PL W MCERTS

Metals in soil by ICP-OES Determination of metals in soil by aqua-regia digestion followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on MEWAM 2006 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil.

L038-PL D MCERTS


L019-UK/PL W NONE

Organic matter (Automated) in soil Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by titration with iron (II) sulphate.

BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests""

L009-PL D MCERTS



L099-PL D MCERTS

Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in soil Determination of PAH compounds in soil by extraction in dichloromethane and hexane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards.




L019-UK/PL D NONE




L038-PL D MCERTS

Total cyanide in soil Determination of total cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)

L080-PL W MCERTS



L038-PL D MCERTS








Page 5 of 6



WS5 S 18-97239 1027960 c Hexavalent chromium in soil L080-PL c

WS5 S 18-97239 1027960 c Organic matter (Automated) in soil L009-PL c

WS5 S 18-97239 1027960 c Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in soil L064-PL c

WS5 S 18-97239 1027960 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c

WS5 S 18-97239 1027960 c pH in soil (automated) L099-PL c

WS5 S 18-97239 1027961 c Hexavalent chromium in soil L080-PL c

WS5 S 18-97239 1027961 c Organic matter (Automated) in soil L009-PL c

WS5 S 18-97239 1027961 c Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in soil L064-PL c

WS5 S 18-97239 1027961 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c

WS5 S 18-97239 1027961 c pH in soil (automated) L099-PL c

Iss No:18-97239-2 Rugby Cement 10110GKey: a - No sampling date b - Incorrect container


Philip Smith

t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404




Your order number: Analysis completed by: 07/08/2018


Samples Analysed:

Signed:






[email protected]

Jordan Hill

3 soil samples

Cemex, Rugby







Page 1 of 5



Lab Sample Number 1011799 1011800 1011801

Sample Reference BH2 BH3 BH9Sample Number D D DDepth (m) 2.00 2.70 3.00Date Sampled Deviating Deviating DeviatingTime Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 63Moisture Content % N/A NONE 12 11 6.4Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 0.29 0.40 0.38

General Inorganics

pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 8.6 8.4 8.8Total Sulphate as SO4 mg/kg 50 MCERTS 2500 2000 400Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS 1.2 0.78 0.048Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS 1160 778 47.7Water Soluble Chloride (2:1) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 43 44 7.1Total Sulphur mg/kg 50 MCERTS 3500 3300 770Ammonium as NH4 mg/kg 0.5 MCERTS < 0.5 < 0.5 3.0

Water Soluble Nitrate (2:1) as N mg/kg 2 NONE < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0




Page 2 of 5



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample


1011799 BH2 D 2.00 Grey clay.1011800 BH3 D 2.70 Grey clay.1011801 BH9 D 3.00 Brown clay with stones.






Page 3 of 5





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Ammonium as NH4 in soil Determination of Ammonium/Ammonia/ Ammoniacal Nitrogen by the colorimetric salicylate/nitroprusside method, 10:1 water extraction.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton

L082-PL W MCERTS

Chloride, water soluble, in soil Determination of Chloride colorimetrically by discrete analyser.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests. 2:1 extraction.

L082-PL D MCERTS


L019-UK/PL W NONE



L099-PL D MCERTS



L019-UK/PL D NONE




L038-PL D MCERTS



L038-PL D MCERTS

Total Sulphur in soil Determination of total sulphur in soil by extraction with aqua-regia, potassium bromide/bromate followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, and MEWAM 2006 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil

L038-PL D MCERTS

Water Soluble Nitrate (2:1) as N in soil

Determination of nitrate by reaction with sodium salicylate and colorimetry.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewatern & Polish Standard Method PN-82/C-04579.08, 2:1 extraction.

L078-PL D NONE








Page 4 of 5



BH2 D S 18-94438 1011799 a

BH3 D S 18-94438 1011800 a

BH9 D S 18-94438 1011801 a




R‐SI‐10110G‐1‐2 F January 2019 Revision 2

Appendix F Waste classification

www.hazwasteonline.com ZJVMN-GG5B8-ZDPSG Page 1 of 8

Waste Classification Report

ZJVMN-GG5B8-ZDPSG

Job name

CEMEX Rugby

Description/Comments

Project

10110G

Site

Rugby Cement Plant

Waste Stream Template

Waste Stream Template for Contaminated Soils

Classified by

Name:Charles HeasmanDate:31 Aug 2018 13:02 GMTTelephone:01604 781811

Company:JPP4 Ironstone WayBrixworthNN6 9UD

Report

Created by: Charles HeasmanCreated date: 31 Aug 2018 13:02 GMT

Job summary# Sample Name Depth [m] Classification Result Hazard properties Page1 WS5 0.50 Hazardous HP 7, HP 14 2

2 WS5[1] 1.40 Non Hazardous 4

Appendices PageAppendix A: Classifier defined and non CLP determinands 6Appendix B: Rationale for selection of metal species 7Appendix C: Version 8

Report created by Charles Heasman on 31 Aug 2018

Page 2 of 8 ZJVMN-GG5B8-ZDPSG www.hazwasteonline.com

Classification of sample: WS5

Hazardous WasteClassified as 17 05 03 *

in the List of Waste

Sample details

Sample Name:WS5Sample Depth:0.50 mMoisture content:18%(no correction)

LoW Code:Chapter: 17: Construction and Demolition Wastes (including excavated soil

from contaminated sites)Entry: 17 05 03 * (Soil and stones containing hazardous substances)

Hazard properties

HP 7: Carcinogenic "waste which induces cancer or increases its incidence"

Hazard Statements hit:

Carc. 1A; H350 "May cause cancer [state route of exposure if it is conclusively proven that no other routes of exposure cause thehazard]."

Because of determinand:

zinc chromate: (compound conc.: 0.252%)

HP 14: Ecotoxic "waste which presents or may present immediate or delayed risks for one or more sectors of the environment"

Hazard Statements hit:

Aquatic Chronic 1; H410 "Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects."

Because of determinand:

zinc chromate: (compound conc.: 0.252%)

Determinands

Moisture content: 18% No Moisture Correction applied (MC)

#Determinand

CLP

Not

e

User entered dataConv.Factor

Compound conc.Classification

value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed

CLP index number EC Number CAS Number

1arsenic { arsenic trioxide }

20 mg/kg 1.32 26.407 mg/kg 0.00264 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3

2cadmium { cadmium oxide }

2 mg/kg 1.142 2.285 mg/kg 0.000228 %048-002-00-0 215-146-2 1306-19-0

3chromium in chromium(III) compounds { chromium(III)oxide } 26 mg/kg 1.462 38 mg/kg 0.0038 %

215-160-9 1308-38-9

4chromium in chromium(VI) compounds { chromium(VI)oxide } <4 mg/kg 1.923 <7.692 mg/kg <0.000769 % <LOD

024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0

5copper { dicopper oxide; copper (I) oxide }

120 mg/kg 1.126 135.107 mg/kg 0.0135 %029-002-00-X 215-270-7 1317-39-1

6lead { lead chromate }

1 73 mg/kg 1.56 113.867 mg/kg 0.0073 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

7mercury { mercury dichloride }

<0.3 mg/kg 1.353 <0.406 mg/kg <0.0000406 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7

8nickel { nickel chromate }

67 mg/kg 2.976 199.41 mg/kg 0.0199 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7



#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


9

selenium { selenium compounds with the exception ofcadmium sulphoselenide and those specified elsewherein this Annex } <1 mg/kg 2.554 <2.554 mg/kg <0.000255 % <LOD

034-002-00-8

10zinc { zinc chromate }

910 mg/kg 2.774 2524.473 mg/kg 0.252 %024-007-00-3

11

cyanides { salts of hydrogen cyanide with theexception of complex cyanides such as ferrocyanides,ferricyanides and mercuric oxycyanide and thosespecified elsewhere in this Annex }

<1 mg/kg 1.884 <1.884 mg/kg <0.000188 % <LOD

006-007-00-5

12pH

8.4 pH 8.4 pH 8.4 pH PH

13naphthalene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3

14acenaphthylene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

15acenaphthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

16fluorene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

17phenanthrene

0.22 mg/kg 0.22 mg/kg 0.000022 % 201-581-5 85-01-8

18anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

19fluoranthene

0.49 mg/kg 0.49 mg/kg 0.000049 % 205-912-4 206-44-0

20pyrene

0.41 mg/kg 0.41 mg/kg 0.000041 % 204-927-3 129-00-0

21benzo[a]anthracene

0.23 mg/kg 0.23 mg/kg 0.000023 %601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

22chrysene

0.33 mg/kg 0.33 mg/kg 0.000033 %601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9

23benzo[b]fluoranthene

0.45 mg/kg 0.45 mg/kg 0.000045 %601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2

24benzo[k]fluoranthene

0.19 mg/kg 0.19 mg/kg 0.000019 %601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9

25benzo[a]pyrene; benzo[def]chrysene

0.27 mg/kg 0.27 mg/kg 0.000027 %601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8

26indeno[123-cd]pyrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5

27dibenz[a,h]anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3

28benzo[ghi]perylene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

Total: 0.301 %

KeyUser supplied data

Determinand values ignored for classification, see column 'Conc. Not Used' for reason

Hazardous result

Determinand defined or amended by HazWasteOnline (see Appendix A)

Speciated Deteminand - Unless the Determinand is Note 1, the Conversion Factor is used to calculate the compoundconcentration

<LOD Below limit of detectionCLP: Note 1 Only the metal concentration has been used for classification



Classification of sample: WS5[1]

Non Hazardous WasteClassified as 17 05 04

in the List of Waste

Sample details

Sample Name:WS5[1]Sample Depth:1.40 mMoisture content:7.7%(no correction)

LoW Code:Chapter: 17: Construction and Demolition Wastes (including excavated soil

from contaminated sites)Entry: 17 05 04 (Soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05

03)

Hazard properties

None identified

Determinands

Moisture content: 7.7% No Moisture Correction applied (MC)

#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


1arsenic { arsenic trioxide }

12 mg/kg 1.32 15.844 mg/kg 0.00158 %033-003-00-0 215-481-4 1327-53-3

2cadmium { cadmium oxide }

<0.2 mg/kg 1.142 <0.228 mg/kg <0.0000228 % <LOD048-002-00-0 215-146-2 1306-19-0

3chromium in chromium(III) compounds { chromium(III)oxide } 20 mg/kg 1.462 29.231 mg/kg 0.00292 %

215-160-9 1308-38-9

4chromium in chromium(VI) compounds { chromium(VI)oxide } <4 mg/kg 1.923 <7.692 mg/kg <0.000769 % <LOD

024-001-00-0 215-607-8 1333-82-0

5copper { dicopper oxide; copper (I) oxide }

18 mg/kg 1.126 20.266 mg/kg 0.00203 %029-002-00-X 215-270-7 1317-39-1

6lead { lead chromate }

1 10 mg/kg 1.56 15.598 mg/kg 0.001 %082-004-00-2 231-846-0 7758-97-6

7mercury { mercury dichloride }

<0.3 mg/kg 1.353 <0.406 mg/kg <0.0000406 % <LOD080-010-00-X 231-299-8 7487-94-7

8nickel { nickel chromate }

19 mg/kg 2.976 56.549 mg/kg 0.00565 %028-035-00-7 238-766-5 14721-18-7

9

selenium { selenium compounds with the exception ofcadmium sulphoselenide and those specified elsewherein this Annex } <1 mg/kg 2.554 <2.554 mg/kg <0.000255 % <LOD

034-002-00-8

10zinc { zinc chromate }

56 mg/kg 2.774 155.352 mg/kg 0.0155 %024-007-00-3

11

cyanides { salts of hydrogen cyanide with theexception of complex cyanides such as ferrocyanides,ferricyanides and mercuric oxycyanide and thosespecified elsewhere in this Annex }

<1 mg/kg 1.884 <1.884 mg/kg <0.000188 % <LOD

006-007-00-5

12pH

8.4 pH 8.4 pH 8.4 pH PH



#Determinand

CLP

Not

e



value

MC

App

lied

Conc. NotUsed


13naphthalene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-052-00-2 202-049-5 91-20-3

14acenaphthylene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-917-1 208-96-8

15acenaphthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-469-6 83-32-9

16fluorene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-695-5 86-73-7

17phenanthrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 201-581-5 85-01-8

18anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-371-1 120-12-7

19fluoranthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-912-4 206-44-0

20pyrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 204-927-3 129-00-0

21benzo[a]anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-033-00-9 200-280-6 56-55-3

22chrysene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-048-00-0 205-923-4 218-01-9

23benzo[b]fluoranthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-034-00-4 205-911-9 205-99-2

24benzo[k]fluoranthene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-036-00-5 205-916-6 207-08-9

25benzo[a]pyrene; benzo[def]chrysene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-032-00-3 200-028-5 50-32-8

26indeno[123-cd]pyrene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-893-2 193-39-5

27dibenz[a,h]anthracene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD601-041-00-2 200-181-8 53-70-3

28benzo[ghi]perylene

<0.05 mg/kg <0.05 mg/kg <0.000005 % <LOD 205-883-8 191-24-2

Total: 0.0301 %

KeyUser supplied data

Determinand values ignored for classification, see column 'Conc. Not Used' for reason

Determinand defined or amended by HazWasteOnline (see Appendix A)

Speciated Deteminand - Unless the Determinand is Note 1, the Conversion Factor is used to calculate the compoundconcentration

<LOD Below limit of detectionCLP: Note 1 Only the metal concentration has been used for classification



Appendix A: Classifier defined and non CLP determinands

chromium(III) oxide (EC Number: 215-160-9, CAS Number: 1308-38-9)

Conversion factor: 1.462Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 17 Jul 2015Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Repr. 1B H360FD , Skin Sens. 1 H317 , Resp. Sens. 1 H334 ,Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , Acute Tox. 4 H302 , Acute Tox. 4 H332

salts of hydrogen cyanide with the exception of complex cyanides such as ferrocyanides, ferricyanides and mercuricoxycyanide and those specified elsewhere in this Annex

CLP index number: 006-007-00-5Description/Comments: Conversion factor based on a worst case compound: sodium cyanideData source: Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 - 1st Adaptation to Technical Progress for Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.(ATP1)Additional Hazard Statement(s): EUH032 >= 0.2 %Reason for additional Hazards Statement(s)/Risk Phrase(s):14 Dec 2015 - EUH032 >= 0.2 % hazard statement sourced from: WM3, Table C12.2

pH (CAS Number: PH)

Description/Comments: Appendix C4Data source: WM3 1st Edition 2015Data source date: 25 May 2015Hazard Statements: None.

acenaphthylene (EC Number: 205-917-1, CAS Number: 208-96-8)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 17 Jul 2015Hazard Statements: Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , Acute Tox. 1 H310 , Acute Tox. 1 H330 , Acute Tox. 4 H302

acenaphthene (EC Number: 201-469-6, CAS Number: 83-32-9)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 17 Jul 2015Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 2 H411 , Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , STOT SE 3 H335 ,Eye Irrit. 2 H319

fluorene (EC Number: 201-695-5, CAS Number: 86-73-7)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 06 Aug 2015Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400

phenanthrene (EC Number: 201-581-5, CAS Number: 85-01-8)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 06 Aug 2015Hazard Statements: Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Skin Sens. 1 H317 , Carc. 2 H351 , STOT SE 3H335 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , Acute Tox. 4 H302

anthracene (EC Number: 204-371-1, CAS Number: 120-12-7)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 17 Jul 2015Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Skin Sens. 1 H317 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315 , STOT SE 3 H335 , EyeIrrit. 2 H319

fluoranthene (EC Number: 205-912-4, CAS Number: 206-44-0)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 21 Aug 2015Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , Acute Tox. 4 H302



pyrene (EC Number: 204-927-3, CAS Number: 129-00-0)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory Database; SDS Sigma Aldrich 2014Data source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 21 Aug 2015Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400 , STOT SE 3 H335 , Eye Irrit. 2 H319 , Skin Irrit. 2 H315

indeno[123-cd]pyrene (EC Number: 205-893-2, CAS Number: 193-39-5)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory DatabaseData source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 06 Aug 2015Hazard Statements: Carc. 2 H351

benzo[ghi]perylene (EC Number: 205-883-8, CAS Number: 191-24-2)

Description/Comments: Data from C&L Inventory Database; SDS Sigma Aldrich 28/02/2015Data source: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-databaseData source date: 23 Jul 2015Hazard Statements: Aquatic Chronic 1 H410 , Aquatic Acute 1 H400

Appendix B: Rationale for selection of metal species

arsenic {arsenic trioxide}

Reasonable case CLP species based on hazard statements/molecular weight and most common (stable) oxide of arsenic. Industrialsources include: smelting; main precursor to other arsenic compounds (edit as required)

cadmium {cadmium oxide}

Reasonable case CLP species based on hazard statements/molecular weight, very low solubility in water. Industrial sources include:electroplating baths, electrodes for storage batteries, catalysts, ceramic glazes, phosphors, pigments and nematocides. (edit asrequired) Worst case compounds in CLP: cadmium sulphate, chloride, fluoride & iodide not expected as either very soluble and/orcompound's industrial usage not related to site history (edit as required)

chromium in chromium(III) compounds {chromium(III) oxide}

Reasonable case species based on hazard statements/molecular weight. Industrial sources include: tanning, pigment in paint, inks andglass (edit as required)

chromium in chromium(VI) compounds {chromium(VI) oxide}

Worst case CLP species based on hazard statements/molecular weight. Industrial sources include: production stainless steel,electroplating, wood preservation, anti-corrosion agents or coatings, pigments (edit as required)

copper {dicopper oxide; copper (I) oxide}

Reasonable case CLP species based on hazard statements/molecular weight and insolubility in water. Industrial sources include:oxidised copper metal, brake pads, pigments, antifouling paints, fungicide. (edit as required) Worse case copper sulphate is very solubleand likely to have been leached away if ever present and/or not enough soluble sulphate detected. (edit as required)

lead {lead chromate}

Worst case CLP species based on hazard statements/molecular weight (edit as required)

mercury {mercury dichloride}


nickel {nickel chromate}


selenium {selenium compounds with the exception of cadmium sulphoselenide and those specified elsewhere in this Annex}

Harmonised group entry used as most reasonable case. Pigment cadmium sulphoselenide not likely to be present in this soil. Noevidence for the other CLP entries: sodium selenite, nickel II selenite and nickel selenide, to be present in this soil. (edit as required)

zinc {zinc chromate}


cyanides {salts of hydrogen cyanide with the exception of complex cyanides such as ferrocyanides, ferricyanides andmercuric oxycyanide and those specified elsewhere in this Annex}

Harmonised group entry used as most reasonable case as complex cyanides and those specified elsewhere in the annex are not likelyto be present in this soil: [Note conversion factor based on a worst case compound: sodium cyanide] (edit as required)



Appendix C: Version

HazWasteOnline Classification Engine: WM3 1st Edition v1.1, May 2018HazWasteOnline Classification Engine Version: 2018.236.3618.7422 (26 Aug 2018)HazWasteOnline Database: 2018.236.3618.7422 (26 Aug 2018)

This classification utilises the following guidance and legislation:WM3 v1.1 - Waste Classification - 1st Edition v1.1 - May 2018CLP Regulation - Regulation 1272/2008/EC of 16 December 20081st ATP - Regulation 790/2009/EC of 10 August 20092nd ATP - Regulation 286/2011/EC of 10 March 20113rd ATP - Regulation 618/2012/EU of 10 July 20124th ATP - Regulation 487/2013/EU of 8 May 2013Correction to 1st ATP - Regulation 758/2013/EU of 7 August 20135th ATP - Regulation 944/2013/EU of 2 October 20136th ATP - Regulation 605/2014/EU of 5 June 2014WFD Annex III replacement - Regulation 1357/2014/EU of 18 December 2014Revised List of Wastes 2014 - Decision 2014/955/EU of 18 December 20147th ATP - Regulation 2015/1221/EU of 24 July 20158th ATP - Regulation (EU) 2016/918 of 19 May 20169th ATP - Regulation (EU) 2016/1179 of 19 July 201610th ATP - Regulation (EU) 2017/776 of 4 May 2017HP14 amendment - Regulation (EU) 2017/997 of 8 June 2017POPs Regulation 2004 - Regulation 850/2004/EC of 29 April 20041st ATP to POPs Regulation - Regulation 756/2010/EU of 24 August 20102nd ATP to POPs Regulation - Regulation 757/2010/EU of 24 August 2010

Philip Smith

t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404






Samples Analysed:

Signed:






[email protected]

Jordan Hill

1 wac multi sample

Cemex, Rugby







Page 1 of 6

i2 Analytical7 Woodshots Meadow Telephone: 01923 225404Croxley Green Business Park Fax: 01923 237404Watford, WD18 8YS email:[email protected]

Report No:

Client:

Location

Sampling Date

Sample ID

Depth (m)

Solid Waste Analysis

TOC (%)** < 0.1 3% 5% 6%

Loss on Ignition (%) ** 1.9 -- -- 10%

BTEX (µg/kg) ** < 10 6000 -- --Sum of PCBs (mg/kg) ** < 0.30 1 -- --

Mineral Oil (mg/kg) # 50 500 -- --

Total PAH (WAC-17) (mg/kg) 13 100 -- --

pH (units)** 8.5 -- >6 --

Acid Neutralisation Capacity (mol / kg) 11 -- To be evaluated To be evaluated

Arsenic * < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.050 0.5 2 25

Barium * 0.043 0.013 0.18 20 100 300

Cadmium * < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0020 0.04 1 5

Chromium * < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0050 0.5 10 70

Copper * 0.0023 < 0.0030 < 0.020 2 50 100

Mercury * < 0.0015 < 0.0015 < 0.010 0.01 0.2 2

Molybdenum * 0.043 0.012 0.17 0.5 10 30

Nickel * < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.0050 0.4 10 40

Lead * < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.020 0.5 10 50

Antimony * < 0.0050 < 0.0050 < 0.020 0.06 0.7 5

Selenium * < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.040 0.1 0.5 7

Zinc * 0.0021 < 0.0010 < 0.020 4 50 200

Chloride * < 4.0 < 4.0 < 15 800 4000 25000

Fluoride 1.0 0.39 4.9 10 150 500

Sulphate * 54 6.1 140 1000 20000 50000

TDS* 150 49 650 4000 60000 100000

Phenol Index (Monohydric Phenols) * < 0.13 < 0.13 < 0.50 1 - -

Leach Test Information

Stone Content (%) < 0.1 0

Sample Mass (kg) 2.0

Dry Matter (%) 94

Moisture (%) 5.9

Stage 1

Volume Eluate L2 (litres) 0.34

Filtered Eluate VE1 (litres) 0.28

Waste Acceptance Criteria Analytical Results18-94325

JPP

HazardousWaste Landfill

BH9

1.00

Cemex, Rugby

Lab Reference (Sample Number) 1011208Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria

Limits

mg/l mg/l

Inert WasteLandfill

Stable Non-reactive

HAZARDOUSwaste in non-

hazardousLandfill

500 800 1000

Eluate Analysis

(BS EN 12457 - 3 preparation utilising end over end leaching procedure)

2:1 8:1 Cumulative 10:1 Limit values for compliance leaching test

using BS EN 12457-3 at L/S 10 l/kg (mg/kg)mg/kg

DOC 5.2 7.5 72

Landfill WAC analysis (specifically leaching test results) must not be used for hazardous waste classification purposes as defined by the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (as amended) and EA Guidance WM3.

This analysis is only applicable for landfill acceptance criteria (The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations) and does not give any indication as to whether a waste may be hazardous or non-hazardous.

Results are expressed on a dry weight basis, after correction for moisture content where applicable. *= UKAS accredited (liquid eluate analysis only)

Stated limits are for guidance only and i2 cannot be held responsible for any discrepancies with current legislation ** = MCERTS accredited




Page 2 of 6



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample


1011208 BH9 None Supplied 1.00 Brown sand with gravel.






Page 3 of 6





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Acid neutralisation capacity of soil Determination of acid neutralisation capacity by addition of acid or alkali followed by electronic probe.

In-house method based on Guidance an Sampling and Testing of Wastes to Meet Landfill Waste Acceptance

L046-PL W NONE

BTEX (Sum of BTEX compounds) in soil

Determination of BTEX in soil by headspace GC-MS. Individual components MCERTS accredited

In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073B-PL W MCERTS

Chloride in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457-3 Prep)

Determination of Chloride colorimetrically by discrete analyser.

In house based on MEWAM Method ISBN 0117516260.

L082-PL W ISO 17025

DOC in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457-3 Prep)

Determination of dissolved organic carbon in leachate by TOC/DOC NDIR analyser.

In-house method based on Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, 21st Ed.

L037-PL W NONE

Fluoride in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457-3 Prep)

Determination of fluoride in leachate by 1:1ratio with a buffer solution followed by Ion Selective Electrode.


L033-PL W ISO 17025

Loss on ignition of soil @ 450oC Determination of loss on ignition in soil by gravimetrically with the sample being ignited in a muffle furnace.


L047-PL D MCERTS

Metals in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457-3 Prep)

Determination of metals in leachate by acidification followed by ICP-OES.


L039-PL W ISO 17025

Mineral Oil in Soil C10 - C40 Determination of dichloromethane/hexane extractable hydrocarbons in soil by GC-MS.

In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L076-PL D NONE


L019-UK/PL W NONE

PCB's by GC-MS in soil Determination of PCB by extraction with acetone and hexane followed by GC-MS.


pH in soil Determination of pH in soil by addition of water followed by electrometric measurement.


L005-PL W MCERTS

Phenol Index in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457-3 Prep)

Determination of monohydric phenols in leachate by continuous flow analyser.

In-house method based on Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (skalar)

L080-PL W ISO 17025




Page 4 of 6





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Speciated WAC-17 PAHs in soil Determination of PAH compounds in soil by extraction in dichloromethane and hexane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards.

In-house method based on USEPA 8270. MCERTS accredited except Coronene.

L064-PL D MCERTS



L019-UK/PL D NONE

Sulphate in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457-3 Prep)

Determination of sulphate in leachate by acidification followed by ICP-OES.


L039-PL W ISO 17025

TDS in WAC leachate (BS EN 12457-3 Prep)

Determination of total dissolved solids in leachate by electrometric measurement.


L031-PL W ISO 17025

Total organic carbon in soil Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by titration with iron (II) sulphate.


L023-PL D MCERTS








Page 5 of 6



BH9 M 18-94325 1011208 ab BTEX (Sum of BTEX compounds) in soil L073B-PL b

BH9 M 18-94325 1011208 ab BTEX in soil (Monoaromatics) L073B-PL b

BH9 M 18-94325 1011208 ab Mineral Oil in Soil C10 - C40 L076-PL b

BH9 M 18-94325 1011208 ab PCB's by GC-MS in soil L027-PL b

BH9 M 18-94325 1011208 ab Speciated WAC-17 PAHs in soil L064-PL b



CEMEX UK Cement Ltd Rugby Works: Climafuel Phases 1, 2 and ...

Documents

Transcript of CEMEX UK Cement Ltd Rugby Works: Climafuel Phases 1, 2 and ...