Environmental Risk Assessment - CrawleyEnvironmental Risk Assessment 1 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx...

Environmental Risk Assessment

Proposed Cemetery, Pease Pottage

October 2014

Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited

Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street, London SE1 9DG, www.watermangroup.com


Proposed Cemetery, Pease Pottage

Client Name: Crawley Borough Council Document Reference: EED14171-101-R-2-1-8-DM Project Number: EED14171-101

Our Markets

Property & Buildings Transport & Infrastructure Energy & Utilities Environment

Quality Assurance – Approval Status This document has been prepared and checked in accordance with Waterman Group’s IMS (BS EN ISO 9001: 2008, BS EN ISO 14001: 2004 and BS OHSAS 18001:2007))

Issue Date Prepared by Checked by Approved by 2-1-8 October2014 Freddie Alcock Kirsten Hagenhoff Paul Shelley

Comments

Disclaimer This report has been prepared by Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Ltd, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporation of our General Terms and Condition of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to us by agreement with the client.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at its own risk.


Contents EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

N:\Projects\EED14171\101 - Pease Pottage\Reports\Working Drafts\EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Content Executive Summary 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Regulatory Context .......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Constraints ....................................................................................................................... 2

2. Procedures .................................................................................................................................. 4 3. Outline Conceptual Model ......................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Site Setting ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Summary of Site History .................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Anticipated Ground Conditions ........................................................................................ 5 3.4 Anticipated Hydrogeological and Hydrological Conditions .............................................. 5

3.4.1 Surface Waters ......................................................................................................... 5 3.4.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................. 5

3.5 Potentially Significant Pollution Linkages ........................................................................ 6 4. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Design of Investigation ..................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Quality Control ...............................................................................................................10 4.3 Health and Safety...........................................................................................................10

5. Site Activities ............................................................................................................................11

5.1 Soil Sampling .................................................................................................................11 5.2 Monitoring Wells .............................................................................................................11 5.3 Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................................................11 5.4 Ground Gas Monitoring ..................................................................................................12

6. Results .......................................................................................................................................13

6.1 Geological Strata ............................................................................................................13 6.2 Underground Structures and Obstructions ....................................................................13 6.3 Chemical Analysis ..........................................................................................................13 6.4 Hydrogeological Testing ................................................................................................13 6.5 Controlled Waters ..........................................................................................................13 6.6 Ground Gas ....................................................................................................................14

7. Establishing Soil Groundwater and Ground Gas conditions ..............................................15 7.1 Baseline Concentrations of Soil Contaminants ..............................................................15 7.2 Baseline Concentrations of Groundwater Contaminants ...............................................16 7.3 Baseline Ground Gas Concentrations ...........................................................................16

8. Detailed Quantitative Risks Assessment ...............................................................................17 8.2 Controlled Water Receptors ...........................................................................................18

8.2.1 Determining Cemetery Contaminant Loading ........................................................19 9. Assessment of Risk to Groundwater from Leachate ............................................................20

9.1 Using RTM to Assess Down Gradient Impact of Leachate............................................20 9.1.1 Output of the RTM Model .......................................................................................21 9.1.2 Conservatism in the RTM Model ............................................................................22

9.2 Formaldehyde ................................................................................................................22 9.3 Assessment of Risk from Biological Pathogens ............................................................22 9.4 Assessment of Risk from Ground Gas...........................................................................23

10. Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................24


Contents EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx


11. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................25

Tables Table 1: Site geology ..................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Summary of hydrogeological properties of the main geological strata ............................ 6 Table 3: Potentially significant pollutant linkages .......................................................................... 7 Table 4: Ground investigation strategy .......................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Summary of fieldwork activities ......................................................................................11 Table 6: Geological strata encountered .......................................................................................13 Table 7: Monitored Groundwater Depth .......................................................................................14 Table 8: Baseline Concentrations of soil contaminants ...............................................................15 Table 9: Baseline Concentrations of Groundwater ......................................................................16 Table 10: Baseline Ground Gas Concentrations ...........................................................................16 Table 11: Moisture Content, bulk density and water filled porosity................................................17 Table 12: Results of permeability testing .......................................................................................18 Table 13: Cemetery Parameters ....................................................................................................19 Table 14: RTM Inputs .....................................................................................................................21

Appendices Appendix A Site Plans Appendix B Site Investigation Logs Appendix C Results Appendix D Risk Rating Matrix Appendix E Environmental Receptors Appendix F Generic Assessment Criteria for Contorlled Waters Appendix G RTM Sheets


Executive Summary EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Executive Summary

Objectives

Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited (“Waterman”) was instructed by Crawley Borough Council (CBC) to undertake an Environmental Risk Assessment for a proposed cemetery at Pease Pottage (hereafter termed “the Site”). This included an intrusive site investigation. Due to the presence of ancient woodland the intrusive aspect of the investigation was limited to the central portion of the Site.

Site Setting

Current Use The Site comprises a large area of grass surrounded by woodland. There are two buildings located at the Site in the south-eastern corner, which are used for Scout activities. Two streams are present on the Site, located along the eastern and western site boundaries.

History

The Site has been undeveloped woodland or open grass land since 1879. In the 1980’s the Site was used as a scout camp. Surrounding land also comprised woodland and open grassland. Several clay, sand and gravel pits surrounded the site in the 1899 these were no longer marked on the 1912 ordnance survey map. By the 1980’s large scale development has occurred to the north of the Site.

Ground Conditions

The Upper Tunbridge Wells Formation – Mudstone is present underlying topsoil, this is subsequently underlain by The Upper Tunbridge Wells Formation – Mudstone and Sandstone. Made ground was not encountered on Site during the investigation.

Controlled Waters

The streams on the eastern and western boundary of the Site flow towards the north. These discharge in to a stream which feeds an attenuation pond located to the north of the Site. The Upper Tunbridge Wells Formations – Mudstone is classed as an Unproductive strata while The Upper Tunbridge Wells Formation – Mudstone and Sandstone is classed as a Secondary Aquifer. Groundwater depths on site were measured at between 6 to 7m below ground level. Groundwater flows towards the north east.

Ground Gas Regime

Ground gas monitoring indicated that natural soils on site were generating concentrations of 0.5 to 4.7% with associated depleted oxygen concentrations. Methane was not detected above the limit of detection.

Conceptual Model Potential pollutant linkages included the following:

impact of the cemetery on groundwater underlying the site and receiving surface waters

the impact of ground gas as a result of the decomposition process

risk to cemetery employees

Conclusions Risks to identified receptors are considered to be low. The characteristics of the subsurface conditions combined with the low contaminant loading result in a low risk to groundwater, similarly the risk posed by ground gas is considered low. The risk to site employees will be mitigated by adequate PPE and specific working procedures

Recommendations Staff working at the Site should be provided with adequate site specific PPE and follow site specific procedures in particular when excavating new graves or “reoperners” and when and if groundwater or perched water is encountered.

A standoff 30m should be maintained between burials and the drainage ditches.

As additional phases of the cemetery are brought in to use away from the currently investigated area, additional confirmatory boreholes should be undertaken to confirm ground conditions are consistent with the current investigation and corresponding risk assessment.

Environmental Risk Assessment 1

EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

1. Introduction

1.1 Objectives

Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited (“Waterman”) was instructed by Crawley Borough Council (CBC) to undertake an Environmental Risk Assessment for a proposed cemetery at Pease Pottage (hereafter termed “the Site”).

This assessment follows the Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment prepared by Waterman in May 2014 (report ref. EED14171-100-R-1-1-3-OR) that covered a larger area of land that includes the proposed cemetery Site.

1.2 Regulatory Context

The Site is currently undeveloped and comprises a cleared area of land surrounded by established woodland.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out Government planning policy for England and how this is expected to be applied to development. Paragraphs 120 to 122 of Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment of the NPPF relate to contaminated land matters and state the following:

“To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

Planning policies and decisions should ensure that:

the site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation;

after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and

Adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented.

In doing so, local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.”

In order to assess the contamination status of the Site, with respect to the proposed end use, it is necessary to assess whether the Site could potentially be classified as “Contaminated Land”, as defined in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance 2012. This is assessed by the identification and assessment of potential pollutant linkages. The linkage between the potential sources and potential receptors identified needs to be established and evaluated.

To fall within this definition, it is necessary that, as a result of the condition of the land, substances may be present in, on or under the land such that:


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or

b) significant pollution of controlled waters is being caused, or there is significant possibility of such pollution being caused.

It should be noted that DEFRA has advised (Ref. Section 4, DEFRA Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance 2012) Local Authorities that land should not be designated as “Contaminated Land” where:

a) the relevant substance(s) are already present in controlled waters;

b) entry into controlled waters of the substance(s) from land has ceased; and

c) it is not likely that that further entry will take place.

These exclusions do not necessarily preclude regulatory action under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, which make it a criminal offence to cause or knowingly permit a water discharge of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to controlled waters. In England and Wales, under The Water Resources Act 1991 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, a works notice may be served by the regulator requiring appropriate investigation and clean-up.

The Environment Agency (EA) guidance document “Assessing the Groundwater Pollution Potential of Cemetery Developments April 2004” (R&D Technical Report P2231) and EA briefing note CE65 were also considered as part of this assessment. These document aims to inform operators and local authorities on how to assess the potential risks to groundwater from new and existing cemetery development. These documents also provide information on the contaminant types and release rates from cemeteries. The documents promote a tiered approach to the potential impact of the cemetery to identified receptors.

Tier 1 comprises a desktop assessment where a preliminary site assessment take place. The details of the Tier 1 risk assessment are reported in Waterman Report EED14171-100.R.1.1.3.OR. A Tier 2 assessment is required when risks identified at the Tier 1 stage have not been clearly defined. A Tier 2 assessment comprises a more detailed assessment of the site including intrusive investigation. Tier 3 assessment is required where the risk remains undefined and for larger sites. This document represents a Tier 2 assessment with some aspect of a Tier 3 assessment included. The guidance also promotes the establishment of a baseline with respect to contaminants on site prior to its use as a cemetery. Current base line contaminants have been established as part of this assessment.

1.3 Constraints

The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the scope agreed between Waterman and CBC.

The benefit of this report is made to CBC.

The information contained in this report is based on the findings of the Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment (Report Ref. EED14171-100-R-1-1-3-OR), observations made on site, exploratory hole records, laboratory test results, groundwater monitoring and ground gas monitoring.

Constraints to the investigation include:

The location of woodland, services and dense vegetation, as well as the findings of an ecological walkover, placed constraints on the locations of boreholes. Therefore the intrusive investigation works were confined to the central portion of the Site.

The ground conditions reported relate only to the point of excavation and do not necessarily guarantee a continuation of the ground conditions throughout the non-inspected area of the Site. Whilst such exploratory holes would usually provide a reasonable indication as to the general ground conditions, these cannot be determined with complete certainty.


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Waterman has endeavoured to assess all information provided to them during this investigation, but makes no guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this information.

The scope of this investigation does not include an assessment for the presence of asbestos containing materials within or below buildings or in the ground at the Site.

The conclusions resulting from this study are not necessarily indicative of future conditions or operating practices at or adjacent to the site.


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

2. Procedures

This assessment has been undertaken in general accordance with the Model Procedures for Management of Land Contamination (Contaminated Land Report 11 – Environment Agency, September 2004) and the EA document Assessing the Groundwater Pollution Potential of Cemetery Development, April 2004.

The report includes the following:

outline Conceptual Model for the Site from Tier 1 Assessment;

results of Intrusive Ground Investigation;

confirmation of current baseline contaminant concentrations for soil and groundwater;

formulation of an up to date Conceptual Model for the Site;

assessment of risk associated with proposed cemetery in relation the updated conceptual site model based on a burial rate of 50 to 90 bodies per year for a duration of 50 years;

identification of potentially unacceptable risks; and

recommendations for further action.

This report forms a decision record for the pollutant linkages identified, assessment criteria used to determine risks, the unacceptable risks identified and the proposed next steps in relation to the site. The report also provides an explanation of the refinement of the outline conceptual model following the ground investigation, the selection of criteria and assumptions, the evaluation of potential risks and the basis for the decision on what happens next.


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

3. Outline Conceptual Model

The outline conceptual model of the Site developed in the Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment (EED14171-101-R-1-1-3-OR, May 2014) is reproduced below.

3.1 Site Setting

The Site comprises a large area of grass surrounded by woodland. There are two buildings located at the Site in the south-eastern corner, which are understood to be used for scout activities. Two streams are present on the Site. These are located along the eastern and western site boundaries and flow in northerly direction.

A site location plan and site layout plan are presented in Appendix A.

3.2 Summary of Site History

The Site has been undeveloped woodland or open grass land since 1879. In the 1980’s the Site was used as a scout camp. Surrounding land also comprised woodland and open grassland. Several clay, sand and gravel pits surrounded the site in the 1899 these were no longer marked on the 1912 ordnance survey map. By the 1980’s large scale development has occurred to the north of the Site.

3.3 Anticipated Ground Conditions

Table 1: Site geology Stratum Area Covered BGS Description

Upper Tunbridge Wells Formation - Mudstone

Partial areas of the Site.

Thinly bedded silty mudstones and siltstones are laterally persistent over long distances.

Upper Tunbridge Wells Formation - Mudstone & Sandstone

Partial areas of the Site.

Thinly bedded silty mudstones, siltstones, silty sandstones and fine-grained sandstones are laterally persistent over long distances. Sandstones, which form prominent scarp and dip slope features, are typically fine-grained and quartzose, weathering to a pale yellowish grey or brown colour.

3.4 Anticipated Hydrogeological and Hydrological Conditions

3.4.1 Surface Waters Two drainage ditches are present on the Site. These are located adjacent to the eastern and western boundaries and flow in northerly direction. Both issue to a larger stream which subsequently feeds an attenuation pond located approximately 900m to the north east of the Site. The attenuation pond discharges to the Broadfield Brook, which flows in a northerly direction.

There are no recorded surface water abstractions within a 1km radius of the Site.

According to the EA’s indicative flooding data, the Site is not located in an area of fluvial flooding/on a flood plain. There are no recorded flood defences in the area.

3.4.2 Groundwater According to the EA Groundwater Vulnerability Map, (Sheet 46, East Sussex), the geological deposits underlying the Site are classified as per Table 2 below:


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Table 2: Summary of hydrogeological properties of the main geological strata Stratum EA Classification Hydrogeological Significance

Upper Tunbridge Wells Formation - Mudstone Unproductive Strata Contains insignificant quantities of vertically or

laterally extensive groundwater.

Upper Tunbridge Wells Formation - Mudstone & Sandstone

Secondary A Aquifer May be important in supporting local abstractions or in providing base flow to rivers and streams.

The Site is not located within a groundwater Source Protection Zone.

Based on available information, it is likely that groundwater flow will be in a northerly direction.

There are no recorded groundwater abstractions within a 500m radius of the site. There is one recorded Environmental Permit within a 500m radius, pertaining to sewage discharge into land via a soakaway and located 100m east of the Site.

3.5 Potentially Significant Pollution Linkages

In consideration of the proposed use of Site as a cemetery the following potential pollutant linkages were identified: Workers (gravediggers) may come into direct contact with potentially contaminated shallow soils as a

result of burials performed on site;

Migration of contaminants from burials performed on site entering underlying groundwater via migration through the soil; and

Potential ground gas migration from the Site.

Potentially significant linkages between contamination hazard sources and relevant receptors are summarised in Table 3


7 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Table 3: Potentially significant pollutant linkages

Receptor Potential Sources Pathways Risk Justification / Mitigation

Human Health

Cemetery Employees

Potential contaminants present soils on-Site and ground gas accumulating in excavations

Direct contact, ingestion and inhalation. Low

The Site has never been developed in its history and no potential contaminative land uses have been identified. Employees should be provided with adequate personal protective equipment and employ good hygiene practices when working on site. Site employees should work in line with Confined Spaces Regulations 2012.

Future Off-site Residents/Users

Ground gas relating to the proposed use as a Cemetery

.

Migration through granular deposits and accumulation in internal spaces, inhalation and risk of explosion.

Medium Ground gas has the potential to build up in confined spaces and any overlying buildings. The quantum, depth and duration of the burials has a significant effect on the potential generation volumes.

Property

Off-Site Structures Ground gas relating to the proposed use as a Cemetery

Direct Contact Medium Ground gas has the potential to build up in confined spaces and any overlying buildings. The quantum, depth and duration of the burials has a significant effect on the potential generation volumes.

Controlled Waters

Surface water bodies

Contaminants relating to the proposed use as a Cemetery

Vertical and lateral migration. High

Under EA guidance, a 30m standoff form a watercourses is recommended.

The intrusive investigation should confirm the presence of a groundwater body beneath the Site and, if so, whether this is in hydraulic continuity with down gradient streams.

The mudstone on areas of the Site may afford the surface and groundwater receptors protection against the lateral migration of contaminants.


8 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Receptor Potential Sources Pathways Risk Justification / Mitigation

Secondary aquifer underlying the site

Contaminants relating to the proposed use as a Cemetery

Vertical and lateral migration. High

The Site is not located in a groundwater SPZ. The intrusive investigation will confirm the hydrogeological site conditions and presence or absence of groundwater. Where a groundwater body is present, there is the potential for contaminants, arising from burials, to impact groundwater via vertical migration. The presence of mudstone may afford the aquifer protection against the lateral migration of contaminants. .


9 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

4. Methodology

The objectives of the investigation are as follows;

establish a baseline for the contaminants in the underlying soil and groundwater;

characterise the ground conditions; and

assess pathways for the migration of contaminants from the Site when in use as a cemetery.

4.1 Design of Investigation

The intrusive investigation was undertaken in general accordance with Eurocode 7, the Code of Practice for Site Investigation BS 5930 (1999) and the Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites and its Investigation BS 10175 (2001).

The Environment Agency (EA) guidance document “Assessing the Groundwater Pollution Potential of Cemetery Developments April 2004” (R&D Technical Report P2231) and EA briefing note CE65 were also considered as part of this assessment.

The design of this investigation was based upon the findings of PERA and the proposed end use of the site including associated guidance.

The scope of the works included the following:

4No. rotary boreholes drilled to approximately 10 to 11m below ground surface (bgs), collection ;

Collection of soil samples;

4No. falling head tests at depth of 3.5 to 5.5m and 1No soakaway test at a depth of between 0.5 and 1.0m;

Installation of boreholes to facilitate the monitoring of gas concentrations and groundwater levels and the collection of groundwater samples,

Undertake 3 ground gas and groundwater monitoring visits including collection of 2 sets of groundwater samples from installed boreholes

Appropriate contamination analysis of environmental samples to establish current baseline contaminants conditions; and

Ground gas monitoring to assess current baseline conditions.

Strategy for Selection of Exploratory Hole Locations

Sampling locations were carefully selected in order to establish a baseline for contaminants and characterise the hydrogeology of the site.

A summary of the investigation locations and features investigated is presented in Table 4: Ground investigation strategy

Table 4: Ground investigation strategy

Exploratory hole Target Gas and Groundwater Installation

Hydrogeological test

BH1 Underlying soil to a depth of approximately 10m

Y Falling head test


Y Falling head test


10 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx


Y Falling head test


Y Falling head test

HD 1 Underlying soil to a depth of approximately 1.0m

Y Soak away test

4.2 Quality Control

All samples collected during the work were despatched under a chain of custody procedure to i2 Analytical, who are a UKAS accredited laboratory, for subsequent chemical analysis. Where appropriate, samples were stored within cool boxes containing ice packs.

All contractors, including laboratories, used during this project have been approved by Waterman as a part of in-house Integrated Management System (BS ISO 9001, BS ISO 14001) procedure. This requires all third parties to demonstrate competence and a high standard of work during a regular audit scheme.

4.3 Health and Safety

All work carried out on site was in accordance with Waterman Group Health & Safety policy.


11 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

5. Site Activities

The works were procured to CC Ground Investigations Ltd and are shown in chronological order of the works undertaken below:

Table 5: Summary of fieldwork activities

Phase of Work. Activity Contractor Date Supervision Ground Investigation 4No. rotary boreholes to a

maximum of 11.0m bgl max. depth

CC Ground Investigations Ltd.

7-11 July 2014 Waterman (visiting role)

1No. hand dug pit to 1.0m bgl for soakaway testing


11 July 2014

4No. falling head test and 1No. soakaway test


7-11 July 2014

Soakaway test CC Ground investigation Ltd

7-11 July 2014

Monitoring Well Installation

4No. installations to a maximum depth of 11.0m bgl


7-11 July 2014 Waterman (visiting role)

Groundwater and Ground Gas Monitoring

Monitoring, sampling and analysis of four wells on three occasions


15 August – 07 October 2014

None

Note: m bgl = metres below ground level

5.1 Soil Sampling

Representative soil samples were obtained from the exposed strata and sealed in one litre plastic tubs with airtight lids, phials and glass jars containing preservatives, as appropriate. The soil samples taken were subject to screening by a photo ionisation detector (PID).

All the exploratory holes were logged and sampled for contamination purposes by CC Ground Investigations Ltd.

Due to access and timing restrictions, and in agreement with Crawley Borough Council, it was decided not to advance borehole BH3. Instead, it was agreed that borehole BH5 would be extended.

5.2 Monitoring Wells

The drilling was carried out in such manner as to minimise the potential for cross-contamination between individual strata. On completion of drilling, a 50mm diameter slotted HDPE standpipe with gas tap and bung was installed in all of the boreholes to enable future ground gas and groundwater monitoring and sampling.

5.3 Groundwater Monitoring

Groundwater monitoring was carried out during three monitoring visits over a period of one month between 15 August and 12 September 2014.

Groundwater samples were obtained from the monitoring wells following purging of three well volumes. The collected water samples were then sealed into bottles with pre-measured fixatives where necessary, as supplied by the specialist laboratory, and transported in cool boxes or refrigerated for 24hrs prior to despatch to the testing laboratory.

A full set of groundwater monitoring results is presented in Appendix C


12 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

5.4 Ground Gas Monitoring

Ground gas monitoring was carried out during three monitoring visits over a period of one month between 15 August and 12 September 2014. On each of the monitoring visits, the peak and steady concentration readings of methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen were recorded at each installed monitoring standpipe, together with borehole gas flow readings and atmospheric pressure. This was undertaken using an infrared gas analyser, gas flow data monitor and flame ionisation detector. Groundwater levels were also measured on each visit.

A full set of ground gas monitoring results, including the model type and detection limits of the onsite equipment used for the fieldwork, is presented in Appendix C.


13 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

6. Results

Detailed logs of the strata encountered, together with records of the samples taken during the investigation are provided in Appendix B. A summary of the geological strata encountered is presented below.

6.1 Geological Strata

This confirms the anticipated geology, as shown on the British Geological Survey map for the area. A summary of the geological strata encountered is shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Geological strata encountered

Soil/Rock type (Geographical unit)

Geological Unit

Depth of Top of Stratum (m bgl)

Thickness (m) Typical Description

Topsoil 0.0 0.15 - .40 Brown slightly sandy clayey topsoil with roots.

Clay Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand - Mudstone

0.15 - 0.4 0.45 – 3.15 Firm friable clay, becoming stiff with depth, mudstone gravels, weathered in upper reaches.

Interbedded sand stone, silt stone and occasional mudstone

Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand – Sandstone and Mudstone

0.85 – 3.40 10.15 base not proved.

Weak thinly lamented siltstone within interbedded with laminated sandstone and occasional mudstone. Siltstone in the upper reaches in BH5 has been weathered to silt.

6.2 Underground Structures and Obstructions

Below ground obstructions were not encountered during the investigation List all notable structures or obstructions and how these fit with the structures targeted.

6.3 Chemical Analysis

The results of laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C.

6.4 Hydrogeological Testing

The results of laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C.

6.5 Controlled Waters

Groundwater levels were monitored on 3 occasions during the site works and subsequent monitoring visits the results are presented in the following table. Surfer® plots have been generated to show groundwater flow direction, these are presented in Appendix A. A summary of groundwater monitoring is provided in Table 7.


14 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Table 7: Monitored Groundwater Depth

Borehole ID Borehole elevation m(AOD) Groundwater elevation

15/08/2014 29/08/2014 12/09/2014

BH01 137.80 131.46 131.46 131.45

BH02 137.20 130.47 130.46 130.44

BH04 131.39 124.60 124.67 124.64

BH05 134.53 128.70 128.66 128.68

6.6 Ground Gas

As part of the site investigation, the three installed boreholes were monitored on three occasions over two months in order to detect the presence of ground gas. The design of the borehole installation resulted in gas concentrations being recorded from of natural ground.

A complete set of ground gas results is included within Appendix C.


15 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

7. Establishing Soil Groundwater and Ground Gas conditions

The EA guidance document Assessing Groundwater Pollution Potential of Cemetery Developments recommends that the baseline contamination status of groundwater underlying the site is collected. The collection of this data allows the result of future monitoring to be compared to pre cemetery conditions facilitating an assessment of the potential impact of the cemetery in the future.

The baseline contamination status of the soil underlying the site has also been assessed this allows current contaminant loading to be accounted for when assessing risk to the underlying groundwater bodies.

7.1 Baseline Concentrations of Soil Contaminants

Table 8: Baseline Concentrations of soil contaminants

Contaminant Concentration range (mg/kg)

Number of samples tested

Arsenic 1.9 – 11 10

Barium 10 - 32 10

Beryllium 0.1 - 0.4 10

Boron <0.2 10

Cadmium <0.2 10

Chromium (hex) <4.0 10

Total Chromium 7.8 – 16 10

Copper 5.0 – 15 10

Total cyanide <1 10

Lead 3.9 - 21 10

Manganese 230 - 1900 10

Nickel 1.3 – 12 10

Mercury <0.3 10

Selenium <1.0 10

Vanadium 8.1 – 17 10

Zinc 14 - 38 10

BTEX compounds <1.0 10

TPH C5-C10 <0.1 10

TPH EC10-EC12 <1.0 10

TPH EC12-EC16 <2.0 10

TPH EC16- EC44 <8.0 - <10 10

Total phenols <7.0 10

Speciated PAHs <0.05 - <0.1 10


16 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

7.2 Baseline Concentrations of Groundwater Contaminants

Table 9: Baseline Concentrations of Groundwater

Contaminant Concentration range (ug/l)

Number of samples tested

Arsenic <0.15 – 5.53 8

Barium 25 – 83 8

Beryllium <0.1 8

Boron <10 - 81 8

Cadmium <0.02 – 0.07 8

Chromium <0.2 – 1.0 8

Copper <0.5 – 6.5 8

Nickel 0.8 – 8.1 8

Mercury <0.05 -1 8

Vanadium <0.2 – 1.1 8

Lead <0.2 – 3.1 8

TPH <10 8

BTEX compounds <1 8

Speciated PAHs <0.01 8

7.3 Baseline Ground Gas Concentrations

Table 10: Baseline Ground Gas Concentrations

Monitoring Point Peak Gas Concentration (%)

CH4 CO2 O2

BH1 <0.1 3.8 -4.1 14.07 – 19.2

BH2 <0.1 0.5 – 0.7 20.4 – 20.5

BH4 <0.1 2.1 – 2.3 19.0 – 19.5

BH5 <0.1 4.3 – 4.7 12.2 – 13.7


17 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

8. Detailed Quantitative Risks Assessment

Following completion of the investigation and a review of the proposed rate burial of 50 to 90 per year potential pollutant linkages have been identified. In order to assess the plausibility of these linkages a Tier 3 assessment including a Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA) was been carried out.

As part of the DQRA information used to update and confirm the Site’s Conceptual Site Model is presented in the following sections.

8.1.1 Hydrogeological Parameters of the Site

Groundwater parameters

During the investigation 8No. samples were subject to moisture content and bulk density analysis The results of these tests are presented in Table 11. Result are presented in Appendix C.

Table 11: Moisture Content, bulk density and water filled porosity.

Exploratory Hole Location

Depth of test (m bgs)

Geological Strata Moisture Content (%)

Bulk Density (Mg/m3)

Dry Bulk Density (Mg/m3)

Water filled porosity

BH1 4.50 – 5.80 Upper Tonbridge well Sands – mudstone and sand stone

2.2 2.07 2.02 0.044


2.6 2.04 1.98 0.053


11 2.29

2.06

0.227

BH2 4.0 - 5.50 Upper Tonbridge well Sands – mudstone and sand stone

2.7 1.92 1.87 0.050

BH4 3.50 - 4.50 Upper Tonbridge well Sands – mudstone and sand stone

5.4 1.83 1.73 0.093


5.1 2.06 1.95 0.238

BH5 5.40 - 6.50 Upper Tonbridge well

2.6 Not Plastic


18 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Sands – mudstone and sand stone


1.8 2.27 2.22 0.056

Groundwater flow gradients

The groundwater flow direction has been confirmed as north east and the calculated gradient is 0.06. The gradient line is shown on surfer plots in Appendix A. Given the groundwater depth this gradient represents groundwater flow in the Upper Tunbridge Wells Sands – Siltstone.

Permeability testing

Falling head tests were carried out in all boreholes, a soak away test was also undertaken. The results of these tests are presented in Appendix C and are summarised in the following table.

Table 12: Results of permeability testing

Exploratory Hole Location

Depth of test (m bgs)

Geological Strata Calculated K value

BH1 3.5 to 4.5 Upper Tonbridge well Sands – mudstone and sand stone

No result*

BH2 4.5 to 5.5 Upper Tonbridge well Sands – mudstone and sandstone

1.7 E-04

BH4 3.5 – 4.5 Upper Tonbridge well Sands – mudstone and sandstone

1.5E-06

BH5 3.4 – 4.5 Upper Tonbridge well Sands – mudstone and sandstone

2.6E-05

HD1 1.0m Upper Tonbridge well Sands – mudstone

No result*

* A permeability value was not calculated for the soak-away test as sufficient drainage did not occur for a successful test. This is obviously a function of the impermeability of the clay at this location. The BGS indicates that clay and siltstone can have a permeability of less E-07.

8.2 Controlled Water Receptors

As detailed in Section 3.4 there are drainage ditches present along the eastern and western boundaries of the Site. There are no surface water abstractions with in 1000m of the site and no groundwater abstractions with 500m of the Site. The Site is not within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ).

The Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand – Mudstone is classed as an unproductive stratum and is present between a thickness of 0.45m and 3.15m. The Upper Tunbridge Wells Sands – Sandstone and Mudstone is classed as a Secondary A aquifer and may support local stream. The controlled water receptor is considered to be groundwater within the secondary aquifer that feeds locals streams.


19 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

8.2.1 Determining Cemetery Contaminant Loading Information contained with the EA guidance document and the proposed burial programme provided by Crawley Council was used to determine an approximate contaminant loading caused by the cemetery during its life span. Using this the potential impact to the surrounding controlled waters can be assessed.

Information from Crawley Borough Council indicates that the number of burials required will be approximately 50 to 90 per year. The life of the cemetery is expected to be 50 years. Based on EA guidance for conventional burials a density of 1976 graves per hectare is anticipated.

It is understood that the cemetery will be brought in to use in phases. The total area of the cemetery is approximately 5ha with up to 90 burials proposed per year over a time period of 50 years.

EA guidance indicates that 50% of contaminants are released from a decaying corpse in the first 12 months and that the amount of contaminants released decreases by 50% year on year. After 10 years the amounts of contaminants realised are considered no longer significant. To establish the impact to the underlying and local controlled waters the burial rate has been analysed to determine the maximum cumulative grave area that will be leaching ‘contaminants’. This area has been calculated as 2268m2. It should be noted that in line with EA guidance burial of ashes has been excluded as these are considered to be inert from a contamination perspective.

Also following a review of information from the Snell Hatch Cemetery as provided by Crawley Borough Council a significant number of “reopeners” burials take place every year. This information has been taken into account when determining an average burial per plot.

The relevant parameters for calculating the ‘contaminant’ loading that may arise from the cemetery are presented in Table 13.

Table 13: Cemetery Parameters

Cemetery Requirements Source

Required burial plots per year 90 plots (conservative approach)

Information provided by CBC

Proposed life of cemetery 50 yrs Information provided by CBC

Snell Hatch average burial rate per plot taking into account reopeners

1.5 burials Information provided by CBC

Maximum cumulative leaching plot area over 50 year cemetery duration

2268m2 Information provided by CBC

EA Guidance on burial depth 1.8m EA guidance document

Required depth to accommodate additional capacity

3.0m Information provided by CBC

Infiltration through a standard grave 1000mm/year EA guidance document

Unsaturated thickness between base of burials

4.03m - 1.8m burial Site data

2.83m – 3.0m burial Site data


20 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

9. Assessment of Risk to Groundwater from Leachate

The EA guidance provides a list of the main elemental components of a 70kg body. To assess the potential impact to groundwater as a result of the Site’s use as a cemetery Lead will be used as an indicator species given its toxicity to the aquatic environment. EA guidance indicates that 0.12g of lead is present in a 70kg body.

At an average rate of 1.5 burials per plot this equates to 0.18g. At an infiltration rate of 1000mm a year the lead leachate concentration for the first year would be 0.09mg/l, half the total amount of leachable lead. The concentration of the leachate decreases quickly with time, as is demonstrated in Figure 1

Figure 1: Leachate concentration following the first 10 years of burial based on EA Guidance document.

Therefore the average leachate concentration during the 10 year duration is 0.018mg/l this marginally exceeds the EQS of 0.0072mg/l. This average leachate concentration can also be applied to the cemetery over its life time and is representative of leachate concentrations coming from the whole cemetery.

9.1 Using RTM to Assess Down Gradient Impact of Leachate

The potential down gradient impact of leachate from the cemetery can be assessed using the Environment Agency’s Remedial Targets Methodology (RTM) works sheets.

RTM is a fate and transport model that assesses the impact of a specific contaminant to a down gradient receptor. The methodology is based on a tiered risk assessment, with the level of analysis and detail increasing at each stage. A source-pathway-receptor analysis determines the impact to the receptor on a site specific basis.

Given the approximate leachate rate from a grave over a 10 year period an option is to model the impact of the cemetery as if it was a single spill event with a declining source. The RTM model will be run based on the entire ‘contaminant’ loading entering the ground at once and will assume burials take place at a depth of 3.0m The variant option setting in the RTM model will be used to assessed the impact of the contaminant loading after 1 year, 10 years and 100 years.

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Lead

leac

hat

e co

nc

ug/

l

Years

Concentration mg/l


21 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

This approach is conservative as in reality the cemetery will be brought into use in phases over a period of 50 years. Therefore as some graves begin to leach their ‘contaminants’ others will be coming to the end of the leaching process. In reality the intensity of the contaminant loading will be considerably lower than modelled. It is acknowledged however that whilst the intensity is lower, the time over which leaching occurs will in reality be longer. In terms of modelling however the importance of intensity of contaminant loading is considered to be greater than the length of time of on-going release. Consequently the model will be run with the leachate concentration at 0.018mg/l to represent average leachate concentration.

The most conservative scenario is based on a burial taking place in the Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand – Sandstone and Mudstone. This is considered conservative as a mudstone horizon has also been encountered on areas of the Site within the proposed burial depths.

The input criteria for the RTM are presented in Table 14.

Table 14: RTM Inputs

RTM inputs Source

Calculated time slices 1 year, 10 years and 100 years

EA Guidance Document

Initial lead mass per grave at an average of 1.5 burials per grave

0.18g EA Guidance Document

Average lead leachate concentrations for the duration of the Cemetery

0.018ug/l EA Guidance Document

Lead Partition Coefficient (Kd) 4970 USEPA

Groundwater gradient 0.06m Site data

Average water filled soil porosity Upper Tunbridge wells sands – Sandstone and Mudstone

0.083 RTM Porosity calculator

Maximum leaching area 2230m2 Cumulative area of graves proposed for the 50 yr duration of the cemetery leaching at any one time.

Compliance point 50m from site boundary

GP3 Document

Unsaturated thickness between base of burials and groundwater

4.03m - 1.8m burial depth

Site data

2.83m – 3.0m burial depth

Site data

9.1.1 Output of the RTM Model The outputs of the RTM model indicated that after 1 years, 10 years and 100 years lead concentrations above the EQS would not be present at the compliance point. The RTM model indicates that concentrations above EQS of 0.0072mg/l are only detected at a distance of 30 from the source after the model has been set to run for approximately 10,000 years. Given these time scales the impact of contaminant loading on groundwater off site and receiving stream is considered not to be significant.

If the RTM model is run at a steady state setting the concentration at the compliance point is 0.017mg/l demonstrating minimal decrease in contaminant loading however in reality the contaminant mass balance in the system would prevent this from occurring.


22 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

With respect to burial depth the model showed that this did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the results.

The Remedial Target Methodology worksheet is presented in Appendix G.

9.1.2 Conservatism in the RTM Model The RTM model assumes that contaminant concentrations in pore space water at the source of contamination remain unchanged regardless of the thickness of the un-impacted unsaturated zone between the contaminant source and groundwater table. Therefore in the case of a cemetery the impact of the unsaturated zone beneath the burial is not fully considered.

The RTM was run as if all burial space would be used in one event as opposed to gradual use over 50 years.

The model has been run with a saturated aquifer thickness of 3m, this corresponds with the deepest groundwater measured and the termination of the borehole at 10m. It is likely that the thickness of the saturated aquifer is greater than this.

The assessment has been completed on the basis of conventional burials. Natural burials which take place at a shallower depth and have a corresponding greater unsaturated depth and at a lower space density, have not been taken into account.

9.2 Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde remains commonly used in the embalming process for approximately 50% of burials. According to EA guidance 180g of formaldehyde can be used in a single embalming. In the first year following burial 90mg/l of formaldehyde is expected to be present in leachate. This is expected to reduce by 50% year on year. Although the KOC formaldehyde is relatively low (1.567- USEPA) the half-life in groundwater ranges between 2 to 14 days (USEPA). As a result formaldehyde is considered not to be persistent in the environment and therefore does not pose a risk to the surrounding environment at the rates of discharge expected from the proposed cemetery.

9.3 Assessment of Risk from Biological Pathogens

Borehole logs indicate that the Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand – Sandstone and Mudstone comprises inter-bedded siltstone, sandstone and mudstone. The EA guidance document indicates that where groundwater flows through material such as sandstone the porous nature of the material increases the filtration of micro-organisms. The geology encountered beneath site comprised clay silt and sandstone horizons. Where present fractures were described as being extremely close to medium spaced and some are described as filled with clay. There was an absence of large fractures which may act as preferential pathways for the movement of pathogens.

Environment Agency Memorandum CEM 56 confirms that for cemeteries with a burial rate of less than 200 per year the risks from microbiological contaminants are believed minimal as these organisms have a short lifespan and/or are filtered by soil and aquifer material.

Therefore based on the proposed burial rate, geology and the unsaturated zone of between 3 to 4 meters the risk posed to off-site controlled water from microbial pathogens is considered low.


23 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

9.4 Assessment of Risk from Ground Gas

Ground gas monitoring on Site has indicated carbon dioxide concentrations of between 0.5 to 4.7 %. Depleted oxygen was also recorded. Risks posed by ground gases generated as a result of decomposition process is not considered significant for the following reasons.

A low burial rate is proposed approximately 50 to 90 per year therefore the input of an organic source capable of generating ground gas is also low. Of a 70kg body mass 16kg comprises carbon.

There will be a general absence of buried structures, slabs or service ducts which typically contribute to the migration and collection of ground gas. The grass or woodland surface of graves will encourage dispersion of the ground gases to the atmosphere as opposed to migration via surround soils. In areas where burials take place in mudstone or clay the ability of ground gases to migrate will be significantly impeded.


24 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

10. Conclusions

Following updating the Conceptual Site Model and carrying out the DQRA the impact of the cemetery on identified receptors is considered to be low.

It should be noted however the investigation was limited to the accessible areas of the Site and did not include areas currently occupied by woodland. However geological maps indicate the underlying geology is unlikely to change significantly over the site area. As the cemetery expands over the following decades additional site investigation may be required to confirm ground conditions and in turn the applicability of this assessment to the remainder of the Site.


25 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

11. Recommendations

Staff working at the Site should be provided with adequate site specific PPE and follow site specific procedures in particular when excavating new graves or “reoperners” and when and if groundwater or perched water is encountered.

A standoff 30m should be maintained between burials and the drainage ditches.

As additional phases of the cemetery are brought in to use away from the currently investigated area, additional confirmatory boreholes should be undertaken to confirm ground conditions are consistent with the current investigation and corresponding risk assessment. If ground conditions significantly vary, an updated risk assessment should be undertaken.

Environmental Risk Assessment Appendices

EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

APPENDICES


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Appendix A Site Plans

Project Details

Figure Ref

Date

Figure Title

File Location

Figure A1: Site Location Plan

\\nt-lncs\weedl\projects\eed14171\101\graphics\si\issued figures

EED14171-101_GR_SI_A1A

October 2014

EED14171-101: Pease Pottage

www.watermangroup.com

Energy, Environment & Design

N

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey maps with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,© Crown copyright, Waterman Energy, Environment & Design, Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street, London SE1 9DG. Licence number 100048868.

© WATERMAN ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT & DESIGN

SITE LOCATION

Playing Field

Playing Field

Track

Golf Course

TennisCourt

BM 128.76m 127.4m

135.3m

136.6m

Horsham Corner

Reservoir(covered)

(Scout Camp Site)Stanford

Golf Course

Golf Course

Golf Course

Anemometer

Track

135.6m

138.7m

137.7m

135.0m

141.1m

BM 141.45m

133.8m

141.4m

Sub StaEl

Playground

Stanford(Scout Camp Site)

Horsham Corner

Golf Course

LB

Scout Camp Site

El SubSta

COTSFORD

Creasy's Forest

115.5m

BM 128.84m

Buchan HillForest

Tennis

Track

Filter Bed

Golf Course

Stanford(Scout Camp Site)

Pease Pottage Forest

Playing Field

Path

(um

)

Courts

El Sub Sta


Adventure Playground

FB

(Scout Camp Site)Stanford

Playground Posts

Posts

Murray C

ourt

Golf CourseSt Leonard's Forest

Trac

k

Subway

Playing Field

Dys

on W

alk

ElSub Sta

Playground

PlaygroundPlay

groun

d

Carman

Walk

Carman Walk

Carman

Walk

Playgro

und

LB

Playground

Baylis

Walk

Subway

Dampie

r Walk

Bishop

stone

Wk

GP

TCB

138.7m

Service Area

El Sub Sta

Trac

k

ElSub Sta

SM

Path

Trac

k

115.6m

Path

(um

)

122.7m

127.0m

Whalebone Plantation

Path

WhalebonePlantation

Bishopstone Walk


103.2m

BM 1

01.6

7m

SM

LB

SM

SubEl

Sta

Trac

k

Cottesmore School

Headmasters

House

Buchan Hill Nurseries

Water Tower

Radar Station

Cottesmore School

BuchanBungalow

GardenCottage

The Flat

CUC House

30 2422a

22

1 25 6

7

9 12 1413

1615

17

20

2221

2423

2528

20a

20 18

18a

16

TheFirs

42

1

5

17

The James King(PH)

47

50

12151416

1 to 114346

4445

31 to

42

3029

2122

171918

20

6

Store

Acorn Lodge

811

1A

WillowCottage

BaronHall

The Orchard

Pavilion

CottesmoreSchool

StableFlats

StableCottages

1 to 9

1 to

4

CommunityCentre

Buchan Cottage

1 22

3 19

1112

1718

1

24

16

6

18

26

36

30

12

26

28 30

14

24

1

4

8 10

1 2

5 6

12 8

18

1920

7

12

El Sub Sta

5

10 111

5

10

39

12

18

30

3637

1

8 9

10 11

1

6 5

87

11

25

31

15

14

2625

9

7

1

1819

24

67

1213

1

4

30

12

16 17

8

67

27

2425

22 23

16

236

17

13

10

1

7

25

1

1

51

2

10

1617

22

9

1213

7

1

2218

17

12

20

12

2

1

1

4

8

23

18

912

1713

1

4

1

6

Flamste

ed H

eights

Flamste

ed H

eights

RathboneHouse

Pankh

urst C

ourt

Sherat

on w

alk

1

8

16

29

22

21

15

14

13

9

18

16

10

2

1

13

17

27

42

34

26

8

4

1

13

1 2

8

18

9 6 3

16 13 10

17 14 11

18151225

2219

262320272421

363330

343128

181 2 1

13

91

210

34

2415

13

7

1

2

14

32

34

44

3931

2124

19

13

1

2

8

7

7

37

13

25

19

25

19 20

27 28

2

12

14

6

10

16

24

10 14

1

21

11

15

7

9

20

3638

4850

1513

11 13

1

9

8

2

51

1 22

3

2224

6

1

7

13 2

13

13

1718

109

27

2

4

CUC House

ForestRidge

EastLodge

Gleneder

Warehouse

Badgers Bank

Oakwood

Store

Beams End

Woodlands

Restful

BeechLodge

HighOaks

Darband

TanglewoodHouse

Foxborough

1 to 14 TheGreenview

HardridingCottages

1

211

18

12

7

22

28

30

42

54

6680

8288

GasGovernor

64

4

1

7

53

1

82

61

1

9

63

67

19

11

1

5955

61

57 56

53

52

46

45

38

3731

26

25

2116

15

8

1

53

41

27

41 34

33

27

21

14

136

1

2515

9

57 9 11

1213

1

7

13

2

68

2026

28

34

36

4446485052

54 5658 60

6264

1

6

10

1112

13

16

1113

21

29 33

1012

14

2022

26

32

34

404244 46

48

39 4143 45

21 2529

3137

1

4

78 5

6

9

12

1314

1920

1314

1112

24

2625

Old StoneCottage

5

43

87

91310141216

111517

1822

24 19

23

2729

4345

4749

53515557

7173

51

61

1214

28

39

49

28

18

1614

36

24

2927

3735

12

56

25

2322

21

20

1715

1416

13

9

8 1

191817

13

12521

3 4

20

2

16

10

86 4 4

20

2223

24

31

141517

16

12

89

6

4

32

1

3233

42

40

3735 34

3332 47

1615

14

7

43

1

46

42

41

35

3332201918

1716

109

63

87

21

3129

282726

23

21

20

18

17

12

11

8

6

15

1

4

10

2021

4

38

56

15

15

21

7

13

Old Stone Cottage

HORSHAM ROAD

BARN CLOSE

OLD

BR

IGH

TON

RO

AD (S

OU

TH)

BLACK SWANCLOSE

CREASYS DRIVE

A 264

CREASYS DRIVE

TERR

Y RD

RAMBLERS WAY

WILLIAM MORRIS WAY

T0LL

GAT

E HI

LL

A 264

LOW

E CLOSE

JARVIS CLOSE

RIMMERCLOSE

JACKSON RO

AD

MORT

ON CL

OSE

HOLMAN CLOSE

HAMMOND ROAD

KELMSCOTT RISE

MERTON ROAD

LINN

ELL CLO

SE

HYNDMAN CLOSE

MANN CLOSE

EDDINGTON HILL

CLARK ROAD

ABRA

HAM

S RO

AD

HAL

LEY

CLO

SE

EDDINGTON HILL

FRY CLOSE

TERRY ROAD

CREASYS DRIVE

TIMBERLA

NDS

THE ACORNS

OAKAPPLECLO

SE

GO

RSE CLOSE

RAMBLERS WAY

WOODWARDS

WOODINGGROVE

PARISH LANE

BRIG

HTON R

OAD

BRIGHTON ROAD

BLACK SWANCLOSE

M 23

A 264

OLD B

RIGHTO

N ROAD

(NORTH

)

WILBERFORCE

CLOSE

TOLL

GAT

E HI

LL

SURRENDENRISE

HILLVIEW GARDENS

FARN

HAM

CLO

SE

WYEC

LOSE

OTFORD CLOSE

HO

LLIN

GBO

UR

NE

CR

ESC

ENT

RANMORE CLOSE

BRIG

HTO

N R

OAD

(PEA

SE P

OTT

AGE

HIL

L)

M 23

KINGSWOOD CLOSE

A 264

WILLIAM MORRIS WAY

WESTCOTT CLOSE

NETLEY CLOSE

HAMMOND ROAD

FAU

LKN

ER C

LOSE

TOLL

GAT

E H

ILL

WO

ODW

ARDS

TIMBERLANDS

WILMINGTON CLOSE

HOLLINGBOURNECRESCENT

DETLING ROAD CHEVENING CLOSE

CH

EVEN

ING

CLO

SE

LEYB

OU

RN

E C

L

CHALDON ROAD

BOX

CLO

SE

A264

TOLL

GAT

E HI

LL

M23

KEY

SITE BOUNDARY(Approx 6.6 Ha)

Publisher Revision

Drawing Status

Zone Category Number

reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person,and the drawing is issued on the condition that it is not copiedThis drawing is the property of Waterman Transport and Development Limited,

This drawing should not be scaled.

the Engineer prior to work being put in hand.Any discrepancies should be referred to

either wholly or in part without the consent in writing ofWaterman Transport and Development Limited

t 020 7928 7888 f 020 7902 0992

Pickfords Wharf Clink StreetLondon SE1 9DG

Dimensions to be verified on site.

GENERAL NOTES

[email protected] www.waterman-group.co.uk

Dippen Hall Blindley Heath Lingfield Surrey RH7 6JXt 01342 893800 f 01342 894212

atermanTransport & Development

Designed by

Drawn by

Checked by

Date

Scales

work to figured dimensions only

Project No

Work Order No

PRELIMINARY

Project Details

Figure Ref

Date

Figure Title

File Location

Figure A2: Site Plan



October 2014




Site Boundary

N





Project Details

Figure Ref

Date

Figure Title

File Location

Figure A3: Conceptual Site Model



October 2014


Cemetry Buildings

30m Buffer Zoneto nearest water course

Site staff to have adequate PPEand follow site specific proceeduresto break contamination receptor link

Stream /Drainage Ditch

Unsaturated material betweenbase of graves and groundwayer

Notes:

1. Contaminants leaching from graves not significant in terms of impact to groundwater or off site waterbodies.

2. Absence of buried structures and services ducts that typically contribute to collection of ground gas.

3. Grass or woodland grave surface will encourage dispersion of ground gas to atmosphere as opposed to migration through undisturbed soil.

Ground Water Level



Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand - Mudstone and Sandstone

Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand - Mudstone


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Appendix B Site Investigation Logs

0.25

0.55

1.00

1.95

2.40

3.40

6.40

0%0%0%

100%0%0%

100%44%24%

100%100%65%

75%48%17%

100%92%48%

100%67%35%

(0.45)

(0.95)

(0.45)

(1.00)

(3.00)

(2.35)

Soft brown friable slightly sandy silty CLAY with frequentrootlets.Firm friable brown mottled light grey slightly sandy slightlygravelly silty CLAY. Gravel is sub-angular to sub-roundedfine to coarse siltstone and mudstone lithorelics.Firm friable light grey mottled yellowish brown gravellyslightly sandy silty CLAY. Gravel is sub-angular tosub-rounded fine to coarse mudstone lithorelics.Stiff friable light yellowish brown mottled reddish brownslightly sandy gravelly silty CLAY. Gravel is angular tosub-rounded fine to coarse mudstone and siltstonelithorelics.

Stiff friable thinly laminated light grey locally mottledorangish brown slightly gravelly sandy CLAY. Gravel isangualr to sub-rounded fine to coarse mudstone andsiltstone lithorelics.Stiff friable orangish brown slightly sandy locally siltyCLAY.

3.00-3.15m: Light grey.

Weak locally thinly laminated orangish brownoccasionally mottled light grey locally stained orangeSILTSTONE. Fractures are very closely to closely spacedsub-vertical to horizontal planar occasionally undulatingsmooth with reddish brown staining <2mm rarely infilledwith light grey clay.3.40-3.65m: Fractures are extremely closely spaced.3.70-3.75m: Dark grey.4.10-6.40m: Fractures are sub-horizontal to horizontal.

4.70-4.85m: Fractures frequently infilled with locallycemented reddish brown clay.4.90-5.00m: Non-intact.5.00-6.15m: Occasionally locally spotted dark grey.

5.80-5.90m: Non-intact.5.90-6.05m: 1 no. fracture; vertical planar smooth withreddish brown staining <2mm.6.20-6.40m: Indistinctly thinly bedded.

Medium strong indistinctly thickly laminated to thinlybedded orangish brown frequently locally spotted darkgreyish brown SANDSTONE. Fractures are closely tomedium spaced planar smooth.

7.10-7.25m: Non-intact.

7.80-8.35m: 1 no. sub-vertical fracture planar smooth

BESB

ES

BESC

SPTCD

D

CCPT

D

C

CCPT

CCPT

CCPT

0.20

0.50

1.00

1.20 - 1.501.20 - 1.601.50 - 2.601.60 - 1.70

2.20 - 2.30

2.60 - 4.102.60 - 3.052.90 - 3.00

4.10 - 4.50

4.50 - 5.804.50 - 4.58

5.80 - 7.105.80 - 5.92

7.10 - 8.607.10 - 7.20

S*60

C 25

C*428

C**

C**

4.504.50

3.503.50

1.042.08

08/07/201409/07/2014

REMARKS:EQUIPMENT: Hand digging tools. Comacchio MC305 multi purpose track mounted rig.METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-1.20m. Waterflush rotary core drilled (116mm diam) 1.20-10.00m.INSTALLATION: 50mm ID HDPE slotted pipe with washed gravel response zone: 10.00-1.90m, plain pipe with bentonite pellet seal: 1.90-0.20m, flush 150mm steelcover/raised borehole helmet set in concrete 0.20-0.00m. Gas valve fitted.PID: PID testing carried out at 0.20m (1.10ppm), 0.50m (0.00ppm) and 1.00m (0.00ppm).GROUND WATER: None encountered prior to use of water flush.REMARKS: 100% loss of water flush at 3.05m. Permeability test carried out targeting 3.50-4.50m response zone.

(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

LegendLevel(mAD)

Depth(m)

ROTARY BOREHOLE LOG

InstallTCRSCRRQD

CoreRun &

SampleDescriptionWater

Levels No/Type Depth (m) Result

Telephone: 01452 739165 , Fax: 01452 739220 , Email: [email protected]

CC GROUND INVESTIGATIONS LTDC

C R

OT

AR

Y L

OG

C41

91.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AG

S 3

_1.G

DT

2/

10/1

4

Hole TypeDS+RC

09/07/2014

Date Strike Depth(m)

Casing Depth(m)

Depth AfterObservation (m)

Hole Progress:Date Hole Depth

(m)Casing Depth

(m)Water Depth

(m)

C4191

Groundwater:

End:

08/07/2014Start:

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Borehole No.

Sheet 1 of 2

Logged ByWS

Project No:

Dates:

Co-ords:

Level: mAD

E NPease Pottage

Crawley

Waterman Energy, Environment & Design

BH01

Scale1 : 50.00

Core Run, Samples & Testing

8.75

10.00

100%69%54%

(1.25)

with reddish brown staining. Terminates against fractureat 7.80m.Medium strong indistinctly thickly laminated to thinlybedded orangish brown frequently locally spotted darkgreyish brown SANDSTONE. Fractures are closely tomedium spaced planar smooth. (continued from previoussheet)8.10-8.15m: Fractures are very closely spaced.8.40-8.55m: Fractures are infilled with locally cementedreddish brown clay.8.60-8.80m: Non-intact.Weak indistinctly thinly laminated light grey mottledorangish brown MUDSTONE. Fractures are very closelyto medium spaced horizontal to sub-vertical planarsmooth occasionally stained reddish brown <2mm.9.60-9.85m: Extremely weak.Borehole completed at 10.00m

CCPT

CPT

8.60 - 10.008.60 - 8.67

10.00 - 10.08

C*600

C*750

10.00 4.50 3.0009/07/2014

(m)

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

LegendLevel(mAD)

Depth(m)

ROTARY BOREHOLE LOG

InstallTCRSCRRQD

CoreRun &





C R

OT

AR

Y L

OG

C41

91.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AG

S 3

_1.G

DT

2/

10/1

4

Hole TypeDS+RC

09/07/2014


Casing Depth(m)



(m)Casing Depth

(m)Water Depth

(m)

C4191

Groundwater:

End:

08/07/2014Start:

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Borehole No.

Sheet 2 of 2

Logged ByWS

Project No:

Dates:

Co-ords:

Level: mAD

E NPease Pottage

Crawley


BH01

Scale1 : 50.00


0.30

0.50

0.90

1.95

3.10

7.10

100%59%21%

100%93%35%

100%91%61%

84%70%49%

(0.40)

(1.05)

(1.15)

(4.00)

(1.60)

Soft brown friable slightly sandy silty CLAY with frequentrootlets.Firm friable brown mottled light grey slightly sandy slightlygravelly silty CLAY. Gravel is sub-angular to sub-roundedfine to coarse siltstone and mudstone lithorelics.Firm light grey mottled brown sandy slightly gravellyCLAY. Gravel is sub-angular to sub-rounded fine tocoarse siltstone and mudstone lithorelics.Stiff friable light yellowish brown mottled reddish browngravelly slightly sandy silty CLAY. Gravel is angular tosub-rounded fine to coarse mudstone lithorelics.

1.80-1.85m: Light grey occasionally mottled orangishbrown.Stiff friable light grey mottled dark grey locally orangishbrown thinly laminated silty CLAY.

Extremely weak thickly laminated to thinly beddedyellowish brown locally mottled light brown SILTSTONE.Fractures are very closely to closely horizontal tosub-horizontal planar smooth occasionally stainedreddish brown <2mm and rarely infilled yellowish brownclay <4mm.3.20-3.40m: Fractures are stained dark reddish grey<1mm.4.25-4.65m: Fractures occasionally sub-vertical planarsmooth stained dark reddish brown <1mm.

5.05-5.30m: Fractures are closely spaced.5.10-7.00m: Occasionally locally spotted dark grey.

6.30-6.40m: Sandstone.6.45-6.80m: Light grey mottled orangish brown.

6.80-6.90m: Fractures infilled with reddish brown locallycemented silt.6.85-7.00m: Indistinctly structured.7.00-7.20m: No recovery.Weak orangish brown mottled greyish orangeoccasionally spotted dark grey SANDSTONE. Fracturesare very closely to closely spaced planar smooth.7.20-7.25m: Recovered as gravel.

BESB

ES

BES

SPT

D

D

DC

SPT

CCPT

CCPT

CCPT

0.20

0.50

1.001.00 - 1.45

1.50 - 1.60

2.20 - 2.25

2.40 - 2.502.50 - 4.002.50 - 2.81

4.00 - 5.504.00 - 4.06

5.50 - 7.005.50 - 5.55

7.00 - 8.507.00 - 7.90

S 41

S 47

C*750

C**

C**

7.007.00

4.504.50

5.886.42

07/07/201408/07/2014

REMARKS:EQUIPMENT: Hand digging tools. Comacchio MC305 multi purpose track mounted rig.METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-1.00m. Continuous dynamic sampled (113mm diam) 1.00-2.50m. Waterflush rotary core drilled (116mm diam) 2.50-10.00m.INSTALLATION: 50mm ID HDPE slotted pipe with washed gravel response zone: 10.00-1.90m, plain pipe with bentonite pellet seal: 1.90-0.20m, flush 150mm steelcover/raised borehole helmet set in concrete 0.20-0.00m. Gas valve fitted.PID: PID testing carried out at 0.20m (2.40ppm), 0.50m (0.00ppm) and 1.00m (0.00ppm).GROUND WATER: None encountered prior to use of water flush.REMARKS: Inspection pit terminated at 1.00m due to refusal of hand digging. 100% loss of water flush at 3.90-4.00m. Permeability test carried out targeting4.50-5.50m.

(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

LegendLevel(mAD)

Depth(m)

ROTARY BOREHOLE LOG

InstallTCRSCRRQD

CoreRun &





C R

OT

AR

Y L

OG

C41

91.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AG

S 3

_1.G

DT

2/

10/1

4

Hole TypeDS+RC

08/07/2014


Casing Depth(m)



(m)Casing Depth

(m)Water Depth

(m)

C4191

Groundwater:

End:

07/07/2014Start:

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Borehole No.

Sheet 1 of 2

Logged ByWS

Project No:

Dates:

Co-ords:

Level: mAD

E NPease Pottage

Crawley


BH02

Scale1 : 50.00


8.70

9.45

10.00

95%40%0%

100%57%29%

(0.75)

(0.55)

7.25-7.45m: 1 no. fracture sub-vertical planar smoothstained reddish brown <1mm.Weak orangish brown mottled greyish orangeoccasionally spotted dark grey SANDSTONE. Fracturesare very closely to closely spaced planar smooth.(continued from previous sheet)8.20-8.35m: Light grey.8.35-8.38m: Fractures infilled with orangish browngravelly clay.8.40-8.70m: Thinly bedded.Extremely weak light grey locally indistinctly thinlylaminated MUDSTONE. Fractures are very closely toclosely spaced sub-horizontal to sub-vertical planar rarelyundulating smooth with reddish brown staining <1mm.8.90-9.00m: Recovered as gravel.9.00-9.40m: Fractures occasionally infilled with grey clay<2mm.Weak light grey thickly laminated to thinly beddedSANDSTONE. Fractures are closely spaced planarsmooth rarely with reddish brown staining <1mm.9.48m: 1 no. fossil fragment <40mm.9.85-9.90m: Fractures infilled with reddish brown locallycemented clay.Borehole completed at 10.00m

CCPT

C

CPT

8.50 - 9.008.50 - 8.62

9.00 - 10.00

10.00 - 10.04

C*330

C*750

10.00 4.50 6.4608/07/2014

(m)

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

LegendLevel(mAD)

Depth(m)

ROTARY BOREHOLE LOG

InstallTCRSCRRQD

CoreRun &





C R

OT

AR

Y L

OG

C41

91.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AG

S 3

_1.G

DT

2/

10/1

4

Hole TypeDS+RC

08/07/2014


Casing Depth(m)



(m)Casing Depth

(m)Water Depth

(m)

C4191

Groundwater:

End:

07/07/2014Start:

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Borehole No.

Sheet 2 of 2

Logged ByWS

Project No:

Dates:

Co-ords:

Level: mAD

E NPease Pottage

Crawley


BH02

Scale1 : 50.00


0.15

0.50

1.15

2.35

5.00

7.50

100%45%19%

100%60%0%

91%71%19%

100%43%21%

94%71%50%

(0.65)

(1.20)

(2.65)

(2.50)

Soft brown friable slightly sandy silty CLAY with frequentrootlets.Firm friable brown mottled light yellowish grey slightlysandy slightly gravelly silty CLAY. Gravel is sub-angularto sub-rounded fine to coarse siltstone and mudstonelithorelics.Stiff friable light yellowish brown mottled light grey slightlysandy slightly gravelly silty CLAY. Gravel is angular tosub-rounded fine to coarse mudstone lithorelics.Stiff friable light yellowish brown mottled orangish brownslightly sandy gravelly silty CLAY. Gravel is angular tosub-rounded fine to coarse siltstone lithorelics.

Extremely weak orangish brown locally indistinctly thinlylaminated SILTSTONE. Fractures are very closely toclosely spaced horizontal to sub-vertical planar smoothoccasionally stained reddish brown.

3.05-3.25m: Fractures are very closely spaced andrandomly orientated.3.30-3.75m: Fractures are closely spaced.

Medium strong locally indistinctly thinly laminatedorangish brown mottled orangish grey frequently spotteddark reddish brown SANDSTONE. Fractures are veryclosely to closely spaced sub-horizontal to horizontalplanar smooth occasionally stained reddish brown <2mmand rarely infilled with greyish orange clay.

6.00-6.90m: Dark orangish brown.6.00-6.15m: Non-intact.6.00-6.60m: Fractures occasionally infilled with locallycemented reddish brown clay <2mm.6.50-6.60m: Non-intact.

7.10-7.50m: Tending to dark grey.

(continued on next sheet)

BESB

ES

BES

SPT

D

DC

SPT

CCPT

CCPT

CCPT

CCPT

0.20

0.50

1.00

1.20 - 1.65

1.50 - 1.60

1.90 - 2.002.00 - 3.502.00 - 2.12

3.50 - 4.503.50 - 3.57

4.50 - 6.004.50 - 4.57

6.00 - 7.106.00 - 6.05

7.10 - 8.507.10 - 7.17

S 33

S*750

C*500

C*750

C**

C**

6.006.00

4.504.50

2.353.10

09/07/201410/07/2014

REMARKS:EQUIPMENT: Hand digging tools. Comacchio MC305 multi purpose track mounted rig.METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-1.20m. Continuous dynamic sampled (113mm diam) 1.20-2.50m. Waterflush rotary core drilled (116mm diam) 2.50-10.00m.INSTALLATION: 50mm ID HDPE slotted pipe with washed gravel response zone: 10.00-1.90m, plain pipe with bentonite pellet seal: 1.90-0.20m, flush 150mm steelcover/raised borehole helmet set in concrete 0.20-0.00m. Gas valve fitted.PID: PID testing carried out at 0.20m (1.50ppm), 0.50m (0.00ppm) and 1.00m (0.00ppm).GROUND WATER: None encountered prior to use of water flush.REMARKS: 100% loss of water flush at 4.15m. Permeability test carried out targeting 3.50-4.50m response zone.

(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

LegendLevel(mAD)

Depth(m)

ROTARY BOREHOLE LOG

InstallTCRSCRRQD

CoreRun &





C R

OT

AR

Y L

OG

C41

91.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AG

S 3

_1.G

DT

2/

10/1

4

Hole TypeDS+RC

10/07/2014


Casing Depth(m)



(m)Casing Depth

(m)Water Depth

(m)

C4191

Groundwater:

End:

09/07/2014Start:

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Borehole No.

Sheet 1 of 2

Logged ByWS

Project No:

Dates:

Co-ords:

Level: mAD

E NPease Pottage

Crawley


BH04

Scale1 : 50.00


9.50

10.00

92%62%46%

(2.00)

(0.50)

Weak dark grey SANDSTONE. Fractures are very closelyto closely spaced sub-horizontal to horizontal planarsmooth locally infilled with gravelly clay <5mm and rarelystained reddish brown. (continued from previous sheet)

9.00m: 1 no. lense of red sandstone <35mm.9.05-9.50m: Fractures are horizontal to sub-verticalplanar rough.9.00-9.50m: Medium strong.Weak light grey mottled greyish brown SILTSTONE.9.50-9.60m: Spotted dark grey.

Borehole completed at 10.00m

CCPT

CPT

8.50 - 10.008.50 - 8.62

10.00 - 10.08

C*750

C*600

10.00 6.00 1.5010/07/2014

(m)

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

LegendLevel(mAD)

Depth(m)

ROTARY BOREHOLE LOG

InstallTCRSCRRQD

CoreRun &





C R

OT

AR

Y L

OG

C41

91.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AG

S 3

_1.G

DT

2/

10/1

4

Hole TypeDS+RC

10/07/2014


Casing Depth(m)



(m)Casing Depth

(m)Water Depth

(m)

C4191

Groundwater:

End:

09/07/2014Start:

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Borehole No.

Sheet 2 of 2

Logged ByWS

Project No:

Dates:

Co-ords:

Level: mAD

E NPease Pottage

Crawley


BH04

Scale1 : 50.00


0.40

0.85

2.90

5.35

6.55

7.65

100%30%14%

100%62%0%

87%62%12%

100%86%75%

100%41%31%

(0.40)

(0.45)

(2.05)

(2.45)

(1.20)

(1.10)

Soft brown friable slightly sandy silty CLAY with frequentrootlets.

Firm brown mottled light yellowish grey slightly gravellyslightly sandy silty CLAY. Gravel is sub-angular tosub-rounded fine to coarse siltstone and mudstonelithorelics.Stiff light grey mottled yellowish brown slightly sandyslightly gravelly clayey SILT. Gravel is angular tosub-rounded fine to coarse siltstone and mudstonelithorelics.1.45-2.00m: Gravel is angular to sub-angular.

Weak yellowish brown locally indistinctly thinly laminatedSILTSTONE. Fractures are very closely to closely spacedhorizontal to sub-vertical planar smooth locally stainedreddish brown <1mm.2.90-3.00m: Extremely weak, fractures randomlyorientated.3.55-4.20m: Fractures occasionally infilled with locallycemented reddish brown and rarely yellow clay.

4.50-4.55m: Non-intact.

4.70-4.75m: Non-intact.4.80-4.85m: Locally stained reddish orange.4.90-4.95m: Non-intact.

Extremely weak grey thinly laminated MUDSTONE.Fractures are closely to medium spaced sub horizontalplanar smooth.

Gradational boundary.Weak orangish brown mottled greyish brown thinlylaminated SILTSTONE. Fractures are closely spacedhorizontal to sub-vertical planar smooth locally stainedreddish brown.7.20-7.65m: Fractures are very closely spaced frequentlyinfilled with grey clay.

(continued on next sheet)

BESB

ES

BES

SPT

D

D

DC

SPT

CCPT

C

CCPT

C

0.20

0.50

1.001.00 - 1.45

1.50

2.00

2.402.50 - 3.902.50 - 2.64

3.90 - 4.503.90 - 3.95

4.50 - 5.40

5.40 - 6.505.40 - 5.61

6.50 - 8.00

S 32

S*214

C*333

C*294

3.903.90

2.002.00

2.30Dry

10/07/201411/07/2014

REMARKS:EQUIPMENT: Hand digging tools. Comacchio MC305 multi purpose track mounted rig.METHOD: Hand dug inspection pit: 0.00-1.00m. Continuous dynamic sampled (113mm diam) 1.00-2.50m. Waterflush rotary core drilled (116mm diam) 2.50-11.00m.INSTALLATION: 50mm ID HDPE slotted pipe with washed gravel response zone: 11.00-1.90m, plain pipe with bentonite pellet seal: 1.90-0.20m, flush 150mm steelcover/raised borehole helmet set in concrete 0.20-0.00m. Gas valve fitted.PID: PID testing carried out at 0.20m (0.40ppm), 0.50m (0.00ppm) and 1.00m (0.00ppm).GROUND WATER: None encountered prior to use of water flush.REMARKS: Inspection pit terminated at 1.00m due to refusal with hand digging tools. 100% loss of water flush at 3.40m. Permeability test carried out targeting3.50-4.50m response zone.

(m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

LegendLevel(mAD)

Depth(m)

ROTARY BOREHOLE LOG

InstallTCRSCRRQD

CoreRun &





C R

OT

AR

Y L

OG

C41

91.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AG

S 3

_1.G

DT

2/

10/1

4

Hole TypeDS+RC

11/07/2014


Casing Depth(m)



(m)Casing Depth

(m)Water Depth

(m)

C4191

Groundwater:

End:

10/07/2014Start:

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Borehole No.

Sheet 1 of 2

Logged ByWS

Project No:

Dates:

Co-ords:

Level: mAD

E NPease Pottage

Crawley


BH05

Scale1 : 50.00


9.30

11.00

100%85%70%

100%56%39%

(1.65)

(1.70)

Very weak light grey locally grey thinly laminatedMUDSTONE. Fractures are medium spaced horizontalplanar smooth. (continued from previous sheet)8.35-9.30m: Weak, tending to siltstone.

Gradational boundaryMedium strong light greyish orange SANDSTONE.Fractures are very closely to medium spaced sub-verticalto horizontal planar smooth locally stained reddish brown.9.70-10.10m: Light grey mottled grey.

Borehole completed at 11.00m

CCPT

C

CPT

8.00 - 9.508.00 - 8.16

9.50 - 11.00

11.00 - 11.06

C*250

C*600

11.00 4.50 2.7011/07/2014

(m)

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

LegendLevel(mAD)

Depth(m)

ROTARY BOREHOLE LOG

InstallTCRSCRRQD

CoreRun &





C R

OT

AR

Y L

OG

C41

91.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

AG

S 3

_1.G

DT

2/

10/1

4

Hole TypeDS+RC

11/07/2014


Casing Depth(m)



(m)Casing Depth

(m)Water Depth

(m)

C4191

Groundwater:

End:

10/07/2014Start:

Project Name:

Location:

Client:

Borehole No.

Sheet 2 of 2

Logged ByWS

Project No:

Dates:

Co-ords:

Level: mAD

E NPease Pottage

Crawley


BH05

Scale1 : 50.00



EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Appendix C Results

Field Monitoring Logs

Chemical Analysis

Geotechnical Analysis

Permeability test results

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

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

Iss No 14-57277-1

Page 1 of 8

Analytical Report Number: 14-57277

Project / Site name: Pease Pottage

Lab Sample Number 355937 355938 355939 355940 355941

Sample Reference BH01 BH01 BH02 BH02 BH04

Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Depth (m) 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.20

Date Sampled 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014

Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Analytical Parameter

(Soil Analysis)

Units

Lim

it of

detectio

n

Accredita

tion

Status

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Moisture Content % N/A NONE 11 11 12 12 12

Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.7

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected

General Inorganics

pH pH Units N/A MCERTS 7.7 7.5 7.8 7.8 6.9

Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Free Cyanide mg/kg 1 NONE < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Water Soluble Sulphate (Soil Equivalent) g/l 0.0025 MCERTS 0.0089 0.0064 0.0062 0.0089 0.0087Water Soluble Sulphate as SO 4 (2:1) mg/kg 2.5 MCERTS 8.9 6.4 6.2 8.9 8.7

Water Soluble Sulphate (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS 0.0045 0.0032 0.0031 0.0045 0.0044

Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Elemental Sulphur mg/kg 20 NONE < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20Ammonium - Exchangeable as NH4 mg/kg 5 MCERTS < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0

Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 1.7

Fraction Organic Carbon (FOC) N/A 0.00001 NONE 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0004 0.0096

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 1.0

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

Phenols by HPLC

Catechol µg/kg 1 NONE < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Resorcinol µg/kg 1 NONE < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Butyl Phenols µg/kg 1 NONE < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Cresols µg/kg 1 NONE < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Naphthols µg/kg 1 NONE < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Phenol µg/kg 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Trimethylphenol µg/kg 1 NONE < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Total Phenols

Total Phenols (HPLC) µg/kg 7 NONE < 7.0 < 7.0 < 7.0 < 7.0 < 7.0

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Coronene mg/kg 0.05 NONE < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Total PAH

Total WAC-17 PAHs mg/kg 1.6 NONE < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6



Iss No 14-57277-1

Page 2 of 8



Lab Sample Number 355937 355938 355939 355940 355941

Sample Reference BH01 BH01 BH02 BH02 BH04

Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Depth (m) 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.20

Date Sampled 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014

Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Soil Analysis)

Units

Lim

it of

detectio

n

Accredita

tion

Status

Heavy Metals / Metalloids

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 5.4 3.2 2.6 1.9 6.2

Barium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 27 19 13 10 26

Beryllium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.06 MCERTS 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3

Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0

Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 9.8 9.6 7.9 7.8 13

Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 9.2 8.3 7.4 5.0 10

Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 21 6.5 5.6 3.9 13

Manganese (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 1700 790 400 230 1900

Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3

Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 3.2 3.4 1.8 1.2 10

Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Vanadium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 17 15 11 8.1 17

Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 28 26 20 14 36

Monoaromatics

Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1



TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0



TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTS < 8.0 < 8.0 < 8.0 < 8.0 < 8.0TPH-CWG - Aliphatic > EC35 - EC44 mg/kg 8.4 NONE < 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC44) mg/kg 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1



TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic > EC35 - EC44 mg/kg 8.4 NONE < 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4

TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC44) mg/kg 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

TPH (C10 - C25) mg/kg 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

TPH (C25 - C40) mg/kg 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10



Iss No 14-57277-1

Page 3 of 8



Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Units

Lim

it of

detectio

n

Accredita

tion

Status

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE

Moisture Content % N/A NONE

Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025

General Inorganics

pH pH Units N/A MCERTS

Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Free Cyanide mg/kg 1 NONE

Water Soluble Sulphate (Soil Equivalent) g/l 0.0025 MCERTS

Water Soluble Sulphate as SO 4 (2:1) mg/kg 2.5 MCERTS

Water Soluble Sulphate (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS

Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Elemental Sulphur mg/kg 20 NONE

Ammonium - Exchangeable as NH4 mg/kg 5 MCERTS

Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS

Fraction Organic Carbon (FOC) N/A 0.00001 NONE

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % 0.1 MCERTS

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

Phenols by HPLC

Catechol µg/kg 1 NONE

Resorcinol µg/kg 1 NONE

Butyl Phenols µg/kg 1 NONE

Cresols µg/kg 1 NONE

Naphthols µg/kg 1 NONE

Phenol µg/kg 0.1 NONE

Trimethylphenol µg/kg 1 NONE

Total Phenols

Total Phenols (HPLC) µg/kg 7 NONE

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS

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

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Coronene mg/kg 0.05 NONE

Total PAH

Total WAC-17 PAHs mg/kg 1.6 NONE

355942 355943 355944 355945 355946

BH04 BH05 BH05 HD01 HD01

None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

1.00 0.20 1.00 0.50 1.00

08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014


< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

10 10 10 12 12

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.5

Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected

6.6 6.4 6.6 6.6 6.5

< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

0.021 0.011 0.012 0.0094 0.01321 11 12 9.4 13

0.011 0.0053 0.0060 0.0047 0.0064

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20< 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0

0.5 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.5

0.0029 0.0073 0.0043 0.0042 0.0028

0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3

< 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 7.0 < 7.0 < 7.0 < 7.0 < 7.0

< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10

< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

< 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6 < 1.6



Iss No 14-57277-1

Page 4 of 8



Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Units

Lim

it of

detectio

n

Accredita

tion

Status


Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Barium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Beryllium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.06 MCERTS

Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS

Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Manganese (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS

Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Vanadium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Monoaromatics

Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS

Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS

Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS

p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS

o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS


TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS



TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS



TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTSTPH-CWG - Aliphatic > EC35 - EC44 mg/kg 8.4 NONE

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC44) mg/kg 10 NONE

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.1 MCERTS



TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS



TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTSTPH-CWG - Aromatic > EC35 - EC44 mg/kg 8.4 NONE

TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS

TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC44) mg/kg 10 NONE

TPH (C10 - C25) mg/kg 10 NONE

TPH (C25 - C40) mg/kg 10 NONE

355942 355943 355944 355945 355946

BH04 BH05 BH05 HD01 HD01


1.00 0.20 1.00 0.50 1.00

08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014


8.8 11 5.4 5.8 6.3

23 32 22 12 14

0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2

< 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

< 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

< 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0

13 16 12 10 11

11 15 10 8.9 9.7

8.6 17 6.9 5.9 7.0

490 1800 820 140 190

< 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3

9.6 12 6.8 3.2 4.1

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

18 25 14 13 14

32 38 26 16 16

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0

< 8.0 < 8.0 < 8.0 < 8.0 < 8.0

< 8.0 < 8.0 < 8.0 < 8.0 < 8.0< 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4

< 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

< 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

< 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

< 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0

< 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

< 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10< 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4 < 8.4

< 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

< 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

< 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

< 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10



Iss No 14-57277-1

Page 5 of 8

Analytical Report Number : 14-57277


Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample

NumberDepth (m) Sample Description *

355937 BH01 None Supplied 0.20 Brown sandy topsoil with gravel and vegetation.

355938 BH01 None Supplied 0.50 Light brown sandy topsoil with gravel and vegetation.







355945 HD01 None Supplied 0.50 Light brown sandy topsoil with gravel and vegetation.

355946 HD01 None Supplied 1.00 Light brown sandy topsoil with gravel and vegetation.

* These descriptions are only intended to act as a cross check if sample identities are questioned. The major constituent of the sample is intended to act with respect to MCERTS

validation. The laboratory is accredited for sand, clay and topsoil/loam soil types. Data for unaccredited types of solid should be interpreted with care.

========================================================================================================= Stone content

of a sample is calculated as the % weight of the stones not passing a 2 mm sieve. Results are not corrected for stone content.



Iss No 14-57277-1

Page 6 of 8



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

Analytical Test Name Analytical Method Description Analytical Method ReferenceMethod

number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Asbestos identification in soil Asbestos Identification with the use of polarised

light microscopy in conjunction with disperion

staining techniques.

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

Boron, water soluble, in soil Determination of water soluble boron in soil by hot

water extract followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on Second Site

Properties version 3

L038-PL D MCERTS

BTEX and MTBE in soil Determination of BTEX in soil by headspace GC-

MS.

In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073S-PL W MCERTS

Elemental sulphur in soil Determination of elemental sulphur in soil by

extraction in dichloromethane followed by HPLC.

In-house method based on Secondsite

Property Holdings Guidance for Assessing

and Managing Potential

L021-PL D NONE

Exchangeable Ammonium as NH4 in

soil

Determination of

Ammonium/Ammonia/Ammoniacal Nitrogen by the

colorimetric salicylate/nitroprusside method.

In-house method based on Examination of

Water and Wastewater 20th Edition:

Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton

L082-PL W MCERTS

Fraction of Organic Carbon in soil Determination of fraction of organic carbon in soil

by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by

titration with iron (II) sulphate.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3,

1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests

L023-PL D NONE

Free cyanide in soil Determination of free cyanide by distillation

followed by colorimetry.



Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)

L080-PL W NONE

Hexavalent chromium in soil Determination of hexavalent chromium in soil by

extraction in water then by acidification, addition of

1,5 diphenylcarbazide followed by colorimetry.

In-house method L080-PL D MCERTS

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

digestion followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on MEWAM 2006

Methods for the Determination of Metals in

Soil.

L038-PL D MCERTS

Moisture Content Moisture content, determined gravimetrically. In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3,


L019-UK/PL W NONE

Organic matter in soil Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising

with potassium dichromate followed by titration

with iron (II) sulphate.

BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and

Electrochemical Tests

L023-PL D MCERTS

pH in soil Determination of pH in soil by addition of water

followed by electrometric measurement.



L005-PL W MCERTS

Phenols, speciated, in soil, by HPLC Determination of speciated phenols by HPLC. In house method based on Blue Book

Method.

L064 W NONE

Speciated WAC-17 PAHs in soil Determination of PAH compounds in soil by

extraction in dichloromethane and hexane followed

by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal

standards.

In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L064-PL D NONE

Stones content of soil Standard preparation for all samples unless

otherwise detailed. Stones not passing through a

10 mm sieve is determined gravimetrically and

reported as a percentage of the dry weight.

Sample results are not corrected for the stone

In-house method based on British Standard

Methods and MCERTS requirements.

L019-UK/PL D NONE

Sulphate, water soluble, in soil Determination of water soluble sulphate by

extraction with water followed by ICP-OES. Results

reported corrected for extraction ratio (soil

equivalent) as g/l and mg/kg; and upon the 2:1

leachate (g/l).



L038-PL D MCERTS

Sulphide in soil Determination of sulphide in soil by acidification

and heating to liberate hydrogen sulphide, trapped

in an alkaline solution then assayed by ion

selective electrode.

In-house method L010-PL D MCERTS



Iss No 14-57277-1

Page 7 of 8





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Total cyanide in soil Determination of total cyanide by distillation

followed by colorimetry.



Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)

L080-PL W MCERTS

Total organic carbon in soil Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising

with potassium dichromate followed by titration

with iron (II) sulphate.



L023-PL D MCERTS

TPH Oils (Soils) Determination of dichloromethane/hexane

extractable hydrocarbons in soil by GC-MS.

In-house method L064-PL D NONE

TPHCWG (Soil) Determination of pentane extractable

hydrocarbons in soil by GC-MS/GC-FID.

In-house method L076-PL W MCERTS

Water Soluble Nitrate (2:1) as N in

soil

Determination of nitrate in soil by extraction in

water followed by reaction with sodium salicilate in

the presence of sulphuric acid. The reaction

product is nitrosalicylic acid, which forms a yellow

chromophore upon the addition of alkali, the

In-house method based on Polish Standard

Method PN-82/C-04579.08.

L078-PL D NONE

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

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

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

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



Iss No 14-57277-1

Page 8 of 8

Will Shuker

t: 01452 739 165 t: 01923 225404f: 01452 739 220 f: 01923 237404e: [email protected] e:

Project / Site name: Samples received on: 05/09/2014

Your job number: C4191 Samples instructed on: 08/09/2014

Your order number: Analysis completed by: 16/09/2014

Report Issue Number: 1 Report issued on: 16/09/2014

Samples Analysed: 4 water samples

Pease Pottage

CC Ground Investigation LtdUnit A2Innsworth Tech ParkInnsworth LaneGloucesterGL3 1DL

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


[email protected]

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. The results included within the report are representative of the samples submitted for analysis.

Iss No 14-59573-1

Page 1 of 4

Signed: Signed:

Organics Technical Manager Reporting ManagerFor & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd. For & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.

Other office located at: ul. Pionierów 39, 41 -711 Ruda Śląska, Poland

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

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

Thurstan Plummer Rexona Rahman


Iss No 14-59573-1

Page 1 of 4



Lab Sample Number 370443 370444 370445 370446Sample Reference BH01 BH02 BH04 BH05Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Depth (m) None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Date Sampled 29/08/2014 29/08/2014 29/08/2014 29/08/2014Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Water Analysis)

Units

Limit o

f

detection

Accreditation

Status

General Inorganics

Total Cyanide µg/l 10 ISO 17025 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10Free Cyanide µg/l 10 ISO 17025 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10Sulphate as SO4 µg/l 45 ISO 17025 83100 27500 20700 32800

Sulphide µg/l 5 NONE < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N µg/l 15 ISO 17025 880 320 260 320Nitrate as N mg/l 0.25 ISO 17025 < 0.3 2.4 1.4 0.6Hardness - Total mgCaCO3/l 1 ISO 17025 275 168 225 217

Phenols by HPLC

Catechol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Resorcinol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Ethylphenol & Dimethylphenol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Cresols µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Naphthols µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Isopropylphenol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Phenol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Trimethylphenol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Total Phenols

Total Phenols (HPLC) µg/l 3.5 NONE < 3.5 < 3.5 < 3.5 < 3.5

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Acenaphthylene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Acenaphthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Fluorene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Phenanthrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Anthracene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Pyrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(a)anthracene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Chrysene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(a)pyrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(ghi)perylene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Total PAH

Total EPA-16 PAHs µg/l 0.2 ISO 17025 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20


Arsenic (dissolved) µg/l 0.15 ISO 17025 4.33 3.06 4.77 5.53Barium (dissolved) µg/l 0.06 ISO 17025 66 25 31 44Beryllium (dissolved) µg/l 0.1 ISO 17025 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1Boron (dissolved) µg/l 10 ISO 17025 81 54 20 32Cadmium (dissolved) µg/l 0.02 ISO 17025 0.04 < 0.02 0.07 0.06Chromium (dissolved) µg/l 0.2 ISO 17025 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.7Copper (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 ISO 17025 < 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.7Lead (dissolved) µg/l 0.2 ISO 17025 3.1 2.9 1.7 3.1Mercury (dissolved) µg/l 0.05 ISO 17025 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05Nickel (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 ISO 17025 8.1 0.8 1.3 4.2Selenium (dissolved) µg/l 0.6 ISO 17025 < 0.6 < 0.6 < 0.6 < 0.6Vanadium (dissolved) µg/l 0.2 ISO 17025 < 0.2 1.1 < 0.2 < 0.2Zinc (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 ISO 17025 3.3 4.2 1.1 9.6

Calcium (dissolved) mg/l 0.005 ISO 17025 86.9 63.6 83.7 80.1Magnesium (dissolved) mg/l 0.002 ISO 17025 14 2.2 4.0 4.1


Iss No 14-59573-1

Page 2 of 4



Lab Sample Number 370443 370444 370445 370446Sample Reference BH01 BH02 BH04 BH05Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Depth (m) None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Date Sampled 29/08/2014 29/08/2014 29/08/2014 29/08/2014Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Water Analysis)

Units

Limit o

f

detection

Accreditation

Status

Monoaromatics

Benzene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Toluene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Ethylbenzene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0p & m-xylene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0o-xylene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0


Petroleum Range Organics (C6 - C10) µg/l 10 NONE < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C5 - C6 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C6 - C8 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C8 - C10 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C10 - C12 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C12 - C16 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C16 - C21 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C21 - C35 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C35 - C44 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (C5 - C35) µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (C5 - C44) mg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C5 - C7 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C7 - C8 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C8 - C10 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C10 - C12 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C12 - C16 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C16 - C21 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C21 - C35 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C35 - C44 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic (C5 - C35) µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic (C5 - C44) mg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

U/S = Unsuitable Sample I/S = Insufficient Sample


Iss No 14-59573-1

Page 3 of 4





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N in water Determination of Ammonium/Ammonia/Ammoniacal Nitrogen by the colorimetric salicylate/nitroprusside method. Accredited matrices SW, GW, PW.

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

L082-PL W ISO 17025

Boron in water Determination of boron by acidification followed by ICP-MS. Accredited matrices: SW, GW.

In-house method based on MEWAM L012-PL W ISO 17025

BTEX and MTBE in water Determination of BTEX and MTBE in water by headspace GC-MS. Accredited matrices: SW PW GW

In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073W-PL W ISO 17025

Free cyanide in water Determination of free cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry.

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

L080-PL W ISO 17025

Metals in water by ICP-MS (dissolved) Determination of metals in water by acidification followed by ICP-MS. Accredited Matrices: SW, GW, PW except B=SW,GW, Hg=SW,PW, Al=SW,PW.

In-house method based on MEWAM 1986 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil""

L012-PL W ISO 17025

Nitrate as N in water Determination of nitrate in water by colorimetric assay. Accredited matrices SW, GW, PW.


L078-PL W ISO 17025

Phenols, speciated, in water, by HPLC Determination of speciated phenols by HPLC. In house method based on Blue Book Method.

L030-PL W NONE

PRO (Waters) Determination of hydrocarbons C6-C10 by headspace GC-MS.

In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073W-PL W NONE

Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in water Determination of PAH compounds in water by extraction in dichloromethane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards. Accredited matrices: SW PW GW

In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L070-UK W ISO 17025

Sulphate in water Determination of sulphate in water by acidification followed by ICP-OES. Accredited matrices: SW PW GW

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

L039-PL W ISO 17025

Sulphide in water Determination of sulphide in water by ion selective electrode.

In-house method L010-PL W NONE

Total cyanide in water Determination of total cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry. Accredited matrices: SW PW GW


L080-PL W ISO 17025

Total Hardness of water Determination of hardness in waters by calculation from calcium and magnesium. Accredited Matrices SW, GW, PW.


L045-PL W ISO 17025

TPH in (Water) In-house method L070-PL NONE

TPHCWG (Waters) Determination of dichloromethane extractable hydrocarbons in water by GC-MS, speciation by interpretation.

In-house method L070-UK W NONE






Iss No 14-59573-1

Page 4 of 4

Will Shuker

t: 01452 739 165 t: 01923 225404f: 01452 739 220 f: 01923 237404e: [email protected] e:

Project / Site name: Samples received on: 15/10/2014

Your job number: C4191 Samples instructed on: 15/10/2014

Your order number: Analysis completed by: 17/10/2014

Report Issue Number: 1 Report issued on: 17/10/2014

Samples Analysed:

[email protected]

4 water samples

Pease Pottage

CC Ground Investigation LtdUnit A2Innsworth Tech ParkInnsworth LaneGloucesterGL3 1DL

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



Iss No 14-61402-1

Page 1 of 4

Signed: Signed:

Quality Manager Reporting ManagerFor & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd. For & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.

Other office located at: ul. Pionierów 39, 41 -711 Ruda Śląska, Poland

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

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

Rexona RahmanDr Claire Stone


Iss No 14-61402-1

Page 1 of 4



Lab Sample Number 381745 381746 381747 381748Sample Reference BH01 BH02 BH04 BH05Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDate Sampled 12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Water Analysis)

Units

Limit o

f

detection

Accreditation

Status

General Inorganics

Total Cyanide µg/l 10 ISO 17025 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10Free Cyanide µg/l 10 ISO 17025 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10Sulphate as SO4 µg/l 45 ISO 17025 12500 12400 12500 12400

Total Sulphur µg/l 15 NONE 4200 4100 4200 4100Sulphide µg/l 5 NONE < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N µg/l 15 ISO 17025 91 64 170 100Nitrate as N mg/l 0.25 ISO 17025 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5Hardness - Total mgCaCO3/l 1 ISO 17025 87.5 69.0 63.1 65.7

Phenols by HPLC

Catechol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Resorcinol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Ethylphenol & Dimethylphenol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Cresols µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Naphthols µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Isopropylphenol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Phenol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5Trimethylphenol µg/l 0.5 NONE < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Total Phenols

Total Phenols (HPLC) µg/l 3.5 NONE < 3.5 < 3.5 < 3.5 < 3.5

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Acenaphthylene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Acenaphthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Fluorene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Phenanthrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Anthracene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Pyrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(a)anthracene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Chrysene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(a)pyrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01Benzo(ghi)perylene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Total PAH

Total EPA-16 PAHs µg/l 0.2 ISO 17025 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20


Arsenic (dissolved) µg/l 0.15 ISO 17025 < 0.15 < 0.15 0.25 0.23Barium (dissolved) µg/l 0.06 ISO 17025 77 64 93 83Beryllium (dissolved) µg/l 0.1 ISO 17025 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1Boron (dissolved) µg/l 10 ISO 17025 18 < 10 18 < 10Cadmium (dissolved) µg/l 0.02 ISO 17025 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02Chromium (dissolved) µg/l 0.2 ISO 17025 0.2 < 0.2 0.3 0.2Copper (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 ISO 17025 6.4 3.9 4.1 6.5Lead (dissolved) µg/l 0.2 ISO 17025 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.3 < 0.2Mercury (dissolved) µg/l 0.05 ISO 17025 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05Nickel (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 ISO 17025 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0Selenium (dissolved) µg/l 0.6 ISO 17025 < 0.6 < 0.6 < 0.6 < 0.6Vanadium (dissolved) µg/l 0.2 ISO 17025 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2Zinc (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 ISO 17025 3.0 2.7 3.1 4.6

Calcium (dissolved) mg/l 0.005 ISO 17025 26.7 20.7 15.3 17.5Magnesium (dissolved) mg/l 0.002 ISO 17025 5.1 4.2 6.0 5.3


Iss No 14-61402-1Page 2 of 4



Lab Sample Number 381745 381746 381747 381748Sample Reference BH01 BH02 BH04 BH05Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDate Sampled 12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014 12/10/2014Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Water Analysis)

Units

Limit o

f

detection

Accreditation

Status

Monoaromatics

Benzene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Toluene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0Ethylbenzene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0p & m-xylene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0o-xylene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0


Petroleum Range Organics (C6 - C10) µg/l 10 NONE < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C5 - C6 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C6 - C8 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C8 - C10 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C10 - C12 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C12 - C16 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C16 - C21 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C21 - C35 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C35 - C44 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (C5 - C35) µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (C5 - C44) mg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C5 - C7 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C7 - C8 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C8 - C10 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C10 - C12 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C12 - C16 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C16 - C21 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C21 - C35 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C35 - C44 µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic (C5 - C35) µg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic (C5 - C44) mg/l 10 NONE < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

U/S = Unsuitable Sample I/S = Insufficient Sample


Iss No 14-61402-1Page 3 of 4





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N in water Determination of Ammonium/Ammonia/Ammoniacal Nitrogen by the colorimetric salicylate/nitroprusside method. Accredited matrices SW, GW, PW.


L082-PL W ISO 17025

Boron in water Determination of boron by acidification followed by ICP-MS. Accredited matrices: SW, GW.

In-house method based on MEWAM L012-PL W ISO 17025

BTEX and MTBE in water Determination of BTEX and MTBE in water by headspace GC-MS. Accredited matrices: SW PW GW

In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073W-PL W ISO 17025

Free cyanide in water Determination of free cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry.


L080-PL W ISO 17025

Metals in water by ICP-MS (dissolved) Determination of metals in water by acidification followed by ICP-MS. Accredited Matrices: SW, GW, PW except B=SW,GW, Hg=SW,PW, Al=SW,PW.

In-house method based on MEWAM 1986 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil""

L012-PL W ISO 17025

Metals in water by ICP-OES (dissolved)

Determination of metals in water by acidification followed by ICP-OES. Accredited Matrices SW, GW, PW.


L039-PL W NONE

Nitrate as N in water Determination of nitrate in water by colorimetric assay. Accredited matrices SW, GW, PW.


L078-PL W ISO 17025

Phenols, speciated, in water, by HPLC Determination of speciated phenols by HPLC. In house method based on Blue Book Method.

L030-PL W NONE

PRO (Waters) Determination of hydrocarbons C6-C10 by headspace GC-MS.

In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073W-PL W NONE

Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in water Determination of PAH compounds in water by extraction in dichloromethane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards. Accredited matrices: SW PW GW

In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L070-UK W ISO 17025

Sulphate in water Determination of sulphate in water by acidification followed by ICP-OES. Accredited matrices: SW PW GW


L039-PL W ISO 17025

Sulphide in water Determination of sulphide in water by ion selective electrode.

In-house method L010-PL W NONE

Total cyanide in water Determination of total cyanide by distillation followed by colorimetry. Accredited matrices: SW PW GW


L080-PL W ISO 17025

Total Hardness of water Determination of hardness in waters by calculation from calcium and magnesium. Accredited Matrices SW, GW, PW.


L045-PL W ISO 17025

TPH in (Water) In-house method L070-UK NONE

TPHCWG (Waters) Determination of dichloromethane extractable hydrocarbons in water by GC-MS, speciation by interpretation.

In-house method L070-UK W NONE






Iss No 14-61402-1

Page 4 of 4

Borehole DateBarometric Pressure

(mb)

Carbon Dioxide

(%)

Methane (%)

Oxygen (min) (%)

Hydrogen Sulphide

(ppm)

Carbon Monoxide

(ppm)

Gas Flow (min/max)

(Litres/hour)

Water Level (m) Comments

BH01 15/08/14 999.00 3.80 0.00 14.70 0.00 0.00 +0.1/+0.3 7.34BH02 15/08/14 999.00 0.70 0.00 20.40 0.00 5.00 +0.1/+0.1 6.73BH04 15/08/14 999.00 2.10 0.00 19.50 0.00 28.00 +0.1/+0.1 6.79BH05 15/08/14 999.00 4.30 0.00 12.20 0.00 13.00 +0.1/+0.1 5.83

GA5000 Gas analyser.Geotechnical Instruments dip meter.

C4191

Pease Pottage


Peak Gas and Groundwater Monitoring

Contract Name:

Contract ID:

Client:

Instrument used:


(mb)

Carbon Dioxide

(%)

Methane (%)

Oxygen (min) (%)

Hydrogen Sulphide

(ppm)

Carbon Monoxide

(ppm)

Gas Flow (min/max)

(Litres/hour)


BH01 29/08/14 1013.00 4.10 0.00 18.50 0.00 0.00 +0.1/+0.2 6.34 Water sample takenBH02 29/08/14 1012.00 0.60 0.00 20.50 0.00 7.00 +0.1/+0.1 6.74 Water sample takenBH04 29/08/14 1012.00 2.20 0.00 19.60 0.00 19.00 +0.1/+0.1 6.72 Water sample takenBH05 29/08/14 1012.00 4.60 0.00 13.60 0.00 16.00 +0.1/+0.1 5.87 Water sample taken


C4191

Pease Pottage



Contract Name:

Contract ID:

Client:

Instrument used:


(mb)

Carbon Dioxide

(%)

Methane (%)

Oxygen (min) (%)

Hydrogen Sulphide

(ppm)

Carbon Monoxide

(ppm)

Gas Flow (min/max)

(Litres/hour)


BH01 12/09/14 1009.00 3.90 0.00 19.20 0.00 0.00 +0.1/+0.2 6.35BH02 12/09/14 1009.00 0.50 0.00 20.50 0.00 8.00 +0.1/+0.1 6.76BH04 12/09/14 1010.00 2.30 0.00 19.40 0.00 16.00 +0.1/+0.1 6.75BH05 12/09/14 1009.00 4.70 0.00 13.70 0.00 15.00 +0.1/+0.1 5.85


C4191

Pease Pottage



Contract Name:

Contract ID:

Client:

Instrument used:

CC Ground Investigations Ltd

PERMEABILITY TESTCLIENT Waterman Energy, Environment and design BOREHOLE BH01SITE Pease Pottage

DEPTH RECORDDEPTH OF BOREHOLE 4.50 m BOREHOLE DIAMETERDEPTH OF CASING 3.50 m IN TEST SECTION 0.14 mTEST INTERVAL 1.00 m TYPE OF TEST FALLINGHEIGHT OF DATUM ABOVE GROUND LEVEL 0.60 m DIAMETER OF CASING 0.127 mDEPTH TO STANDING WATER BELOW DATUM Dry mTEST RECORD

ELAPSED DEPTH TO HEAD HTIME WATER BELOW (m) HO

(min) DATUM (m) H

0.00 0.601.00 0.692.00 0.693.00 0.694.00 0.695.00 0.696.00 0.697.00 0.698.00 0.709.00 0.7210.00 0.7415.00 0.7820.00 0.8225.00 0.8430.00 0.8940.00 1.0250.00 1.0260.00 1.05

RESULTSCross sectional area of casing m2

Intake factorTime lag sPermeability ms-1

REMARKS

Insufficient fall in head for analysis.CONTRACT CHECKED

C4191 MC

0.10

1.00

0 2 4 6 8 10

H/H O

TIME (min)


PERMEABILITY TESTCLIENT Waterman Energy, Environment and design BOREHOLE BH02SITE Pease Pottage

DEPTH RECORDDEPTH OF BOREHOLE 5.50 m BOREHOLE DIAMETERDEPTH OF CASING 4.50 m IN TEST SECTION 0.14 mTEST INTERVAL 1.00 m TYPE OF TEST FALLINGHEIGHT OF DATUM ABOVE GROUND LEVEL 0.56 m DIAMETER OF CASING 0.127 mDEPTH TO STANDING WATER BELOW DATUM 5.15 mTEST RECORD


(min) DATUM (m) H

0.00 0.00 5.15 1.001.00 1.97 3.18 0.622.00 3.45 1.70 0.333.00 4.30 0.85 0.174.00 4.90 0.25 0.055.00 5.00 0.15 0.036.00 5.12 0.03 0.017.00 5.12 0.03 0.018.00 5.13 0.02 0.0040.00 5.15 0.00 0.00

RESULTSCross sectional area of casing 1.27E-02 m2

Intake factor 0.685Time lag 108 sPermeability 1.7E-04 ms-1

REMARKS

Groundwater level assumed at 4.59m.Test carried out partially above groundwater level, analysis not strictly appropriate. CONTRACT CHECKED

C4191 MC

0.10

1.00

0 2 4 6 8 10

H/H O

TIME (min)


PERMEABILITY TESTCLIENT Waterman Energy, Environment and Design BOREHOLE BH04SITE Pease Pottage



(min) DATUM (m) H

0.00 0.00 6.80 1.001.00 0.42 6.38 0.942.00 0.42 6.38 0.943.00 0.43 6.37 0.944.00 0.45 6.35 0.935.00 0.48 6.32 0.936.00 0.52 6.28 0.927.00 0.54 6.26 0.928.00 0.57 6.23 0.929.00 0.62 6.18 0.9110.00 0.68 6.12 0.9015.00 0.84 5.96 0.8820.00 0.96 5.84 0.8625.00 1.30 5.50 0.8130.00 1.34 5.46 0.8040.00 1.73 5.07 0.7550.00 2.03 4.77 0.7060.00 2.35 4.45 0.65



REMARKS

Calculated by extrapolating timeline.Groundwater level assumed at 6.70m below ground level. CONTRACT CHECKED

Test carried out above groundwater level, analysis not strictly appropriate C4191 MC

0.10

1.00

0 50 100 150 200

H/H O

TIME (min)


PERMEABILITY TESTCLIENT Waterman Energy, Environment and Design BOREHOLE BH05SITE Pease Pottage



(min) DATUM (m) H

0.00 0.00 5.42 1.001.00 2.46 2.96 0.552.00 2.57 2.85 0.533.00 3.03 2.39 0.444.00 3.10 2.32 0.435.00 3.32 2.10 0.396.00 3.44 1.98 0.377.00 3.63 1.79 0.338.00 3.79 1.63 0.309.00 3.89 1.53 0.2810.00 4.03 1.39 0.2615.00 4.58 0.84 0.1520.00 4.63 0.79 0.1525.00 4.71 0.71 0.1330.00 4.71 0.71 0.1340.00 4.71 0.71 0.1350.00 4.76 0.66 0.1260.00 4.76 0.66 0.12



REMARKS

Groundwater level assumed at 4.10m.Test carried out above groundwater level, analysis not strictly appropriate. CONTRACT CHECKED

C4191 MC

0.10

1.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

H/H O

TIME (min)

Contract ID: C4191 Hole ID: HD01 Date: 11/07/2014Site Name: Client:

Time (m) Depth (m)

0 0.7

1 0.7 Pit Dimentions

2 0.7 Length (m): 0.3 Fill level (mBGL) 0.65

5 0.7 Width (m): 0.3 Effective Depth (m) 0.35

10 0.7 Depth (m): 1 100

15 0.7

20 0.7 75 % Effective Depth: 0.7375 m BGL

25 0.7 25 % Effective Depth: 0.9125 m

30 0.7 Calculated Volume Vp75-25 0.016 m3

40 0.7 Average Soakage Area ap50 0.3 m2

50 0.7 Time at Vp75 24 mins

60 0.7 Time at Vp25 72 mins

tp75-25 2880 s

Calculated Infiltration Rate 1.82E-05 ms-1

Remarks:

Insufficient soakage to calculate infiltration rate

Test carried out by: WS Date: 11/07/2014Test checked by: JD Date: 06/10/2014

Pourosity (%)

Field Data Infiltration Calculations

Test 1 of 3

Soakaway Test

Pease Pottage CrawleyWaterman Energy Environment & Design London

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

0 200

Dept

h to

wat

er (m

)

Time (minutes)

LABO RATO RY REPO RT

4043

Contract Number: PSL14/4754

Client’s Reference: Report Date: 01 October 2014 Client Name: CC Ground Investigations Ltd

Unit A2 Innsworth Technology Park. Innsworth Lane Gloucester GL3 1DL

For the attention of: James Dodd Contract Title: Pease Pottage

Date Received: 18/9/2014 Date Commenced: 18/9/2014 Date Completed: 1/10/2014 Notes: Observations and Interpretations are outside the UKAS Accreditation

* Denotes test not included in laboratory scope of accreditation $ Denotes test carried out by approved contractor

5 – 7 Hexthorpe Road, Hexthorpe, Doncaster DN4 0AR

tel: +44 (0)844 815 6641 fax: +44 (0)844 815 6642 e-mail: [email protected] awatkins

A copy of the Laboratory Schedule of accredited tests as issued by UKAS is attached to this report. This certificate is issued in accordance with the accreditation requirements of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The results reported herein relate only to the material supplied to the laboratory. This certificate shall not be reproduced in full,

without the prior written approval of the laboratory.

Checked and Approved Signatories: R Gunson A Watkins M Beastall (Director) (Director) (Laboratory Manager)

D Lambe S Royle

(Senior Technician) (Senior Technician) Page 1 of

@prosoils.co.uk

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY SOIL DESCRIPTIONS

Hole Sample Sample Depth Description of Sample

Number Number Type m

BH01 B 0.20 Brown very gravelly very sandy clayey SILT.


BH01 D 2.90-3.00 Brown mottled grey slightly sandy silty CLAY.

BH01 C 4.50-5.80 Light brown SANDSTONE.


BH01 C 8.60-10.00 Light grey MUDSTONE.


BH02 D 2.40-2.50 Brown silty CLAY.


BH04 B 0.20 Brown gravelly sandy clayey SILT.

BH04 B 1.00 Brown very gravelly sandy clayey SILT.



BH05 D 2.40 Brown sandy silty GRAVEL.



Compiled by Date Checked by Date Approved by Date

30/09/14 01/10/14 01/10/14

Contract No:

Client Ref:PEASE POTTAGE.

PSL14/4754

C4191

Page of .

SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION TESTS(B.S. 1377 : PART 2 : 1990)

Moisture Bulk Dry Particle Liquid Plastic Plasticity %Hole Sample Sample Depth Content Density Density Density Limit Limit Index Passing Remarks

Number Number Type m % Mg/m3 Mg/m3 Mg/m3 % % % .425mm

Clause 3.2 Clause 7.2 Clause 7.2 Clause 8.2 Clause 4.3/4.4 Clause 5.3 Clause 5.4

BH01 C 4.50-5.80 2.2 2.07 2.02

BH01 C 7.10-8.30 2.6 2.04 1.98

BH01 C 8.60-10.00 11 2.29 2.06

BH02 C 4.00-5.50 2.7 1.92 1.87

BH04 C 3.50-4.50 5.4 1.83 1.73

BH04 C 6.00-7.10 5.1 2.06 1.95

BH05 C 5.40-6.50 2.6 NP

BH05 C 8.00-9.50 1.8 2.27 2.22

SYMBOLS : NP : Non Plastic * : Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit Wet Sieved.

Compiled by Date Checked by Date Approved by Date

30/09/14 01/10/14 01/10/14

PSL14/4754

C4191PEASE POTTAGE.

Contract No:

Client Ref:

PSLR002 Issue 1 Jun 06 Page of .

Hole Number: BH01 Depth (m): 0.20

Sample Number: Sample Type: B

BS Test Percentage 1 1 Soil TotalSieve Passing 1 1 Fraction Percentage125 100 1 175 100 1 1 Cobbles 063 100 1 1 Gravel 24

37.5 100 1 1 Sand 2620 94 1 1 Silt / Clay 5010 88 1 16.3 83

3.35 792 76

1.18 74 Remarks:0.6 73 See summary of soil descriptions.0.3 72

0.212 660.15 58

0.063 50 Checked By Date Approved By Date

01/10/14 01/10/14

PEASE POTTAGE.Contract No.:PSL14/4754

Particle Size Distribution TestBS1377 : Part 2 : 1990

Wet Sieve, Clause 9.2

0.00

2

0.00

6

0.02

0

0.06

3

0.15

0

0.21

20.

300

0.60

0

1.18 2.00

3.35

6.3

10.0

20.0

37.5

63 75 125

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm).

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

.

Page of




37.5 100 1 1 Sand 2720 95 1 1 Silt / Clay 4810 85 1 16.3 82

3.35 772 75


0.212 670.15 56


01/10/14 01/10/14




0.00

2

0.00

6

0.02

0

0.06

3

0.15

0

0.21

20.

300

0.60

0

1.18 2.00

3.35

6.3

10.0

20.0

37.5

63 75 125

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm).

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

.

Page of


Sample Number: Sample Type: D


37.5 100 1 1 Sand 720 100 1 1 Silt / Clay 9310 100 1 16.3 100

3.35 1002 100


0.212 990.15 98


01/10/14 01/10/14




0.00

2

0.00

6

0.02

0

0.06

3

0.15

0

0.21

20.

300

0.60

0

1.18 2.00

3.35

6.3

10.0

20.0

37.5

63 75 125

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm).

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

.

Page of




37.5 96 1 1 Sand 2420 93 1 1 Silt / Clay 4810 86 1 16.3 82

3.35 762 72


0.212 610.15 58


01/10/14 01/10/14




0.00

2

0.00

6

0.02

0

0.06

3

0.15

0

0.21

20.

300

0.60

0

1.18 2.00

3.35

6.3

10.0

20.0

37.5

63 75 125

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm).

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

.

Page of




37.5 100 1 1 Sand 020 100 1 1 Silt / Clay 10010 100 1 16.3 100

3.35 1002 100


0.212 1000.15 100


01/10/14 01/10/14




0.00

2

0.00

6

0.02

0

0.06

3

0.15

0

0.21

20.

300

0.60

0

1.18 2.00

3.35

6.3

10.0

20.0

37.5

63 75 125

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm).

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

.

Page of




37.5 100 1 1 Sand 1520 98 1 1 Silt / Clay 6910 94 1 16.3 91

3.35 872 84


0.212 770.15 74


01/10/14 01/10/14




0.00

2

0.00

6

0.02

0

0.06

3

0.15

0

0.21

20.

300

0.60

0

1.18 2.00

3.35

6.3

10.0

20.0

37.5

63 75 125

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm).

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

.

Page of




37.5 97 1 1 Sand 1220 91 1 1 Silt / Clay 5410 79 1 16.3 75

3.35 702 66


0.212 570.15 56


01/10/14 01/10/14




0.00

2

0.00

6

0.02

0

0.06

3

0.15

0

0.21

20.

300

0.60

0

1.18 2.00

3.35

6.3

10.0

20.0

37.5

63 75 125

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm).

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

.

Page of




37.5 92 1 1 Sand 1120 75 1 1 Silt / Clay 2710 55 1 16.3 47

3.35 412 38


0.212 360.15 35


01/10/14 01/10/14




0.00

2

0.00

6

0.02

0

0.06

3

0.15

0

0.21

20.

300

0.60

0

1.18 2.00

3.35

6.3

10.0

20.0

37.5

63 75 125

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Particle Size (mm).

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

.

Page of


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Appendix D Risk Rating Matrix

Table D.1: Risk rating for contaminated land qualitative risk assessment

Level of Severity Likelihood

Most Likely

Reasonably Foreseeable

Unlikely

Acute harm or severe chronic harm. Direct pollution of sensitive water receptors or serious pollution of other water bodies.

High High Low

Harm from long-term exposure. Slight pollution of sensitive receptors or pollution of other water bodies.

Medium Medium Low

No significant harm in either short or long term. No pollution of water that is likely to affect sensitive receptors. No more than slight pollution of other water bodies.

Low Low Low


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Appendix E Environmental Receptors

The Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance has a four category system that considers harm to human health, controlled waters, flora and fauna, property, livestock and crops. The Categories are broadly defined as follows:

1 Contaminated Land – similar to land where it is known that significant harm has been caused or significant harm is being caused

2 Contaminated Land – no significant harm being caused but there is a significant possibility for significant harm to be caused in the future

3 Not Contaminated Land – there may be harm being caused but no significant possibility for significant harm to be caused in the future

4 Not Contaminated Land – no pollutant linkage, normal levels of contaminants and no significant harm being caused and no significant possibility for significant harm to be caused in the future.

Table E.1: Significant pollution to controlled waters

Pollution of controlled waters

Under Section 78A(9) of Part 2A the term “pollution of controlled waters means the entry into controlled waters of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter. The term “controlled waters” in relation to England has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Water Resources Act 1991, except that “ground waters” does not include water contained in underground strata but above the saturation zones. (Paragraph 4.36)

Given that the Part 2A regime seeks to identify and deal with significant pollution (rather than lesser levels of pollution), the local authority should seek to focus on pollution which: (i) may be harmful to human health or the quality of aquatic ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems directly depending on aquatic ecosystems; (ii) which may result in damage to material property; or (iii) which may impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment. (Paragraph 4.37)

Significant pollution of controlled waters

Paragraph 4.38 states that “The following types of pollution should be considered to constitute significant pollution of controlled waters:

(a) Pollution equivalent to “environmental damage” to surface water or groundwater as defined by The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009, but which cannot be dealt with under those Regulations.

(b) Inputs resulting in deterioration of the quality of water abstracted, or intended to be used in the future, for human consumption such that additional treatment would be required to enable that use.

(c) A breach of a statutory surface water Environment Quality Standard, either directly or via a groundwater pathway.

(d) Input of a substance into groundwater resulting in a significant and sustained upward trend in concentration of contaminants (as defined in Article 2(3) of the Groundwater Daughter Directive (2006/118/EC)5)”.

Paragraph 4.39 states that “In some circumstances, the local authority may consider that the following types of pollution may constitute significant pollution: (a) significant concentrations6 of hazardous substances or non-hazardous pollutants in groundwater; or (b) significant concentrations of priority hazardous substances, priority substances or other specific polluting substances in surface water; at an appropriate, risk based


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

compliance point. The local authority should only conclude that pollution is significant if it considers that treating the land as contaminated land would be in accordance with the broad objectives of the regime as described in Section 1 (of the Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance). This would normally mean that the authority should conclude that less serious forms of pollution are not significant. In such cases the authority should consult the Environment Agency”.

The following types of circumstance should not be considered to be contaminated land on water pollution grounds:

(a) The fact that substances are merely entering water and none of the conditions for considering that significant pollution is being caused set out in paragraphs 4.38 and 4.39 above are being met.

(b) The fact that land is causing a discharge that is not discernible at a location immediately downstream or down-gradient of the land (when compared to upstream or up-gradient concentrations).

(c) Substances entering water in compliance with a discharge authorised under the Environmental Permitting Regulations.

Significant pollution of controlled waters is being caused

In deciding whether significant pollution of controlled waters is being caused, the local authority should consider that this test is only met where it is satisfied that the substances in question are continuing to enter controlled waters; or that they have already entered the waters and are likely to do so again in such a manner that past and likely future entry in effect constitutes ongoing pollution. For these purposes, the local authority should:

(a) Regard substances as having entered controlled waters where they are dissolved or suspended in those waters, or (if they are immiscible with water) they have direct contact with those waters on or beneath the surface of the water.

(b) Take the term “continuing to enter” to mean any measurable entry of the substance(s) into controlled waters additional to any which has already occurred.

(c) Take the term “likely to do so again” to mean more likely than not to occur again.

Land should not be determined as contaminated land on grounds that significant pollution of controlled waters is being caused where: (a) the relevant substance(s) are already present in controlled waters; (b) entry into controlled waters of the substance(s) from land has ceased; and (c) it is not likely that further entry will take place. Significant Possibility of Significant Pollution of Controlled Waters

In deciding whether or not a significant possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters exists, the local authority should first understand the possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters posed by the land, and the levels of certainty/uncertainty attached to that understanding, before it goes on to decide whether or not that possibility is significant. The term “possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters” means the estimated likelihood that significant pollution of controlled waters might occur. In assessing the possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters from land, the local authority should act in accordance with the advice on risk assessment in Section 3 and the guidance in this sub-section.

In deciding whether the possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters is significant the local authority should bear in mind that Part 2A makes the decision a positive legal test. In other words, for particular land to meet the test the authority needs reasonably to believe that there is a significant possibility of such pollution, rather than to demonstrate that there is not.

Before making its decision on whether a given possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters is significant, the local authority should consider:


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

(a) The estimated likelihood that the potential significant pollution of controlled waters would become manifest; the strength of evidence underlying the estimate; and the level of uncertainty underlying the estimate.

(b) The estimated impact of the potential significant pollution if it did occur. This should include consideration of whether the pollution would be likely to cause a breach of European water legislation, or make a major contribution to such a breach.

(c) The estimated timescale over which the significant pollution might become manifest.

(d) The authority’s initial estimate of whether remediation is feasible, and if so what it would involve and the extent to which it might provide a solution to the problem; how long it would take; what benefit it would be likely to bring; and whether the benefits would outweigh the costs and any impacts on local society or the environment from taking action

Reproduced from DEFRA (2012) Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance pursuant to section 78YA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by Section 57 of the Environment Act 1995.

Table E.2: Significant harm to human health, ecological systems and property

Relevant types of receptor Significant harm Significant possibility of significant harm

Human beings The following health effects should always be considered to constitute significant harm to human health: death; life threatening diseases (eg cancers); other diseases likely to have serious impacts on health; serious injury; birth defects; and impairment of reproductive functions. Other health effects may be considered by the local authority to constitute significant harm. For example, a wide range of conditions may or may not constitute significant harm (alone or in combination) including: physical injury; gastrointestinal disturbances; respiratory tract effects; cardio-vascular effects; central nervous system effects; skin ailments; effects on organs such as the liver or kidneys; or a wide range of other health impacts. In deciding whether or not a particular form of harm is significant harm, the local authority should consider the seriousness of the harm in question: including the impact on the health, and quality of life, of any person suffering the harm; and the scale of the harm. The authority should only conclude that harm is significant if it considers that treating the land as contaminated land would be in accordance with the broad objectives of the regime as described in Section 1 of the Contaminated Land Statutory

The risk posed by one or more relevant contaminant linkage(s) relating to the land comprises: (a) The estimated likelihood that significant harm might occur to an identified receptor, taking account of the current use of the land in question. (b) The estimated impact if the significant harm did occur – i.e. the nature of the harm, the seriousness of the harm to any person who might suffer it, and (where relevant) the extent of the harm in terms of how many people might suffer it. In estimating the likelihood that a specific form of significant harm might occur the local authority should, among other things, consider: (a) The estimated probability that the significant harm might occur: (i) if the land continues to be used as it is currently being used; and (ii) where relevant, if the land were to be used in a different way (or ways) in the future having regard to the guidance on “current use” in Section 3 of the Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance.


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx


Guidance. (b) The strength of evidence underlying the risk estimate. It should also consider the key assumptions on which the estimate of likelihood is based, and the level of uncertainty underlying the estimate.

Any ecological system, or living organism forming part of such a system, within a location which is:

a site of special scientific interest (under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended) and Part 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communitites Act 2006 (as amended));

a national nature reserve (under Section 35 of the WCA 1981 (as amended));

a marine nature reserve (under Section 36 of the WCA 1981 (as amended));

an area of special protection for birds (under Section 3 of the WCA 1981 (as amended));

a “European site” within the meaning of regulation 8 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended);

any habitat or site afforded policy protection under Section 11 of The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on conserving and enhancing the natural environment (i.e. possible Special Areas of Conservation, potential Special Protection Areas and listed or proposed Ramsar sites); or

any nature reserve established under Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

The following types of harm should be considered to be significant harm:

harm which results in an irreversible adverse change, or in some other substantial adverse change, in the functioning of the ecological system within any substantial part of that location; or

harm which significantly affects any species of special interest within that location and which endangers the long-term maintenance of the population of that species at that location.

In the case of European sites, harm should also be considered to be significant harm if it endangers the favourable conservation status of natural habitats at such locations or species typically found there. In deciding what constitutes such harm, the local authority should have regard to the advice of Natural England and to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Conditions would exist for considering that a significant possibility of significant harm exists to a relevant ecological receptor where the local authority considers that:

significant harm of that description is more likely than not to result from the contaminant linkage in question; or

there is a reasonable possibility of significant harm of that description being caused, and if that harm were to occur, it would result in such a degree of damage to features of special interest at the location in question that they would be beyond any practicable possibility of restoration.

Any assessment made for these purposes should take into account relevant information for that type of contaminant linkage, particularly in relation to the ecotoxicological effects of the contaminant.

Property in the form of:

crops, including timber produce grown domestically, or

on allotments, for consumption livestock other owned or domesticated

animals; wild animals which are the

For crops, a substantial diminution in yield or other substantial loss in their value resulting from death, disease or other physical damage. For domestic pets, death, serious disease or serious physical damage. For other property in this category, a substantial loss in its value resulting from death, disease or

Conditions would exist for considering that a significant possibility of significant harm exists to the relevant types of receptor where the local authority considers that significant harm is more likely than not to result from the contaminant linkage in


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx


subject of shooting or fishing rights.

other serious physical damage. The local authority should regard a substantial loss in value as occurring only when a substantial proportion of the animals or crops are dead or otherwise no longer fit for their intended purpose. Food should be regarded as being no longer fit for purpose when it fails to comply with the provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990. Where a diminution in yield or loss in value is caused by a pollutant linkage, a 20% diminution or loss should be regarded as a benchmark for what constitutes a substantial diminution or loss. In the Guidance states that this description of significant harm is referred to as an “animal or crop effect”.

question, taking into account relevant information for that type of contaminant linkage, particularly in relation to the ecotoxicological effects of the contaminant.

Property in the form of buildings. For this purpose 'building' means any structure or erection and any part of a building, including any part below ground level, but does not include plant or machinery comprised in a building, or buried services such as sewers, water pipes or electricity cables.

Structural failure, substantial damage or substantial interference with any right of occupation. The local authority should regard substantial damage or substantial interference as occurring when any part of the building ceases to be capable of being used for the purpose for which it is or was intended. In the case of a scheduled Ancient Monument, substantial damage should be regarded as occurring when the damage significantly impairs the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest by reason of which the monument was scheduled. The Guidance states that this description of significant harm is referred to as a 'building effect'.

Conditions would exist for considering that a significant possibility of significant harm exists to the relevant types of receptor where the local authority considers that significant harm is more likely than not to result from the contaminant linkage in question during the expected economic life of the building (or in the case of a scheduled Ancient Monument the foreseeable future), taking into account relevant information for that type of contaminant linkage.

Reproduced from DEFRA (2012) Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance pursuant to section 78YA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by Section 57 of the Environment Act 1995.


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Appendix F Generic Assessment Criteria for Contorlled Waters

Controlled Waters Generic Assessment Criteria The Screening Values adopted by Waterman for ground and surface water quality have been selected on the basis of the water quality standards that apply at the controlled water receptor considered to be at potential risk of harm. Where the receptor is to be assessed for potential harm to aquatic life then the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for List 1 and List 2 dangerous substances (EC Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC)) will be used. Where the receptor is to be assessed for potential harm with respect to use as a drinking water resource then the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 and 2000 as amended will be used. Where the receptor is to be used by aquatic life and for drinking water purposes both sets of criteria will be used. The standards for the substances tested for in this investigation are provided in Table D3 and D4 below.

Environmental Quality Standards

Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) annual average Freshwater pH (Acid) 6.0

pH (Alkaline) 9.0

Arsenic µg/l 50

Barium µg/l NV

Cadmium µg/l 5

Chromium µg/l 5 – 250(1)

Lead µg/l 4 -250(1)

Mercury µg/l 1

Selenium µg/l NV

Boron µg/l 2000

Copper µg/l 1 - 28(1)

Nickel µg/l 50 - 200(1)

Zinc µg/l 75 - 500(1)

Sulfate mg/l 400

Cyanide µg/l NV

Ammonium (NH3 as N) µg/l 15

Ammonium (NH4+) µg/l NV

Nitrate (as N03) mg/l NV

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) µg/l NV

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) µg/l NV

Benzo(a)pyrene µg/l NV

Phenols µg/l NV

Phenol µg/l 30

Tetrachloromethane (PCM) µg/l 12

Trichloroethene (TCE) µg/l 10

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) µg/l 10

Benzene µg/l 30

Ethyl Benzene µg/l NV


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) annual average Freshwater Toluene µg/l 50

Xylene µg/l 30

Footnotes: NV – No value (1) – Dependant on Hardness (See DoE circular 7/89).

UK Drinking Water Supply Standards Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 and 2000- as amended

pH (Acid) 5.5

pH (Alkaline) 9.5

Acrylamide µg/l 0.1

Antimony µg/l 5

Arsenic µg/l 10

Barium µg/l 1000

Bromate µg/l 10

Calcium mg/l 250

Cadmium µg/l 5

Chloride mg/l 250

Chromium µg/l 50

Iron µg/l 200

Lead µg/l 25 (Reducing to 10 in 2013)

Magnesium mg/l 50

Manganese µg/l 50

Mercury µg/l 1

Selenium µg/l 10

Sodium mg/l 200

Boron µg/l 1000

Copper µg/l 2000

Nickel µg/l 20

Zinc µg/l 5000

Sulphate mg/l 250

Total/Complex Cyanide µg/l 50

Ammonium (NH4+) µg/l 500

Nitrate (as N03) mg/l 50

Nitrite (as N02) mg/l 0.5

Hydrocarbons (dissolved/emulsions) µg/l 10

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) µg/l 0.1

Benzo(a)pyrene µg/l 0.01

Phenol µg/l 0.5

Tetrachloromethane µg/l 3

Trichloroethene (TCE) µg/l 10 (combined total)

Tetrachloroethene (PCE)


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 and 2000- as amended Trihalomethanes µg/l 100

Vinyl chloride µg/l 0.5

Benzene µg/l 1

Ethyl Benzene µg/l NV

Toluene µg/l NV

Xylene µg/l NV EU Surface Water Directive (75/440/EEC) - Class A1 – only simple treatment required. Sulphide mg/l 150


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx

Appendix G RTM Sheets

Environment Agency Publication 20, Remedial Targets worksheet v3.131/10/2014, 10:05

rem. target sheet v 3.2 _lead_final.xlsIntroduction

First released: 2006. Version 3.2: January 2013

Details to be completed for each assessment

Site Name:Site Address:

Completed by:Date: Version: x.xx

Contaminant Lead Target Concentration (CT) 0.0072 mg/l Origin of CT:

Data carried forward from an earlier worksheet are identified by a light green background

The spreadsheet also includes a porosity calculation worksheet, a soil impact calculation worksheet and a worksheet that performs some simple hydrogeological calculations.

Hydrogeological risk assessment for land contamination

Specify basis for target concentration

FA

This worksheet has been produced in combination with the document 'Remedial Targets Methodology: Hydrogeological risk assessment for land contamination ( Environment Agency 2006).

Users of this worksheet should always refer to the User Manual to the Remedial Targets Methodology and to relevant guidance on UK legislation and policy, in order to understand how this procedure should be applied in an appropriate context.

© Environment Agency, 2006. (Produced by the Environment Agency's Science Group)

The calculation of equations in this worksheet has been independently checked by Entec (UK) Ltd on behalf of the Environment Agency.All rights reserved. You will not modify, reverse compile or otherwise dis-assemble the worksheet.

It is recommended that a copy of the original worksheet is saved (all data fields in the original copy are blank).

Remedial Targets Worksheet , Release 3.2

This worksheet can be used to determine remedial targets for soils (Worksheets Level 1 Soil, Level 2 and Level 3 Soil) or to determine remedial targets for groundwater (Level 3 Groundwater). For Level 3, parameter values must be entered separately dependent on whether the assessment is for soil or groundwater. For soil, remedial targets are calculated as either mg/kg (for comparision with soil measurements) or mg/l (for comparison with leaching tests or pore water concentrations). Site details entered on this page are automatically copied to Level 1, 2 and 3 Worksheets.Worksheet options are identified by brown background and employ a pull-down menus. Data entry are identified as blue background.Data origin / justification should be noted in cells coloured yellow and fully documented in subsequent reports.

Liability: The Environment Agency does not promise that the worksheet will provide any particular facilities or functions. You must ensure that the worksheet meets your needs and you remain solely responsible for the competent use of the worksheet. You are entirely responsible for the consequences of any use of the worksheet and the Agency provides no warranty about the fitness for purpose or performance of any part of the worksheet. We do not promise that the media will always be free from defects, computer viruses, software locks or other similar code or that the operation of the worksheet will be uninterrupted or error free. You should carry out all necessary virus checks prior to installing on your computing system.

Pease Pottage Enter site address

IMPORTANT: To enable MS Excel worksheet, click Tools, Add -Ins, Analysis Tool Pak and Analysis Tool Pak-VBA (to calculate error functions)

Remedial targets worksheet v3.1 31/10/2014, 10:06rem. target sheet v 3.2 _lead_final.xlsLevel1 Soil

Level 1 - Soil

1

Contaminant User specified value for partition coefficient 0

Target concentration CT 0.0072 mg/l Calculate for non-polar organic chemicals 0

Calculate for ionic organic chemicals (acids)

Input Parameters Variable Value Unit Source of parameter valueStandard entry

Water filled soil porosity θW 4.40E-02 fraction Site info Air filled soil porosity θa 2.06E-01 fraction Site info

Bulk density of soil zone material ρ 2.06E+00 g/cm3 Site info Henry's Law constant H 0.00E+00 dimensionless lead non volatile

Entry if specify partition coefficient (option)

Soil water partition coefficient Kd 4.97E+03 l/kg US EPA Entry for non-polar organic chemicals (option)

Fraction of organic carbon (in soil) foc fraction

Organic carbon partition coefficient Koc l/kgEntry for ionic organic chemicals (option)

Sorption coefficient for neutral species Koc,n 0.00E+00 l/kgSorption coefficient for ionised species Koc,i 0.00E+00 l/kg

pH value pH 0.00E+00 pH unitsAcid dissociation constant pKa 0.00E+00

Fraction of organic carbon (in soil) foc 0.00E+00 fraction

Soil water partition coefficient used in Level Assessment Kd 4.97E+03 l/kg Specified value

Level 1 Remedial Target Site being assessed: Pease Pottage Level 1 Remedial Target 3.58E+01 mg/kg (for comparison with soil analyses) Completed by: FA

or Date: 00-Jan-000.0072 mg/l (for comparison with leachate test results) Version: x.xx


Lead

This sheet calculates the Level 1 remedial target for soils(mg/kg) based on a selected target concentration and theoretical calculation of soil water partitioning. Three options are included for determining the partition coefficient.The measured soil concentration as mg/kg should be compared with the Level 1 remedial target to determine the need for further action.

Select the method of calculating the soil water Partition Co-efficient by using the pull down menu

belowUser specified value for partition coefficient

Remedial targets worksheet v3.1 31/10/2014,10:06rem. target sheet v 3.2 _lead_final.xlsLevel2 Soil

Level 2 - SoilContaminant from Level 1

Target concentration CT 0.0072 mg/l from Level 1

Input Parameters Variable Value Unit Source of parameter valueStandard entry

Infiltration Inf 2.70E-03 m/dArea of contaminant source A 2.27E+04 m2 Not used in calculation

Entry for groundwater flow below siteLength of contaminant source in direction of groundwater flow L 5.00E+01 m 1 Calculate

Saturated aquifer thickness da 4.00E+00 mHydraulic Conductivity of aquifer in which dilution occurs K 6.89E-05 m/d

Hydraulic gradient of water table i 6.00E-02 fractionWidth of contaminant source perpendicular to groundwater flow w 5.00E+01 m Not used in calculation

Background concentration of contaminant in groundwater beneath site Cu 2.40E-03 mg/l

Calculate 0 Specify Enter mixing zone thickness Mz 1.92E+00 m 1 Calculate

Calculated mixing zone thickness Mz 4.00E+00 m

Calculated Parameters

Dilution Factor DF 1.00E+00

Level 2 Remedial Target 7.20E-03 mg/lor

3.58E+01 mg/kg

Additional optionCalculation of impact on receptor

Site being assessed: Pease Pottage Concentration of contaminant in contaminated discharge (entering receptor) Cc 1.80E-02 mg/l Completed by: FA

Date: 00-Jan-00Calculated concentration within receptor (dilution only) 1.80E-02 mg/l 0 Version: x.xx

Site dataSite data

Cumulative number graves during maximum leaching

The measured soil concentration as mg/kg or pore water concentration should be compared with the Level 2 remedial target to determine the need for further action. Equations presented in 'Hydrogeological risk assessment for land contamiantion' (Environment Agency 2006)

square root of total grave areasite data


For comparison with measured pore water concentration. This assumes Level 1 Remedial Target is based on Target Concentrati

For comparison with measured soil concentration. This assumes Level 1 Remedial Target calculated from soil-water

Define mixing zone depth by specifying or calculating depth (using pull down list)

square root of total grave areasite data

Lead This sheet calculates the Level 2 remedial target for soils (mg/kg) or for pore water (mg/l).

EA Guidance doc

Remedial targets worksheet v3.131/10/2014,10:06

rem. target sheet v 3.2 _lead_final.xls

1 User specified value for partition coefficient0 Calculate for non-polar organic chemicals

Level 3 - Soil See Note 0 Calculate for ionic organic chemicals (acids)

Input Parameters Variable Value Unit Source Enter method of defining partition co-efficient (using pull down list)Calculated (relative) concentrations for

Contaminant from Level 1 distance-concentration graphTarget Concentration CT 0.0072 mg/l from Level 1

Dilution Factor DF 1.00E+00 from Level 2 Entry if specify partition coefficient (option) Ogata Banks

Select analytical solution (click on brown cell below, then on pull-down menu) Soil water partition coefficient Kd 4.97E+03 l/kg From calculation sheet

Equations in HRA publication Entry for non-polar organic chemicals (option) DistanceRelative concentration Concentration

Fraction of organic carbon in aquifer foc fraction (No units) mg/lSelect nature of decay rate (click on brown cell below, then on pull-down menu) Organic carbon partition coefficient Koc l/kg 0 1.0E+00 1.80E-02

Ap Approach for simulating degradation of pollutants: Entry for ionic organic chemicals (option) 2.5 9.88E-01 1.78E-02Apply degradation rate to pollutants in all phases (e.g. field derived value, laboratory study for aquifer + water mix, radioactive decay) Sorption coefficient for related species Koc,n 0.00E+00 l/kg 5.0 9.66E-01 1.74E-02

Variable Value Unit Source of parameter value Sorption coefficient for ionised species Koc,i 0.00E+00 l/kg 7.5 9.31E-01 1.68E-02So Enter source concentration pH value pH 0.00E+00 10.0 8.79E-01 1.58E-02So Enter soil leachate concentration Co 0.018 mg/l Acid dissociation constant pKa 0.00E+00 12.5 8.11E-01 1.46E-02De Half life for degradation of contaminant in water t1/2 9.90E+100 days half degrqdation excluded Fraction of organic carbon in aquifer foc 0.00E+00 fraction 15.0 7.26E-01 1.31E-02

Calculated decay rate λ 7.00E-102 days-1 calculated 17.5 6.29E-01 1.13E-02Width of plume in aquifer at source Sz 5.00E+01 m from Level 2 Soil water partition coefficient Kd 4.97E+03 l/kg 20.0 5.26E-01 9.46E-03

Plume thickness in aquifer at source Sy 4.00E+00 m from Level 2 22.5 4.22E-01 7.59E-03Bulk density of aquifer materials ρ 2.06E+00 g/cm3 Literature value Science Reports Dispersivity based on Xu & 25.0 3.24E-01 5.83E-03

Effective porosity of aquifer n 4.40E-02 fraction calculated Define dispersivity (click brown cell and use pull down list) Dispersivities 10%, 1%, 0.1% of pathway length 27.5 2.38E-01 4.29E-03Hydraulic gradient "i" 7.35E+02 fraction from Level 2 (adjusted) User defined values for dispersivity 30.0 1.67E-01 3.00E-03

0 Hydraulic conductivity of saturated aquifer K 6.89E-05 m/d from Level 2 32.5 1.11E-01 2.00E-03Distance to compliance point x 5.00E+01 m GP3 Enter value Calc value Xu & Eckstein 35.0 7.07E-02 1.27E-03

Distance (lateral) to compliance point perpendicular to flow direction z 0.00E+00 m Longitudinal dispersivity ax 0.00E+00 5.00E+00 2.98E+00 m 37.5 4.26E-02 7.67E-04Distance (depth) to compliance point perpendicular to flow direction y 0.00E+00 m Transverse dispersivity az 0.00E+00 5.00E-01 2.98E-01 m 40.0 2.44E-02 4.39E-04

Time since pollutant entered groundwater t 3.65E+06 days time variant options only Vertical dispersivity ay 0.00E+00 5.00E-02 2.98E-02 m 42.5 9.13E-03 1.64E-04Parameters values determined from options Note values of dispersivity must be > 0 45.0 4.64E-03 8.34E-05

Partition coefficient Kd 4.97E+03 l/kg see options 47.5 2.23E-03 4.02E-05Longitudinal dispersivity ax 2.984 m see options Xu & Eckstein (1995) report ax = 0.83(log10x)2.414 ; az = ax/10, ay = ax/100 are assumed 50.0 1.02E-03 1.83E-05Transverse dispersivity az 0.298 m see options

Vertical dispersivity ay 0.030 m see optionsParameter values should be checked against Level 1 and 2

NoteCalculated Parameters Variable

Groundwater flow velocity v 1.15E+00 m/dRetardation factor Rf 2.33E+05 fraction Ogata Banks

Decay rate used λ 3.01E-107 d-1 Domenico - Steady state Note if contaminant is not subject to first order degradation, then set half life as 9.9E+99.Hydraulic gradient used in aquifer flow down-gradient "i" 7.35E+02 fraction 0 Domenico - Time Variant

Rate of contaminant flow due to retardation u 4.95E-06 m/dRatio of Compliance Point to Source Concentration CED/C0 1.02E-03 fraction

Attenuation factor (CO/CED) AF 9.82E+02 fractionSoil leachate concentration Co 1.80E-02 Site being assessed: Pease Pottage

Remedial Targets Completed by: FALevel 3 Remedial Target 7.07E+00 mg/l For comparison with measured pore water concentration. Date: ########

Ogata Banks or This assumes Level 1 Remedial Target is based on Target Concentration. Version: x.xx3.51E+04 mg/kg For comparison with measured soil concentration. This

Distance to compliance point 50 m assumes Level 1 Remedial Target calculated from soil-waterpartitioning equation.

Ratio of Compliance Point to Source Concentration CED/C0 1.02E-03 fraction Ogata Banks

Care should be used when calculating remedial targets using the time variant options as this may result in an overestimate of the remedial target.The recommended value for time when calculating the remedial target is 9.9E+99


User specified value for partition coefficientLead

This worksheet should be used if pollutant transport and degradation is best described by a first order reaction. If degradation is best desribed by an electron limited degradation such as oxidation by O2, NO3, SO4 etc than an alternative solution should be used

The measured soil concentration as mg/kg or pore water concentration should be compared with the Level 3 remedial target to determine the need for further action.

Note: 'Relative concentration' is the ratio of calculated concentation at a given position compared to the source concentration. The calculations assume plume disperses from the top of the aquifer. An alternative solution assuming the centre of the plume is located at the mid-depth of the aquifer is presented in the calculation sheets.

This sheet calculates the Level 3 remedial target for soils(mg/kg) or for pore water (mg/l), based on the distance to the receptor or compliance located down hydraulic gradient of the source Three solution methods are included, the preferred option is Ogata Banks.By setting a long travel time (e.g. 9E99) it will give the steady state solution, which should always be used when calculating remedial targets.

Ogata Banks

Dispersivity based on Xu & Eckstein (1995)

Apply degradation rate to dissolved pollutants only

Soil leachate concentration as mg/l

0.0E+00

1.0E-01

2.0E-01

3.0E-01

4.0E-01

5.0E-01

6.0E-01

7.0E-01

8.0E-01

9.0E-01

1.0E+00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Rel

ativ

e co

ncen

trat

ion

(no

untis

)

Distance (m)

Remedial targets worksheet v3.131/10/2014, 10:06

rem. target sheet v 3.2 _lead_final.xlsSoil Impact Results

Only input required is Soil Contaminant Concentration

Input ParametersSoil contaminant concentration C0 1.38E+00 mg/kg

Level 1 ParametersWater filled soil porosity θW 4.40E-02 fraction

Air filled soil porosity θa 2.06E-01 fractionBulk density ρ 2.06E+00 g/cm3

Henry's Law constant H 0.00E+00 dimensionlessSoil water partition coefficient used in Level Assessment Kd 4.97E+03 l/kg

Factor (partitioning between soil and water) 4.97E+03 dimensionless

Level 2 Parameters Dilution Factor DF 1.00E+00

Level 3 Parameters Attenuation factor (CO/CED) AF 9.82E+02

Predicted concentrations at compliance pointLevel 1 C 2.78E-04 mg/l No dilution or attenuation

Level 2 C 2.78E-04 mg/l Dilution taken into account

Level 3 C 2.83E-07 mg/l Dilution and attenuation taken into account

Predicted concentrations between source and compliance point - Level 3

Distance m Concentration mg/l0.00 2.78E-042.50 2.74E-045.00 2.68E-047.50 2.58E-0410.00 2.44E-0412.50 2.25E-0415.00 2.02E-0417.50 1.75E-0420.00 1.46E-0422.50 1.17E-0425.00 9.00E-0527.50 6.61E-0530.00 4.63E-0532.50 3.09E-0535.00 1.96E-0537.50 1.18E-0540.00 6.77E-0642.50 2.53E-0645.00 1.29E-0647.50 6.20E-0750.00 2.83E-07


Calculation of contaminant concentration in groundwater from a soil source

0.0E+00

5.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.5E-04

2.0E-04

2.5E-04

3.0E-04

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Con

cent

ratio

n m

g/l

Distance (m)


EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx


Environment Agency Orchard House Endeavour Park, London Road, Addington, West Malling, Kent, ME19 5SH Customer services line: 08708 506 506 Email: [email protected] www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Mr Rhys Hutchings Waterman Civils Limited Dippen Hall Eastbourne Road Blindley Heath Lingfield RH7 6JX

Our ref: KT/2014/119367/01-L01 Your ref: 140429 RH-KD EA Date: 30 January 2015

Dear Mr Hutchings PRE-APP ENQUIRY FOR GROUND CONTAMINATION ADVICE FOR CRAWLEY CEMETERY, PEASE POTTAGE GIRL GUIDE CAMP, SOUTH OF TOLEGATE HILL DIPPEN HALL EASTBOURNE ROAD, BLINDLEY HEATH, LINGFIELD, RH7 6JX. Thank you for approaching us to review the preliminary risk assessment for Crawley Cemetery. As we agreed, our Groundwater & Contaminated Land officer has reviewed the information. I can confirm that we would not object to the submission provided the recommendations below are addressed to provide clarity and demonstrate that scenarios are considered. We confirm receiving the following reports both written by Waterman, Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment, dated May 2014, and the Environmental Risk Assessment dated October 2014. The site is located on the Upper Tunbridge Well Sand which is designated a secondary aquifer. It is estimated that between 50-90 burials will taken place per year for approximately 50 years. Three rounds of groundwater monitoring has taken place between 15th August to 12th September 2014. We note that the site investigation was restricted to areas of the site which were accessible. Care should be taken to ensure the groundwater level is accurately understood across the proposed burial area. The topography seems to vary across the site which could affect the depth to groundwater.

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

Environment Agency Orchard House Endeavour Park, London Road, Addington, West Malling, Kent, ME19 5SH Customer services line: 08708 506 506 Email: [email protected] www.environment-agency.gov.uk

We have the following comments on Section 9 within the Environmental Risk Assessment, which assess the risk to groundwater from leachate: In section 9 within the Environmental Risk Assessment we would recommend further clarification is provided to outline the reason why lead was chosen as the indicator. The lead leachate for the first year has been calculated, but the cumulative impact over the first 10 years of operation should also be investigated. We would seek the maximum lead concentration in that is predicted in this timeframe. These concentrations should be compared to the Environmental Quality Standard (EQS). We also recommend that a sensitivity analysis is undertaken on the burial rate to see how it affects the leachate concentrations. RTM has been used to assess the impact of the leachate on groundwater. A declining source was chosen, but this will only be relevant once the burials have ended. Whilst the cemetery is operating the source term remains constant. We would seek clarification if this would this impact the results. Lastly, we note that RTM was modelled with an average leachate concentration of 0.018mg/kg. It is not clear if a sensitivity analysis been undertaken to investigate the impacts on the groundwater when a range of concentrations, from the maximum to average, is tested in the model. We would recommend this as best practice. We would not object in principal to a cemetery at this location as long as it can be demonstrated that the cemetery would not impact on the groundwater quality. It is also recommended that graves should be located more than 10m from a standing/running water and more that 50m from a well, borehole, or spring supplying potable water for human consumption. I hope this helps provide a clear direction. If you have any questions regarding the above points I would be happy to discuss. Yours sincerely Frank Heeley Sustainable Places Team Leader Direct dial 01732223121 Direct e-mail [email protected]

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

Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street, London SE1 9DG t. +44 (0)20 7928 7888 e. [email protected] w. www.watermangroup.com Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited Registered in England Number: 06592213 Registered Office: Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street, London SE1 9DG

Energy, Environment & Design Direct Tel: 0330 060 2293 Direct Email: [email protected] Our Ref: EED14171-101-C-003-FA Your Ref: KT/2014/119367/01-L01 Date: 01 April 2015

Frank Heely, Sustainable Places Team Leader, Orchard house Endeavour Park, London Road, Addington, West Malling, Kent, ME19 5SH. Dear Frank, Re Assessing the Pease Pottage site for use as a cemetery. Thank you for the time taken to review our report assessing the Pease Pottage site for use as a cemetery. We have reviewed the comments set out in your letter, dated 30 January 2015, and have addressed each point below. Following reviewing the letter we hope you will be in a position to agree that the proposed use of the site as a cemetery will not pose a significant risk to controlled water receptors. Use of lead as an indicator. As part of the assessment the Environment Agency (EA) guidance document, “Assessing the Groundwater Pollution Potential of Cemetery Developments”, was reviewed to understand the leaching process from burial plots. As mentioned in our report lead was chosen as an indicator due to its toxicity to aquatic life, which is reflected by the low EQS concentration of 7.2ug/l. The total mass of lead in the body as reported in the EA guidance is 0.12g. This is higher than for copper (0.07g), cadmium (0.05), nickel (0.01g) and uranium (0.00009g) which are also included in the guidance document. The EQS for copper and nickel are hardness dependent. The CaCO3 concentrations were determined as part of groundwater monitoring. At the concentrations detected, the EQS for copper would range from 22ug/l to 40ug/l and the EQS for nickel would range from 100ug/l to 150ug/l. Therefore the starting leachate concentrations of for copper and nickel would either marginally exceed or be less than the respective EQS. Considering this it is more conservative to assess lead. For cadmium the EQS is 5ug/l, however given the lower starting mass in the human body, assessing lead is also considered to be a more conservative approach. Other compounds detailed within the EA guidance would not exceed their respective leachate EQS values within the first year and are considered to not pose a risk. Assessment of a continuous source As set out in our report, during each operational year, 90 burials will occur in an annual plot of 227m2. Over 10 years, the human body decomposes and releases by leaching the complete loading of lead (and all other identified components). In the first year after burial, 50% of the lead is leached, 25% in the second year, 12.5% in the third year and so on until by the 10th year, negligible quantities of lead remain for leaching. Each operational year, another 90 bodies are buried and the components commence leaching. After 10 years have passed, the first year’s burials contain negligible quantities of lead and hence no longer contribute to leached lead. Therefore during the bulk of the operational phase, although 10 annual burial plots are leaching varying concentrations of lead, taken together, a steady state is achieved and during the operational phase a continuous source is present.

EED14171-101-C-003-FA.docx Page 2

The leaching profile of a 10 year grave area was assessed to determine at which time maximum leaching was occurring. The profile is presented in Table 1. Table 1. Leaching profile over rolling 10 year period (mg/l)

Years of operation

1st 90 burial plot occupied

2nd 90 burial plot occupied

3rd 90 burial plot occupied

4th 90 burial plot occupied







1st operational year

0.09

2nd operational year

0.045 0.09

3rd operational year

0.0225 0.045 0.09

4th operational year

0.0113 0.0225 0.045 0.09


0.0038 0.0113 0.0225 0.045 0.09


0.0018 0.0038 0.0113 0.0225 0.045 0.09


0.0009 0.0018 0.0038 0.0113 0.0225 0.045 0.09


0.0005 0.0009 0.0018 0.0038 0.0113 0.0225 0.045 0.09

9st operational year

0.0002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0018 0.0038 0.0113 0.0225 0.045 0.09


0.0001 0.0002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0018 0.0038 0.0113 0.0225 0.045 0.09

Concentration at receptor

Leachate at source

below EQS

Leachate at source

below EQS

Leachate at source

below EQS

Leachate at source

below EQS

Leachate at source

below EQS

Leachate at source

below EQS 0.0091 0.018 0.037 0.073

Examination of the leaching profile shows that maximum leaching from a 10 year area occurs at the 10th year. Within a 10 year plot area the most recent year is leaching the highest concentration. As the leaching profile moves to the 11th year the leachate concentration from the first year’s burials become negligible. The burials of the 11th year then leach the highest concentration of contaminants. Therefore the leaching profile in the above red box is maintained from the 10th year of operation until nine years before the cemetery closes. For the final nine years of operation, the leachate concentrations will tail off. The table shows the concentrations at the receptor during each year assuming a continuous source divided into 10 annual plots. This indicates that the lead concentrations are above the threshold criteria from four out of 10 annual plots. The table also shows that an individual grave no longer leaches concentrations above the EQS after the fourth year. It is also important to consider the retardation factor calculated by the RTM model when assessing the risk. The RTM sheet calculated a Retardation Factor (RF) of 2.33E+05 for lead. This corresponds with contaminant movement of 4.95E-06 m/day. In order to determine how long the contaminant takes to reach the compliance point the RTM model was run using a declining source. This indicated the time taken for lead contamination to reach the compliance point would be greater than 10,000 years. Given these time scales it is considered that the heavy metal contaminants introduced by burials are not significant in terms of impact at the compliance point. A compliance point 50m was assumed in accordance with GP3. The drainage ditches on the site are too shallow to receive groundwater having being installed to receive surface runoff.

EED14171-101-C-003-FA.docx Page 3

Sensitivity analysis Soil Water Partition value (KD) Sensitivity analysis was carried out on the KD of lead. The KD value used in the assessment was 4970l/kg. The USEPA1 report that for more acidic soils a KD of 900l/kg can be recorded. When the assessment was run using this KD value the travel time rose to 2.73E-05 m/day. However the travel time to the receptor remained considerable at more than 3,000 years. Even with a lower KD value the impact is considered not significant. KD vales for copper and nickel and cadmium range between 2 and 4 orders of magnitude resulting in travels times to the receptor of similar time frames as lead. Burials per plot and lead mass The current assessment assumed 1.5 burials per plot with a lead mass of 0.12g per burial. The assessment was also carried out assuming 2.0 burials per pot and lead mass of 0.15g per burial. The starting mass of lead is 0.30g, this equates to a 1st year leachate concentration of 0.15mg/l. The results indicated the concentration reaching the receptor, assuming a continuous source, was 0.147mg/l in the first year after burial. With the increased burial rate and lead mass the travel time to the receptor reduced marginally but remained considerable at more than 2,800 years. Even with the increased burial rate and reduced KD vales time scales remain considerable, therefore we consider the risk to be not significant. The increase starting mass did result in the fifth year’s leachate concentrations being above the EQS. In reality is it unlikely that two burials will take place at the same time in one plot. Also as the leachate concentrations decrease KD values of surrounding soil increase which will reduce the contaminant travel times further. Further site investigation and assessment We agree further site investigation is required as the cemetery expands. The purpose of the additional investigation would be to demonstrate that conditions are similar to those on which this assessment are based. We are also in agreement that if the life of the cemetery is extended or the number of plots per year are proposed to be increased additional assessment is likely to be required. We hope that the points and questions raised in your letter have been adequately explained and that you are now in a position to agree that the proposed use of the site as cemetery does not pose a risk to controlled waters. A meeting to discuss the issues covered in this letter is welcome if you think it would be beneficial. In the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding the above. Yours sincerely

Freddie Alcock Principal Consultant For and On Behalf of Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Ltd

1 USEPA 1999, Understanding Variation in Partition Coefficient, Kd Values, Volume II.

Environment Agency Orchard House (Endeavour Park) London Road, Addington, West Malling, ME19 5SH. Customer services line: 03708 506 506 www.gov.uk/environment-agency End

Mr Rhys Hutchings Waterman Civils Limited Dippen Hall Eastbourne Road Blindley Heath Lingfield RH7 6JX

Our ref: KT/2015/119820/01-L01 Your ref: 140429 RH-KD EA Date: 20 April 2015

Dear Mr Hutchings Cost recovered pre-application enquiry for ground contamination advice for Crawley Cemetery, Pease Pottage Girl Guide Camp, South of Tolegate Hill Dippen Hall Eastbourne Road, Blindley Heath, Lingfield, RH7 6JX. Thank for you enquiry. We have the following comments to make. We confirm receiving the letter report reference EED14171-101-C-003-FA dated 01 April 2015. The information within this report addresses the queries and questioned raised within our previous response ref KT/2014/119367/01- L01. On the bases of the information provided we would not object to a cemetery, in principal, at this location. We would take this opportunity to reiterate our previous comments which indicate that the graves should be located more than 10m from a standing/running water and more than 50m from a well, borehole, or spring supplying potable water for human consumption. If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Pp Jennifer Wilson Mr Frank Heeley Team Leader Direct dial 01732223121 Direct e-mail [email protected]

Environmental Risk Assessment - CrawleyEnvironmental Risk Assessment 1 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Risk Assessment - CrawleyEnvironmental Risk Assessment 1 EED14171-101-R-2-1-8.-DM.docx...