Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment Burgh Road · 2016-11-10 · Supplementary...

Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment Burgh Road Aylsham Norfolk NR11 6TZ Prepared for: Lindum Group &

BP Oil UK Ltd

Station Road Witan Gate House North Hykeham 500/600 Witan Gate Lincoln Milton Keynes LN6 3QX MK9 1ES EPS Project Reference: UK15.1991 Date Issued: 26th October 2016 Report Status: Final

txgou20161958 28th oct

Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment Burgh Road, Aylsham EPS Ref: UK15.1991

BURGH ROAD, AYLSHAM

NON TECHNICAL CLIENT SUMMARY

This report presents the findings of a Supplementary Phase II Intrusive Investigation undertaken to establish if there are any environmental risks associated with the site and its development. Pertinent findings and conclusions may be summarised as follows:

• The site is currently undergoing redevelopment into a new petrol filling station. It comprises a construction site with previous commercial buildings demolished and hardstanding stripped.

• A previous EPS investigation undertaken in 2015 followed by liaison with Broadland District Council identified the need for some supplementary site investigation in previously inaccessible areas, including beneath a fire-damaged building and around an above ground oil tank.

• This ground investigation comprised the forming of seven trial pits and found ground conditions to comprise made ground in thicknesses of up to 0.6m, underlain by the Wroxham Crag Formation of predominantly interbedded silty and sandy gravels to the maximum excavated depth of 2.2m. Groundwater was not encountered at any location. Environmental soil testing has identified that shallow soils are suitable for the proposed commercial facility and no plausible risks are posed to underlying groundwater.

• As such, no significant additional control measures are deemed necessary to mitigate risks from contamination beyond those recommended in the previous investigation, which comprised basic gas protection measures to be incorporated into proposed buildings although resistant drinking water pipework is also recommended and some advisory measures relating to handling soils containing trace amounts of asbestos are provided.

• A copy of this report should be forwarded to Broadland District Council for inclusion into their land quality records and to support the current planning application.

The above points represent a simplified summary of the findings of this assessment and should not form the basis for key decisions for the proposed development. A thorough review of the details is contained within the following report, or alternatively get in touch and we’ll talk you through it.


Project Reference: UK15.1991

Title: Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment Burgh Road, Aylsham

Client: Lindum Group & BP Oil UK Ltd

Date: 26th October 2015

EPS Contact Details:

7B Caxton House T: 01954 710666 Broad Street F: 01954 710677 Cambourne E: [email protected] Cambridge CB23 6JN W: www.epstrategies.co.uk

Status: Final

Author: Reviewed: Authorised:

Daryl Bowell Marcus Bell Will Evans

Consultant Principal Consultant Director This report has been prepared for the client(s) listed on the report title page. EPS accepts no liability or responsibility for use of, or reliance upon, this report and / or the information contained within it by third parties. If third parties have been contracted / consulted during compilation of this report, the validity of any data they may have supplied, and which are included in the report, have been assessed as far as possible by EPS however, EPS cannot guarantee the validity of these data. No part of this report, or references to it, may be included in published documents of any kind without approval from EPS. This report and its contents, together with any supporting correspondence or other documentation, remain the property of Environmental Protection Strategies Ltd until paid for in full. Where ground investigations have been conducted, these have been limited to the level of detail required for the site in order to achieve the objectives of the investigation. The report has been written, reviewed and authorised by the persons listed above. It has also undergone EPS’ in house quality management inspection. Should you require any further assistance regarding the information provided within the report, please do not hesitate to contact us.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Previous Report ............................................................................................1 1.2 Objectives ...................................................................................................1 1.3 Scope of Work .............................................................................................1 1.4 Limitations and Constraints ..............................................................................2 2 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................... 3 2.1 Previous Report – Conclusion & Recommendations ...............................................3 2.2 Regulatory Liaison .........................................................................................4 3 SUMMARY OF INTRUSIVE INVESTIGATIONS ................................................. 5 3.1 Trial Pit Locations .........................................................................................5 3.2 Soil Sampling and In-Situ testing ........................................................................5 3.3 Laboratory Analysis .......................................................................................5 4 FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION ................................................................. 7 4.1 Ground Conditions ........................................................................................7 4.1.1 Made Ground ........................................................................................................... 7 4.1.2 Wroxham Crag Formation ............................................................................................ 7 4.2 Groundwater ...............................................................................................7 4.3 Physical Evidence of Contamination ...................................................................7 4.4 Laboratory Analysis – Soil ...............................................................................8 5 GENERIC QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................. 9 5.1 Generic Screening - Soils .................................................................................9 5.2 Assessment of Soil Results ............................................................................. 10 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 11


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Figures Figure 1 Site Location Plan Figure 2 Current Site Layout Figure 3 Aerial Photograph Figure 4 Trial Pit Location Plan Figure 5 Site Context – CLR11 Tables Table 1 Laboratory Testing Schedule Appendices Appendix A Selected Site Photographs Appendix B Indicative Proposed Development Plan Appendix C Correspondence with Broadland District Council Appendix D Site Specific Trial Pit Logs Appendix E Environmental Laboratory Results Appendix F Minimal & Low Risk Generic Screening Criteria Appendix G Method Statement for Unexpected Contamination


1 INTRODUCTION In August 2016, Environmental Protection Strategies Ltd (EPS) was commissioned by Lindum Group to complete a Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment for land at Burgh Road, Aylsham, Norfolk, NR11 6TZ (‘the site’). Selected site photographs are included as Appendix A. The work was commissioned in order to support a planning application for ‘demolition of the existing commercial building and erection of a petrol filling station with ancillary sales kiosk and associated car parking’. The planning reference for the site is 20160789 issued by Broadland District Council on the 4th May 2016. A proposed development plan is included as Appendix B. This report presents a summary of a previous investigation together with the findings, conclusions and recommendations of a Supplementary Phase II Intrusive Investigation conducted by EPS and draws conclusions in relation to potential risks from contaminated land.

1.1 Previous Report This investigation supplements a Geo-Environmental Assessment undertaken by EPS in 2015. It is recommended that the previous report (referenced below) is reviewed before the reader examines the content of this document; • Phase I & II Geo-Environmental Assessment, Burgh Road, Aylsham, Norfolk, NR11 6TZ, Reference

UK15.1991 Final B - 21st April 2016. The key findings of the reports are summarised within Section 2.

1.2 Objectives The objectives of this investigation were as follows: a) To investigate plausible Contaminant Linkages identified by the previous investigation by

means of investigating shallow soils. b) To determine the potential risks posed by the site and make recommendations for any further

work that may be required and to ensure suitability for use and safe development in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination - Contaminated Land Report 11 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

1.3 Scope of Work

To perform an exploratory assessment of the site in accordance with the principles and requirements of DEFRAs ‘Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance’ (2012), BS10175 (2011) –‘Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites’ and BS5930:2015 ‘Code of Practice for Ground Investigation’, the following tasks were undertaken:

1


Site Work: • Site walkover, inspection of any visual evidence of contamination at the site and obtaining

photographic records. • Health and safety briefing / site supervision. • Excavation of seven trial pits to a maximum depth of 2.2 metres below ground level (mbgl).

to investigate shallow ground conditions. • Continual logging of ground conditions including inspection of samples for visual and olfactory

contamination, and laboratory analysis of selected soil samples. Reporting: • Data collection and interpretation. • Reporting. The findings of these investigations and their conclusions are presented in the following sections. A summary of the information contained within the report, relating to the geo-environmental setting of the site, is presented in the following sections and a site location plan is included as Figure 1, current site layout in Figure 2 and aerial photograph in Figure 3.

1.4 Limitations and Constraints The purpose of this report is to present the findings of an environmental investigation conducted at the location specified. When examining the data collected from the investigations made during the assessment, EPS makes the following statements: No investigation method is capable of completely identifying all ground conditions that might be present in the soil or groundwater under a site. Where outlined in our report, we have examined the ground beneath a site by constructing a number of boreholes and / or trial pits to recover soil and / or groundwater samples. The locations of these excavations and sampling points are considered to be representative of the condition of the whole site subsurface however, ground conditions are naturally variable and it may be possible that the ground conditions encountered may differ to those encountered during the investigation. During the time of these works one area of the proposed area of investigation was covered by a stockpile of crushed concrete which prevented any investigation from being carried out in this area. In addition, access to part of the proposed area of investigation was also restricted due to ongoing Japanese Knotweed treatment. However, despite these factors it has been concluded that sufficient investigation was carried out elsewhere to present a sufficiently comprehensive assessment. This report does not include specific investigation for the presence of either Potential Asbestos Containing Material (PACM) or Japanese Knotweed at the subject site. Specialist contractors should be commissioned to make detailed assessments and recommendations if these materials are suspected. The investigation was carried out to assess the significance of the underlying ground conditions as identified in this report. Unless EPS has otherwise indicated, no assessment of potential impacts of any other previous uses has been made.

2


2 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Detail Description

Location The site is located immediately west of the A140 and approximately 1km east of Aylsham Town Centre, Norfolk.

National Grid Reference 620315, 326604

Topographic Elevation

Approximately 16m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) to the south and 15m AOD to the north.

Topographic Gradient

Levels fall gently to the north while in the surrounding area topography falls to the east.

Description of Site

The northern boundary is marked by a drainage ditch within which a shallow unnamed surface water course flows to the east and appears to be culverted prior to navigating beneath the A140 and its associated embankment. The A140 marks the eastern boundary while Burgh Road bounds the area to the south. An adjacent commercial facility marks the western boundary.

At the time of the investigation, demolition works were being undertaken on-site to prepare it for construction. This meant that any previous hardstanding in the centre of the site had been removed and there were large stockpiles of crushed concrete being moved via excavators to and from a mobile crusher. The entirety of the site was covered in a made ground/ fill material consisting mainly of brick and concrete fragments.

An area of Japanese Knotweed had been identified during previous works in the north of the site and this was still present, cordoned off and awaiting removal via a specialist.

Surrounding Land Use

Beyond the drainage ditch to the north is a Norfolk County Council Highways Depot with storage areas for vehicles and a domed building for salt storage. To the east and south beyond the A140 and Burgh Road is agricultural land while immediately to the west is a commercial facility which appears to provide building materials and cutting services along with internal heating solutions for buildings. A new housing development is currently under construction approximately 120m northwest.

2.1 Previous Report – Conclusion & Recommendations

The previous report identified the site to have been used as an unspecified ‘works’. The desk study concluded that contaminant linkages had the potential to exist and an intrusive investigation was undertaken, which subsequently did not identify any plausible risks to construction workers or commercial site end users as well as groundwater resources / surface waters.

3


However, due to the presence of an aboveground oil tank a recommendation was made to carry out further confirmatory sampling of the underlying soils once the tank and underlying concrete hardstanding was removed.

2.2 Regulatory Liaison Correspondence was received from Mr Stuart Moore of Broadland District Council, dated 19th May 2016, requesting additional investigation beneath the footprint of the former ‘works’ building. The building was inaccessible at the time of the original investigation as it was a dangerous structure owing to recent fire damage. This correspondence is included in Appendix C.

4


3 SUMMARY OF INTRUSIVE INVESTIGATIONS The intrusive investigation upon which this report is based was undertaken at the site on 4th October 2016 in accordance with EPS standard operating procedures, copies of which will be made available on request. A summary of all site activities is presented in the following sections:

3.1 Trial Pit Locations Trial pit locations were selected through consideration of the objectives of the works, the location of below ground utilities, operational and health & safety considerations and the presence of Japanese Knotweed being treated (in the vicinity of TP3 & TP7). A total of seven trial pits (TP1-TP7) were excavated across the site to a maximum depth of 2.2m bgl. The overall objective in terms of trial pit locations was to provide an appropriate lateral and vertical coverage of the soils underlying the areas within the former building footprint and the above ground oil tank. Further rationale for sampling locations is provided within the table below:

Location Rationale

TP1-TP9 To provide information on the quality and nature of shallow soils beneath the historic building footprint

TP3, TP7 To assess presence of contamination resulting from the former oil storage tank.

All trial pits were formed in accordance with standard EPS methodologies and subcontractors were supervised at all times by an EPS engineer. A detailed site layout plan showing the location of the trial pits completed during the investigation is presented as Figure 4.

3.2 Soil Sampling and In-Situ testing Each exploratory hole was logged for ground conditions encountered and inspected for any physical evidence of contamination, such as soil staining, odour and the presence of separate phase liquids. Soil samples were obtained from across the site for analysis of contaminants of concern. Where potentially volatile organic compounds are suspected, EPS carries a Photoionisation Detector (PID), which can be used to measure the relative concentrations of vapour associated with soil samples collected from different depths and locations at the site. Headspace testing by PID was undertaken during the investigation in both made ground and natural soils.

3.3 Laboratory Analysis All samples obtained for analysis of contaminants of concern were submitted to Jones Environmental of Flintshire, who hold appropriate UKAS / MCERT accreditation for the required testing.

5


Samples were transported in laboratory supplied containers and delivered to the laboratory by approved courier. Copies of chain of custody documentation are held by EPS and will be made available on request. A laboratory testing schedule is included as Table 1.

6


4 FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION This section of the report provides a summary of the findings of the various aspects of the site investigation.

4.1 Ground Conditions Ground conditions encountered across the site can be briefly summarised as follows, site-specific trial pit logs are included as Appendix D.

Geological Strata Maximum Depth to Base of Strata (m bgl) Strata Thickness (m)

Made Ground 0.6 0-0.6

Wroxham Crag Formation >2.2 Not Proven

4.1.1 Made Ground

Made ground was identified in all trial pits to a maximum depth of 0.6m it consisted of a loose light brown silty sandy gravel with fine to medium gravel of brick, concrete and stone which varied in shape. In TP4 rare concrete boulders were observed in the made ground. A black stained layer of varying thickness in the made ground was observed in TP1, TP2, TP3, TP5 and TP7 and in TP3 was accompanied by a strong oily odour. A flint layer was present in TP5, TP6 and TP7 which made excavation difficult.

4.1.2 Wroxham Crag Formation Materials interpreted as the Wroxham Crag Formation was observed in all trial pits beneath the made ground and was observed as a medium dense light brown sandy gravel with locally varying proportions of silt and clay. The gravel was seen to be comprised of fine-medium, subangular to subrounded clasts of flint and stone.

4.2 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in any trial pits during the investigation.

4.3 Physical Evidence of Contamination In addition to the stained made ground described above, visual evidence of contamination in the soil was also identified in TP3 (0.4-0.6) as a layer of possible bituminous material which was accompanied by a hydrocarbon odour (see Appendix A). Soil samples were taken from this material and submitted for laboratory analysis, the results of which are detailed in Section 4.4.

7


4.4 Laboratory Analysis – Soil A laboratory analysis testing schedule is presented as Table 1 and all environmental sample results obtained from the laboratory are included as Appendix E. The key results of laboratory testing on environmental soil samples are summarised below.

Contaminant No. of Samples No of

Detections

Range of Detections

(mg/kg) Highest Location & Depth (m bgl)

Min Max Arsenic 5 5 7.6 13.7 TP3 (0.2-0.3) Cadmium 5 2 0.1 0.2 TP7 (0.1-0.4) Chromium 5 5 12.9 60.7 TP7 (0.1-0.4) Copper 5 5 11 46 TP3 (0.2-0.3) Mercury 5 1 - 0.5 TP3 (0.2-0.3) Nickel 5 5 10 12.6 TP3 (0.2-0.3) Lead 5 5 32 193 TP3 (0.2-0.3) Selenium 5 1 - 1 TP3 (0.2-0.3) Zinc 5 5 54 146 TP3 (0.2-0.3) Cyanide 5 0 - - n/a Benzo(a)pyrene 5 5 0.43 1.18 TP4 (0-0.3) Dibenz(ah)anthracene 5 5 0.09 0.1 TP4 (0-0.3)

Naphthalene 5 5 0.09 0.27 TP4&1 (0-0.3) &

(0.5-0.8) PAH (Total of 16) 5 5 3.9 21.8 TP4 (0-0.3) TPH 5 3 178 513 TP4 (0.4-0.8) BTEX 5 0 - - n/a MTBE 5 0 - - n/a pH 5 5 7.93 11.66 TP1 (0.5-0.8)

Notes: - Contaminant not found above laboratory detection limits

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene & Xylenes MTBE Methyl tert-butyl ether

• Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) was detected in quantifiable concentrations in four of the five samples submitted for screening. This ACM was identified as cement debris and fibre bundles at TP1 (chrysotile), fibre bundles at TP3 (amosite) & TP5 and free fibres at TP4 (chrysotile). Following quantification, only one sample reported concentrations above 0.001% to be present by mass. Sample TP1 (0.5-0.8mbgl) reported a mass of 0.002% to be present.

8


5 GENERIC QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT The following section summarises the method used to assess the risks posed to human health and controlled waters then identifies any sample results found by this investigation, which warrant further consideration.

5.1 Generic Screening - Soils In order to screen laboratory data for concentrations of contaminants in soil with potential to cause harm to human health at a commercial land-use setting, relevant generic screening values for contaminants in soil have been used. The technical framework used to derive the assessment criteria and the documents in which they are published are summarised as follows: • EA Science Reports (SC050021/SR2, SC050021/SR3, and SC050021/SR7) • EA Soil Guideline Value Science Reports • Suitable For Use Levels (S4ULs) for Human Health Risk Assessment – LQM and CIEH (2015) • Soil Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment - EIC/AGS/CL:AIRE (2010) Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SLs) released in December 2013 by The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), (Development of Category 4 Screening Levels for assessment of land affected by contamination - SP1010) provide generic suitable for use screening values for common contaminants in a variety of land. In addition to screening the concentrations of contaminants in soil for risks to human health, EPS has also screened the concentrations for potential to cause harm to water resources. The criteria used for this process were derived by EPS using the following technical guidance: • Environment Agency Remedial Targets Methodology: Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Land

Contamination.

Resource Sensitivity of Area Screening Criteria

High Groundwater Resource Potential (HGwRP) - Principal aquifers

UK Drinking Water Standards (UKDWS)

Low Groundwater Resource Potential (LGwRP) - Secondary aquifers not being abstracted and Un-productive groundwater strata

UK Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)

Minimal Risk Screening criteria for High Groundwater Resource Potential (HGwRP) have been adopted due to the underlying Wroxham Crag Formation and Undifferentiated Chalks being classified as Principal Aquifers. A summary of the screening criteria and the methodology used to derive them is included in Appendix F.

9


5.2 Assessment of Soil Results The results of the screening process for on-site human receptors show that generic screening criteria for a commercial setting were not exceeded in any of the soil samples analysed. Soil screening criteria for controlled waters of a High Groundwater Resource Potential (HGwRP) have been exceeded for concentrations of the PAHs Naphthalene, Benzo[a]pyrene and the aromatic petroleum hydrocarbon fractions C16-C21 and C21-C35, as outlined in the following table.

Contaminant Screening

Criteria (mg/kg)

Number of Exceedances

Highest Concentration (mg/kg) & Location /depth

(m bgl)

Naphthalene 0.02 4 0.27 / TP1&4 (0.5-0.8) & (0-0.3)

Aromatic C12 – C16 5.5 2 26 / TP4 (0.4-0.8)

Aromatic C16 – C21 17.4 3 173 / TP4 (0.4-0.8)

Aromatic C21 – C35 138 2 286 / TP4 (0.4-0.8)

Although the table above offers a comparison between the results received from sampling and generic screening criteria, the fact that some recorded concentrations exceed those screening values does not necessarily indicate that an unacceptable risk to groundwater resources exists. The generic screening values are by their very nature, extremely conservative and in the first instance an exceedance should lead to qualitative consideration of the risks that may be posed given the context of a specific site / proposed development. The previous investigation carried out by EPS identified a layer of cohesive soil (clay) in boreholes undertaken at either end of the former building footprint (WS1 & WS8) where works were carried out in this supplementary phase. This reduces the groundwater resource potential of superficial ground conditions and suggests that downward migration of contaminants will be limited. In addition, groundwater was recorded within WS8 at 5.7- 6.2 m bgl which suggests that a significant thickness of unsaturated soil exists which will further limit the ability for surface derived contamination to migrate downwards, which was substantiated by the absence of any significant contamination within deeper soil samples taken from WS1 & WS8. Also important are the specific nature of the hydrocarbon impacts identified, which have been interpreted by the testing laboratory as PAH’s, tarmac and bitumen, which was substantiated by field observations (outlined in Section 4) and will inherently have relatively low environmental mobility. Given that the nearest source protection zone borehole is located approximately 750m to the northwest, these impacts are not considered capable of posing an unacceptable risk to controlled waters receptors.

10


6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A previous Phase I & II Geo-Environmental Assessment carried out by EPS in 2015 did not identify any unacceptable risks posed by site derived contaminants of concern to construction workers, commercial site end users or groundwater resources / surface waters, although access to the soils underlying the former works building and an aboveground oil storage tank was restricted by a fire-damaged structure. Following demolition and site stripping, this supplementary investigation was able to access those areas. Investigation of the shallow soils across the site has not identified any contamination which is considered capable of posing an unacceptable risk to future site users, groundworkers or controlled waters. The site is therefore considered safe and suitable for its proposed commercial enduse in its current state provided the following control measures are implemented: I) Ground gas monitoring identified the need for basic gas protection measures to be installed

within proposed buildings on the site.

These protective measures should comprise an upgraded 2000g Damp Proof Membrane (DPM) installed with all joints and penetrations sealed. This precaution follows recommendations made in CIRIA Guidance document C665 – Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings (2007) for a gassing regime defined as Characteristic Situation 2. It would also be preferential to incorporate a ventilated sub floor void as an additional gas protection measure.

II) In order to reduce potential risks associated with ingress of contaminants to underground

water supply pipework, for any new pipework installed as part of the proposed redevelopment, aluminium barrier pipework meeting Water Industry Standard 4-32-19 and associated fittings should be used subject to agreement with the local water company. If other pipework is preferable, more detailed testing may be required in accordance with UK Water Industry Research Report 10/WM/03/21 – ‘Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be used in Brownfield Sites’ (2010).

Additional precautionary measures to reduce the risk of exposure to contamination are detailed below: a) Trace concentrations of asbestos fibres were detected within several soil samples. Although

these concentrations were very low and do not suggest that any specific control measures are required to protect future users of the development or that the material itself is hazardous if disposed of as a waste, it would still be prudent to implement best practise for soils containing asbestos to ensure the safety of groundworkers. These measures should include:

• All construction workers are to be advised of the potential for contact with asbestos within

shallow soils and are to be given asbestos awareness training as part of their site induction and have adequate knowledge of decontamination procedures.

• Dust suppression measures shall be operated during any dry periods to ensure any disturbed ground remains sufficiently damp to inhibit the release of airbourne fibres.

11


• Ground workers should follow HSG 247 (HSE Guidance – Asbestos - The contractors guide) which covers removal techniques, control measures, RPE/PPE and training as well as the general requirements within CIRIA’s R132 Guide to Safe Working on Contaminated Sites.

• Prior to commencing any further groundworks, it would be prudent to undertake a risk assessment in accordance with the CL:AIRE/Joint Industry Working Group industry guidance and decision support tool, Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 – Interpretation for Managing and Working with Asbestos in Soil and Construction and Demolition Materials (2016).

b) Should any palpable evidence of unexpected contamination be encountered during the

redevelopment work, it should be reported to EPS so that an inspection can be made and appropriate sampling and assessment work carried out. To this end, an example method statement for construction workers encountering unexpected contamination is included as Appendix G.

It is recommended that a copy of this report be forwarded onto Broadland District Council for inclusion into their land quality records.

12


TABLES


Table 1 – Laboratory Testing Schedule

Sample ID Sample Depth (m bgl) EPS Mini

Suite EPS TPH

Suite TP1 0.5-0.8 X X TP3 0.2-0.3 X - TP3 0.4-0.6 - X TP4 0.0-0.3 X - TP4 0.4-0.8 - X TP5 0.3-0.5 X - TP5 0.4-0.5 - X TP7 0.1-0.4 X - TP7 0.4-0.6 - X

Notes: mbgl meters below ground level 1 Sample Taken EPS Mini Suite Organic Matter, Cyanide, Metals, PAH’s, Phenols, Asbestos EPS TPH Suite Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (including BTEX & MTBE)


FIGURES

Title: Site Location Plan

Burgh Road, Aylsham, Norfolk,NR11 6TZ

Project:

Fig No: 1Dwg No:Date:

Job No:

Scale:

BurghRoad/1016/01October 2016

UK15.1991DB

1:50000

Drawn By:

Crown Copyright. All rights reserved.Licence Number: 100054115

Approximate Site Location

N

MBApproved By:

Title: Current Site Layout Plan


Project:

Fig No: 2 Dwg No:Date:

Job No:

Scale:


UK15.1991DB

1:10000

Drawn By:


N

MBApproved By:

Area of InvestigationApproximate Site Boundary

Key:

Title: Aerial Photograph


Project:


Job No:

Scale:


UK15.1991MJ

1:10000

Drawn By:


N

MBApproved By:

Approximate Site Boundary

Area of Investigation

Key:

Title: Trial Pit Location Plan


Project:


Job No:

Scale:


UK15.1991DB

1:10000

Drawn By:

Crown Copyright. All rights reserved.Licence Number: 100054115Approximate Site Boundary

N

MBApproved By:

Key:

TP1

TP3

TP2TP4

TP5

TP6TP7

Approximate Trial Pit Locations

Title: Site Context - CLR11


Project:

Dwg No:Revision Date:

Job No:

Scale:

Burgh Road/1016/05October 2016

UK15.1991

DB

n/a

Drawn By: MBApproved By:

Fig No: 5

Assessment Pathway for Site


APPENDICES


APPENDIX A

Selected Site Photographs

Title: Photo Location Plan


Project:

Fig No: Appendix A Dwg No:Date:

Job No:

Scale:

BurghRoad/Aylsham/1016/AOctober 2016

UK15.1991DB

1:10000

Drawn By:


N

MBApproved By:

Area of InvestigationApproximate Site Boundary

Key:

4 Approximate Photograph Locationsand Direction

1

23 4

5

6


Photo 1: Photograph facing northeast across the north of the building footprint and the area of the previous tank with the

area of knotweed clearly visible.

Photo 2: View looking north along the east building line, positions TP5, 6 and 7 are also visible.

Photo 3: View looking north along the west building line, positions TP1, 2 and 4 are also visible.

Photo 4: View looking northeast across the centre of the footprint positions TP4, 5, 6 and 7 are visible.

Photo 5: Photograph looking southeast across the southern building line with TP1 and 5 visible.

Photo 6: Photograph facing south along the centre of the building footprint.


APPENDIX B

Indicative Proposed Development Plan


APPENDIX C

Correspondence with Broadland District Council

1

Tom Powell

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Stuart Moore Sent: 19 May 2016 11:00 To: Glen Beaumont Subject: FW: Land North of Burgh Road,Aylsham ‐ 20160789 Glen Further to our walk around the perimeter of the site I feel that there is a need to consider the land beneath the building. The historic maps indicate that there was a 'works' type structure on the site prior to this current building being constructed. Without knowing anything about the use of this building I feel that there may be a risk of contamination which needs to be considered. You may therefore want to add a bespoke condition to require an assessment of the ground conditions in this area. Thanks Stuart Moore Pollution Control Officer Broadland District Council Tel: 01603 430511 Fax: 01603 430616 www.broadland.gov.uk [email protected]


APPENDIX D

Site Specific Trial Pit Logs

Trial Pit LogTrialpit No

TP1Sheet 1 of 1

Project Name: Burgh Road, Aylsham

Project No.UK15.1991

Co-ords:Level:

- Date04/10/2016

Location:

Client:

Burgh Road, Aylsham, Norfolk, NR11 6TZ

The Lindum Group

Dimensions (m):

Depth1.50

1.7

2 Scale1:20

LoggedDB

Remarks:

Stability: Good

Wat

erS

trike

Samples and In Situ Testing

Depth Type ResultsDepth

(m)

0.60

1.50

Level(m) Legend Stratum Description

Made Ground: Light brown silty sandy GRAVEL with fine to coarse stone and flint gravel with brick and pipework. Black layer between 0.4m and 0.6m

Medium dense light brown silty, sandy GRAVEL with fine to coarse subangular stone and flint gravel

End of pit at 1.50 m

1

2

3

4

PID=10.50 - 0.80 ES

PID=0

PID=0


TP2Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date04/10/2016

Location:

Client:


The Lindum Group

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.00

1.7

1.8 Scale1:20

LoggedDB

Remarks:

Stability: Good

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.60

2.00


Made Ground: Light brown silty sandy GRAVEL with medium to coarse brick, concrete and stone fragments with a thin black layer at 0.6m.

Medium dense light brown sandy GRAVEL with medium and rare fine rounded to subangular gravel


1

2

3

4

PID=0

PID=10


TP3Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date04/10/2016

Location:

Client:


The Lindum Group

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.00

1.5

2 Scale1:20

LoggedDB

Remarks:

Stability: Good

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.60

2.00


Made Ground: Light brown sandy GRAVEL with fine to medium brick, concrete and stone fragments. Black layer noted at 0.6m. Hydrocarbon odour noted.

Medium dense brown clayey silty GRAVEL with medium to coarse rounded stone gravel


1

2

3

4

0.20 - 0.30 ES

0.40 - 0.60 ES

PID=5

PID=2

PID=1


TP4Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date04/10/2016

Location:

Client:


The Lindum Group

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.20

1.7

2.1 Scale1:20

LoggedDB

Remarks:

Stability: Good

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.60

0.80

2.20


Made Ground: Loose brown silty SAND with medium to coarse fragments of concrete, brick and stone and flint gravel with rare concrete boulders also observed

Medium dense brown silty sandy GRAVEL with fine, medium and coarse gravel

Loose silty sandy GRAVEL with medium to coarse rounded gravel


1

2

3

4

0.00 - 0.30 ES

0.40 - 0.80 ES

PID=1

PID=1

PID=0


TP5Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date04/10/2016

Location:

Client:


The Lindum Group

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.00

1.7

2 Scale1:20

LoggedDB

Remarks:

Stability: Good

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.60

2.00


Made Ground: Light brown sandy GRAVEL with fine to medium brick, concrete and stone fragments. A layer of medium angular flint gravel was noted and hard to excavate. Thin black layer noted at 0.6m.

Medium dense light brown sandy GRAVEL, sand is fine and gravel varies from angular to rounded and fine to coarse


1

2

3

4

0.30 - 0.50 ES

0.40 - 0.50 ES

PID=1

PID=0

PID=0


TP6Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date04/10/2016

Location:

Client:


The Lindum Group

Dimensions (m):

Depth1.20

1.7

1.8 Scale1:20

LoggedDB

Remarks:

Stability: Good

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.30

1.20


Made Ground: Loose light brown sandy GRAVEL with medium to coarse gravel of concrete, brick, stone and flint

Dense silty sandy GRAVEL with a layer of coarse flints at its top, getting rarer with depth. Hole refused at 1.2m due to density


1

2

3

4

PID=1

PID=0


TP7Sheet 1 of 1



Co-ords:Level:

- Date04/10/2016

Location:

Client:


The Lindum Group

Dimensions (m):

Depth1.30

1.7

2 Scale1:20

LoggedDB

Remarks:

Stability: Good

Wat

erS

trike



(m)

0.70

1.30


Made Ground: Light brown sandy GRAVEL with large bricks and coarse flints with a black layer at 0.7m, glass also noted.

Dense silty sandy GRAVEL with a layer of coarse flints at its top, getting rarer with depth. Hole refused at 1.3m due to density. Slight odour noted


1

2

3

4

0.10 - 0.40 ES

0.40 - 0.60 ES

PID=0

PID=1


APPENDIX E

Environmental Laboratory Results

Unit 3 Deeside Point

Zone 3

Deeside Industrial Park

Deeside

EPS Ltd

Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :

Date samples received :

Status :

Issue :

Nine samples were received for analysis on 6th October, 2016 of which nine were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report

which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the

scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.

All analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.

Bruce Leslie

Project Co-ordinator

13th October, 2016

UK15.1991

Burgh Road, Aylsham

6th October, 2016

Final report

Compiled By:

Test Report 16/15314 Batch 1

1

Jones Environmental Laboratory

CH5 2UA

Tel: +44 (0) 1244 833780

Fax: +44 (0) 1244 833781

Daryl Bowell

7B Caxton House

Broad Street

Cambourne

Cambridgeshire

CB23 6JN

Registered Address : Unit 3 Deeside Point, Zone 3, Deeside Industrial Park, Deeside, CH5 2UA. UK

QF-PM 3.1.1 v16Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced

All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 1 of 22

Client Name: Report : Solid

Reference:

Location: Solids: V=60g VOC jar, J=250g glass jar, T=plastic tub

Contact:

JE Job No.: 16/15314

J E Sample No. 1-2 3 4-5 6 7-8 9 10-11 12 13-14

Sample ID TP1 ES1 TP3 ES1 TP3 ES2 TP4 ES1 TP4 ES2 TP5 ES1 TP5 ES2 TP7 ES1 TP7 ES2

Depth 0.5-0.8 0.2-0.3 0.4-0.6 0-0.3 0.4-0.8 0.3-0.5 0.4-0.5 0.1-0.4 0.4-0.6

COC No / misc

Containers V J J V J J V J J V J J V J

Sample Date 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016

Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016

Arsenic #M - - - - - - - 7.6 -


Reference:


Contact:

JE Job No.: 16/15314

J E Sample No. 1-2 3 4-5 6 7-8 9 10-11 12 13-14


Depth 0.5-0.8 0.2-0.3 0.4-0.6 0-0.3 0.4-0.8 0.3-0.5 0.4-0.5 0.1-0.4 0.4-0.6

COC No / misc


Sample Date 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016


Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016

TPH CWG

Aliphatics

>C5-C6 #M


Reference:


Contact:

JE Job No.: 16/15314

J E Sample No. 1-2 3 4-5 6 7-8 9 10-11 12 13-14


Depth 0.5-0.8 0.2-0.3 0.4-0.6 0-0.3 0.4-0.8 0.3-0.5 0.4-0.5 0.1-0.4 0.4-0.6

COC No / misc


Sample Date 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 04/10/2016


Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016 06/10/2016

Sample Colour NDP NDP Medium Brown NDP Dark Brown NDP Medium Brown Medium Brown Medium Brown None PM13/PM0

Other Items NDP NDP stones, sand NDP stones NDP stones stones, clay stones, clay None PM13/PM0

Burgh Road, Aylsham

Daryl Bowell

Please see attached notes for all

abbreviations and acronyms

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.


EPS Ltd

UK15.1991



EPH Interpretation Report

Matrix : Solid

J E

Job

No.

Batch Depth J E Sample

No.EPH Interpretation

16/15314 1 0.5-0.8 1-2 PAH's & Possible tarmac/bitumen



16/15314 1 0.4-0.5 10-11 No interpretation possible

16/15314 1 0.4-0.6 13-14 Possible PAH's & Possible tarmac/bitumen

TP5 ES2

TP7 ES2

Contact: Daryl Bowell

Sample ID

TP1 ES1

TP3 ES2

TP4 ES2

Client Name: EPS Ltd

Reference: UK15.1991

Location: Burgh Road, Aylsham


QF-PM 3.1.8 v10 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 5 of 22

JE Job No.:

JE Sample No.:

Sample Identity:

Depth:

Matrix:

Contact: Daryl Bowell 0.5-0.8

Solid

Reference: UK15.1991 2

Location: Burgh Road, Aylsham TP1 ES1

Jones Environmental Laboratory EPH Aliphatics Chromatogram

Client Name: EPS Ltd 16/15314

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00Violet_Front\071016\37 [modified by JEFPC125, 1 peak manually assigned] 16/15314-2SLpA

min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]

Retention Time [min]

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Violet_Front\071016\58 [modified by JEFPC125, 1 peak manually assigned] 16/15314-2SRpA

min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0Violet_Front\071016\59 [modified by JEFPC125] 16/15314-5SRpA

min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0Violet_Front\071016\60 [modified by JEFPC125, 2 peaks manually assigned] 16/15314-8SRpA

min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

-0.00

0.20

0.50Gold_Front\101016\18 [modified by JEFPC105, 1 peak manually assigned] 16/15314-14SLpA

min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0Gold_Front\101016\40 [modified by JEFPC105, 3 peaks manually assigned] 16/15314-14SRpA

min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]



JE Job No.:

JE Sample No.:

Sample Identity:

Depth:

Matrix:

Solid





Jones Environmental Laboratory EPH Aromatics Chromatogram

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

-0.00

0.20


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]



JE Job No.:

JE Sample No.:

Sample Identity:

Depth:

Matrix:


Solid





1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

-0.00

0.20


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]



JE Job No.:

JE Sample No.:

Sample Identity:

Depth:

Matrix:

Solid






1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

-0.00

0.20


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]



JE Job No.:

JE Sample No.:

Sample Identity:

Depth:

Matrix:


Solid





1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

-0.00

0.20


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]



JE Job No.:

JE Sample No.:

Sample Identity:

Depth:

Matrix:

Solid






1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

-0.00

0.20


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]



JE Job No.:

JE Sample No.:

Sample Identity:

Depth:

Matrix:


Solid





1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

-0.00

0.20


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]



JE Job No.:

JE Sample No.:

Sample Identity:

Depth:

Matrix:

Solid






1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.2

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

-0.00

0.20


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]


1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

-1.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0


min

Cu

rre

nt [

pA

]



Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

J E

Job

No.

Batch Depth

J E

Sample

No.

Date Of

AnalysisAnalysis Result

16/15314 1 0.5-0.8 2 07/10/2016 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil-stones

07/10/2016 Asbestos Fibres Fibre Bundles

07/10/2016 Asbestos ACM Asbestos Cement Debris

07/10/2016 Asbestos Type Chrysotile

07/10/2016 Asbestos Level Screen Asbestos level cannot be determined at this stage of analysis

13/10/2016 Asbestos Gravimetric Quantification 0.002 (mass %)

13/10/2016 Asbestos PCOM Quantification (Fibres)

Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

J E

Job

No.

Batch Depth

J E

Sample

No.

Date Of

AnalysisAnalysis Result

16/15314 1 0.1-0.4 12 07/10/2016 Asbestos Type (2) NAD

07/10/2016 Asbestos Level Screen NAD

TP7 ES1


EPS Ltd

UK15.1991

Burgh Road, Aylsham

Daryl Bowell

Sample ID


NDP Reason Report

Matrix : Solid

J E

Job

No.


No.NDP Reason

16/15314 1 0.5-0.8 1-2 Asbestos detected in sample

16/15314 1 0.2-0.3 3 Asbestos detected in sample

16/15314 1 0-0.3 6 Asbestos detected in sample

16/15314 1 0.3-0.5 9 Asbestos detected in sample

TP3 ES1

TP4 ES1

TP5 ES1

Location: Burgh Road, Aylsham

Contact: Daryl Bowell

Sample ID

TP1 ES1



Reference: UK15.1991


Notification of Deviating Samples

J E

Job

No.


No.Analysis Reason

Please note that only samples that are deviating are mentioned in this report. If no samples are listed it is because none were deviating.

Only analyses which are accredited are recorded as deviating if set criteria are not met.

Contact:

Sample ID


Reference:

Location:

No deviating sample report results for job 16/15314


UK15.1991

Burgh Road, Aylsham

Daryl Bowell


JE Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

NOTE

It is assumed that you have taken representative samples on site and require analysis on a representative subsample. Stones will generally be

included unless we are requested to remove them.

ISO17025 (UKAS) accreditation applies to surface water and groundwater and one other matrix which is analysis specific, any other liquids are

outside our scope of accreditation.

As surface waters require different sample preparation to groundwaters the laboratory must be informed of the water type when submitting samples.

Where appropriate please make sure that our detection limits are suitable for your needs, if they are not, please notify us immediately.

Surrogate compounds are added during the preparation process to monitor recovery of analytes. However low recovery in soils is often due to peat,

clay or other organic rich matrices. For waters this can be due to oxidants, surfactants, organic rich sediments or remediation fluids. Acceptable

limits for most organic methods are 70 - 130% and for VOCs are 50 - 150%. When surrogate recoveries are outside the performance criteria but

the associated AQC passes this is assumed to be due to matrix effect. Results are not surrogate corrected.

A dilution suffix indicates a dilution has been performed and the reported result takes this into account. No further calculation is required.

If you have not already done so, please send us a purchase order if this is required by your company.

NOTES TO ACCOMPANY ALL SCHEDULES AND REPORTS

Please note we are only MCERTS accredited (UK soils only) for sand, loam and clay and any other matrix is outside our scope of accreditation.

Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.

16/15314

WATERS

Data is only reported if the laboratory is confident that the data is a true reflection of the samples analysed. Data is only reported as accredited when

all the requirements of our Quality System have been met. In certain circumstances where all the requirements of the Quality System have not been

met, for instance if the associated AQC has failed, the reason is fully investigated and documented. The sample data is then evaluated alongside

the other quality control checks performed during analysis to determine its suitability. Following this evaluation, provided the sample results have not

been effected, the data is reported but accreditation is removed. It is a UKAS requirement for data not reported as accredited to be considered

indicative only, but this does not mean the data is not valid.

Where possible, and if requested, samples will be re-extracted and a revised report issued with accredited results. Please do not hesitate to contact

the laboratory if further details are required of the circumstances which have led to the removal of accreditation.

Where an MCERTS report has been requested, you will be notified within 48 hours of any samples that have been identified as being outside our

MCERTS scope. As validation has been performed on clay, sand and loam, only samples that are predominantly these matrices, or combinations

of them will be within our MCERTS scope. If samples are not one of a combination of the above matrices they will not be marked as MCERTS

accredited.

Negative Neutralization Potential (NP) values are obtained when the volume of NaOH (0.1N) titrated (pH 8.3) is greater than the volume of HCl (1N)

to reduce the pH of the sample to 2.0 - 2.5. Any negative NP values are corrected to 0.

Where a CEN 10:1 ZERO Headspace VOC test has been carried out, a 10:1 ratio of water to wet (as received) soil has been used.

All samples will be discarded one month after the date of reporting, unless we are instructed to the contrary.

% Asbestos in Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) is determined by reference to HSG 264 The Survey Guide - Appendix 2 : ACMs in buildings

listed in order of ease of fibre release.

All analysis is reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected. Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C unless

otherwise stated. Moisture content for CEN Leachate tests are dried at 105°C ±5°C.

Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.

Please note we are not a UK Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) Approved Laboratory .

Samples must be received in a condition appropriate to the requested analyses. All samples should be submitted to the laboratory in suitable

containers with sufficient ice packs to sustain an appropriate temperature for the requested analysis. If this is not the case you will be informed and

any test results that may be compromised highlighted on your deviating samples report.



JE Job No.:

#

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

++

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C

Dilution required.

ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS USED

Outside Calibration Range

No Fibres Detected

Result outside calibration range, results should be considered as indicative only and are not accredited.

Results expressed on as received basis.

Surrogate recovery outside performance criteria. This may be due to a matrix effect.

MCERTS accredited.

ISO17025 (UKAS) accredited - UK.

16/15314

AQC failure, accreditation has been removed from this result, if appropriate, see 'Note' on previous page.

Calibrated against a single substance

Not applicable

No Asbestos Detected.

No Determination Possible

Indicates analyte found in associated method blank.

None Detected (usually refers to VOC and/SVOC TICs).

Analysis subcontracted to a Jones Environmental approved laboratory.

Matrix Effect

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample

AQC Sample

Suspected carry over

Limit of Detection (Limit of Reporting) in line with ISO 17025 and MCERTS



JE Job No: 16/15314

Test Method No. Description

Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

PM4Gravimetric measurement of Natural Moisture Content and % Moisture Content at either

35°C or 105°C. Calculation based on ISO 11465 and BS1377.PM0 No preparation is required.

PM4Gravimetric measurement of Natural Moisture Content and % Moisture Content at either

35°C or 105°C. Calculation based on ISO 11465 and BS1377.PM0 No preparation is required. AR

TM4Modified USEPA 8270 method for the solvent extraction and determination of 16 PAHs

by GC-MS. PM8

End over end extraction of solid samples for organic analysis. The solvent mix varies

depending on analysis required.AR Yes


by GC-MS. PM8


depending on analysis required.Yes AR Yes


by GC-MS. PM8


depending on analysis required.Yes Yes AR Yes

TM5Modified USEPA 8015B method for the determination of solvent Extractable Petroleum

Hydrocarbons (EPH) with carbon banding within the range C8-C40 GC-FID. PM16 Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a Rapid Trace SPE. AR Yes


Hydrocarbons (EPH) with carbon banding within the range C8-C40 GC-FID. PM16 Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a Rapid Trace SPE. Yes Yes AR Yes


Hydrocarbons (EPH) with carbon banding within the range C8-C40 GC-FID. PM16 Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a Rapid Trace SPE. AR

TM5/TM36

TM005: Modified USEPA 8015B. Determination of solvent Extractable Petroleum

Hydrocarbons (EPH) including column fractionation in the carbon range of C10-35 into

aliphatic and aromatic fractions by GC-FID.

TM036: Modified USEPA 8015B. Determination of Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) in

the carbon chain range of C5-10 by headspace GC-FID. Including determination of

BTEX and calculation of Aliphatic fractions.

PM12/PM16

Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC

headspace analysis./Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a Rapid

Trace SPE.

AR Yes

PM13A visual examination of the solid sample is carried out to ascertain sample make up,

colour and any other inclusions. This is not a geotechnical description.PM0 No preparation is required. AR

Jones Environmental Laboratory Method Code Appendix


JE Job No: 16/15314

Test Method No. Description

Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM21

Modified USEPA 415.1. Determination of Total Organic Carbon or Total Carbon by

combustion in an Eltra TOC furnace/analyser in the presence of oxygen. The CO2

generated is quantified using infra-red detection.

PM24Dried and gro

Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment Burgh Road · 2016-11-10 · Supplementary...

Documents

Transcript of Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment Burgh Road · 2016-11-10 · Supplementary...