Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land Quality ......Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land...

Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land Quality Assessment Combined Phase 1 & Phase 2 GPSS Portfolio: Carlett Park Final

September 2013 Contract Number: FTS3/ELMG/099

Land Quality Assessment

Combined Phase 1 and 2

GPSS Portfolio: Carlett Park

Defence Infrastructure Organisation Prepared by Atkins Limited for

Estates Management Central The Ministry of Defence

Kingston Road Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Sutton Coldfield under contract number

B75 7RL FTS3/ELMG/099

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s information and use in relation to the Combined Phase 1 and 2 Land Quality Assessment for the Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) Portfolio: Carlett Park Petroleum Storage Depot. Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents unless by contractual arrangement.

Document History Job number: 5106238 Document ref: Combined Phase 1and2 LQA: Carlett park

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Rev 1.0 Draft for discussion North S North C

North L North A Mar13

Rev 2.0 Final North S North F North F2 Centre M September 13

TASK OFFICER

---------------------------------

PROJECT SPONSOR

----------------------------------

Land Quality Assessment: Combined Phase 1 and 2. GPSS Portfolio: Carlett Park PSD

Table of Contents Chapter Pages Land Quality Statement i 1. Introduction 4 1.1. Terms of Reference 4 1.2. Objectives 4 1.3. Methodology 4 1.4. Scope of Work and Sources of Information 5 1.5. Structure of this Report 6

2. Site Description 7 2.1. Site Location 7 2.2. Surrounding Area 7 2.3. Site Description 7 2.4. Site History 10 2.5. Environmental Setting and Site Sensitivity 12 2.6. Site Sensitivity 14 2.7. Regulatory Issues 14 2.8. Hazardous Materials 15

3. Previous Reports 16 3.1. Previous Reports 16

4. Preliminary Conceptual Site Model 17 4.1. Potential Sources of Contamination 17 4.2. Potential Receptors and Pathways 17 4.3. Preliminary Phase 1 Environmental Risk Assessment 19 4.4. Preliminary Conceptual Site Model for Investigation 20

5. Site Investigation 22 5.1. Objectives 22 5.2. Methodology 22 5.3. Investigation Findings 26

6. Assessment of Risks 28 6.1. Introduction 28 6.2. Tier 2 Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment 28 6.3. Risk Assessment Summary 32

7. Conclusions 34 7.1. Overall Land Quality 34 7.2. Environmental Risks 34 7.3. Suitability for Redevelopment 35

Tables Table 1. Summary of Materials Storage 10 Table 2. Previous Reports 16 Table 3. Preliminary Conceptual Site Model 21 Table 4. Rationale for the Investigation Locations 22 Table 5. Monitoring Installation Summary 24 Table 6. Water Levels during Monitoring 26 Table 7. Summary of Ground Gas Monitoring 27 Table 8. Soil Data Summary 29 Table 9. Land Quality Assessment Environmental Risk Assessment Summary Table 33


Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Plan (Drawing 5106238-DWG-151) Figure 2 - Site Layout Plan (Drawing 5106238-DWG-152) Figure 3 - Preliminary CSM (Drawing 5106238-DWG-153) Figure 4 - Exploratory Hole Location Plan (Drawing 5106238-DWG-154)

Appendices Appendix A. Historical Maps Appendix B. Envirocheck Report Appendix C. Site Photographs Appendix D. Risk Classification Tables Appendix E. Geotechnical Factual Report Appendix F. Laboratory Results

Land Quality Assessment: Combined Phase 1 and 2 GPSS Portfolio Lot 3:Carlett Park

i

Land Quality Statement Introduction and Terms of Reference Atkins Limited (Atkins) was instructed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) branch of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to carry out a Combined Phase 1 and 2 Land Quality Assessment (LQA) of the Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) Portfolio: Carlett Park Petroleum Storage Depot (PSD) (the Site) under contract FTS3/ELMG/101 between Atkins and DIO. This Combined Phase 1 and2 LQA is required to assess the environmental quality of the Site and evaluate potential environmental liabilities from contamination associated with the Site, including suitability for reuse, effects of contamination on development potential.

Site Location and Surrounding Land Use The Site is located approximately 6 km south-west of the town of Bebington and 7 km north east of Ellesmere Port, in the area of Eastham on the Wirral peninsula. The National Grid Reference (NGR) for the centre of the Site is SJ 36360 80870.

The land use surrounding the Site is varied. To the north, the land is used as a country park with a small area of residential buildings, a college adjacent to it with Eastham Woods beyond this. A cemetery lies to the north east of the Site. To the east is a large dock, the Manchester Ship Canal as well as associated industry. Beyond this is the Mersey estuary, to the south the land is a mix use, comprising of industrial, recreational and residential properties and to the west the land is used predominantly for recreational purposes (a golf course and open parkland) named as Cartlett Park. Allotments are located to the south west of the Site.

Site Description The Site area is approximately 4.71 Ha and the land is predominantly grass and scrubland which is used for grazing by a local farmer’s sheep occasionally. It is surrounded by a chain link fence and has a gated entrance. The ground is generally flat apart from the south west portion of the Site where there is a large raised area, beneath which there are understood to be three concrete storage tanks 44 m in diameter and 6.1 m in height. Associated with these storage tanks are several small concrete structures at the surface including vent buildings (for the pump engines) and a concrete ramp going below the ground level to the entrance to the underground tanks and pump rooms.

There is an earth bund up to a metre in height around the majority of the raised area, between this bund and the raised area the vegetation is thick gorse.

Site History The earliest available maps show the Site to be open land with several trees within the Site boundary. The surrounding area undergoes significant development by 1954, maps showing residential and industrial developments within 1 km of the Site. On-site land use remains open until at least 1956 by which point the Site is shown to have undergone some development and by 1971 the Site appears as today with a tank development labelled and several other smaller structures visible on Site.

Environmental Setting The Site, is at an approximate elevation of 30 m above ordnance datum (AOD) and appears to be flat around the edges of the Site with a large artificial raised area, roughly square in shape occupying the majority of the centre of the Site.

Published geological information indicates that the Site has no underlying superficial deposits and immediately below the topsoil lies the Chester Pebble Beds formation, which is part of the parent Sherwood Sandstone Group. The Sandstone bedrock is classified as a Principal Aquifer.


ii

Site Sensitivity Receptors Sensitivity Summary Description

Groundwater HIGH The Site is underlain by a Principal Aquifer and the overlying soil has a high leaching potential.

Surface Waters MEDIUM A watercourse is within 100 m of the Site it is of such small size and flows into drainage channels and not a large surface water system

Flora/Fauna MEDIUM The Site is used for agricultural grazing of sheep.

Potential Sources of Contamination Atkins Phase 1 LQA identified a number of historic, on-site potentially contaminative activities from past operations including potential leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from tanks, pipework, loading areas, drums storage, workshops, generators, substations, interceptors and in Made Ground itself, although there was no documentary information or physical evidence to confirm that contamination was present from these potential sources. In addition, it was practice in the past to bury sediment from tank cleaning in pits, often called ‘graves’. However, there was no documentary or visual evidence to indicate that this took place in the past on the Site.

Based on the information reviewed as part of Atkins’ Phase 1 LQA, potential sources of contamination were identified and a preliminary conceptual Site model (CSM) developed, together with potential contaminant linkages (PCLs) or source-receptor-pathway linkages.

PCLs identified above were investigated as part of the Phase 2 LQA and a generic quantitative risk assessment (GQRA) for human, controlled waters and property receptors was carried out by comparison of soil concentration data with generic assessment criteria (GAC) for human receptors and soil-leachate/groundwater concentration data with drinking water standards (DWS) and environmental quality standards (EQS) for controlled waters. A gas assessment was undertaken following one round of field testing, using the modified Wilson Card method and review of ground gas results for human and property receptors.

Phase 2 Site Investigation PCLs related directly to past/current Site operations and considered to pose a potential moderate or high risk were investigated as part of the Phase 2 LQA. This comprised the advancing of three boreholes and thirteen window samples with selected locations installed with combined groundwater/ground gas monitoring installations. Samples of soil and groundwater were analysed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), tetraethyl and tetramethyl lead and asbestos. A generic quantitative risk assessment (GQRA) for human, controlled waters and property receptors was carried out by comparison of soil and water concentration data with generic assessment criteria (GAC) for human receptors and the water environment receptors assessed by comparison of groundwater concentration data with minimum reporting values (MRV) and resource protection values (RPV) for the groundwater receptor, and environmental quality standards (EQS) for the surface water receptor.

No asbestos was identified in the soil samples analysed. Visual and olfactory evidence of contamination, comprising staining and hydrocarbon type odours, were observed in soil in AWS003, AWS005 and AWS008, but contaminants in the soil samples analysed were either below the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) or the commercial/industrial land-use GAC.

Contaminants in groundwater samples were all reported below laboratory method detection limits. Carbon dioxide and methane were found to pose a very low risk. However, groundwater and ground gas results are based on one round of monitoring only.


iii

Phase 2 Environmental Risk Assessment Summary Based on the Phase 2 Site Investigation and subsequent GQRA, an environmental risk assessment of the PCLs identified has been carried out and is summarised below. The risk assessment assumes continued commercial/industrial use as stated in the Statement of Requirements from DIO.

• a low risk has been identified to current/future on-site human receptors from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to current/future off-site human receptors from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to livestock on-site;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to buildings and structures on-site;

• a low risk has been identified to buildings and structures off-site;

• a negligible risk has been identified to crops, livestock, flora and fauna and allotments off-site;

• a negligible risk has been identified to surface water from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a negligible risk has been identified to groundwater from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to current/future on-site human receptors from the methane/carbon dioxide detected;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to current/future off-site human receptors from the methane/carbon dioxide detected; and;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to current on-site property (buildings/infrastructure) from the methane detected.

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to current off-site property (buildings/infrastructure) from the methane detected.

It should be noted that the assessment of ground gas and groundwater risks has been based on one round of monitoring only. No particular ground gas or groundwater contamination sources were identified and as such, on the balance of probabilities, the ground gas CS and identified risks to groundwater are unlikely to change if further monitoring was to be carried out.

Overall Land Quality and Suitability for Continued Use The Site is currently derelict, but it is assumed that it will continue to be commercial/industrial use in the near future. Based on the Combined Phase 1/2 LQA carried out, the Site is likely to be suitable in its current form to be redeveloped for continued industrial/commercial use.

The investigation was carried out to assess the land quality at the Site. The condition of the buildings or contamination within the buildings was not part of the assessment. The potential for release of contamination during building demolition has also not been considered.

It should be noted that livestock has been identified as a potential on-site property receptor in the PCSM but it has not been possible to assess these receptors further by GQRA.

Land Quality Assessment: Combined Phase 1 and 2: Draft GPSS Portfolio: Carlett Park

4

1. Introduction 1.1. Terms of Reference

The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) commissioned Atkins Limited (Atkins) to undertake a Combined Phase 1 and 2 Land Quality Assessment (LQA) of sites in the Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) Portfolio under contract FTS3/ELMG/099 between Atkins and DIO. The GPSS is a United Kingdom pipeline system run by the Oil and Pipelines Agency (OPA) for the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and consists of approximately 2,500 km of pipeline and 46 other facilities. The network, interconnected with several private networks was constructed before World War II to supply fuel for Operation Pluto.

This report relates to Carlett Park in Eastham on the Wirral peninsula, England, hereafter referred to as “the Site”. The site was used for the storage and distribution of hydrocarbon fuels but is currently under ‘care and maintenance’ (mothballed) and has not been in service for at least a decade.

1.2. Objectives It is MOD policy to undertake a voluntary programme to ‘assess land quality across the defence estate’ to ‘provide a proper knowledge of the condition of the estate and ensure that it is ‘suitable for use’ and not causing harm to the environment. Where it is identified that unacceptable risk is posed by the presence of contamination, action must be taken to reduce and control the risks to an acceptable level’. The MOD has implemented the LQA process to achieve this aim and undertakes phased investigations where potential risks are identified to human and environmental receptors from contamination. This process is described in the DIO Practitioner Guide 07/121.

Objectives of this LQA are to determine potential environmental liabilities associated with each Site in the portfolio as part of the GPSS divestiture programme.

1.3. Methodology The initial phase of the LQA process is the Phase 1 LQA (Desk Study), which develops a preliminary conceptual site model (CSM) that describes the relationships between contaminants, pathways and receptors, and identifies potential contaminant linkages (PCLs) where a source, pathway and receptor linkage are considered to exist. Based on the preliminary CSM and PCLs, potential unacceptable contamination risks associated with the Site can be identified and recommendations made, as appropriate, to investigate/manage identified risks. The Phase 2 LQA (Site/Ground Investigation) is carried out to investigate the PCLs and update the preliminary CSM.

This LQA Report sets out the factual information and other evidence gathered through a combined desk based assessment and site investigation relating to the environmental condition of the Site. The report establishes the overall Site condition by identifying and investigating PCLs and providing an appraisal of environmental risks, identifying potential unacceptable contamination risks and the interaction of those risks with the surrounding environment. This has informed potential environmental liabilities from contamination associated with the Site, including suitability for reuse, effects of contamination on development potential and potential management options.

It is understood that the Site is effectively mothballed with fuel storage and loading facilities now inactive. A small area of the Site remains in use where an active Shell pipeline passes through a valve compound. At this stage, proposed future use has not been identified. Therefore, for the purposes of the LQA, Atkins has assumed that proposed future use will remain the same as past use (PSD) and potential risks have been assessed for commercial and industrial end-use scenarios only.

1 Land Contamination Land Management - Land Quality Assessment: Practitioner Guide 07/12, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, 01/2013


5

1.4. Scope of Work and Sources of Information The following has been carried out:

Phase 1 Desk Study comprising:

- review of the Envirocheck Report2 from the Landmark Information Group which included historical maps Historical maps are presented in Appendix A and the Envirocheck Report in Appendix B;

- review of the current topographic Ordnance Survey (OS) map;

- review of the Geology Datasheet included with the Envirocheck Report in Appendix B which is based on the British Geological Survey (BGS) geology map of 963;

- review of the BGS website4;

- review of the Environment Agency5 website;

- review of the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website6;

- review of readily available aerial photography on the internet;

- review of existing reports provided by the Oil Pipeline Agency (OPA). These are summarised in Chapter 3;

- request for information from and discussion with Costain (Site Facility Management Company) and the OPA regarding building layout and use, past operations, below and aboveground tanks and pipework, drums storage areas (including petrol, oil and lubricant stores), waste arisings, handling and storage, water source and use, wastewater streams, treatment (for example, interceptors), and discharges, asbestos containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls in equipment and past pollution incidents; and

- site reconnaissance by Atkins and Costain (Facility Management Company) on 21st September 2012 to carry out a detailed inspection of the Site and identify potential locations for and constraints associated with the Phase 2 Site Investigation.

• Phase 2 Site Investigation comprising:

- Project Set-up and Preparation. This has included all aspects of project set up and preparation for the works and preparation and agreement of the Design Brief/Method Statement for the site investigation works, and

- Site Investigation;

• Environmental Risk Assessment; and

• Reporting.

It should be noted that the Phase 1 information confirmed that the Site had not been used for MOD military activities in the past. As such, Atkins considered that it was not necessary to obtain a Defence Radiological Protection Services (DRPS) Radiological Desk Study Report, explosive ordnance clearance documentation or carry out further enquiries into the potential for burning grounds or MOD specific contaminants to be present. No Motor Transport Sections, often present on MOD property were present.

DIO/ Costain were not able to provide any existing environmental/site investigation reports for review.

All work has been carried out with due regard for UK national and regional policies relevant to the assessment and industry standards, guidance and codes of conduct.

2 Envirocheck Report Number41014423, Landmark Information Group, August 2012 3 Geology Map number 096 of Liverpool, British Geological Survey, 4 http://bgs.ac.uk 5 http://environment-agency.gov.uk 6 http://www.magic.gov.uk


6

1.5. Structure of this Report This report has been structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 presents the Phase 1 LQA findings including a description of the Site, location and surrounding land, layout, operations and history, together with environmental setting and Site sensitivity, based primarily on information collected as part of the Phase 1 LQA data sources;

• Chapter 3 summarises the existing OPA provided reports for the site;

• Chapter 4 identifies potential sources of contamination, receptors and pathways based on the Phase 1 LQA data sources and presented the preliminary CSM (PCSM);

• Chapter 5 describes the Phase 2 site investigation carried out and investigation findings;

• Chapter 6 presents the environmental risk assessment and updated CSM (if applicable); and

• Chapter 7 presents the conclusions of this Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 LQA.


7

2. Site Description 2.1. Site Location

The Site is located approximately 6 km south-west of the town of Bebington and 7 km north east of Ellesmere Port, in the area of Eastham on the Wirral peninsula. The M53 motorway runs in an east / west orientation 1.7 km to the south of the Site, before it changes direction to run north / south and passes 3.5 km west of the Site. The National Grid Reference (NGR) for the centre of the Site is SJ 36360 80870. The general Site location can be seen on Figure 1 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-151) which also defines the Site boundary. All distances referred to hereafter will be from this Site boundary.

2.2. Surrounding Area Surrounding land up to and including 500 m from the Site contains residential, recreational, commercial and industrial land uses. It is described in more detail below, all distances are approximate:

• North: Mixed recreation, industrial and residential. Immediately adjacent to the Site the land is a grassed field presumably used for recreation. Adjoining this area is a small residential development which itself borders a further education college called Carlett Park 360 m north-west of the Site. 120 m north of the Site, is Eastham Woods, a Wirral Country Park. Immediately north-east of the north-east corner of the Site is an area previously used as recreational gardens, now used as a cemetery/memorial park (Mayfields Woodland Remembrance Park).

• East: Mixed commercial and industrial land uses including a golf shop and associated car park immediately adjacent to the Site, beyond which is undeveloped vegetated land for 90 m. Beyond this is a commercial dock with associated locks and sluiceway areas. Immediately adjacent to this, 625 m east of the Site is one end of the Manchester Ship Canal. 725 m north east of the Site is the River Mersey estuary.

• South: Mixed commercial and residential land uses. Two golf course fairways are situated immediately south of the Site, running in an east / west orientation. Immediately south-east of the Site and 180 m south (beyond the golf course) is a residential area consisting of three roads with structures on either side. 100 m to the south east of the Site is an area of allotments. 500 m south-east of the Site are cylindrical tanks presumed to be storage tanks/depot associated with an oil refinery (Stanlow Oil refinery) in the same location. New Chester Road runs in a south-east / north-west orientation 370 m south-west of the Site, immediately beyond which is a large area of residential properties.

• West: Predominantly recreational. Immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the Site is a golf course. New Chester Road runs in a south-east / north-west orientation adjacent the gold course, 460 m west of the Site, beyond which is an areas of fields marked with football pitches and further residential properties.

2.3. Site Description The Site description below has been based on review of the data listed in Chapter 1, discussion with Costain/OPA and Atkins’ Site Reconnaissance.

2.3.1. Site Layout The Site is 4.71 Ha in area and the land is predominantly flat grass and scrubland which is used for a local farmer sheep to graze on occasionally. The entrance to the Site is through a 2.5 m high gate, approximately 0.45 m in width, situated on the north east of the Site adjacent to Ferry Road. A hard standing track runs in a straight line from the Site entrance in an east / west orientation for


8

120 m, at the end of this track there is an open top concrete water storage tank (10 m x 10 m). Running perpendicular to this track, approximately 90 m along the track from the Site entrance, is a hard standing slope 60 m in length which has a downhill gradient away from the track and towards the south of the Site. This track terminates at an entrance to a sub-surface structure, providing access to the covered storage tanks, pump engine rooms and storage space at the Site.

The south west of the Site comprises a raised area under which three covered storage tanks are located. Surrounding the tanks is a continuous earth embankment/bund structure which is approximately 100 m x 100 m and elevated approximately 3 m above the rest of the Site. Atop this raised area are four concrete vent structures and four piped vents. Surrounding all but the north east corner of the raised area is an earth bund predominantly vegetated with gorse. In between the bund and the raised area the land is also vegetated with gorse, up to 2.5 m in height.

The Site is bounded on all sides by a chain link fence, however there are several failures in the perimeter fence which have been patched with nylon cord and/or temporary fencing.

Within the Site there are several standing structures which are all part of the underground tanks. Next to the entrance there is a currently disused brick building approximately 5 m x 12 m in size. Adjacent to this is hard standing area of the same size used as a storage area for building material.

In the south eastern area of the Site (adjacent to the aforementioned raised area) there are two concrete vent buildings for the sub-surface pump engines. In the same area there is a pit measuring approximately 8 m x 5 m containing unused pipework.

In the north-east corner of the Site, there is an active substation with a ramp running to an underground structure/room beneath. It is understood to be operated and owned by Scottish Power. It is fenced off with chain link fencing and access is gained through a gate within the Site and a gate facing the Ferry Road on the eastern Site boundary. The ground surrounding the substation is overgrown with grassed vegetation.

To the north eastern corner of the Site, approximately 50 m from both the eastern and northern Site boundary is an above surface pipeline installation consisting of a disused black pipe and an active grey pipe understood to be operated by Shell. The installation is understood to be an entry point for an automated inspection device.

2.3.2. Site Activities The Site was constructed early in WW2 but is no longer in use and has been inactive/mothballed for at least a decade. One small area in the north-east corner of the site is still active and contains a small electrical substation managed by Scottish Power and an access point for an active pipeline managed by Shell.

When the rest of the Site was operational, the Site was used as a Petroleum Storage Depot (PSD) with hydrocarbons pumped to and off the Site. The hydrocarbons were directed to a series of underground storage tanks (USTs) and then transported off the Site to the various end users by rail and road. Atkins understands that the hydrocarbons stored included aviation fuel, kerosene and diesel.

The Site is now on ‘care and maintenance’ which includes occasional visits by Costain and it is understood that the Site is occasionally used for the grazing of livestock.

Costain/OPA were unable to provide information on Site operations, hydrocarbons throughput, management procedures or tank management (integrity testing, leak detection, etc.) during operation.

On the 21st September 2012 an Atkins Engineer undertook a walkover of the Site with the Costain Site Manager. Observations have been recorded in the following section. Figure 2 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-152) shows an annotated map illustrating the locations of features mentioned in this section. Photographs taken during the walkover are presented in Appendix C.


9

2.3.3. Storage Tanks and Pipework Figure 2 shows the Site with annotated labels which are expanded below with regards to storage tanks and pipework at the Site. The corresponding photographs are included as Appendix C.

• Item A (Photo 4): This is an area of pipework above ground measuring approximately 15 m x 5 m in size and has two pipelines in it. One is owned and operated by Shell – anecdotal evidence from the Costain Site manager suggests it is the entry point for an inspection device. The second set of pipework is owned by the MOD and is currently inactive. Adjacent to this location was a subsurface tank in which the MOD pipework was visible and could be opened if necessary. Within this tank there was some standing water showing hydrocarbon sheen on its surface at the time of the walkover. There was no obvious source of the hydrocarbon sheen.

• Item B (Photo 8): Pipework is visible, but set in a tank below ground level. This is understood to be inactive. Some hydrocarbon staining was visible in the tank.

• Item C (Photo 14): A Tank that appears to be currently disused.

• Item D (Photo 6): In an area below ground level at the foot of the ramp there are three storage tanks understood to have stored hydrocarbons. They have been marked as being constructed from/containing asbestos.

• Item E (Photo 13): This shows the area beneath which lies the main storage tanks on Site. The tanks are believed to be three adjacent cylindrical tanks measuring approximately 44 m in diameter and 6.1 m in height.

Six venting pipes were observed atop the area above the tanks. These are discussed in section 2.3.4 below.

2.3.4. Buildings and vents on Site Figure 2 shows the Site with annotated labels which are expanded below with regards to the buildings and various vents located at the Site.

• Item F (Photo 3): This shows the location of a disused/derelict building, previously understood to be a Site office with toilets.

• Item G (Photo 9): This shows an approximate 8 m – 10 m high chimney stack. It is associated with the tank below and it is understood to vent gasses from the diesel pumps situated beneath surface.

• Item H (Photo 10): This indicates an area of several vent structures also understood to vent gasses from the diesel engines situates subsurface.

• Item I (Photo 2): This marks the location of an active substation on Site – understood to be operated by Scottish Power.

2.3.5. Drum Storage Areas At the time of the Site walkover, there were no large storage drums present at the Site. However, it was noted that nine 10 litre sealed plastic containers were observed at the foot of the ramp leading to the USTs (adjacent to Item D.), containing an unknown liquid. There were no descriptions or identifications on the containers to confirm/identify the contents.

2.3.6. Waste At the time of the Site walkover, a farmer was storing some building materials on Site (including wooden pallets, tiles and concrete slabs) in the area of a derelict building (item F on Figure 2).

2.3.7. Water Information received from the Costain manager suggests that there are no active water supplies at or coming onto the Site.


10

2.3.8. Wastewater Anecdotal information received from the Costain Site manager suggests that the entire Site drains to an underground interceptor. It is tended to by the Costain Site manager regularly and ultimately discharges to the Manchester Ship Canal.

The only visible surface drainage is an exposed semi-circular half pipe running down the ramp, parallel to the western wall. This leads to a drain at the base of the ramp.

A summary of materials (raw, ancillary and waste) storage at the Site is shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Summary of Materials Storage

Storage Description Material Stored

Capacity (L)

Containment Bund Details

Status Comments

UST Three storage tanks

None currently – understood to once be used to store petroleum.

According to dimensions in previous Fugro report could be as much a 3000 m3

Steel tanks with concrete surround and earth covering.

According to previous Fugro report foundation raft drainage at base of tanks. Above ground there is a soil bund around the majority of the Site (open in north-east area.

Unused – understood to have been unused since 1977

-

AST tanks

Three storage tanks

Historically used for temporary storage of hydrocarbons entering or leaving the USTs. Understood to now be empty.

Unknown Steel cylindrical tanks

Concrete spillage area feeding into interceptor drainage system.

Unused Labelled as containing asbestos.

Drum Stores

Nine 10 litre storage drums

Unknown 90 litres Plastic drums None N/A Containing unknown liquid.-

2.3.9. Asbestos and Polychlorinated Biphenyls Three storage tanks on the Site are signed as containing asbestos. There was no other potential asbestos containing material identified during the site walkover. Costain/OPA were not able to provide an asbestos register for the Site.

Costain/OPA have not been able to confirm whether polychlorinated biphenyls were present in electrical equipment. It was not possible to inspect electrical equipment because buildings were locked and not necessarily safe to enter. The electrical substation in the north-east corner of the site may be a current source of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

2.3.10. Recorded Pollution Incidents No visual or olfactory indications of contamination or surface staining were noted during Atkins visit. Costain/OPA had no records of past pollution incidents.

2.4. Site History The earliest available maps show the Site to be open land with several trees within the Site boundary. The surrounding area undergoes significant development by 1954, maps showing residential and industrial developments within 1 km of the Site. On-site land use remains open


11

until at least 1956 by which point the Site is shown to have undergone some development and by 1971 the Site appears as today with a tank development labelled and several other smaller structures adjacent. The site has not been used / mothballed for at least a decade according to anecdotal evidence from the Costain manager. The historical maps for the Site are presented in Appendix A of this report.

2.4.1. On Site Earliest available maps dated 1872 show the Site to be predominantly open, likely vegetated land with several trees within the Site boundary. There is a quarry marked on the map encroaching slightly into the north-west corner of the Site. An unlabelled track runs through the quarry and continues running in a north / south orientation roughly parallel to the western Site boundary. The Envirocheck report indicates this is a former sandstone quarry.

An unlabelled track, which is indicated to be in a cutting, crosses the south east corner of the Site.

Maps from 1896 show a civil parish boundary running in an approximate east / west orientation across the middle of the Site. The aforementioned quarry is also now shown as being entirely off Site but adjacent to the Site boundary. The track in the western area of the Site is no longer present on the map.

By 1936 the northern Site boundary is shown to be fenced.

No change is seen on Site until 1956 by which time the quarry is no longer labelled, however an embankment is still shown on the map in the former quarry location. An approximately 80 m long track is also shown on the map in the eastern area of Site running from Ferry Road in an east / west orientation. The track in the south-eastern corner of the Site is no longer shown on the map.

By 1971 the Site is shown to have been developed significantly with ‘Tank Farm’ labelled in the south western area of the Site and several structures in the south eastern area of the Site as seen today. A large bund structure is shown to run around the labelled ‘Tank Farm’. The aforementioned track starting on Ferry Road is now shown to have been extended by a further 60 m in a straight west / east direction. Another smaller tank, approximately 10 m x 10 m is shown at the end of this track.

A second smaller embankment is indicated on the map around the eastern, southern and western edges of the ‘Tank Farm’, these are likely to be a soil bund.

No significant changes are noted from 1971 until present day on the Envirocheck maps.

2.4.2. Surrounding Area Earliest available maps dated 1872 show the surrounding area to be predominantly agricultural land. Eastham Woods is shown 120 m north of the Site. Carlett Park is shown approximately 200 m to the north-west of the Site. The park is shown to be vegetated with mixed woodland and several ponds are located in the immediate area. Within Cartlett Park there is a fountain and associated pond 180 m north west of the Site boundary. A town labelled Eastham approximately 500 m south of the Site.

The 1896 map shows a second pond in Cartlett Park, 200 m north-west of the Site and adjacent to the fountain already described. The ‘Manchester Shipping Canal’ has been constructed 500 m to the east of the Site. 500 m east of the Site is a structure labelled as Eastham Locks, adjacent to which are several buildings that are labelled as an ‘Office’ and ‘Hydraulic Installation’. By 1912 the area 250 m east of the Site is labelled as ‘Filter Beds’. The 1936 map show residential housing with gardens 100 m south east of the Site boundary and a nursery (assumed to be horticultural) adjacent to the north-eastern Site boundary. By 1938 the area approximately 700 m west of the Site is shown to have undergone significant residential development from open farmland, which appears to continue on to 1954. There are several other residential developments 50 m south-east 200 m south and immediately to the north of the Site which have also been developed by 1954.


12

The 1956 map shows a square shaped water body, probably a dock area, 100 m to the east of the Site surrounded by large embankments; it is later labelled as a dock. By 1965 a college is shown to have been developed 250 m north-west of the Site which appears to have resulted in the infilling of a small pond.

The 1965 map shows a development 1100 m north-west of the Site labelled as a ‘Works’ which has several circular structures associated with it that are later labelled as an ‘oil storage depot’. Several more circular structures are shown on the map 1300 m south east of the Site.

A large area starting approximately 300 m south and south-east of the Site is shown to have been developed into an oil storage depot by 1976 – the map indicates there are more than 100 tanks at this time. 800 m south east there is a structure labelled as an oil refinery. Allotments are also shown at this time 100 m south-west of the Site.

One of the ponds in the immediate area, 200 m north-west of the Site in Cartlett Park, is no longer shown and assumed infilled as part of the colleges further development in that location.

By 1991 the oil depot is shown to have been enlarged by this time and there is a pipeline presumably associated with the oil depot / refinery labelled approximately 180 m east of the Site. A golf course is also labelled adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of the Site.

There is a small tank and several other buildings shown adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site, these are likely this is associated with the golf course and surrounding parklands.

There are no other significant changes noted between the early 1990’s and present day.

2.5. Environmental Setting and Site Sensitivity

2.5.1. Topography Topographically, the Site, is at an approximate elevation of 30 m above ordnance datum (AOD) and appears to be flat around the edges of the Site with a large artificial raised areas, roughly square in shape occupying the majority of the centre of the Site.

2.5.2. Geology The Geology Report, included with the Envirocheck Report, is presented in Appendix B and this, together with the British Geological Society (BGS) map and website(3) indicates that the Site is underlain by:

Made Ground: Aside the building next the entrance and beneath developed areas.

Superficial Deposits: None recorded

Bedrock: BGS map & website(3) indicates the Site is underlain by the Chester Pebble Beds formation, which is part of the parent Sherwood Sandstone Group. The BGS sheet map (solid and drift) 96confirms the Site is underlain by the Sherwood Sandstone Group.

A fault runs in a north / south orientation adjacent to the eastern Site boundary, down throwing to the east.

A previous Site investigation by Fugro was carried out for Shell UK limited in 1992 at the Site. The geology that was encountered is discussed in Section 3 below.

2.5.3. Hydrogeology

2.5.3.1. Aquifer and Soil Classification The Envirocheck Report indicates that there are no recorded Superficial Deposits at the Site. The bedrock is designated as a Principal Aquifer, layers of rock deposits that have high inter-granular and/or fracture permeability, meaning they usually provide a high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. In most cases, principal aquifers are aquifers previously designated as major aquifer.


13

The Environment Agency (EA) website(4) indicates that any overlying soil present would have a high leaching potential.

Any groundwater is likely to flow in an easterly direction towards the River Mersey.

2.5.3.2. Abstractions, Discharges and Groundwater Source Protection Zones

2.5.3.2.1. Abstractions and Discharges There are no abstractions from groundwater, or discharges to groundwater within 1 km of the Site indicated by the Envirocheck Report(2).

2.5.3.2.2. Groundwater Source Protection Zones The Site is not within 1 km of a Ground Source Protection Zone (GPZ).

2.5.3.3. Pollution Incidents to Groundwater The Envirocheck Report(2) indicates there are no pollution incidents to the groundwater at or within 500 m of the Site.

2.5.4. Hydrology There are no surface water bodies on the Site; however the Costain Site operative indicated that the entire Site drains to an underground interceptor. The drain is managed by the Costain Site operative regularly and ultimately discharges to the Manchester Shipping Canal.

The only visible surface drainage is an exposed semi circular half pipe running down the ramp, parallel to the western wall. This leads to a drain at the base of the ramp.

Several small drains are located to the east of the Site within 100 m and appear to flow in and around the dock to the east of the Site. Envirocheck data indicates there is a culverted subsurface watercourse 60 m south-east of the Site.

The dock is the nearest large water body at 100 m away, beyond this approximately 625 m east of the Site is the Manchester Shipping Canal, immediately adjacent to which is the tidal Mersey Estuary approximately 725 m north-east of the Site.

The Environment Agency(4) website indicates the area is not in an area at risk of flooding.

2.5.4.1. Abstractions and Discharges There are three discharges to surface waters indicated by the Envirocheck Report(2) to be within 500 m of the Site. All three discharge at the same location, 360 m south-east of the Site, to a tributary of the Manchester Shipping Canal which does not appear available maps and thus is assumed to be culverted beneath the ground. Two of the discharges are indicated to be sewage, the other to be unknown trade discharge, likely to be from the Oil Depot due to its immediate proximity. All three discharge licenses were revoked in 1992.

The Envirocheck Report(2) indicates there are no surface or ground water abstraction on or within 500 m of the Site.

2.5.4.2. Pollution Incidents to Surface Water There are two pollution incidents to surface waters indicated in the Envirocheck Report(2) to be within 500 m of the Site. The first 470 m south-east of the Site, relating to a chemical solvent (dichloroethene) spillage in 1998, and the second, 483 m north of the Site, relating to an oil spillage in 1995. Both are categorised as minor incidents (Category 3). The receiving water is the Manchester Ship Canal and as such is unlikely to have influence on the Site.

2.5.5. Other Environmental & Ecological Information The Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website (5) indicates there are no ecologically sensitive receptors within 250 m of the Site. The nearest receptor is the


14

Mersey Estuary, approximately 377 m north east of the Site, which is a RAMSAR site, an RSPB reserve, a Special Protection Area (SPA) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

The Envirocheck Report(2) also indicates that Site is in an area of adopted green built.

The Envirocheck Report(2) indicates that the Site is in a lower probability radon area. Less than 1% of homes are stated to be above the action level.

The Envirocheck Report(2) indicates that no statutory Contaminated Land Register entries or notices are recorded on or within 1 km of the Site. No historic or active landfills have been identified on and within 500 m of the Site.

2.6. Site Sensitivity 2.6.1. Groundwater

Groundwater sensitivity is considered HIGH because the Site is underlain by a Principal Aquifer and the overlying soil has a high leaching potential.

However the Site is not in or within 1 km of a source protection zone.

2.6.2. Surface Water Surface water sensitivity is considered MODERATE, although the drains are within 100 m of the Site, they are relatively small in size and do not have a constant flow. The dock/large surface water body is likely to be self contained/clay lined. The ship canal/River Mersey are >500 m away from the Site.

2.6.3. Ecological Systems Ecological sensitivity is considered LOW because there are no ecologically sensitive receptors on or within 250 m of the Site.

2.6.4. Contemporary Trades The Envirocheck report indicates there are no fewer than thirty two Contemporary Trade Directory entries within 1 km of the Site. However many of these trades are unlikely to pose a contamination risk to the Site, those whose trade involved potential contaminating substances have been selected and listed below.

• water cooler manufacturer (refrigerants), 52 m north-west of Site;

• damp and dry rot control, 346 m south of Site; and;

• lubricant manufacturer, 397 m south-west of Site;

Two fuel stations are also registered within 1 km of the Site. The nearest is 658 m south-west of the Site and still active run by Shell, the farthest of the two is inactive and was 694 m west of the Site.

2.7. Regulatory Issues

2.7.1. Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Sites There are two active Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Sites within 500 m of the Site indicated by the Envirocheck Report(2). The nearest is 134 m north of the Site, indicated to be active and operated by the Oil and Pipelines Agency (OPA) and it has a lower tier type. The second is 417 m south of the Site; it is active and operated by Kaneb Terminals / Eastham Ltd. This COMAH is indicated to be an upper tier type. This is associated with the oil storage depot in that area.


15

2.7.2. Waste One historical landfill has been identified within 1 km of the Site by the Envirocheck report. It is indicated to be 953 m north of the Site and authorised to accept Asbestos, Contaminated soil and inert demolition waste. Records indicate that the historical landfill was a former power station and it is likely that the waste here is from the demolition of the buildings and possibly some waste from when the power station was in use.

Two licensed waste management facilities have been identified in the Envirocheck report. Both appear to be associated with the Oil Storage Depot occupying a large area approximately 500 m south and south-east of the Site. The specific locations of the facilities are 579 m south and 754 m south-east of the Site.

Three registered waste transfer or disposal stations are registered as being within 1 km of the Site. Two are again associated with the Oil Storage Depot to the south and south-east of the Site and are indicated to have a very small input rate of less than 10,000 tonnes per year. The nearest being 392 m south of the Site and the farthest 754 m south-east of the Site; both are registered as accepting liquid waste including waste oil.

The third registered waste treatment or disposal station is indicated to be 772 m south west of the Site and is registered as accepting scrap metal.

2.8. Hazardous Materials 2.8.1. Asbestos Register

The Site operators, Costain, have not been able to provide Atkins with information regarding the potential presence of asbestos within structures. However during the Site walkover, in an area below Site ground level at the foot of the ramp, there are three storage tanks understood to have stored hydrocarbons. They have been marked as being constructed from asbestos.

The Costain Site manager also indicated asbestos is present in the corridors and rooms associated with the covered tanks. Atkins did not inspect these areas during the Site walkover.


16

3. Previous Reports 3.1. Previous Reports

A Previous reports was made available for review and is listed in Table 2 below and discussed in the following subsections.

Table 2. Previous Reports

Project Title Report Reference Report Originator Date and Status of Report Ground Contamination

Study

Shell UK Limited

Carlett Park Tank Farm

92/8037A

Project no. 92/8037A Fugro Final Copy Issued March 30th 1992

3.1.1. Summary of Investigation Shell UK ltd appointed Fugro to carry out an investigation into soils and groundwater conditions at the Carlett Park tank Farm in Bromborough. The purpose of the investigation was to determine if soil and groundwaters were contaminated as a result of the Site’s historic use as a storage and distribution facility.

Nineteen soil vapour tests were carried out in situ at the Site, the results of which informed the location of seven rotary cored and open hole boreholes. Initially three boreholes were started with shell and auger drilling rigs, when they could not progress through the sandstone, rotary core was used to complete the holes. Groundwater was monitored in one borehole (Borehole 5) which included a falling head test. The work was carried out in March 1992.

3.1.2. Summary of findings Findings have been listed below;

• The nineteen soil vapour tests had results between 0.4 and 0.7ppm;

• The geology was determined to be topsoil between 0.5 to 0.8 m in thickness in four boreholes, while fill material consisting of sand with gravel, clay and silt was encountered in the remaining three boreholes with a thickness between 0.8 to 1.3 m. Bedrock of weak to strong, fine to medium grained, red sandstone was encountered in all boreholes to a maximum depth of 45 m in BH5. BH 1 was terminated at 3.4 m, BH2 at 2.0 m and the remaining boreholes (BH3, BH4, BH6 and BH7) at 11.0 m;

• No visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was found in the fill or bedrock and therefore no laboratory testing was scheduled for soils from the Site;

• BH5 had the only monitoring well installed into it, with slotted pipe between 33.0 and 45.0 m with a gravel filter between 35.0 and 45.0 m;

• Groundwater was struck in BH5 at 40 m and rose to 35 m after 20 minutes. The other boreholes did not strike water;

• Groundwater was monitored in BH5 at a depth of 36.14 m bgl (or -6 m AOD) on one occasion in March 1992. The well was then developed and a sample taken;

• No visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was seen in the groundwater; and;

• Laboratory analysis of the groundwater indicates a Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration of 15 parts per billion (ppb), a chromatograph suggest the TPHs are between C10 – C25 range (heavy fuel oils).


17

4. Preliminary Conceptual Site Model 4.1. Potential Sources of Contamination

4.1.1. Current and Historical On-site Activities/Operations The Site was likely to have been mothballed approximately a decade ago. The tanks and buildings were likely emptied and decommissioned. Sheep occasionally graze across the Site. A small active substation is located in the north-east corner of the site which is managed by Scottish power.

Sources of contamination on the Site could be possible from the various former activities which are likely to have occurred historically, although there is no documentary or physical evidence to confirm.

Several potential on-site sources of contamination have been identified as follows;

1) Made Ground used in the development of the Site;

2) Potential hydrocarbon seepages from the contents of the storage tanks on the Site;

3) Potential spillages emanating from historical processes involving transportation into and out of the storage tanks through human error and/or leaks from pipework; and;

4) Potential spillages from the active Shell pipeline.

4.1.2. Current and Historical Off-site Activities/Operations There have been numerous developments historically in the surrounding area. Some of which could be considered to be off-site sources of contamination and have been identified as follows:

5) Potential leakages from the electric substation situated 5 m from the north eastern corner of the Site

6) Made Ground used in the construction of several developments within 250 m of the Site including residential, and commercial areas, as well as infilled ponds within 250 m of the Site;

7) Oil storage depot area 450 m to 800 m south and south-west of the Site. Potential to be a source of several contaminants of concern due to the range of industrial activities occurring within this area;

8) The dockyard/canal 100 – 500 m east of the Site; and;

9) Fuel station 658 m south-west of the Site (and inactive fuel station 694 m west of Site).

4.2. Potential Receptors and Pathways

4.2.1. Human Receptors Identified on-site human receptors have been identified as the following:

• Current Site users (Costain Site manager and farmers);

• Site visitors – Scottish Power operatives to access the active substation;

• Site visitors – Active pipeline managed by Shell in north east portion of the Site; and;

• future Site users.

It is assumed Shell and Costain operatives will be fully protected from potential contaminants as they will be anticipating dealing with hydrocarbons however this may not be the case for the farmer.


18

These potential current/future on-site human receptors could be exposed to potential contamination by the following pathways:

• dermal contact with contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in shallow groundwater if excavation takes place below the groundwater table;

• ingestion of contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in shallow groundwater if excavation takes place below the groundwater table;

• inhalation of contaminants in soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed; and;

• inhalation of vapours/ground gas.

Identified off-site human receptors include:

• Residents in residential properties within 250 m, to the north-west and south-east of the Site;

• users of the adjacent golf course and open fields; and;

• users of the allotments 100 m south-west of the Site.

These potential current/future off-site human receptors could be exposed to potential contamination by the following pathways:

• dermal contact with contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in migrating groundwater if off-site excavation takes place below the groundwater table;

• ingestion of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in migrating groundwater if off-site excavation takes place below the groundwater table;

• inhalation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed; and;

• inhalation of migrating vapours/ground gas

4.2.2. Controlled Waters Receptors Various controlled water receptors have been identified and include:

• Surface water receptors – localised minor drainage channels and culverted subsurface watercourse;

• surface water receptors – dock to the east of the Site and River Mersey and Manchester Ship Canal; and;

• groundwater – Underlying Principal Aquifer in bedrock.

Groundwater in the underlying bedrock (a Principal Aquifer) is a potential receptor via leaching of contaminants from the unsaturated soil zone to groundwater and migration of light non aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL).

The on-site and off-site surface water receptors could be affected by discharge of contaminants in surface water run-off and laterally migrating groundwater and LNAPL.

4.2.3. Ecological Receptors The nearest ecological receptor is the River Mersey approximately 700 m east of the Site.


19

4.2.4. Property Receptors Identified on-site property receptors include:

• Structures associated with the tank depot on-site (detailed in section 2.1) and confined spaces on Site; and;

Livestock are grazed on the Site and in the surrounding area and are current/future property receptors. These on-site property receptors could be exposed by:

• dermal contact with contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off;

• ingestion of contaminants in grass, soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off; and;

• inhalation of contaminants in soil-derived dust.

Identified off-site property receptors include:

• Residential and commercial properties in the surrounding area;

• Adjacent golf course (and associated buildings);

• Allotment areas; and;

• Crops in surrounding agricultural land.

In addition, these off-site property receptors could be exposed by exposed by:

• dermal contact with contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off;

• ingestion of contaminants in grass, windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off;

• inhalation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust; and

• inhalation of migrating vapours/ground gas.

On-site buildings/infrastructure are also a potential current/future property receptor by direct contact with contaminants in soil and shallow groundwater and accumulation of ground gas.

Off-site property (buildings/infrastructure) including adjacent residential properties and adjacent golf course are potential receptors by direct contact with contaminants in migrating shallow groundwater and accumulation of migrating ground gas.

4.2.5. Other Receptors • Grazing livestock (sheep, both on-site and off-site within 250 m).

4.3. Preliminary Phase 1 Environmental Risk Assessment

4.3.1. Introduction The definition of Contaminated Land is based on the principles of risk assessment. Defra Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance 2012 defines risk in paragraph 3.1 as the combination of: (a) the likelihood that harm, or pollution of water, will occur as a result of contaminants in, on or under the land; and (b) the scale and seriousness of such harm or pollution if it did occur.

Defra Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance 2012 requires that for the identification of Contaminated Land:

• (a) significant harm is being caused to a human, or relevant non-human, receptor;

• (b) there is a significant possibility of significant harm being caused to a human, or relevant non-human, receptor.


20

• (c) significant pollution of controlled waters is being caused.

• (d) there is a significant possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters being caused.

Definitions of significant harm are provided in Section 4.2 of the Defra Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance 2012 for human health, Section 4.3 for ecological and property receptors and Section 4.4 for controlled waters.

An environmental risk has been carried out following current best practice and industry guidance. Definitions of probability and consequence have been based on guidance in the DIO Practitioners Guide 07/12 and are summarised in Appendix D. A combination of probability and consequence produces a risk level based on the risk evaluation and likely action required. The DIO Practitioners Guide 07/12 provides seven categories of risk as shown in Appendix D. The land contamination risk, which is a function of the probability and the consequence, can then be defined using the risk matrix in Appendix D.

Based on the Phase 1 LQA carried out, the potential sources of contamination identified at the Site are considered to pose a:

• moderate/ low risk to current and future site users;

• moderate/ low risk to current/future construction/maintenance workers;

• moderate/ low risk to groundwater;

• moderate risk to surface water;

• moderate risk to ecological receptors (low risk to livestock); and

• low risk to property.

4.4. Preliminary Conceptual Site Model for Investigation Atkins’ site investigation forming the Phase 2 LQA, in particular the chemical analysis suite selected, has focussed on those sources associated with the Site’s operation as a PSD, specifically petroleum products because these are considered to be the principal potential contaminants at the Site

Analysis for metals and other inorganic compounds did not form part of Atkins’ proposed scope of work in our bid and as such, has not been carried out. This is also the case for contaminants associated with potential off-site sources of contamination which are also excluded from the Phase 2 LQA site investigation design. The objective of the Phase 2 LQA has been to focus on the potential environmental liability posed by the Site itself and off-site sources are considered to be the liability of the off-site polluter.

Therefore, Sources 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have not been investigated as part of the Phase 2 LQA. The preliminary qualitative environmental risk assessment has identified a low risk to on-site livestock and a negligible risk to off-site livestock. The low risk to on-site livestock can readily be mitigated by not allowing these receptors access to the Site and if the Site use resumes, these receptors would not be present and the risk reduced to negligible. Therefore, on- and off-site livestock have not been investigated as part of the Phase 2 LQA on this basis.


21

Table 3. Preliminary Conceptual Site Model

Source of Contamination Receptors Pathways

1. Made Ground used in the construction of the Site

2. Potential on-site leakages of hydrocarbons and other chemicals at the Site from pipework, tanks etc

3. Potential on-site spills of hydrocarbons and other chemicals at the Site from pipework, tanks etc.

Humans on-Site (Site workers, visitors including agricultural workers)

Dermal contact with contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in shallow groundwater. Ingestion of contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in shallow groundwater. Inhalation of contaminants in soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed. Inhalation of vapours/ground gas.

Humans off-Site (residents, visitors, agricultural workers and golf course users)

Dermal contact with contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in migrating groundwater Ingestion of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in migrating groundwater. Inhalation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed. Inhalation of migrating vapours/ground gas.

Groundwater Leaching of contaminants from the unsaturated soil zone to groundwater.

Surface Water Discharge of contaminants in surface water run-off and laterally migrating groundwater.

Livestock off-Site

Dermal contact with contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed. Ingestion of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed. Inhalation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed. Inhalation of migrating vapours/ground gas.

Crops and allotments off-Site Root uptake of contaminants in migrating groundwater.

Property on and off-Site (buildings/infrastructure/confined spaces)

Direct contact with contaminants in soil/groundwater. Accumulation of migrating ground gas/vapours into the buildings and enclosed spaces.


22

5. Site Investigation 5.1. Objectives

A site investigation was undertaken as part of Combined Phase 1/2 LQA to provide site-specific factual data relating to the ground conditions, soil chemistry, groundwater quality, presence of vapours/ground gas and investigation the PCLs identified by the preliminary CSM to inform the risk assessment.

5.2. Methodology

5.2.1. General Approach Atkins Phase 2 LQA Site Investigation was designed with reference to UK guidance. This included: i) CLR11; ii) British Standard (BS) 099757; iii) BS59308; iv) R&D Technical Report P5-065/TR9; v) R&D Technical Report P5-066/TR10; and vi) CLR411.

BS09975 suggests a Phase 2 exploratory investigation should be both targeted and non-targeted, the latter typically at 25 to 50 m centres adopting a square or herringbone grid as recommended in CLR4. A Phase 3 main investigation should also be both targeted and non-targeted, the latter typically at 10 to 25 m centres, again adopting a square or a herringbone grid as recommended in CLR4. The Stage 1 investigation of P5-066/TR suggests 50 m centres.

Based on the use of the Site, guidance quoted above, PCLs identified and likely constraints in terms of accessible locations, Atkins has adopted a more targeted approach to exploratory hole locations described in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Rationale for the Investigation Locations

Location Rationale

ABH001 Targeting potential off-site migration of contaminants to the north east of the three underground tanks, associated pipework and above ground storage tanks. To the east of the active pipeline and therefore targeting any ongoing spillages / leaks. South of the electrical substation 10 m north of the site.

ABH002 Targeting potential off-site migration of contaminants to the north of the underground tanks, associated pipework and above ground storage tanks. Land use to the north of this location is residential.

ABH003/3A Targeting potential off-site migration of contaminants to the east of the underground tanks, associated pipework and above ground storage tanks.

AWS001 General Site coverage and also targeting potential leakages to the north from the open tank situated in the north of the site.

AWS002 General Site coverage and also targeting potential leakages to the east from the open tank situated in the north of the site.

AWS003 General Site coverage and also targeting potential leakages to the south from the open tank situated in the north of the site.

AWS004 General Site coverage and also targeting potential leakages to the west from the open tank situated in the north of the site.

AWS005A General Site coverage specifically focussing on the area to the east of the main underground storage tanks, associated pipework and above ground storage tanks - groundwater is understood to be flowing in this direction through the site. Within this area there were several vents and a chimney stack.

7 British Standard 09975, Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites, 2001/2010 8 BS5930, Code of Practice for Site Investigation, 1999 9 R&D Technical Report P5-065/TR, Technical Aspects of Site Investigation, Environment Agency, 2000 10 R&D Technical Report P5-066/TR, Development of Appropriate Soil Sampling Strategies for Land Contamination, Environment Agency, 2000 11 Contaminated Land Report 4, Sampling Strategies for Contaminated Land, Environment Agency, 1994


23

AWS006 General Site coverage specifically focussing on the area to the east of the main underground storage tanks, associated pipework and above ground storage tanks - groundwater is understood to be flowing in this direction through the site. Within this area there were several vents and a chimney stack.



The Site access constraints and the fact bedrock was encountered at shallow depths meant that the eight window sample positions were changed to hand dug pits and a proposed borehole in the south-west corner of the Site had to be removed from the original scope.

The intrusive works were undertaken between the 17th and 24th December 2012 and between the 15th and 21st January 2013 by Geotechnical Engineering Limited (GEL), monitored by a suitably experienced Atkins Environmental Scientist. The aim of the investigation was to provide information regarding PCLs identified in the preliminary CSM.

The ground investigation comprised the drilling of three dynamically sampled boreholes to a maximum depth of 10 m below ground level (bgl) using a Pioneer drilling rig and the advancement of eight hand-dug pits to a maximum depth of 1 m bgl. The Pioneer rig uses a combination of percussive and rotary drilling techniques.

Each exploratory hole location was checked for underground services by a utility clearance company. In addition, a hand-dug pit was excavated to an approximate depth of 1.2 m bgl before drilling of the boreholes by mechanical means.

The three boreholes were each installed with combined groundwater / gas monitoring installations.

A factual report on the ground investigation produced by GEL including borehole logs and monitoring records is enclosed as Appendix D of this report.

5.2.2. Investigation Locations and General Details Locations of the dynamic sampler borehole and hand dug inspection pits were surveyed to National Grid co-ordinates and elevations to Ordnance Datum. The locations of the dynamic sampling boreholes and hand dug inspection pits are presented on Figure 4 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-154) and the records are presented in the GEL report enclosed as Appendix D of this report.

Inspection of the proposed hole locations using a cable avoidance tool (CAT) and ground penetrating radar (GPR) was undertaken to identify (and hence avoid during excavation/drilling) any buried services.

All standpipe installations in the ABH boreholes comprised a 50 mm diameter pipe and the screened response zone was surrounded by a gravel filter pack. The top of the installations were completed with bentonite seals and cement, with a lockable steel cover flush with ground surface. Installation construction details are provided on the borehole records in the GEL Report in Appendix D.

Material excavated from the hand dug inspection pits was replaced in the holes on completion of logging and sampling, where possible in the order that it was removed. Any surplus soil, along with soil excavated from the boreholes, was disposed of in a skip and removed from site. Reinstatement of hole locations to prior condition was undertaken, with some mounding of soil to accommodate future settlement. No holes were undertaken in areas of hardstanding and as a consequence no surface reinstatement was required to be carried out.


24

5.2.3. Soil Sampling Soil samples were recovered from all exploratory holes advanced on the Site. The sampling strategy was designed to obtain representative soil samples from each stratum encountered. . Typically, samples were recovered at 0.3 m, 0.5 m and 1 m bgl, with further samples for every meter and / or at change of strata. Additional samples were taken if any visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was observed.

Samples were collected using a trowel and placed within appropriate jars provided by the accredited laboratory (i2 Analytical UK Ltd, UKAS no. 4041). Disposable gloves were used for each sample to reduce the possibility of cross-contamination.

Soil samples comprised one 250 ml and one 60 ml glass jar. Once the samples were collected, they were kept in cool boxes and were dispatched to the appointed, accredited chemical analysis laboratory, i2 Analytical, under chain of custody conditions, within 48 hours of sampling. Appropriate laboratory analysis of the samples was scheduled within 48 hours.

Soil vapour monitoring was undertaken during the ground investigation on every environmental sample collected. The soil vapour monitoring was recorded using a Mini-Rae 2000 photo-ionisation detector (PID) calibrated with 100 parts per million (ppm) isobutylene. The monitoring was undertaken after the samples had been collected and placed within the sampling jars allowing for potential vapours to accumulate within the headspace of the sampling jars. The peak value in ppm was recorded on the borehole logs presented within the GEL Factual Site Investigation Report in Appendix D.

The PID results and observations of contamination were used to determine which of the samples were to be scheduled for laboratory analysis.

5.2.4. Groundwater Monitoring Groundwater monitoring installations were installed within all three of the exploratory holes. The depths and stratum monitored by the installations are summarised in the Table 5 below.

Table 5. Monitoring Installation Summary

Exploratory Hole Location

Top of Installation Base of Installation Stratum Monitored

(m bgl) (mAOD) (m bgl) (mAOD)

ABH001 6.00 25.10 40.20 -9.10 Sandstone

ABH002 5.00 28.30 30.00 3.30 Sandstone

ABH003A 6.00 26.00 27.50 3.50 Sandstone

Depth to water and the presence/absence (and thickness) of free phase/product were recorded using an interface probe and measurements of dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and electrical conductivity taken using a multiparameter probe. The field monitoring sheet for the groundwater sampling is provided within the GEL Factual Site Investigation Report in Appendix D. Each well was purged of up to three wells volumes prior to sampling. Representative water samples were taken immediately on completion of purging and placed in laboratory provided containers under appropriate conditions prior to onward transmission to the laboratory, with chain of custody documentation.

Three groundwater samples were obtained on 29th January 2013 as part of a post works monitoring exercise in order to determine the effect potentially contaminated groundwater from the Site could have on nearby receptors.

Representative water samples were stored in containers under appropriate conditions prior to onward transmission to the laboratory, with chain of custody documentation for environmental samples.


25

5.2.5. Ground Gas Monitoring Soil vapour monitoring was undertaken during the ground investigation on every environmental sample collected. The soil vapour monitoring was recorded using a Mini-Rae 2000 or similar calibrated with 100 parts per million (ppm) isobutylene. This instrument is designed to give an indication of the presence and semi-quantitative concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil vapour.

Monitoring was undertaken after the samples had been collected and placed within the sampling jars allowing for potential vapours to accumulate within the headspace of the sampling jars. The peak value in ppm was recorded and is included on the exploratory hole records presented within the GEL factual report enclosed as Appendix D.

One session of ground gas monitoring was undertaken by GEL on 29th January 2013 as part of a post-works monitoring programme to determine the presence of ground gas at the Site. Ground gas within the monitoring installations was monitored using a GA-2000 gas analyser. Concentrations of the following gases were measured:

• Carbon dioxide;

• Methane;

• Carbon monoxide;

• Hydrogen sulphide; and

• Oxygen.

The concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were measured using a MiniRAE 2000 portable PID. The gas flow rate and barometric pressure were also recorded.

A copy of the gas monitoring results is presented within the GEL Factual Site Investigation Report in Appendix D.

5.2.6. Laboratory Analysis The chemical laboratory selected to undertake soil and groundwater analysis was i2 Analytical, a UKAS and MCerts accredited laboratory.

Samples for analysis were scheduled on Site, with three samples selected from each borehole and up to two samples selected from each hand dug inspection pit. Samples were selected to provide an assessment of a range of depths and strata across the Site, focusing on samples with potential for presence of contamination.

Samples were scheduled for the following predetermined suites of analysis:

Soils: • Fraction organic carbon, pH;

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) including BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes);

• Speciated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs);

• Tetraethyl Lead, Tetramethyl Lead; and

• Asbestos screen (Made Ground samples only).

Groundwater: • pH;

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) including BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes);

• Speciated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and

• Tetraethyl Lead, Tetramethyl Lead.


26

The testing suite selected, as indicated in Atkins original proposal, focussed specifically on petroleum products because these were considered to be the principle potential contaminant at the Site as demonstrated by the suite described above. Analysis for metals and other inorganic compounds did not form part of Atkins’ proposed scope of work and as such, has not been carried out.

5.3. Investigation Findings

5.3.1. Topsoil A distinguishable Topsoil stratum was not identified in exploratory holes advanced at the Site. In all cases grass overlies the surface below with a very thin layer of silt.

5.3.2. Made Ground Made ground was encountered in ABH003/3A and in hand dug pits AWS003, AWS004, AWS005A, AWS006, AWS007 and AWS008 to depths between 0.20 and 0.75 m gbl. The Made Ground in these locations varied slightly and was predominately backfilled natural material, i.e. sandstone mixed with sand, mudstone, quartz and occasional brick fragments.

The Made Ground encountered in AWS003 and AWS004 is slightly different to that encountered in the other exploratory holes. The material here was brick fill with natural material mixed in. In the case of AWS003, metal fragments, concrete and possible asbestos containing material was also encountered.

5.3.3. Superficial Deposits No superficial deposits were encountered on Site. A layer of silty/gravelly sand/ highly weathered sandstone recovered as gravelly sand was encountered below the Made Ground, or in the case of potentially undisturbed parts of the Site, directly below the grass surface at the Site.

5.3.4. Bedrock Sandstone Bedrock was encountered in all the exploratory holes at the Site. Initially, as mentioned above, highly weathered and recovered as silty gravelly sand or sandy clay to depths between 0.50 m bgl (AWS02) and 2.00 m bgl (ABH001).

5.3.5. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during the excavation of the hand dug inspection pits or prior to the use of water flush within the exploratory boreholes.

Groundwater levels measured during the monitoring visit are summarised in Table 6.

The full logs for each exploratory position are presented in full within the GEL report in Appendix D

Table 6. Water Levels during Monitoring

Location Stratum Screened

Dip Levels (m bgl)

Dip Levels

(mAOD)

Product Levels (m bgl)

Product thickness

(mm)

Base of Borehole (m bgl)

Base of Borehole (mAOD)

ABH001 Sandstone 22.00 9.10 - - 40.20 -9.10

ABH002 Sandstone 19.60 13.70 - - 30.00 3.30

ABH003A Sandstone 24.20 6.80 - - 27.50 3.50

Based on one monitoring round, the groundwater appears to be lower towards the east/south east side of the Site, suggesting that the general trend of groundwater movement is in this direction and towards the River Mersey to the east.


27

5.3.6. Ground Gas Ground gas monitoring was undertaken on the 30th January 2013. The results are summarised in Table 7 below and presented in full within the GEL report in Appendix D.

Table 7. Summary of Ground Gas Monitoring

Location Methane

(%)

Carbon Dioxide

(%)

Oxygen (%)

Hydrogen Sulphide

(ppm)

Carbon Monoxide

(ppm)

Flow (l/hr)

Barometric Pressure (millibars)

Relative Pressure (millibars)

ABH001 0.0 2.1 – 2.4 19.1 – 19.5 0.0 0.0 -0.2 - -0.3 995 0.66

ABH002 0.0 3.8 – 4.3 18.6 – 19.2 0.0 0.0 -7.0 – -7.1 993 0.36

ABH003A 0.0 – 1.0 1.8 – 2.2 19.6 – 20.2 0.0 0.0 -2.1 - -2.2 994 0.40

Concentrations of carbon dioxide up to 4.3% (ABH002) were recorded during the monitoring round. A maximum concentration of 1.0% methane was detected in ABH003A during the monitoring round. The peak flow rate recorded was -0.2 l/hr within ABH001 while negative flow rates up to -7.1 l/hr were recorded within ABH002.

No hydrogen sulphide or carbon monoxide was recorded within any of the monitoring installations.

5.3.7. Olfactory and Visual Indications of Contamination PID and visual staining were noted during the Site investigation as follows:

• PID readings between 0.1 to 7.7ppm in ABH001 within the sand and sandstone rock core (7.7ppm was recorded at 3.70 m) which also corresponded with identified black staining.

All the PID readings are shown on the logs within the GEL report in Appendix D.

5.3.8. Chemical Analysis The results of laboratory analysis carried out on samples of soil and groundwater are presented in full in Appendix E and discussed in Chapter 6.


28

6. Assessment of Risks 6.1. Introduction

Based on information obtained by this Phase 2 LQA, the preliminary (Phase 1) CSM as presented in Section 4 and PCLs have been investigated further. PCLs relating to human health, controlled waters and property have been subject to a GQRA described in this Chapter. This has comprised comparisons of detected concentrations in soil and water with a set of generic assessment criteria (GAC).

6.2. Tier 2 Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment A Tier 2 GQRA of identified receptors has been carried out using information from this Phase 2 Site Investigation.

6.2.1. Human Receptors

6.2.1.1. Selection of Generic Assessment Criteria Detailed guidance on human health risk assessment is available in Science Report (SR) 212, SR313, SR414 and the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Model15. Atkins GQRA for current and future human receptors has compared soil concentration data with GAC to identify whether a potential risk is posed by the contaminant concentrations detected. The GAC considered include:

• Soil Guideline Values: The Environment Agency has an ongoing programme of publication of Soil Guideline Values (SGVs). SGVs are trigger values for screening out low risk areas of land contamination. They give an indication of representative average concentrations of chemicals in soil below which the long-term health risks are likely to be minimal. SGVs have been published for arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel, selenium, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), phenols and dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCB substances for residential, allotments and commercial land-uses. The SGVs have been developed for a sandy loam soil with 6% soil organic matter (SOM) content; and

• Atkins’ Soil Screening Values: Atkins has derived a set of Soil-Screening Values (SSVs) to supplement the SGVs following the CLEA Model. Atkins’-derived SSVs are available for the CLEA standard land-uses for a wider range of typical indicator contaminants. SSVs have also been derived for a sandy soil with 1% SOM and for parks, playing fields and open spaces.

The SGVs/SSVs for a commercial land have been adopted to assess the current and future Site use.

SOM is defined as ‘the fraction of the soil composed of organic matter. It consists of plant and animal remains in varying stages of decomposition’. The presence of SOM is important in determining the fate and behaviour of a number of organic contaminants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and chlorinated solvents. The mobility of these contaminants decreases with increasing SOM. Generally, the greater the SOM content the greater the sorptive capacity of the soil. Based on soil results, the SOM for the Site has been calculated at 1.91% and the soil comprises sandy clay and/or sand with gravel and cobbles. Therefore, Atkins’-derived SSVs for 1% SOM and a sandy soil have been used as GAC in the first instance, together with the SGVs for arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel, selenium because these do not change with soil type and SOM.

12 Science Report SC050021/SR2, Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soil, Environment Agency, 2009 13 Science Report SC050021/SR3, Updated Technical Background to the CLEA Model, Environment Agency, 2009 14 Science Report SC050021/SR4, CLEA Model Software (Version) Handbook, Environment Agency, 2009 15 CLEA Software Version 1.04, Environment Agency, 2009


29

It should be noted that GAC may change as new policy and technical guidance, including toxicological data, are published by the Environment Agency and other authoritative sources.

The Site is on care and maintenance with only occasional visits by Costain and farm workers. The commercial/industrial land-use assumes a female receptor on-site for an 8-hour day, one hour of which will be spent outside. Therefore, the commercial/industrial land-use GAC are likely to be protective of current receptors and future receptors assuming commercial/industrial land-use resumes.

There are no GAC for off-site human receptors and as such, these cannot be assessed, although the GAC for the on-site human receptors may be protective of the off-site human receptors.

Construction/maintenance workers involved with Site development may have direct contact with soils, although this cannot be formally assessed through this GQRA because the mode and duration of exposure are different to the scenarios used in determining GAC.

6.2.1.2. Comparison of Soil Concentration Data with Generic Assessment Criteria Contaminants in the soil samples analysed were either below the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) or the commercial/industrial land-use GAC in the twenty six samples analysed.

Table 8. Soil Data Summary

Determinand SSV

Value (mg/kg)

Minimum Value

(mg/kg)

Maximum Value

(mg/kg) Location of

Maximum Value Exceedences

Naphthalene 8180 < 0.05 < 0.05 N/A None

Acenaphthylene 109000 <0.20 <0.20 N/A None

Acenaphthene

< 0.10 < 0.10 N/A None

Fluorene 66800 <0.20 <0.20 N/A None

Phenanthrene - < 0.20 < 0.20 N/A None

Anthracene 536000 < 0.10 < 0.10 N/A None

Fluoranthene 72300 < 0.20 < 0.20 N/A None

Pyrene 54200 < 0.20 < 0.20 N/A None

Benzo(a)anthracene 131 < 0.20 < 0.20 N/A None

Chrysene 14000 < 0.05 < 0.05 N/A None

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 142 < 0.10 < 0.10 N/A None

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1430 < 0.20 < 0.20 N/A None

Benzo(a)pyrene 14.3 < 0.10 < 0.10 N/A None

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 142 < 0.20 < 0.20 N/A None

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 14.3 <0.20 <0.20 N/A None

Benzo(ghi)perylene 1440 < 0.05 < 0.05 N/A None

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs - < 1.6 < 1.6 N/A None

Benzene 0.001 <1.00 <1.00 N/A None

Toluene 0.001 <1.00 <1.00 N/A None

Ethylbenzene 0.001 <1.00 <1.00 N/A None

p & m-xylene 0.001 <1.00 <1.00 N/A None

o-xylene 0.001 <1.00 <1.00 N/A None

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) 0.001 <1.00 <1.00 N/A None

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 1000000 <0.10 <0.10 N/A None

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC6 - EC8 1000000 <0.10 <0.10 N/A None

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC8 - EC10 167000 <0.10 130 N/A None

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 171000 < 1.0 1.1 ABH002 – 1.0 m bgl None

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC12 - EC16 171000 < 2.0 5.3 ABH002 – 1.0 m bgl None


30

Determinand SSV

Value (mg/kg)

Minimum Value

(mg/kg)

Maximum Value

(mg/kg) Location of

Maximum Value Exceedences

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 ≤ 1 kg/kg < 8.0 20 WS5A – 0.50 m bgl None

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 1000000 < 8.0 44 WS5A – 0.50 m bgl; None

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 13.1 <0.10 <0.10 N/A None

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC7 - EC8 414000 <0.10 <0.10 N/A None

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC8 - EC10 58600 <0.10 15 N/A None

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 68300 < 1.0 36 N/A None

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 68400 < 2.0 120 N/A None

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 28400 < 10.0 < 10.0 N/A None

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 28400 < 10.0 16 WS6 – 0.30 m bgl None

Tetraethyl Lead - < 0.01 < 0.01 N/A None

Tetramethyl Lead - < 0.01 < 0.01 N/A None

TPH fractions were reported above MDL in four samples. These concentrations were not linked to any observations noted during the ground investigation as detailed in section 5.3.7

When compared to the relevant screening criteria none of the reported concentrations of contaminants were reported to exceed the SSVs for a commercial land use.

Ten samples of suspected Made Ground were also submitted for asbestos screening. None of the samples returned a positive asbestos identification.

6.2.1.3. Comparison of Human Health Water Screening Values No contaminants analysed from the water samples exceeded the human health water vapour GAC values.

6.2.1.4. Vapours Soil vapour headspace (PID) readings were either below detection level or relatively low. PID readings of 0.1 to 7.7ppm in ABH001 were recorded within the sand and sandstone rock core (7.7ppm was recorded at 3.70 m) which also corresponded with identified black staining.

Seven TPH results were recorded above the respective laboratory MDL. Where detected, the detected TPH fractions were predominantly longer-chained with lower volatilities. Therefore, soil-derived vapours are considered unlikely to pose a potential vapour risk to current or future on-site or off-site humans.

6.2.1.5. Ground Gas One round of gas monitoring visit was undertaken on the 29th January 2013. Concentrations of methane of 1.0% (ABH003A) and carbon dioxide 4.3% (ABH002) was recorded during the monitoring round. The peak flow rate recorded was -0.2 l/hr within ABH001 while the highest negative flow rates up to -7.1 l/hr were recorded within ABH002. Negative flows indicate a flow moving from outside to inside the borehole.

No hydrogen sulphide or carbon monoxide was recorded within any of the monitoring installations.

These results have been assessed using the Modified Wilson & Card16 Risk Classification Gas Screening Value (GSV) to derive a characteristic situation (CS) based on one round of monitoring, therefore providing an indication of the site conditions. The Site CS for carbon dioxide and methane is CS1 which represents very low risk. CIRIA 665 recommends that consideration be given to increasing the CS classification if concentrations of methane are detected above 1% and carbon dioxide above 5%. In this case the Site is not affected by this and remains as CS1. These classifications are however based on only one round of monitoring. CIRIA C665 also recommends that ground gas monitoring should be undertaken during a variety of atmospheric conditions over a period of several months.

16 Assessing Risks posed by Hazardous Ground Gases into Buildings, Wilson and Card, CIRIA 665, 2007


31

The ground gas conditions identified at the Site are not considered to be related to the underlying geological conditions. Recorded concentrations are at a level where going forward it will not be necessary for ground gas to be considered a potential source of contamination to on-site receptors.

6.2.2. Controlled Waters Receptors The GQRA for controlled waters has comprised:

• comparison of detected concentrations in groundwater with the UK/EU Drinking Water Quality Standards (DWS) to assess the potential risk posed to and existing quality of the groundwater receptor; and

• comparison of detected concentrations in groundwater with Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for freshwater to assess the potential risk posed to the surface water receptors because migration in groundwater and discharge to surface water is a potential pathway.

6.2.2.1. Comparison of Groundwater Quality Data with Generic Assessment Criteria Comparison of the groundwater results with the UK DWS and EQS revealed no exceedances of the screening criteria. All three of the water samples results taken during the monitoring round fell below the detection limits of the analytical equipment used for the chemical analysis.

6.2.3. Property Receptors Current and future property receptors were identified based on Statutory Guidance 2006 as current and future buildings.

Visual observations, headspace (PID) testing and laboratory results indicate that VOCs are unlikely to be present in the soil and groundwater/present at concentrations which could pose a potential risk and soil- and water- derived vapours unlikely on this basis.

Methane and carbon dioxide were identified above the instrument detection limit during the one round of post drilling monitoring. Carbon dioxide was detected at a maximum level of 4.3% in ABH002. The maximum recorded flow rate was -0.2 l/hr within ABH001. This suggests that gas is not being generated and migrating out of the ground. No methane was detected above detection limits. However this is only based on one round of gas monitoring and further monitoring should be undertaken to ensure that the ground gas regime is fully understood.

These results equate to a Site classification of CS1 (very low risk) for carbon dioxide and methane using the Modified Wilson & Card Risk Classification based on one round of monitoring.

6.2.4. Asbestos in Buildings Atkins has not been provided with a copy of the Site asbestos register for review. It should be noted that for the purposes of this Phase 2 LQA, asbestos within Site structures and other contaminants in buildings is not considered to represent a land contamination issue and as such is beyond the scope of this report. However, the potential for asbestos to be present in soil is considered to represent a land contamination issue.


32

6.3. Risk Assessment Summary

6.3.1. Summary A GQRA of the PCLs identified at the Site has been carried out based on collection of empirical data from the Site Investigation and information gained during the combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 LQA process.

None of the contaminants analysed were all detected in soil at concentrations above the GAC for human receptors or for controlled water receptors. No ACM was identified in the soil samples analysed. Contaminates in the water samples analysed did not exceed Atkins commercial (or residential) WSV.

No LNAPL was detected and no contaminants were identified above the laboratory MDL in the groundwater samples analysed. The Site CS for carbon dioxide and methane was CS1 which represents very low risk. However, this is based on one round of monitoring only.

6.3.2. Risk Assessment An environmental risk assessment has been carried out as described in Chapter 4 and presented in Appendix D.

The Phase 2 Environmental Risk Assessment for the Site is summarised in Table 9. Sources, pathways and receptors reviewed in the assessment are as indicated on the provisional CSM presented as Figure 3 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-293).


33

Table 9. Land Quality Assessment Environmental Risk Assessment Summary Table

Source - Area Potential Contaminant

Potential Receptor

Potential Pathway

Associated Hazard

Potential Consequence

Likelihood (Probability) Of Contaminant Receptor Linkage

Potential Significance

1. Made Ground used in the construction of the Site.

2. Potential on-site leakages of hydrocarbons and other chemicals at the Site from pipework, tanks etc

3. Potential on-site spills of hydrocarbons and other chemicals at the Site from pipework, tanks etc

Hydrocarbons, organic contaminates and in soil and groundwater.

Humans on-site: Current/future occasional site staff and maintenance workers.

Dermal Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Health Risk Medium Unlikely Concentrations of contaminants in samples from all locations are below GAC values. The majority of Made Ground across the Site appears to be re-worked natural material. No evidence of spill stains or odours at surface.

Low Risk

Off-site residents, visitors, agricultural workers

Dermal Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Health Risk Medium

Low Concentrations of contaminants in samples from all locations are below GAC values. The majority of Made Ground across the Site appears to be re-worked natural material. No evidence of spill stains or odours at surface. The migration of potential contaminants off-site is considered unlikely.

Moderate/Low Risk

Livestock on-site. Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Contact

Health Risk Medium

Low Concentrations of contaminants in samples from all locations are below GAC values. The majority of Made Ground across the Site appears to be re-worked natural material. No evidence of spill stains or odours at surface. The migration of potential contaminants off-site is considered unlikely.

Moderate/Low Risk

Buildings and structures on-site.

Accumulation of potentially explosive vapours

Explosion Health Risk (in confined spaces)

Medium Low Soil vapour headspace readings were typically low across the Site; gas readings from one round of monitoring also indicate a very low risk.

Moderate/Low Risk

Buildings and structures off-site.

Accumulation of potentially explosive vapours

Explosion Health Risk (in confined spaces)

Medium Unlikely Soil vapour headspace readings were typically low across the Site; gas readings from one round of monitoring also indicate a very low risk.

Low Risk

Crops, livestock, flora and fauna and allotments off-site. Inhalation Health Risk Minor

Unlikely Concentrations of contaminants in samples from all locations are below GAC values. The majority of Made Ground across the Site appears to be re-worked natural material. No evidence of spill stains or odours at surface. The migration of potential contaminants off-site is considered unlikely.

Negligible Risk

On- and off-site surface waters.

Leaching and movement of spills of contaminants/ hydrocarbons from the unsaturated soil zone to groundwater.

Pollution of sensitive watercourse

Minor

Low Little sign of any historic spills at surface. No upper or perched ground water encountered across the Site. No concentrations exceeded EQS values and no evidence of odours or sheen in installations were noted in post GI monitoring round (mainly as deep water installations). Some minor staining and odours identified in two exploratory hole locations in upper 10 metres of bedrock. Drainage channels do not have water in them during the Site investigation, if discharge to River Mersey, it is some distance away and therefore it is unlikely that any significant concentrations of any potential contaminants from surface runoff will have a significant impact on the Mersey at point of discharge. The dock is likely to be clay lined and it is unlikely that minor concentrations of any potential contaminants from surface runoff will have a significant impact of surface water on or off-site.

Negligible Risk

Underlying aquifers/groundwater.

Discharge of contaminants in surface water run-off and laterally migrating groundwater.

Pollution of Potential Aquifer

Minor

Low Weathered sandstone/sand overlies solid bedrock which is shallow and a principal aquifer. No concentrations recorded in water samples taken exceeded DWS values (or indeed were above detection limits) and no evidence of odours or sheen in installations noted during the post GI monitoring round. It is therefore unlikely that any minor concentrations of any potential contaminants from the overlying Made Ground or the identified staining/odours noted during the ground investigation will have a significant impact on the underlying aquifer.

Negligible Risk

Site Wide Methane/Carbon Dioxide

Humans on-site: Current/future occasional site staff and maintenance workers. Future on-site workers and construction workers.

Inhalation Health Risk Severe Unlikely The Site CS for methane and carbon dioxide is CS1 (very low risk). No potential ground gas source material identified during site investigation. However, this is based on one round of monitoring.

Moderate/Low Risk

Humans off-site: Current/future farm workers and residents/workers in surrounding area.

Inhalation Health Risk Severe Unlikely The Site CS for methane and carbon dioxide is CS1 (very low risk). No potential ground gas source material identified during site investigation. However, this is based on one round of monitoring.

Moderate/Low Risk

Property on-site Former buildings / infrastructure, site offices, store rooms and pump houses (currently not in use).

Accumulation and explosion (methane only)

Damage to buildings Severe

Unlikely The Site CS for methane and carbon dioxide is CS1 (very low risk). No potential ground gas source material identified during site investigation. However, this is based on one round of monitoring.

Moderate/Low Risk

Property off-site Buildings/infrastructure particularly residential buildings to the north and surrounding commercial properties.

Accumulation and explosion (methane only)

Damage to buildings Severe

Unlikely The Site CS for methane and carbon dioxide is CS1 (very low risk). No potential ground gas source material identified during site investigation. However, this is based on one round of monitoring.

Moderate/Low Risk


7. Conclusions 7.1. Overall Land Quality

The concentrations of all of the contaminants targeted in soil and groundwater did not exceed any of their respective GAC/DWS/EQS/WSV. No asbestos was identified within the samples submitted for asbestos screening.

There was no evidence for soil- and water-derived vapours (volatile organic compounds in soil and groundwater which can volatilise and migrate to the surface). Slightly elevated PID readings were noted in both ABH001 and ABH003 which corresponded to identify potential hydrocarbon odours and sheen within the rock core (see section 6.2.1.3 for details).

A preliminary waste classification assessment carried out on the soil samples analysed indicates that none of the other soil samples analysed would be classified as hazardous waste. Should soil require off-Site disposal as part of any redevelopment further chemical testing is likely be required by the landfill operator. It is therefore recommended that the soil should be incorporated into any plans for redevelopment.

No evidence of soil vapours was noted in samples taken at the Site. Therefore vapours are not considered to pose a risk of significant harm to current and future Site users. However it is noted that vapour monitoring from inside the below ground structures and confined spaces on-site were not undertaken and there may be some risk associated with them,

Elevated levels of carbon dioxide up to 4.3% and methane of 1% were noted during the monitoring round undertaken following the completion of the ground investigation. All flows taken at the Site were negatives and the peak flow was -0.2l/hr. Methane and carbon dioxide are therefore considered to pose a low risk to both current (commercial)/future (residential) on-site human receptors and to both current/future on-site property (buildings/infrastructure) receptors.

It should be noted that livestock has been identified as a potential on-site property receptor in the PCSM but it has not been possible to assess these receptors further by GQRA.

Given the Sites former use as a fuel farm and the health and safety protocols already put in place by the current Site operators Costain, the risk posed by contamination at the Site is considered to be low and unlikely to require any immediate action. Should another contractor undertake works on the Site or become responsible for the Site then appropriate PPE including gas monitors should be worn when undertaking work inside the buried structures/confined spaces.

Based on the results of the investigation, the risk to Site receptors from contaminants on the Site has been assessed as low.

7.2. Environmental Risks The environmental risk assessment is summarised below:

• a low risk has been identified to current/future on-site human receptors from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to current/future off-site human receptors from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to livestock on-site;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to buildings and structures on-site;

• a low risk has been identified to buildings and structures off-site;

• a negligible risk has been identified to crops, livestock, flora and fauna and allotments off-site;

• a negligible risk has been identified to surface water from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a negligible risk has been identified to groundwater from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to current/future on-site human receptors from the methane/carbon dioxide detected;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to current/future off-site human receptors from the methane/carbon dioxide detected; and;

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to current on-site property (buildings/infrastructure) from the methane detected.

• a moderate/low risk has been identified to current off-site property (buildings/infrastructure) from the methane detected.

However, assessment of ground gas and groundwater risks has been based on one round of monitoring only.

It should be noted that on-site construction/maintenance workers may be in direct contact with contaminants because they may be required to excavate and handle soil. The associated risk has been classed as Moderate, but robust risk assessment is required to identify appropriate personnel protective equipment and suitable working methods to protect these receptors, in accordance with current guidance and recommended good working practices, to mitigate the risk and reduce to low/negligible.

In addition, livestock has been identified as a potential on-site property receptor in the preliminary CSM but it has not been possible to assess these receptors further by GQRA.

7.3. Suitability of Investigated Areas for Continued Use Based on the Combined Phase 1/2 LQA carried out, the Site is considered suitable for continued commercial/industrial use.

The investigation was carried out to assess land quality and the condition of the buildings or contamination within the buildings was not part of that assessment. The potential for release of contamination during building demolition including the removal of tanks has not been considered and appropriate management is required if the buildings/infrastructure are demolished.

In addition, given the inherent limitations of any ground investigation, localised hotspots of contamination may exist between exploratory hole locations.

FIGURES

A324.06.2013

CARLETT PARK PSD

DEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANISATION

5106238-DWG-151

FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION PLAN

1 25000 NORTH F

CENTRE MN/A

06/02/13 15/02/13 -

5106238-DWG-151 -

For Information - Centre M 15/02/13

Report Issue

- Centre M 09/13

Site

5106238-DWG-152

FIGURE 2

SITE LAYOUT AND POTENTIAL SOURCE PLAN

1 1000 NORTH F

NORTH CN/A

21/02/13 21/02/13 -

5106238-DWG-152 0

A319/09/13

CARLETT PARK PSD



Report Issue

- Centre M 09/13

Key:

Site Boundary

Features:

A Pipeline Inspection/Valve Pit (Source 4)

B Pipeline Valve Pit (Go-Devil Pit) (Source 3)

C Tank (Source 2)

D 3 x Underground Storage Tanks (Source 2)

E Main Storage Tanks (3 No.) (Source 2)

G

I Substation

F Site Office (Derelict)

A

B

C

D

E

G

H

I

F

Vent Stack for Underground

Pumphouse

Vent Structures for Underground Diesel

Generators

H

5106238-DWG-153

FIGURE 3: PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

Not to Scale NORTH F

NORTH CN/A

19/09/13 19/09/13 -

5106238-DWG-153 -

A319.09.2013

CARTLETT PARK PSD


Report Issue- Centre M 09/13

5106238-DWG-154

FIGURE 4

EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN

1 1000 NORTH F

NORTH CN/A

14/02/13 14/02/13 -

5106238-DWG-154 0

A319/09/13

CARLETT PARK PSD



Report Issue

- Centre M 09/13

Location Easting Northing Elevation(m AOD)

ABH001 336456.865 380986.896 31.097ABH002 336290.361 380923.717 33.298ABH003 336423.010 380839.950 31.001ABH03A 336423.010 380841.170 31.001AWS01 336348.551 380926.125 32.557AWS02 336353.015 380910.561 32.393AWS03 336343.774 380901.119 32.361AWS04 336331.104 380905.786 32.547

AWS05A 336415.669 380911.652 31.303AWS06 336401.071 380870.078 31.050AWS07 336412.965 380838.326 30.731AWS08 336425.447 380800.012 30.292

Key:

Borehole locations

Window sample locations

Fugro Borehole, 1992

Site Boundary

Coordinates:

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Order Details

Site DetailsCartlett Park PSD, CH62 0AP

Order Number:Customer Ref:National Grid Reference:Slice:Site Area (Ha):Search Buffer (m):

41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.71100

Tel:Fax:Web:

0844 844 99520844 844 9951www.envirocheck.co.uk

Page 1 of 13A Landmark Information Group Service v47.0 24-Aug-2012

Historical Map - Segment A13

Ordnance Survey County Series and Ordnance Survey Plan 1:2,500

Ordnance Survey Plan, Additional SIMs andSupply of Unpublished Survey Information

1:2,500 and 1:1,250

Large-Scale National Grid Data 1:2,500 and 1:1,250

Historical Mapping Legends

Historical Mapping & Photography included:

CheshireCheshireCheshireCheshireOrdnance Survey PlanOrdnance Survey PlanOrdnance Survey PlanSupply of Unpublished Survey InformationAdditional SIMsAdditional SIMsAdditional SIMsLarge-Scale National Grid Data

1:2,5001:2,5001:2,5001:2,5001:2,5001:1,2501:1,2501:1,2501:1,2501:1,2501:1,2501:1,250

187218961911193619561956197119751981 - 1989198419881993

23456789

10111213

Mapping Type Scale Date Pg

Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.71100

Tel:Fax:Web:



CheshirePublished 1872Source map scale - 1:2,500The historical maps shown were reproduced from maps predominantly held at the scale adopted for England, Wales and Scotland in the 1840`s. In 1854 the 1:2,500 scale was adopted for mapping urban areas and by 1896 it covered the whole of what were considered to be the cultivated parts of GreatBritain. The published date given below is often some years later than the surveyed date. Before 1938, all OS maps were based on the Cassini Projection, with independent surveys of a single county or group of counties, giving rise to significant inaccuracies in outlying areas.


Map Name(s) and Date(s)

Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.71100

Tel:Fax:Web:






Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.71100

Tel:Fax:Web:



Ordnance Survey PlanPublished 1956Source map scale - 1:2,500The historical maps shown were reproduced from maps predominantly held at the scale adopted for England, Wales and Scotland in the 1840`s. In 1854 the 1:2,500 scale was adopted for mapping urban areas and by 1896 it covered the whole of what were considered to be the cultivated parts of GreatBritain. The published date given below is often some years later than the surveyed date. Before 1938, all OS maps were based on the Cassini Projection, with independent surveys of a single county or group of counties, giving rise to significant inaccuracies in outlying areas.



Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.71100

Tel:Fax:Web:






Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.71100

Tel:Fax:Web:



Supply of Unpublished Survey InformationPublished 1975Source map scale - 1:1,250SUSI maps (Supply of Unpublished Survey Information) were produced between 1972 and 1977, mainly for internal use at Ordnance Survey. These were more of a `work-in-progress' plan as they showed updates of individual areas on a map. These maps were unpublished, and they do not represent a single moment in time. They were produced at both 1:2,500 and 1:1,250 scales.



Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.71100

Tel:Fax:Web:



Additional SIMsPublished 1981 - 1989Source map scale - 1:1,250The SIM cards (Ordnance Survey's `Survey of Information on Microfilm') are further, minor editions of mapping which were produced and published in between the main editions as an area was updated. They date from 1947 to 1994, and contain detailed information on buildings, roads and land-use. These maps were produced at both 1:2,500 and 1:1,250 scales.



Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.71100

Tel:Fax:Web:



Additional SIMsPublished 1984Source map scale - 1:1,250The SIM cards (Ordnance Survey's `Survey of Information on Microfilm') are further, minor editions of mapping which were produced and published in between the main editions as an area was updated. They date from 1947 to 1994, and contain detailed information on buildings, roads and land-use. These maps were produced at both 1:2,500 and 1:1,250 scales.



Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.71100

Tel:Fax:Web:



Additional SIMsPublished 1988Source map scale - 1:1,250The SIM cards (Ordnance Survey's `Survey of Information on Microfilm') are further, minor editions of mapping which were produced and published in between the main editions as an area was updated. They date from 1947 to 1994, and contain detailed information on buildings, roads and land-use. These maps were produced at both 1:2,500 and 1:1,250 scales.



Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.71100

Tel:Fax:Web:



Large-Scale National Grid DataPublished 1993Source map scale - 1:1,250'Large Scale National Grid Data' superseded SIM cards (Ordnance Survey's 'Survey of Information on Microfilm') in 1992, and continued to be produced until 1999. These maps were the fore-runners of digital mapping and so provide detailed information on houses and roads, but tend to show less topographic features such as vegetation. These maps were produced at both 1:2,500 and 1:1,250 scales.



Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.711000

Tel:Fax:Web:



Historical Map - Slice A

Ordnance Survey County Series 1:10,560 Ordnance Survey Plan 1:10,000 1:10,000 Raster Mapping

Historical Mapping Legends


Lancashire And FurnessFlintshireCheshireLancashire And FurnessLancashire And FurnessCheshireCheshireCheshireLancashire And FurnessLancashire And FurnessCheshireOrdnance Survey PlanOrdnance Survey PlanLiverpoolOrdnance Survey PlanOrdnance Survey Plan10K Raster Mapping10K Raster Mapping

1:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,000

1850187818811894189618991912191219131929193819541965197419761991 - 199220062012

3456789

1011121314151617181920


Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.711000

Tel:Fax:Web:



Russian Map - Slice A

1:5,000 and 1:10,000 mapping 1:25,000 mapping

Russian Military Mapping Legends


Lancashire And FurnessFlintshireCheshireLancashire And FurnessLancashire And FurnessCheshireCheshireCheshireLancashire And FurnessLancashire And FurnessCheshireOrdnance Survey PlanOrdnance Survey PlanLiverpoolOrdnance Survey PlanOrdnance Survey Plan10K Raster Mapping10K Raster Mapping

1:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,000

1850187818811894189618991912191219131929193819541965197419761991 - 199220062012

3456789

1011121314151617181920


Key to Numbers on Mapping

Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.711000

Tel:Fax:Web:



Lancashire And FurnessPublished 1850Source map scale - 1:10,560The historical maps shown were reproduced from maps predominantly held at the scale adopted for England, Wales and Scotland in the 1840`s. In 1854 the 1:2,500 scale was adopted for mapping urban areas; these maps were used to update the 1:10,560 maps. The published date given therefore is often some years later than the surveyed date. Before 1938, all OS maps were based on the Cassini Projection, with independent surveys of a single county or group of counties, giving rise to significant inaccuracies in outlying areas. In the late 1940`s, a Provisional Edition was produced, which updated the 1:10,560 mapping from a number of sources. The maps appear unfinished - with all military camps and other strategic sites removed. These maps were initially overprinted with the National Grid. In 1970, the first 1:10,000 maps were produced using the Transverse Mercator Projection. Therevision process continued until recently, with new editions appearing every 10 years or so for urban areas.



Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.711000

Tel:Fax:Web:



FlintshirePublished 1878Source map scale - 1:10,560The historical maps shown were reproduced from maps predominantly held at the scale adopted for England, Wales and Scotland in the 1840`s. In 1854 the 1:2,500 scale was adopted for mapping urban areas; these maps were used to update the 1:10,560 maps. The published date given therefore is often some years later than the surveyed date. Before 1938, all OS maps were based on the Cassini Projection, with independent surveys of a single county or group of counties, giving rise to significant inaccuracies in outlying areas. In the late 1940`s, a Provisional Edition was produced, which updated the 1:10,560 mapping from a number of sources. The maps appear unfinished - with all military camps and other strategic sites removed. These maps were initially overprinted with the National Grid. In 1970, the first 1:10,000 maps were produced using the Transverse Mercator Projection. Therevision process continued until recently, with new editions appearing every 10 years or so for urban areas.



Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.711000

Tel:Fax:Web:



CheshirePublished 1881Source map scale - 1:10,560The historical maps shown were reproduced from maps predominantly held at the scale adopted for England, Wales and Scotland in the 1840`s. In 1854 the 1:2,500 scale was adopted for mapping urban areas; these maps were used to update the 1:10,560 maps. The published date given therefore is often some years later than the surveyed date. Before 1938, all OS maps were based on the Cassini Projection, with independent surveys of a single county or group of counties, giving rise to significant inaccuracies in outlying areas. In the late 1940`s, a Provisional Edition was produced, which updated the 1:10,560 mapping from a number of sources. The maps appear unfinished - with all military camps and other strategic sites removed. These maps were initially overprinted with the National Grid. In 1970, the first 1:10,000 maps were produced using the Transverse Mercator Projection. Therevision process continued until recently, with new editions appearing every 10 years or so for urban areas.



Order Details



41014423_1_15106238336360, 380870A4.711000

Tel:Fax:Web:



Lancashire And FurnessPublished 1894Source map scale - 1:10,560The historical maps shown were reproduced from maps predominantly held at the scale adopted for England, Wales and Scotland in the 1840`s. In 1854 the 1:2,500 scale was adopted for mapping urban areas; these maps were used to update the 1:10,560 maps. The published date given therefore is often some years later than the surveyed date. Before 1938, all OS maps were based on the Cassini Projection, with independent surveys of a single county or group of counties, giving rise to significant inaccuracies in outlying areas. In the late 1940`s, a Provisional Edition was produced, which updated the 1:10,560 mapping from a number of sources. The maps appear unfinished - with all military camps and other strategic sites removed. These maps were initially overprinted with the National Grid. In 1970, the first 1:10,000 maps were produced using the Transverse Mercator Projection. Therevision process continued until recently, with new editions appearing every 10 years or so for urban areas.



Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land Quality ......Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land...

Documents

Transcript of Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land Quality ......Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land...