Upload
others
View
3
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Phase II Ground
Investigation Report
www.hspconsulting.com T: 0870 600 6090
Newstead Primary School
C1862
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
1
HSP Consulting Engineers Ltd Lawrence House
Meadowbank Way Eastwood
Nottingham NG16 3SB
www.hspconsulting.com
Date: 25/02/2014
Quality Assurance *Checked in accordance with HSP’s IMS (BS EN ISO 9001:2008 and BS EN ISO 14001:2004)
Author
A.Copestake B.Sc (Hons)
Checked
L.Baker B.Sc (Hons) FGS
Approved H.Pratt B.Eng (Hons), C.Eng, F.Cons.E, M.I.C.E, MI Mgt.
Report Ref No. C1862/GIR
Revision -
Status DRAFT
This document is available electronically please contact the author to obtain a copy.
Newstead Primary School
Hucknall Road
Newstead Village
Nottinghamshire
NG15 0BB
Ground Investigation Report
2
Contents
1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5
3.0 Review of Existing Information .................................................................................... 6
4.0 Overview of British Legislation ...................................................................................... 7
5.0 Intrusive Survey Limitations ........................................................................................ 8
6.0 Factual Report ............................................................................................................ 9
6.1 Fieldwork Procedure ................................................................................................ 9
6.2 In-Situ Testing ......................................................................................................... 9
6.3 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................10
6.4 General Geology and Revealed Strata ...................................................................11
6.5 Groundwater ...........................................................................................................11
7.0 Geotechnical Interpretative Report ............................................................................12
7.1 Detailed Ground Model ...........................................................................................12
7.2 Cut and Fill .............................................................................................................13
7.3 Excavations ............................................................................................................13
7.4 Foundations ............................................................................................................13
7.5 Concrete Classification ...........................................................................................14
8.0 Environmental Interpretative Report ..........................................................................15
8.1 Sample Descriptions ...............................................................................................15
8.2 Chemical Investigation ...........................................................................................15
8.3 Metals and Inorganic Chemical Analysis ................................................................16
8.4 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis ...........................................................................17
8.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons .........................................................................17
8.6 Water Supply ..........................................................................................................19
8.7 Human Health Mitigation ........................................................................................19
8.8 Ground Gas Risk Assessment................................................................................20
8.9 Drainage .................................................................................................................20
9.0 Engineers Conclusions and Risk Mitigation ...............................................................21
10.0 Appendices .............................................................................................................22
3
1.0 Executive Summary
1.0.1 HSP Consulting was commissioned by GF Tomlinson Ltd on behalf of
Nottinghamshire County Council to undertake an intrusive ground investigation upon
the area of land currently occupied by the existing Newstead Primary School,
Hucknall Road, Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire, NG15 0BB (approximate
National Grid Reference E451872, N352804).
1.0.2 The development plans for the site indicate a single storey building is proposed to
the east of the existing school buildings with proposed parking areas also indicated
to the southwest. The proposed development plans for the site can be seen in
Appendix I.
1.0.3 The physical methods of investigation employed were 5No. window sample
boreholes to a maximum depth 4.37m below existing ground level (begl), 2No.
foundation excavation pits and a soakaway test pit. The Exploratory Hole Logs and
Foundation Excavation Pit Drawing can be found within Appendix II, with Soakaway
Test Results as Appendix III.
1.0.4 The exploratory holes revealed a downward strata succession comprising made
ground materials to a maximum depth of 1.60m begl (WS1). Beneath the made
ground deposits strata of the Lenton Sandstone Formation were encountered. These
deposits generally consisted of loose to dense brown slightly gravelly silty Sand
becoming brown-red with increased depth.
1.0.5 It is recommended that the proposed building foundations should be deepened
through any Made Ground to bear at least 200mm into the natural granular materials
or a minimum of 1.20m. At 1.20m medium dense slightly silty Sand was
encountered within; WS3, WS4, & WS5. Made Ground has been exhibited within
WS1 and WS2 at a maximum depth of 1.80m begl. It is suggested that Strip
Foundations could be extended through any Made Ground to the natural Sand with a
10 kNm2 leen mix concrete.
1.0.6 It is considered appropriate to adopt a basic Design Sulphate Class of DS-3 together
with an Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) of AC-3 when
considering the concrete classification.
4
1.0.7 Gas and groundwater monitoring has not been commissioned as part of this
assessment. At this stage gas monitoring is not considered to be required as we
understand that the proposed single storey system built unit(s) are elevated above
ground level on brick plinths or legs which leaves a clear void beneath. Confirmation
from the Client’s chosen contractor regarding void cladding materials and ventilation
is recommended. Should a traditional structure be proposed at the site it would be
prudent to undertake gas monitoring in order to obtain an indication of the ground
gas regime at the site and allow recommendations for gas protection measures to be
incorporated within any design.
1.0.8 Soakaway testing was undertaken in a specially constructed trial test pit (SK1). The
test results are reported in Appendix III. Analysis of the results indicates an
extremely poor infiltration rate range of less than 10-11m/s in the soakaway test
location. Comparison of this data with table 11.1 Permeability and Drainage
Characteristics of Soils Terzaghi and Peck indicates the ground to be practically
impervious strata, considered attributable to high clay content within the underlying
natural granular strata.
1.0.9 The executive summary contains an overview of key findings and conclusions.
However, no reliance should be placed on the executive summary until the whole of
the report has been read. Other sections of the report may contain information which
puts into context the findings noted within the executive summary.
1.0.10 If development proposals or boundary lines change, the client should contact HSP
Consulting Engineers Ltd to ensure that these changes do not present a necessity
for further work or further consideration of the findings of this report.
5
2.0 Introduction
2.0.1 HSP Consulting was instructed by GF Tomlinson Ltd on behalf of Nottinghamshire
County Council to carry out an intrusive geotechnical and environmental
investigation of the site. The development plans for the site indicate a single storey
building is proposed to the east of the existing school buildings with proposed
parking areas also indicated to the southwest. The proposed development plans for
the site can be seen in Appendix I.
2.0.2 This report presents an outline of the existing ground conditions at the site and gives
recommendations regarding the proposed foundations and any remedial measures
that may be required with respect to any contamination.
2.0.3 This report presents the findings of the intrusive chemical, physical and visual
investigations that were undertaken at Newstead Primary School, Hucknall Road,
Newsted Village, Nottinghamshire NG15 0BB (approximate National Grid Reference
E451872, N352804).
2.0.4 This investigation has been carried out in general accordance with the following
publications with the aim of providing an appropriate site investigation report for the
development with respect to the construction and environmental impact (when
considering the BREEAM assessment):
BS5930: 1999 – Code of Practice for Site Investigations
BS1377: 1990 (Parts 1 to 9) – Methods of Tests for Soils for Civil Engineering
BS10175: 2011 + A1 2013 – Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites
6
3.0 Review of Existing Information
3.0.1 HSP has not been made aware of any other previous reports for the subject site.
However some existing outline information has been gleaned from the following
sources where it has been useful and necessary to the investigation in the absence
of a Phase I report being required:
1. Site walkover survey
2. British Geological Survey
a) Map Viewer
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/mapViewers/home.html
b) Lexion of Named Rock Units
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/
c) 1996. Derby Sheet 125. Solid and Drift Geology. 1:50 000.
3. National Grid mapping (where necessary)
4. Environment Agency
a) What's in your back yard
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx
3.0.2 Bedrock geology across the site is recorded to comprise the Lenton Sandstone
Formation of late Permian to Triassic age. The Lenton Sandstone Formation is
described as sandstone, very fine- to medium-grained. Argillaceous, red-brown with
buff mottles, cross-stratified; subordinate beds of red-brown mudstone and
conglomerate. Bedrock geology of the Erdlington Formation is recorded adjacent to
the eastern boundary of the site and is recorded to comprise red-brown mudstone
with subordinate siltstone and sandstone.
3.0.3 Superficial deposits are not recorded to be present across the site.
3.0.4 The Lenton Sandstone Formation geology across the site is recorded as a Principle
Aquifer, described by the Environment Agency as; layers of rock or drift deposits that
have high intergranular and/or fracture permeability - meaning they usually provide a
high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on
a strategic scale. Predominantly aquifers previously designated as major aquifer.
3.0.5 The adjacent Edlington Formation mudstone and sandstone geology is recorded as
a Secondary ‘B’ Aquifer. Secondary aquifers are described by the EA as a wide
range of rock layers or drift deposits with an equally wide range of water permeability
and storage. Secondary ‘B’ aquifers are permeable layers capable of supporting
water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an
important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly
classified as minor aquifers.
7
4.0 Overview of British Legislation
4.0.1 The contaminated land regime covering historical land contamination is set out within
Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990. This legislation adopts a
‘Suitable for Use’ approach by;
Ensuring land is suitable for its current use and that no contamination is causing
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment;
Ensuring that where land is used for a new use, it is made suitable for that use under
the planning regime;
Limiting requirements for remediation to the work that is necessary to prevent
unacceptable risks to human health or the environment in relation to the current or
future use of the land for which planning permission is being sought.
4.0.2 Under the planning and development control regime, as set out in the ‘Department
for Communities and Local Government (March 2012) National Planning Policy
Framework’, the aim is to ensure that there are no unacceptable risks to either
receptors relevant to Part 2A, or to others that may be covered by other regimes,
taking into account the proposed new land use.
8
5.0 Intrusive Survey Limitations
5.0.1 This report contains the details of an Intrusive Geo-Environmental Assessment
carried out by HSP Consulting Engineers Ltd at Newstead Primary School, Hucknall
Road, Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire NG15 0BB. This report has been prepared
for GF Tomlinson Ltd on behalf of Nottinghamshire County Council and must not be
relied upon by any other party without the explicit written permission of HSP
Consulting. All parties to this report do not intend any of the terms of the Contracts
(Rights of Third Party Act 1999) to apply to this report.
5.02 There may be special conditions appertaining to the site that have not been revealed
by the exploratory holes and field testing (where applicable) that are therefore not
taken into account within this report.
5.03 Whilst the report may express an opinion on the possible configuration of the strata
between or beyond the exploratory holes or on the possible presence of features
based on either visual, verbal, or published evidence, this is for guidance only and no
liability can be accepted for its accuracy.
5.0.4 Any comments made on ground water conditions are based on the observations
made at the time of the investigation unless otherwise stated. It should therefore be
noted that the groundwater levels might vary due to seasonal variations or other
affects.
5.0.5 This report has been based upon observations made within the site boundary as
marked in Appendix I. Should this site boundary alter in any way, the Geotechnical
Team at HSP Consulting should be notified in order to reassess if any further works
are required or to ensure that the findings of this report remain wholly applicable.
5.0.6 Please note that this report does not purport to provide definitive legal advice.
5.0.7 The executive summary contains an overview of key findings and conclusions.
However no reliance should be placed on the executive summary until the whole of
the report has been read. Other sections of the report may contain information which
puts into context the findings noted within the executive summary.
9
6.0 Factual Report
6.1 Fieldwork Procedure
6.1.1 The physical methods of investigation employed were 5No. window sample
boreholes to a maximum depth 4.37m below existing ground level (begl), 2No.
foundation excavation pits and a soakaway test pit. The Exploratory Hole Logs and
Foundation Excavation Pit Drawing can be found within Appendix II, Soakway Test
Results are included as Appendix III.
6.1.2 The positions of the exploratory locations are shown on the appended Exploratory
Hole Location Plan (contained in Appendix IV).
6.1.3 Fragmentary bulk and disturbed samples were recovered from materials revealed
within the window sample boreholes. Geo-environmental samples were also
obtained specifically for contamination testing.
6.1.4 The samples were taken to a UKAS accredited laboratory for further examination
and testing.
6.2 In-Situ Testing
6.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) were carried out within each of the window
sample boreholes at 1.00m intervals. This testing has been undertaken in
accordance with BS 1377:1990 and the results are included on the appended
borehole logs (Appendix II).
10
6.3 Laboratory Testing
6.3.1 The laboratory testing schedules were prepared by HSP Consulting.
6.3.2 Geotechnical testing including the following has been undertaken at a UKAS
accredited laboratory as part of the intrusive investigatory works at the site:
Plasticity Index
Natural Moisture Content
Particle Size Distribution
Sulphate Analyses
6.3.3 The geotechnical test results can be found within Appendix V.
6.3.4 The geotechnical laboratory testing has been carried out in accordance with BS
1377: 1990 using calibrated equipment specified for the British Standard.
6.3.5 In addition to the geotechnical testing outlined above selected soil samples were
tested at a UKAS accredited laboratory for the presence of a selected suite of
contaminants as outlined below:
Arsenic Boron Cadmium
Chromium (III & VI) Copper Cyanide (free & Total)
Lead Mercury Nickel
PAH (speciated) Phenol pH
Selenium Sulphate (total) Sulphide
Sulphur TPH (speciated) Zinc
All values total unless otherwise stated.
6.3.6 Selected samples of Made Ground were also screened for asbestos, with an
instruction to identify any detected fibres.
6.3.7 The contamination testing outlined above was carried out during the period 30th
January to 18th February 2014. The results are included in this report as Appendix
VI.
11
6.4 General Geology and Revealed Strata
6.4.1 The site lies in an area where, from the British Geological Survey data sheet 125
Derby, the underlying geology is expected to comprise red-brown mudstone and
sandstone. It is considered likely that the underlying strata may have weathered to
clay and sand at or close to the surface. Superficial deposits are not expected.
6.4.2 The exploratory holes undertaken at the site have revealed a general downwards
strata succession of:
MADE GROUND
- MADE GROUND: Tarmacadam overlying dark
grey sub-base material of angular to subangular
limestone gravel, clinker and shale. (WS1 &
WS2)
- MADE GROUND: red-grey sandy fine to coarse
angular gravel of shale, brick and concrete.
(WS1 & WS2)
- MADE GROUND: dark grey-brown slightly
gravelly slightly clayey sandy silt. (WS1 & WS2)
- MADE GROUND: dark brown slightly gravelly
silty fine to coarse sand with brick fragments.
(WS3 & WS4)
LENTON SANDSTONE
FORMATION
- Loose to medium dense light brown slightly
gravelly silty fine to coarse SAND.
- Medium dense to dense red-brown silty fine to
medium SAND.
6.5 Groundwater
6.5.1 Groundwater was not encountered during the exploratory drilling at the site. It should
be noted that gas and groundwater monitoring has not been commissioned as part
of the ground investigation.
6.5.3 Shallow groundwater entries may be encountered during earthworks operations
including foundation excavations. However, traditional sump and pump dewatering
should be sufficient within all excavations at the site if required.
12
7.0 Geotechnical Interpretative Report
7.1 Detailed Ground Model
7.1.1 Topsoil
7.1.1.1 Topsoil materials were encountered within window sample locations WS3, WS4 and
WS5 during the intrusive investigation works. Topsoil was recorded to a maximum
depth of 0.30mbegl (WS3 & WS5).
7.1.2 Made Ground
7.1.2.1 Made ground materials were encountered in window sample locations WS1 to WS4
during the intrusive investigation. Tarmacadam hardstanding over a crushed
limestone tarmacadam gravel sub-base material was encountered in two locations
(WS1 & WS2). Made ground materials underlying topsoil and tarmacadam were
generally recorded to comprise red-grey-brown sandy gravel/silt/sand with brick, ash
and concrete fragments to a maximum proven depth of 1.60mbegl (WS1).
7.1.3 Lenton Sandstone Formation
7.1.3.1 Natural granular deposits belonging to the weathered Lenton Sandstone Formation
were encountered from 0.30m begl (WS5) to terminal borehole depth (4.37mbegl in
WS1). These deposits generally consisted of loose to dense brown slightly gravelly
silty sand becoming brown-red with increased depth.
7.1.3.3 A series of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) undertaken in natural strata within
the boreholes have returned a SPT ‘N’ values in the range of 4 to 10 at 1.00m depth
and 10 to 16 at 2.00m depth generally confirming sands of loose to medium dense
strength at these depths Table 1 (below) summarises the N values at depth across
the site within the natural strata.
7.1.3.4 Table 1
Depth Range of ‘N’ Values ‘N’ Mean
1m
2m
4 - 10
10 - 16
7.7
13.0
3m 19 - 50+ 34.2
7.1.3.5 Two particle size distribution tests have been undertaken to confirm the visual
description and engineering behaviour of the soils. The results are included in
Appendix V
13
7.2 Cut and Fill
7.2.1 Cut and fill operations are not anticipated at the site from review of the development
proposals. Should the overall scheme alter, an Engineer from HSP Consulting
should be contacted in the event that further discussion and comment is required.
7.3 Excavations
7.3.1 Excavations to proposed formation level for new foundations and infrastructure
should generally be readily achievable adopting standard excavation plant. Based
solely upon the Trial Pit undertaken for the Soakaway Testing at the site random and
potentially severe falls should not be anticipated from the faces of near vertically
sided unsupported excavations carried out at the site. However, where personnel are
required to enter near vertically sided excavations, it is considered that full support
should be provided to the full depth of all excavations.
7.3.2 It is recommended that all support systems are continually assessed by fully trained
or experienced personnel.
7.3.3 Shallow groundwater is not anticipated across the site based on groundwater
observations recorded during the fieldwork. It should be noted that groundwater
levels may vary due to seasonal variations or other effects.
7.4 Foundations
7.4.1 The development plans for the site indicate a single storey building is proposed to
the east of the existing school buildings with proposed parking areas also indicated
to the southwest. The proposed development plans for the site can be seen in
Appendix I. Should development plans alter a geotechnical engineer from HSP
should be consulted to review the foundation options.
7.4.2 For the purpose of this foundation assessment the information gained from
boreholes WS1 to WS5 has been used.
7.4.3 The natural granular soils found within all of the boreholes in at least loose condition
are considered suitable as a formation layer.
14
7.4.4 Should a traditional foundation option be chosen the below table indicates the
indicative allowable bearing pressure (ABP) that could be achieved using strip
foundations across the building footprint. An ABP has been calculated using the
mean of the corrected SPT (N1)60 values for the borehole group at 1m intervals from
the existing ground level.
7.4.5 Table 2
Depth (m) (N1)60 Eurocode 7 Soil
Density Description
Approximate ABP (kN/m2) – 0.60m
wide strip footing
1.0 7.14 Loose 123
2.0 13.26 Medium 307
7.4.6 It is recommended that the proposed building foundations should be deepened
through any Made Ground to bear at least 200mm into the natural granular materials
or a minimum of 1.20m. At 1.20m medium dense slightly silty Sand was
encountered within; WS3, WS4, & WS5. Made Ground has been exhibited within
WS1 and WS2 at a maximum depth of 1.80m begl. It is suggested that Strip
Foundations could be extended through any Made Ground to the natural Sand with a
10 kNm2 leen mix concrete. The values within ‘Table 2’ above incorporate a factor of
safety of 3 and total settlements are not expected to exceed approximately 25mm,
thereby keeping differential settlements within acceptable limits. Loadings for the
single storey development are anticipated to be less than half of the calculated ABP.
7.5 Concrete Classification
7.5.1 The results of sulphate and pH testing carried out on selected soil samples taken
during this investigation have been compared with the recommendations outlined in
BRE Special Digest 1, Part 1: 2005.
7.5.2 The guidelines given in BRE Special Digest 1 are based upon a site classification
relating to its previous usage. It is considered appropriate to define this site as a
‘brownfield site’ location for the purposes of concrete classification.
7.5.3 On the basis of the above, it is considered appropriate to adopt a basic Design
Sulphate Class of DS-3 together with and Aggressive Chemical Environment for
Concrete (ACEC) of AC-3.
15
8.0 Environmental Interpretative Report
8.0.1 Reference to the documentation published by the Department of Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency has been made with
respect to the potential contaminants considered likely to affect the site.
8.0.2 The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Model published by DEFRA
and the Environment Agency (EA) contains Soil Guideline Values. These SGV’s are
set according to proposed land use. For the purposes of this report, ‘Residential
without plant uptake’ land use figures have generally been adopted where necessary
with parameters within the CLEA software adapted to model a school building.
8.0.3 The CLEA Model includes only selected contaminants and therefore where there is
an absence of a published SGV for one of the analytes contained within the testing
suite for this site, the Land Quality Management Ltd (LQM) and Chartered Institute of
Environmental Health (CIEH) Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) 2nd Edition have
been utilised.
8.1 Sample Descriptions
8.1.1 Samples were selected from the top metre of each borehole at the site and sealed in
appropriate containers. Three samples were taken from the development area to
provide a basis for characterising the materials to outline the potential impacts on
human health and any environmental receptors from any contamination found.
8.1.2 The samples selected from the site were as follows;
WS1 @ 0.45m MADE GROUND: Sandy gravelly clayey silt
WS2 @ 0.20m MADE GROUND: Sandy gravel
WS3 @ 0.30m MADE GROUND: Gravelly silty sand
WS4 @ 0.40m MADE GROUND: Gravelly silty sand
8.2 Chemical Investigation
8.2.1 Samples chosen were analysed for a basic suite of common contaminants including
fractionated Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and speciated Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons. The results of the analysis can be collated into three sets, each
specific to a generic type of contaminant.
Inorganic Analysis
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analysis
16
8.2.2 Geo-environmental samples were retained specifically for chemical analysis from the
exploratory holes and stored in appropriately refrigerated containers until delivery to
UKAS accredited laboratory No. 2183 Chemtest Ltd.
8.2.3 Extracts of the reports produced by Chemtest Ltd are reproduced within the text
where they are considered relevant to discussion. However, full copies of the
laboratory reports are contained within the appendices (Appendix VI).
8.3 Metals and Inorganic Chemical Analysis
8.3.1 The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the
Environment Agency (EA) have Published Soil Guideline Values (SGV’s) for only
selected contaminants within our testing suite. SGV’s have been published for
arsenic, cadmium, lead (withdrawn but not currently revised), mercury, nickel and
selenium. Review of the test results indicates that none of the individual contaminant
concentrations exceeds the relevant SGV for a School use under the classification of
a ‘Residential without plant uptake’ end land use scenario.
8.3.2 Land Quality Management Ltd (LQM) and Chartered Institute of Environmental
Health (CIEH) Generic Assessment Criteria GACs have been made available for
boron, beryllium, chromium (III & IV), copper, vanadium and zinc. Review of the test
results indicates that none of the individual contaminant concentrations of metals or
inorganic contaminants exceeds the relevant GAC for the site.
8.3.3 Three samples of Made Ground were scheduled for an asbestos screen and
identification. The results indicate no asbestos fibres were detected.
8.3.4 It is therefore considered that identified metals and inorganic contaminants do not
pose a risk to future end users at the site.
8.3.5 It should be remembered that the approval of the Local Environmental Health Officer
will be required with respect to the soil contamination proposals.
17
8.4 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis
8.4.1 Following the withdrawal of the ICRCL trigger values for TPH contamination, the
Environment Agency has published guidance for the modelling of TPH data within
the CLEA framework. In general the guidance is to speciate the total fraction into
several smaller equivalent carbon fractions.
8.4.2 No Soil Guideline Values are currently published for any Petroleum Hydrocarbon
equivalent band. However the LQM CIEH has produced GACs for the TPH working
groups.
8.4.3 The four soil samples tested for the contamination suite have also been submitted for
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon analysis. All of the samples analysed recorded results
above laboratory limits of detection within at least one TPH fraction range. However,
exceedances above the relevant GAC have not been recorded within any of the
samples analysed.
8.4.4 It is therefore considered that Petroleum Hydrocarbon contamination should not pose
a significant risk of significant harm to potential receptors at the site.
8.4.5 The approval of the Local Environmental Health Officer should be sought in respect
of the soil contamination proposals.
8.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
8.5.1 The soil samples tested for the contamination suite have also been submitted for
PAH analysis. All of the samples taken from the top 1.0m of the site recorded
exceedances above the GAC for benzo(a)pyrene, and in addition to this a number of
other associated PAHs were recorded above their respective GACs across the
dataset.
8.5.2 SSACs for all of the determinands exhibiting concentrations above their relevant
GACs have been generated using the CLEA model contained within Appendix VII
with pertinent extracts presented within Table 3 below.
18
8.5.3 Table 3
Determinand SSAC (mg/kg) No. of Results
Above SSAC
Max Con.
(mg/kg)
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.59 3 11.0
Benzo(a)anthracene 10.95 1 15.0
Chrysene 15.89 0 14.0
Benzo(b)flouranthene 11.29 0 8.3
Benzo(k)flouranthene 15.90 0 10.0
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.76* 1 2.2
Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6.83 0 6.1
*GAC used in lieu of lower SSAC
8.5.4 Elevations of Benzo(a)pyrene are well above the SSAC in 3 of the 4 samples
analysed. In addition associated PAHs of benzo(a)anthracene and
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene were also recorded above their relevant SSAC within
sample WS3 @ 0.30m. It is of note that the highest concentration of Benzo(a)pyrene
exhibited within the sample from WS3 @ 0.3m was 11 mg/kg which is below the
‘Commercial’ LQM CIEH GAC.
8.5.5 The identified elevated PAH concentrations were all exhibited within shallow Made
Ground at the site. We would anticipate that further testing of the underlying natural
Sands may prove these materials to be suitable with no PAH exceedances. In this
scenario it would be recommended that where landscaping is evident within the
proposed scheme a cover system of a minimum depth of 0.60m should be put in
place (suitably designed) where Made Ground is currently evident at depths greater
than the cover system (It should be understood that the formation level for design
may influence the excavation depth necessary to implement any cover system
detail). Where shallower Made Ground exists the depth of cover could be equal to
the excavation of the full depth of Made Ground. The proposed building footprint and
any external hard surfacing will act as a break layer mitigating any potential pollutant
linkages for human health and therefore the materials should be deemed suitable in
these areas.
8.5.6 Where excavated Made Ground from landscaped areas cannot be redistributed
beneath hard cover due to any earthworks balance it may need to be taken off site to
a suitably licensed facility. Waste Acceptance Criteria Testing has not been
undertaken on Made Ground materials from the site as part of this investigation.
Where a Total PAH of 100mg/kg, or a Total TPH of 500mg/kg is exceeded (i.e. WS3
@ 0.30m) it is unlikely that the materials could be established to conform to ‘Inert’
waste parameters.
8.5.7 The approval of the local Environmental Health Officer should be sough with respect
to the soil contamination assessment and proposals.
19
8.6 Water Supply
8.6.1 The environmental testing for the site has been compared to the following document
in order to assess the most appropriate pipe material that should be used upon the
site for mains water supply:
‘Guidance for the selection of water supply pipes to be used in Brownfield sites – UK
Water Industry Research – Ref: 10/WM/03/21.’
8.6.2 It is considered that specialist materials could be required for water supply pipes at
the site so consideration should be given to their location and depth where they are
taken through Made Ground. If laid within natural Sand deposits normal pipe
materials should be sufficient. However confirmation of supply pipes should be
sought from Severn Trent Water and this information passed to them for review.
8.7 Human Health Mitigation
8.7.1 Review of the test results indicates that some individual contaminant concentrations
present minor exceedances of the relevant SSAC’s or LQM CIEH GAC’s for a
School use under the classification of a ‘Residential without plant uptake’ end land
use scenario.
8.7.2 Where materials are proposed to remain in situ or be used within any earthwork
operations and be placed beneath hard standing it can be considered that the hard
standing will act as a break layer mitigating any risk to the end user of the site. In
areas of proposed landscaping it would be recommended that a cover system be put
in place to a minimum depth of 0.60m.
8.7.3 Where excavated Made Ground cannot be redistributed beneath hard cover due to
any earthworks balance it may need to be taken off site to a suitably licensed facility.
Waste Acceptance Criteria Testing has not been undertaken on Made Ground
materials from the site as part of this investigation. Where a Total PAH of 100mg/kg,
or a Total TPH of 500mg/kg is exceeded it is unlikely that the materials could be
established to conform to ‘Inert’ waste parameters.
8.7.4 HSP would recommend that the guidance in HSG 66 ‘Protection of workers and the
General Public during Redevelopment of Contaminated Land’ should be followed
during any development works undertaken on site. Site workers should take
precautions to ensure that they wear sufficient PPE during development to ensure a
minimum contact with any generated dust or with exposed soils. All workers having
manual contact with exposed soils should wear gloves. Following contact with soils
hands should be washed before eating or smoking.
20
8.8 Ground Gas Risk Assessment
8.8.1 Ground gas monitoring has not been commissioned as part of this assessment.
However, made ground at depths of over 1.0m were recorded in WS1 and WS2, this
has the potential to generate potentially hazardous ground gases. At this stage gas
monitoring is not considered to be required as we understand that the proposed
single storey system built unit(s) are elevated above ground level on brick plinths or
legs which leaves a clear void beneath. Confirmation from the Client’s chosen
contractor regarding void cladding materials and ventilation is recommended.
8.8.2 Should a traditional structure be proposed at the site it would be prudent to
undertake gas monitoring in order to obtain an indication of the ground gas regime at
the site and allow recommendations for gas protection measures to be incorporated
within any design.
8.8.3 The approval of the Local Environmental Health Officer should be sought with
respect to the gas protection proposals.
8.9 Drainage
8.9.1 Soakaway testing was undertaken in a specially constructed trial test pit (SK1) test
results are reported in Appendix III. Analysis of the results indicates an extremely
poor infiltration rate range of less than 10-11m/s in the soakaway test location.
Comparison of this data with table 11.1 Permeability and Drainage Characteristics of
Soils Terzaghi and Peck indicates the ground to be practically impervious strata,
considered attributable to high clay content within the underlying natural granular
strata.
21
9.0 Engineers Conclusions and Risk Mitigation
9.0.1 It is the opinion of HSP Consulting that the information collated within this report
gleaned from the intrusive site investigation undertaken to recommend that there is
sufficient evidence to suggest that the site should pose no significant risk to Human
Health or any Environmental Receptors.
9.0.2 The exploratory holes revealed a downward strata succession comprising made
ground materials to a maximum depth of 1.60m begl (WS1). Beneath the made
ground deposits strata of the Lenton Sandstone Formation were encountered. These
deposits generally consisted of loose to dense brown slightly gravelly silty sand
becoming brown-red with increased depth.
9.0.3 It is recommended that the proposed building foundations should be deepened
through any Made Ground to bear at least 200mm into the natural granular materials
or a minimum of 1.20m. At 1.20m medium dense slightly silty Sand was
encountered within; WS3, WS4, & WS5. Made Ground has been exhibited within
WS1 and WS2 at a maximum depth of 1.80m begl. It is suggested that Strip
Foundations could be extended through any Made Ground to the natural Sand with a
10 kNm2 leen mix concrete.
9.0.4 It is considered appropriate to adopt a basic Design Sulphate Class of DS-3 together
with an Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) of AC-3 when
considering the concrete classification.
9.0.5 Gas and groundwater monitoring has not been commissioned as part of this
assessment. At this stage gas monitoring is not considered to be required as we
understand that the proposed single storey system built unit(s) are elevated above
ground level on brick plinths or legs which leaves a clear void beneath. Confirmation
from the Client’s chosen contractor regarding void cladding materials and ventilation
is recommended.Should a traditional structure be proposed at the site it would be
prudent to undertake gas monitoring in order to obtain an indication of the ground
gas regime at the site and allow recommendations for gas protection measures to be
incorporated within any design.
9.0.6 Soakaway testing was undertaken in a specially constructed trial test pit (SK1) test
results are reported in Appendix III. Analysis of the results indicates an extremely
poor infiltration rate range of less than 10-11m/s in the soakaway test location.
Comparison of this data with table 11.1 Permeability and Drainage Characteristics of
Soils Terzaghi and Peck indicates the ground to be practically impervious strata,
considered attributable to high clay content within the underlying natural granular
strata.
22
10.0 Appendices Appendix I – Proposed Development Plan
Appendix II – Exploratory Hole Logs
Appendix III – Soakaway Test Results
Appendix IV – Site Investigation Layout Plan
Appendix V – Laboratory Test Results - Geotechnical
Appendix VI – Laboratory Test Results – Chemical
Appendix VII – CLEA 1.06
PROJECT No: DRAWING No:
DESIGN/DRAWN : DATE:
SCALE@SIZE : ISSUE:
TITLE:
PROJECT:
CLIENT:
DO NOT SCALE
NOTES:
Do not scale
NTS FINAL
Proposed Development Layout Plan
AC Feb 2014
PDLP C1862
Lawrence House, Meadowbank Way, Eastwood, Nottingham, NG16 3SB
Tel: 0870 600 6090 Fax: 0870 600 6091
www.hspconsulting.com
Newstead Primary School
- Proposed Development Area
© HSP Consulting Engineers Ltd © Crown Copyright.
WS2
WS6
WS5
WS4
WS3
WS1
Well WaterStrikes Depth (m)
Depth Level Legend(m) (m AOD) Stratum Description
Project Name
Location:
Client: Dates:
Level:
Co-ords:Project No.
Borehole No
Scale
Logged By
Remarks:
Hole TypeNewstead Primary School
No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process.1.2. Borehole was terminated at 4.37m due to refusal and backfilled with arisings.
Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire
GF Tomlinson Building Ltd
Type
Type
Samples & In Situ TestingResults
Results
C1862
HSP Consulting (Nottingham)Tel: 08706006090Fax: 08706009091email: [email protected]
-
-
27/01/2014 JPJ
WS1
WS
Hol
eBA
SE
3.1
(Bld
408
) Sta
ndar
d B
oreh
ole
Log
v2 d
ated
27t
h N
ov 0
3
0.45
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.50-3.00
3.00
4.00
ES
SPT
D
SPT
B
SPT
SPT
N=14(2,3/
3,3,4,4)
N=14(1,3/
4,3,4,3)
N=20(4,5/
4,5,5,6)
50(10,10/
12,12,26 for 70mm)
0.07
0.20
0.40
0.90
1.60
2.40
4.37
MADE GROUND - tarmacadam.(MG)
MADE GROUND - crushed limestone sub-base material.(MG)
MADE GROUND - grey sandy gravel. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravelis fine to coarse angular to subangular of brick and concrete.(MG)
MADE GROUND - dark grey sandy gravelly clayey silt. Sand is fineto coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse rounded of quartz.(MG)
MADE GROUND - grey brown sandy slightly gravelly slightly clayeysilt. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse roundedof quartz.(MG)
Medium dense brown mottled light brown slightly gravelly siltyfine to coarse SAND. Gravel is fine to medium rounded quartz.
Medium dense red slightly silty fine to medium SAND.
. . . becoming red-grey below 3.00m depth.
End of Borehole at 4.37 m
1
2
3
4
1:25
Sheet 1 of 1
Well WaterStrikes Depth (m)
Depth Level Legend(m) (m AOD) Stratum Description
Project Name
Location:
Client: Dates:
Level:
Co-ords:Project No.
Borehole No
Scale
Logged By
Remarks:
Hole TypeNewstead Primary School
No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process.1.2. Borehole was terminated at 4.15m due to refusal and backfilled with arisings.
Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire
GF Tomlinson Building Ltd
Type
Type
Samples & In Situ TestingResults
Results
C1862
HSP Consulting (Nottingham)Tel: 08706006090Fax: 08706009091email: [email protected]
-
-
27/01/2014 JPJ
WS2
WS
Hol
eBA
SE
3.1
(Bld
408
) Sta
ndar
d B
oreh
ole
Log
v2 d
ated
27t
h N
ov 0
3
0.20
1.00
2.00
3.00
3.80
ES
SPT
SPT
SPT
SPT
N=8(2,2/
2,1,2,3)
N=16(3,3/
3,4,4,5)
N=32(4,6/
7,8,9,8)
50(10,13/
17,18,15 for 50mm)
0.10
0.50
0.80
1.40
2.40
4.15
MADE GROUND - tarmacadam.(MG)
MADE GROUND - black sandy gravel. Gravel is fine to coarseangular tarmacadam, clinker and shale.(MG)
MADE GROUND - red grey sandy fine to coarse angular gravel ofshale.(MG)
MADE GROUND - grey brown slightly gravelly slightly clayey sandysilt. Gravel is rounded of quartz.(MG)
Medium dense brown mottled light brown slightly gravelly siltyfine to coarse SAND. Gravel is fine to medium quartz.
Medium dense red slightly silty fine to medium SAND.
. . . becoming light grey in colour below 3.40m.
End of Borehole at 4.15 m
1
2
3
4
1:25
Sheet 1 of 1
Well WaterStrikes Depth (m)
Depth Level Legend(m) (m AOD) Stratum Description
Project Name
Location:
Client: Dates:
Level:
Co-ords:Project No.
Borehole No
Scale
Logged By
Remarks:
Hole TypeNewstead Primary School
No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process.1.2. Borehole was terminated at 3.36m due to refusal and backfilled with arisings.
Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire
GF Tomlinson Building Ltd
Type
Type
Samples & In Situ TestingResults
Results
C1862
HSP Consulting (Nottingham)Tel: 08706006090Fax: 08706009091email: [email protected]
-
-
27/01/2014 JPJ
WS3
WS
Hol
eBA
SE
3.1
(Bld
408
) Sta
ndar
d B
oreh
ole
Log
v2 d
ated
27t
h N
ov 0
3
0.30
1.00
2.00
3.00
ES
SPT
SPT
SPT
N=9(1,2/
2,2,3,2)
N=14(2,3/
3,4,4,3)
50(9,10/
13,14,23 for 65mm)
0.30
0.50
1.20
3.36
Grass overlying brown TOPSOIL.
MADE GROUND - dark brown slightly gravelly silty fine to coarsesand. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is angular to rounded brickand quartz.(MG)
Loose light brown slightly gravelly fine to coarse SAND. Gravelis fine to coarse angular to subrounded quartz.
Medium dense brown-red slightly silty fine to medium SAND.
End of Borehole at 3.36 m
1
2
3
4
1:25
Sheet 1 of 1
Well WaterStrikes Depth (m)
Depth Level Legend(m) (m AOD) Stratum Description
Project Name
Location:
Client: Dates:
Level:
Co-ords:Project No.
Borehole No
Scale
Logged By
Remarks:
Hole TypeNewstead Primary School
No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process.1.2. Borehole was terminated at 4.09m due to refusal and backfilled with arisings.
Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire
GF Tomlinson Building Ltd
Type
Type
Samples & In Situ TestingResults
Results
C1862
HSP Consulting (Nottingham)Tel: 08706006090Fax: 08706009091email: [email protected]
-
-
27/01/2014 JPJ
WS4
WS
Hol
eBA
SE
3.1
(Bld
408
) Sta
ndar
d B
oreh
ole
Log
v2 d
ated
27t
h N
ov 0
3
0.40
1.00
2.00
2.70-3.00
3.00
4.00
ES
SPT
SPT
B
SPT
SPT
N=4(1,1/
1,1,1,1)
N=10(2,2/
2,3,2,3)
N=19(2,3/
4,5,5,5)
50(25 for 30mm/50 for 60mm)
0.20
0.50
1.20
4.09
Grass overlying brown TOPSOIL.
MADE GROUND - brown slightly gravelly very silty fine to coarsesand. Gravel is fine to coarse angular brick.(MG)
Loose light brown slightly silty slightly gravelly fine tocoarse SAND. Gravel is fine to coarse rounded of mixedlithology.
Medium dense brown-red slightly silty fine to medium SAND.
End of Borehole at 4.09 m
1
2
3
4
1:25
Sheet 1 of 1
Well WaterStrikes Depth (m)
Depth Level Legend(m) (m AOD) Stratum Description
Project Name
Location:
Client: Dates:
Level:
Co-ords:Project No.
Borehole No
Scale
Logged By
Remarks:
Hole TypeNewstead Primary School
No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process.1.2. Borehole was terminated at 3.35m due to refusal and backfilled with arising.
Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire
GF Tomlinson Building Ltd
Type
Type
Samples & In Situ TestingResults
Results
C1862
HSP Consulting (Nottingham)Tel: 08706006090Fax: 08706009091email: [email protected]
-
-
27/01/2014 JPJ
WS5
WS
Hol
eBA
SE
3.1
(Bld
408
) Sta
ndar
d B
oreh
ole
Log
v2 d
ated
27t
h N
ov 0
3
1.00
1.60-2.00
2.00
3.00
SPT
B
SPT
SPT
N=10(1,2/
3,3,2,2)
N=13(2,3/
3,3,4,3)
50(11,11/
19,31 for 50mm)
0.30
1.20
2.70
3.35
Grass overlying brown TOPSOIL.
Loose to medium dense light brown slightly gravelly silty fineto coarse SAND. Gravel is fine to medium subrounded to roundedquartz.
Medium dense red brown silty fine to medium SAND.
. . . becoming yellow in colour below 2.60m depth.
Dense red very silty fine to medium SAND.
End of Borehole at 3.35 m
1
2
3
4
1:25
Sheet 1 of 1
Foundation Exploratory Pit
G.L
Existing Brick Wall
Foundation
FEP1
Land Drain
300
Project
Title
Checked by.
Drawn by.
HSP Drg. No.
Client Scale (A4)
Date.
Rev.
DetailsDateByRev. Chkd
Drawing Status
p
c o n s u l t i n g
h
Lawrence House, Meadowbank Way, Eastwood, Nottingham, NG16 3SB
Tel: 0870 600 6090 www.hspconsulting.com
sLAB
DRS
C1862-504
Foundation Exploratory Pit
Sheet 1 of 2
Newstead Priamry School
Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire
GF Tomlinson Building Ltd
1:16
Jan 2014
Foundation Exploratory Pit
G.L
Existing Brick Wall
TARMACADAM
FEP1A
Foundation
10
00
20
0
Project
Title
Checked by.
Drawn by.
HSP Drg. No.
Client Scale (A4)
Date.
Rev.
DetailsDateByRev. Chkd
Drawing Status
p
c o n s u l t i n g
h
Lawrence House, Meadowbank Way, Eastwood, Nottingham, NG16 3SB
Tel: 0870 600 6090 www.hspconsulting.com
sLAB
DRS
C1862-504
Foundation Exploratory Pit
Sheet 2 of 2
Newstead Priamry School
Newstead Village, Nottinghamshire
GF Tomlinson Building Ltd
1:16
Jan 2014
INSITU SOAKAWAY TEST RESULTS Page 1 of 1
Trialpit No.: SK1Soil Profile:
Depth (m) Description
From: To:
0.00 0.50 TOPSOIL - Grass overlying black brown very sandy slightly gravelly topsoil.
0.50 1.50 SAND - Medium dense brown orange mottled grey slightly clayey very gravelly sand.
Sketch plan of test zoneNot to scale 0.30
All dimensions in metres.
porosity (N) = 1
(measured in laboratory)
S= Storage depth (m) 1.50
Water level from 0.48 to 1.50m.
Gives the Figures
S= 1.02 m 2.00
ap50= 2.95 m2
Vp75-25= 0.31 m3
Time Depth
(minutes) (m)
Soakaway Test Run 1 Test Date: 27/01/2014 0 0.48
2 0.484 0.496 0.498 0.50
10 0.5020 0.5140 0.5276 0.5494 0.55
115 0.55143 0.55257 0.48
From the above graph,
tp75= N/A (min) tp25= N/A (min)
Soil Infiltration Rate: f = Vp75-25 x N = N/A f run1= N/A m/s
ap50 x tp75-25
Test and analysis carried out in general accordance with BRE Digest 365 : 1991
Job No.: Newstead Primary School
Site: C1862
Client: GF Tomlinson Building Ltd
No Groundwater was
encountered
S
0.48
0.49
0.5
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.54
0.55
0.56
0.57
0.58
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Depth
(m
etr
es)
Time (minutes) Infiltration Data
Soakaway test was carried out over a Twenty Four Hour period and during this time, the water level had fallen very little due to the ground strata. Therefore we would interpretate the results to be WORST case. i.e pratically impervious strata with an infiltration rate of less than 10-11
MH SWCL 132.30IL 131.90PIPES 100Ø
MHCL 132.48UTR
MH 9 CWCL 132.37IL 131.68PIPES 100Ø
MH 11 SWCL 132.24IL 130.98PIPE 150Ø
MH 10 SWCL 132.25IL 131.22PIPE X 150ØPIPE A 100Ø
MH 6 SWCL 132.59IL 131.49PIPE X 150ØPIPES A 100Ø
MHCL 133.13UTR
MH SWCL 133.36IL 132.59PIPES 100Ø
MH SWCL 133.40IL 132.85PIPES 100Ø
MH FWCL 133.33IL 131.71PIPE X,A 150ØPIPE B 100Ø
MH FWCL 133.46IL 132.86PIPES 100Ø
MH 8 CWCL 131.50IL 130.81PIPE 150Ø
MH CWCL 131.92IL 131.46PIPE 100Ø
MH 5 SWCL 132.27IL 131.40PIPE X 150ØPIPES A 100Ø
MH 4 SWCL 132.18IL 131.71PIPE X 150ØPIPES A,B 100Ø
MH 2 CWCL 132.70IL 132.17PIPES 100Ø
MH 1 CWCL 132.72IL 132.36PIPES 100Ø
MH 3 CWCL 132.34IL 131.67PIPE 150Ø
WS3
WS4
WS5
WS2
WS1
SK1
FP1A
FP1
- Trial Pit Location
KEY
- Window Sampling Borehole Location
- Foundation Pit Location
Project
Scale (A3)
Date.
Title
Client
DetailsDateByRev.
Checked by.
Drawn by.
HSP Drg. No.
Chkd
Drawing Status
Rev.
p
c o n s u l t i n g
h
Lawrence House, Meadowbank Way, Eastwood, Nottingham, NG16 3SB
Tel: 0870 600 6090 www.hspconsulting.com
s
LAB
DRS
Feb 2014
NTS
C1862-503
Ground Investigation Layout Plan
Newstead Primary School,
Hucknall Road, Newstead Village, Notts
GF Tomlinson Building Ltd
This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 1 of 4
CONFIDENTIAL SOILS TEST REPORT 24 February 2014 FAO Mr Linden Baker HSP Consulting Ltd Lawrence House Meadowbank Way Eastwood, Nottingham NG16 3SB Fax: +44 (0) 870 600 6091 Dear Linden, Thank you for consulting GSSL Ltd for your Geotechnical testing needs. GSSL Ltd is pleased to submit this final interim test report for laboratory testing. Client Ref/Order No: C1862 Test Report Number: GS-C1862 Contract Reference: Newstead Primary School
Sample ID & Type(s): See page 2 Results: Page 3-4 Test(s) Requested;
Determination of Particle Size Distribution by wet method {BS 1377-2:1990 Cl. 9.2}
If you have any questions or require additional information, then please do not hesitate to contact us
Yours Sincerely
Tony Dixon Managing Director
Any opinions and interpretations expressed within this report are outside the scope of our UKAS Accreditation.
This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 2 of 4
Summary of laboratory soil descriptions
Contract Ref: Newstead Primary School Report Ref. No: GS-C1862
Client ID Depth (m) Description of Sample
WS1 2.50-3.00 Silty SAND WS5 1.60-2.00 Silty SAND
Approved Signatory:
Date Reported: 24/02/14
This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 3 of 4
Determination of Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving)
Report Ref. No: GS-C1862
GSSL Sample ID A1
Client ID WS1 @ 2.50-3.00m
Client: HSP Consulting Ltd Site: Newstead Primary School Date Sampled: N/A Sampled from: - Material Specification: N/A Sample Description: Silty SAND Sample Type: Disturbed Sampled by: Client Date Sampled: N/A Remarks: -
Sample Preparation: In accordance with BS 1377-1 & 2:1990 Certification:- Certified that the Particle Size Distribution was determined in accordance with BS 1377-2: 1990 Method 9.2 Test results reported herein do not apply to samples other than those supplied. GSSL Ltd neither accepts responsibility for nor makes claim as to the final use & purpose of the materials(s) Approved Signatory:
Date Reported: 24/02/14
BS Test Sieve
(mm)
% Material Passing
100 10090 10075 100 63 10050 10040 100
37.5 10028 10020 10014 10010 1006.3 1005 100
3.35 1002 100
1.18 740.6 60
0.425 440.3 350.15 240.063 20
Soil Fraction
Total Percentage
COBBLES - GRAVEL - SAND 80 SILT /CLAY 20
Nominal aperture test sieve size (mm)
Cum
ulat
ive
perc
enta
ge p
assi
ng (%
)
This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 4 of 4
Determination of Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving)
Report Ref. No: GS-C1862
GSSL Sample ID A2
Client ID WS5 @ 1.60-2.00m
Client: HSP Consulting Ltd Site: Newstead Primary School Date Sampled: N/A Sampled from: - Material Specification: N/A Sample Description: Silty SAND Sample Type: Disturbed Sampled by: Client Date Sampled: N/A Remarks: -
Sample Preparation: In accordance with BS 1377-1 & 2:1990 Certification:- Certified that the Particle Size Distribution was determined in accordance with BS 1377-2: 1990 Method 9.2 Test results reported herein do not apply to samples other than those supplied. GSSL Ltd neither accepts responsibility for nor makes claim as to the final use & purpose of the materials(s) Approved Signatory:
Date Reported: 24/02/14
BS Test Sieve
(mm)
% Material Passing
100 10090 10075 100 63 10050 10040 100
37.5 10028 10020 10014 10010 1006.3 1005 100
3.35 1002 100
1.18 820.6 71
0.425 530.3 440.15 320.063 24
Soil Fraction
Total Percentage
COBBLES - GRAVEL - SAND 76 SILT /CLAY 24
Nominal aperture test sieve size (mm)
Cum
ulat
ive
perc
enta
ge p
assi
ng (%
)
FAO A Copestake
20 February 2014
Lawrence House
Meadowbank Way
HSP Consulting Engineers Limited
Eastwood Notts
NG16 3SB
Depot Road
Newmarket
CB8 0AL
Tel: 01638 606070
Dear A Copestake
Test Report Number 250237a Amended Test Report
Your Project Reference Newstead Primary School
Please find enclosed the results of analysis for the samples received 30 January 2014.
Please see additional analysis. Disregard all previous reports.
If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the Customer Services
team.
Yours sincerely
Keith Jones, Technical Manager
2183
Notes to accompany report:
• The in-house procedure is employed to identify materials and fibres in soils
• The sample is examined by stereo-binocular and polarised light microscopy
• Sample size is reduced by coning and quartering to obtain a representative sub-sample if necessary
• The bulk identification is in accordance with the requirements of the analyst guide (HSG 248)
• Samples associated with asbestos are retained for six months
• The results relate only to the items tested as supplied by the client
• Comments or interpretations are beyond the scope of UKAS accreditation
Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 6511736 - Registered Office: 11 Depot Road Newmarket Suffolk CB8 0AL
Test Report Cover Sheet250237
LABORATORY TEST REPORT
Report Date
20 February 2014
Results of analysis of 3 samples
received 30 January 2014
Newstead Primary SchoolFAO A Copestake
Lawrence House
Meadowbank Way
Eastwood Notts
NG16 3SB
HSP Consulting Engineers Limited
Asbestos in Soils
Login Batch No:
Chemtest ID Sample ID Sample Desc
SOP 2192
ACM Type Asbestos Identification
AJ76825 WS2 0.20 - No Asbestos DetectedAJ76826 WS3 0.30 - No Asbestos DetectedAJ76827 WS4 0.40 - No Asbestos Detected
Depth (m)
250237
Qualitative Results
The detection limit for this method is 0.001%
Lauren Quinn
Asbestos Analyst
Signed
All tests undertaken between 18-Feb-2014 and 18-Feb-2014 at our asbestos testing facility in
Coventry
Report page 1 of 1
LIMS sample ID range AJ76825 to AJ76827
FAO A Copestake
18 February 2014
Lawrence House
Meadowbank Way
HSP Consulting Engineers Limited
Eastwood Notts
NG16 3SB
Depot Road
Newmarket
CB8 0AL
Tel: 01638 606070
Dear A Copestake
Test Report Number 250237a Amended Test Report
Your Project Reference Newstead Primary School
Please find enclosed the results of analysis for the samples received 30 January 2014.
Please see additional analysis. Disregard all previous reports.
All soil samples will be retained for a period of one month and all water samples will be retained for
7 days following the date of the test report. Should you require an extended retention period then
please detail your requirements in an email to [email protected]. Please be
aware that charges may be applicable for extended sample storage.
If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the Customer Services
team.
Yours sincerely
Keith Jones, Technical Manager
Notes to accompany report:• The sign < means 'less than'
• Tests marked 'U' hold UKAS accreditation
• Tests marked 'M' hold MCertS (and UKAS) accreditation
• Tests marked 'N' do not currently hold UKAS accreditation
• Tests marked 'S' were subcontracted to an approved laboratory
• n/e means 'not evaluated'
• i/s means 'insufficient sample'
• u/s means 'unsuitable sample'
• Comments or interpretations are outside of the scope of UKAS accreditation
• The results relate only to the items tested
• Stones represent the quantity of material removed prior to analysis
• All results are expressed on a dry weight basis
• The following tests were analysed on samples as received and the results subsequently corrected
to a dry weight basis TPH, BTEX, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, phenols
• For all other tests the samples were dried at < 37°C prior to analysis
• Uncertainties of measurement for the determinands tested are available upon request
• Soil descriptions, including colour and texture, are beyond the scope of MCertS accreditation
• None of the test results included in this report have been recovery corrected
2183
Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 6511736 - Registered Office: 11 Depot Road Newmarket Suffolk CB8 0AL
Test Report Cover Sheet250237
AMENDED LABORATORY TEST REPORTResults of analysis of 4 samples
received 30 January 2014
Newstead Primary SchoolFAO
HSP Consulting Engineers Limited
A Copestake
Lawrence House
Meadowbank Way
Eastwood Notts
NG16 3SB Report Date
18 February 2014
250237AJ76823 AJ76825 AJ76826 AJ76827
WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4
27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014
0.45m 0.20m 0.30m 0.40m
SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL
2030 Moisture % M 19.2 20.2 18.4 19.4Stones content (>50mm) % M <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
2040 Soil colour M brown brown brown brownSoil texture M clay clay clay clayOther material M stones stones stones stones
2010 pH M 8.1 8.1 7.4 7.92180 Sulfur (elemental) 7704349 mg kg-¹ M 23.0 12.0 46.0 9.42300 Cyanide (free) 57125 mg kg-¹ M <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Cyanide (total) 57125 mg kg-¹ M <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.502325 Sulfide (Easily Liberatable) 18496258 mg kg-¹ M 28 30 25 132175 Sulfur (total TRL report 447) % M 0.112625 Total Organic Carbon % M 192220 Chloride (extractable) 16887006 g l-¹ M <0.010
Nitrate (extractable) 14797558 g l-¹ N <0.0102120 Boron (hot water soluble) 7440428 mg kg-¹ M 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.3
Sulfate (2:1 water soluble) as SO4 14808798 g l-¹ M 1.1 1.8 1.6 0.662420 Magnesium (soluble) 7439954 g l-¹ N 0.052490 Chromium (hexavalent) 18540299 mg kg-¹ N < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.52425 Ammonium as NH4 (extractable) 7664417 mg kg-¹ M < 2.02430 Sulfate (total BS1377 HCl extract) 14808798 % M 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.062450 Arsenic 7440382 mg kg-¹ M 13 12 14 11
Cadmium 7440439 mg kg-¹ M <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Chromium 7440473 mg kg-¹ M 7.5 10 7.7 10Copper 7440508 mg kg-¹ M 27 70 28 29
*UnitsiCAS NoiDeterminandiSOPi
Matrix
Depth
Sample No
Sample ID
Chemtest LIMS ID
Login Batch No
Sampling Date
All tests undertaken between 30/01/2014 and 18/02/2014
* Accreditation status
This report should be interpreted in conjunction with the notes on the accompanying cover page.
Column page 1
Report page 1 of 3
LIMS sample ID range AJ76823 to AJ76828
AMENDED LABORATORY TEST REPORTResults of analysis of 4 samples
received 30 January 2014
Newstead Primary SchoolFAO
HSP Consulting Engineers Limited
A Copestake
Lawrence House
Meadowbank Way
Eastwood Notts
NG16 3SB Report Date
18 February 2014
250237AJ76823 AJ76825 AJ76826 AJ76827
WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4
27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014
0.45m 0.20m 0.30m 0.40m
SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL
2450 Mercury 7439976 mg kg-¹ M 0.22 <0.10 0.27 0.27Nickel 7440020 mg kg-¹ M 14 33 13 9.0Lead 7439921 mg kg-¹ M 47 12 130 110Selenium 7782492 mg kg-¹ M <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20Zinc 7440666 mg kg-¹ M 47 19 89 160
2670 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg kg-¹ M 100 26 880 782675 TPH aliphatic >C5-C6 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1
TPH aliphatic >C6-C8 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1TPH aliphatic >C8-C10 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1TPH aliphatic >C10-C12 mg kg-¹ M < 1TPH aliphatic >C12-C16 mg kg-¹ M < 1TPH aliphatic >C16-C21 mg kg-¹ M < 1TPH aliphatic >C21-C35 mg kg-¹ M < 1TPH aliphatic >C35-C44 mg kg-¹ N < 1TPH aromatic >C5-C7 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1TPH aromatic >C7-C8 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1TPH aromatic >C8-C10 mg kg-¹ N < 0.1TPH aromatic >C10-C12 mg kg-¹ N < 1TPH aromatic >C12-C16 mg kg-¹ M 2.5TPH aromatic >C16-C21 mg kg-¹ M 18TPH aromatic >C21-C35 mg kg-¹ N 42TPH aromatic >C35-C44 mg kg-¹ N < 1Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg kg-¹ N 64
2700 Naphthalene 91203 mg kg-¹ M 0.78 2 2.3 0.46Acenaphthylene 208968 mg kg-¹ M 1.6 0.84 3.4 0.58
All tests undertaken between 30/01/2014 and 18/02/2014
* Accreditation status
This report should be interpreted in conjunction with the notes on the accompanying cover page.
Column page 1
Report page 2 of 3
LIMS sample ID range AJ76823 to AJ76828
AMENDED LABORATORY TEST REPORTResults of analysis of 4 samples
received 30 January 2014
Newstead Primary SchoolFAO
HSP Consulting Engineers Limited
A Copestake
Lawrence House
Meadowbank Way
Eastwood Notts
NG16 3SB Report Date
18 February 2014
250237AJ76823 AJ76825 AJ76826 AJ76827
WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4
27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014 27/1/2014
0.45m 0.20m 0.30m 0.40m
SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL
2700 Acenaphthene 83329 mg kg-¹ M 0.86 0.51 1.2 0.43Fluorene 86737 mg kg-¹ M 0.81 1.3 1.9 0.37Phenanthrene 85018 mg kg-¹ M 7.4 2.7 12 2.1Anthracene 120127 mg kg-¹ M 2.9 0.87 6.4 0.83Fluoranthene 206440 mg kg-¹ M 9.1 2.6 18 3.5Pyrene 129000 mg kg-¹ M 8.3 2.4 18 3.2Benzo[a]anthracene 56553 mg kg-¹ M 5.4 1.5 15 2.2Chrysene 218019 mg kg-¹ M 6 1.6 14 2.2Benzo[b]fluoranthene 205992 mg kg-¹ N 5.3 1.6 8.3 2.4Benzo[k]fluoranthene 207089 mg kg-¹ N 4.2 0.95 10 2.1Benzo[a]pyrene 50328 mg kg-¹ M 5.2 1.2 11 2.2Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 53703 mg kg-¹ M 0.63 < 0.1 2.2 0.2Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 193395 mg kg-¹ M 2.9 < 0.1 6.1 1.3Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 191242 mg kg-¹ M 2.6 < 0.1 7.2 2.2Total (of 16) PAHs mg kg-¹ M 64 20 140 26
2701 PAH (total EPA 16) mg kg-¹ M 64 20 140 262920 Phenols (total) mg kg-¹ M <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3
All tests undertaken between 30/01/2014 and 18/02/2014
* Accreditation status
This report should be interpreted in conjunction with the notes on the accompanying cover page.
Column page 1
Report page 3 of 3
LIMS sample ID range AJ76823 to AJ76828
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Page 1 of 11
Report generated
Report title
C t d b
Newstead Primary School
A hl C t k t HSP C lti
24-Feb-14
Created by
RESULTS
Ashley Copestake at HSP Consulting
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 2 of 1124-Feb-14
Assessment Criterion (mg kg-1) Ratio of ADE to HCV 50% rule?
oral inhalation combined oral inhalation combined Oral Inhal
1
Saturation Limit (mg kg-1)
12 Benz[a]anthracene 1.12E+01 6.07E+02 1.10E+01 0.98 0.02 1.00 8.56E+00 (sol) No No3 Chrysene 1.62E+01 9.00E+02 1.59E+01 0.98 0.02 1.00 2.20E+00 (vap) No No4 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1.15E+01 6.78E+02 1.13E+01 0.98 0.02 1.00 6.07E+00 (sol) No No5 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.62E+01 9.69E+02 1.59E+01 0.98 0.02 1.00 3.43E+00 (sol) No No6 Benzo[a]pyrene 1.62E+00 9.61E+01 1.59E+00 0.98 0.02 1.00 4.55E+00 (vap) No No7 Dibenz[ah]anthracene 1.46E-01 8.82E+01 1.45E-01 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.96E-02 (vap) No No
I d [123 d] 6 95E 00 4 03E 02 6 83E 00 0 98 0 02 1 00 3 07E 01 ( ) N N8 Indeno[123-cd]pyrene 6.95E+00 4.03E+02 6.83E+00 0.98 0.02 1.00 3.07E-01 (vap) No No9
1011121314151617181920
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 3 of 1124-Feb-14
Assessment Criterion (mg kg-1) Ratio of ADE to HCV 50% rule?
oral inhalation combined oral inhalation combined Oral Inhal
21
Saturation Limit (mg kg-1)
21222324252627282930
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 4 of 11
Soil Distribution Media Concentrations
24-Feb-14
% % % % mg kg-1 mg m-3 mg kg-1 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW
1
Tube
r ve
geta
bles
Her
bace
ous
fruit
Gre
en
vege
tabl
es
Roo
t ve
geta
bles
Indo
or
Vapo
ur
Out
door
va
pour
at
0.8m
Out
door
va
pour
at
1.6m
Soil
gas
Out
door
dus
t at
0.8
m
Out
door
dus
t at
1.6
m
Soil
Indo
or D
ust
Sor
bed
Dis
solv
ed
Vap
our
Tota
l
Shru
b fru
it
Tree
frui
t
12 Benz[a]anthracene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.10E+01 1.54E-04 5.48E+00 4.66E-09 0.00E+00 4.65E-12 3.86E-08 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA3 Chrysene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.59E+01 3.17E-05 7.94E+00 6.76E-09 0.00E+00 9.58E-13 5.13E-08 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA4 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.13E+01 7.62E-06 5.64E+00 4.80E-09 0.00E+00 2.30E-13 2.55E-08 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA
5 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.59E+01 6.45E-06 7.95E+00 6.77E-09 0.00E+00 1.95E-13 3.02E-08 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA
6 Benzo[a]pyrene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.59E+00 7.49E-07 7.95E-01 6.77E-10 0.00E+00 2.26E-14 3.25E-09 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA
7 Dibenz[ah]anthracene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.45E-01 1.45E-07 7.26E-02 6.18E-11 0.00E+00 4.39E-15 2.48E-10 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA
8 Indeno[123-cd]pyrene 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 6.83E+00 5.55E-06 3.42E+00 2.91E-09 0.00E+00 1.68E-13 1.67E-08 0.00E+00 NA NA NA NA NA NA
91011121314151617181920
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 5 of 11
Soil Distribution Media Concentrations
24-Feb-14
% % % % mg kg-1 mg m-3 mg kg-1 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg m-3 mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW mg kg-1 FW
21
Sor
bed
Dis
solv
ed
Vap
our
Tota
l
Indo
or
Vapo
ur
Indo
or D
ust
Soil
gas
Out
door
dus
t at
0.8
m
Out
door
dus
t at
1.6
m
Soil
Out
door
va
pour
at
0.8m
Out
door
va
pour
at
1.6m
Gre
en
vege
tabl
es
Roo
t ve
geta
bles
Tube
r ve
geta
bles
Her
bace
ous
fruit
Shru
b fru
it
Tree
frui
t
21222324252627282930
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 6 of 11
Average Daily Exposure (mg kg-1 bw day-1) Distribution by Pathway (%)
24-Feb-14
1
Inha
latio
n of
vap
our
Back
grou
nd (o
ral)
Back
grou
nd (o
ral)
Back
grou
nd
(inha
latio
n)
Inha
latio
n of
vap
our
(indo
or)
Dire
ct s
oil i
nges
tion
Con
sum
ptio
n of
ho
meg
row
n pr
oduc
e an
d at
tach
ed s
oil
Der
mal
con
tact
with
so
il an
d du
st
Inha
latio
n of
dus
t
Con
sum
ptio
n of
ho
meg
row
n pr
oduc
e an
d at
tach
ed s
oil
Der
mal
con
tact
with
so
il an
d du
st
Inha
latio
n of
dus
t
Back
grou
nd
(inha
latio
n)
Dire
ct s
oil i
nges
tion
Inha
latio
n of
vap
our
(out
door
)
12 Benz[a]anthracene 8.12E-05 0.00E+00 5.43E-05 7.04E-09 1.62E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 Chrysene 1.18E-04 0.00E+00 7.87E-05 1.02E-08 2.15E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 8.37E-05 0.00E+00 5.59E-05 7.25E-09 1.07E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.18E-04 0.00E+00 7.88E-05 1.02E-08 1.26E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 Benzo[a]pyrene 1.18E-05 0.00E+00 7.88E-06 1.02E-09 1.36E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 Dibenz[ah]anthracene 1.08E-06 0.00E+00 7.20E-07 9.34E-11 1.04E-11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 Indeno[123-cd]pyrene 5.07E-05 0.00E+00 3.39E-05 4.39E-09 6.98E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 59.95 0.00 40.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
91011121314151617181920
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 7 of 11
Average Daily Exposure (mg kg-1 bw day-1) Distribution by Pathway (%)
24-Feb-14
21
Dire
ct s
oil i
nges
tion
Con
sum
ptio
n of
ho
meg
row
n pr
oduc
e an
d at
tach
ed s
oil
Der
mal
con
tact
with
so
il an
d du
st
Inha
latio
n of
dus
t
Inha
latio
n of
vap
our
Back
grou
nd (o
ral)
Back
grou
nd
(inha
latio
n)
Dire
ct s
oil i
nges
tion
Con
sum
ptio
n of
ho
meg
row
n pr
oduc
e
Der
mal
con
tact
with
so
il an
d du
st
Inha
latio
n of
dus
t
Inha
latio
n of
vap
our
(indo
or)
Back
grou
nd (o
ral)
Back
grou
nd
(inha
latio
n)
Inha
latio
n of
vap
our
(out
door
)
21222324252627282930
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 8 of 11
y vi
a so
il
ke
alue
y In
take
eria
Val
ue
24-Feb-14
s)effic
ient
n in
Air
(m2
y vi
a du
st
door
air
n in
Wat
er
actio
n
fact
or
(g
1
Rel
ativ
e bi
oava
ilabi
lity
inge
stio
n (u
nitle
ss)
Ora
l Mea
n D
aily
Inta
k e(μ
g da
y-1)
Ora
l Hea
lth C
riter
ia V
a(μ
g kg
-1 B
W d
ay-1
)
Inha
latio
n M
ean
Dai
ly
(μg
day-1
)
Inha
latio
n H
ealth
Crit
e(μ
g kg
-1 B
W d
ay-1
)
log
K oc (
cm3 g
-1)
log
K ow (d
imen
sion
less
Air-
wat
er p
artit
ion
coef
(Kaw
) (c
m3 c
m-3
)
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Diff
usio
ns-1
)
Rel
ativ
e bi
oava
ilabi
lity
inha
latio
n (u
nitle
ss)
Sub-
surfa
ce s
oil t
o in
dco
rrec
tion
fact
or
(dim
ensi
onle
ss)
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Diff
usio
n(m
2 s-1
)
Der
mal
Abs
orpt
ion
Fra
(dim
ensi
onle
ss)
Soil-
to-d
ust t
rans
port
fg-1
DW
)
12 Benz[a]anthracene ID 0.138 ID 0.00048 NR NR 3.16E-05 4.60E-06 3.80E-10 4.89 5.91 0.13 0.5 1 1 13 Chrysene ID 0.2 ID 0.0007 NR NR 3.18E-06 4.57E-06 3.77E-10 4.74 5.73 0.13 0.5 1 1 14 Benzo[b]fluoranthene ID 0.142 ID 0.0005 NR NR 2.05E-06 4.36E-06 3.62E-10 5.02 6.08 0.13 0.5 1 1 1
5 Benzo[k]fluoranthene ID 0.2 ID 0.0007 NR NR 1.74E-06 4.36E-06 3.62E-10 5.17 6.26 0.13 0.5 1 1 1
6 Benzo[a]pyrene ID 0.02 ID 0.00007 NR NR 1.76E-06 4.38E-06 3.67E-10 5.11 6.18 0.13 0.5 1 1 1
7 Dibenz[ah]anthracene ID 0.0018 ID 0.000063 NR NR 5.40E-06 4.08E-06 3.40E-10 5.27 6.38 0.13 0.5 1 1 1
8 Indeno[123-cd]pyrene ID 0.086 ID 0.0003 0 0 2.05E-06 4.17E-06 3.51E-10 4.94 5.97 0.13 0.5 1 1 1
91011121314151617181920
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 9 of 11
y vi
a so
il
y vi
a du
st
n in
Wat
er
s) actio
n
24-Feb-14
fact
or
(g
ke
y In
take
effic
ient
eria
Val
ue
n in
Air
(m2
alue
door
air
21
Rel
ativ
e bi
oava
ilabi
lity
inge
stio
n (u
nitle
ss)
Rel
ativ
e bi
oava
ilabi
lity
inha
latio
n (u
nitle
ss)
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Diff
usio
n(m
2 s-1
)
log
K oc (
cm3 g
-1)
log
K ow (d
imen
sion
less
Der
mal
Abs
orpt
ion
Fra
(dim
ensi
onle
ss)
Soil-
to-d
ust t
rans
port
fg-1
DW
)
Ora
l Mea
n D
aily
Inta
ke(μ
g da
y-1)
Inha
latio
n M
ean
Dai
ly
(μg
day-1
)
Air-
wat
er p
artit
ion
coef
(Kaw
) (c
m3 c
m-3
)
Inha
latio
n H
ealth
Crit
e(μ
g kg
-1 B
W d
ay-1
)
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Diff
usio
ns-1
)
Ora
l Hea
lth C
riter
ia V
a(μ
g kg
-1 B
W d
ay-1
)
Sub-
surfa
ce s
oil t
o in
dco
rrec
tion
fact
or
(dim
ensi
onle
ss)
21222324252627282930
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 10 of 11
L-1)
atio
n fa
ctor
(m
g g-1
s ov
er m
g
atio
n fa
ctor
FW b
asis
atio
n fa
ctor
(m
g g-1
s ov
er m
g
atio
n fa
ctor
(
mg
g-1
s ov
er m
g
atio
n fa
ctor
(m
g g-1
s ov
er m
g
atio
n fa
ctor
(m
g g-1
s ov
er m
g
24-Feb-14
coef
ficie
nt
1
Wat
er s
olub
ility
(mg
L-
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
rafo
r her
bace
ous
fruit
pl
ant D
W o
r FW
bas
is
g-1 D
W s
oil)
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
rafo
r shr
ub fr
uit
(mg
g-1 p
lant
DW
or F
Wov
er m
g g-1
DW
soi
l)
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
rafo
r tre
e fru
it
pl
ant D
W o
r FW
bas
is
g-1 D
W s
oil)
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
rafo
r tub
er v
eget
able
s
plan
t DW
or F
W b
asis
g-1
DW
soi
l)
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
r afo
r roo
t veg
etab
les
(
plan
t DW
or F
W b
asis
g-1
DW
soi
l)
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
r afo
r gre
en v
eget
able
s (
plan
t DW
or F
W b
asis
g-1
DW
soi
l)
Soil-
to-w
ater
par
titio
n c
(cm
3 g-1
)
Vapo
ur p
ress
ure
(Pa)
12 Benz[a]anthracene 2.25E+03 1.24E-06 3.80E-03 model model model model model model3 Chrysene 1.59E+03 4.52E-08 2.00E-03 model model model model model model4 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.04E+03 6.34E-08 2.00E-03 model model model model model model
5 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 4.29E+03 1.64E-08 8.00E-04 model model model model model model
6 Benzo[a]pyrene 3.74E+03 2.00E-08 3.80E-03 model model model model model model
7 Dibenz[ah]anthracene 5.40E+03 1.66E-10 6.00E-04 model model model model model model
8 Indeno[123-cd]pyrene 2.53E+03 2.12E-09 2.00E-04 model model model model model model
91011121314151617181920
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 11 of 11
atio
n fa
ctor
(m
g g-1
s ov
er m
g
atio
n fa
ctor
FW
bas
is
atio
n fa
ctor
(m
g g-1
s ov
er m
g
24-Feb-14
atio
n fa
ctor
(m
g g-1
s ov
er m
g
L-1)
atio
n fa
ctor
(m
g g-1
s ov
er m
g
coef
ficie
nt
atio
n fa
ctor
(
mg
g-1
s ov
er m
g
21
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
rafo
r her
bace
ous
fruit
pl
ant D
W o
r FW
bas
is
g-1 D
W s
oil)
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
rafo
r shr
ub fr
uit
(mg
g-1 p
lant
DW
or F
Wov
er m
g g-1
DW
soi
l)
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
rafo
r tre
e fru
it
pl
ant D
W o
r FW
bas
is
g-1 D
W s
oil)
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
r afo
r roo
t veg
etab
les
(
plan
t DW
or F
W b
asis
g-1
DW
soi
l)
Vapo
ur p
ress
ure
(Pa)
Wat
er s
olub
ility
(mg
L-
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
rafo
r gre
en v
eget
able
s (
plan
t DW
or F
W b
asis
g-1
DW
soi
l)
Soil-
to-w
ater
par
titio
n c
(cm
3 g-1
)
Soil-
to-p
lant
con
cent
r afo
r tub
er v
eget
able
s
plan
t DW
or F
W b
asis
g-1
DW
soi
l)
21222324252627282930
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Page 1 of 5
Report generated
Report title Newstead Primary School
24/02/2014
Created by
BASIC SETTINGS
Ashley Copestake at HSP Consulting
Land Use Residential without homegrown produce
Building School Receptor Female (res) Start age class 1 End age class 6 Exposure Duration 6 yearsSoil Sand
Exposure Pathways Direct soil and dust ingestion Dermal contact with indoor dust Inhalation of indoor dustConsumption of homegrown produce Dermal contact with soil Inhalation of soil dustSoil attached to homegrown produce Inhalation of indoor vapour
Inhalation of outdoor vapour
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 2 of 5
Land Use
24-Feb-14
Residential without homegrown produce
Exposure Frequencies (days yr-1) Occupation Periods (hr day-1)
soil
inge
stio
n ra
te
1 )ion
of d
ust
pour
, ind
oor
ion
of d
ust
pour
, out
door
Soil to skin adherence factors (mg cm2)
orssoil
inge
stio
n
mpt
ion
of
row
n pr
oduc
e
l con
tact
with
du
st
l con
tact
with
ors
Age Class
1 180 0 180 180 365 365 23.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.102 365 0 365 365 365 365 23.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.103 365 0 365 365 365 365 23.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.104 365 0 365 365 365 365 23.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.10
Dire
ct s
(g d
ay-1
Inha
latio
and
vap
Inha
latio
and
vap
Indo
or
Out
doo
Indo
ors
Dire
ct s
Con
sum
hom
egr
Der
mal
in
door
d
Der
mal
so
il
Out
doo
4 365 0 365 365 365 365 23.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.105 365 0 365 365 365 365 19.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.106 365 0 365 365 365 365 19.0 1.0 0.06 1.00 0.107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 3 of 5
Receptor Female (res)
24-Feb-14
Max exposed skin factor Consumption rates (g FW kg-1 BW day-1)
fruit
uit
eget
able
s
wei
ght (
kg)
vege
tabl
es
ceou
s fru
it
ion
rate
y-1
)
vege
tabl
es
r (m
2 m-2
)
eigh
t (m
)
or (m
2 m-2
)
skin
are
a
Age Class
1 5.60 0.7 8.5 0.32 0.26 3.43E-01 7.12 10.69 16.03 1.83 2.23 3.822 9.80 0.8 13.3 0.33 0.26 4.84E-01 6.85 3.30 5.46 3.96 0.54 11.963 12.70 0.9 12.7 0.32 0.25 5.82E-01 6.85 3.30 5.46 3.96 0.54 11.964 15.10 0.9 12.2 0.35 0.28 6.36E-01 6.85 3.30 5.46 3.96 0.54 11.96
Shr
ub fr
Tree
fru
Roo
t ve
Body
we
Tube
r v
Her
bace
Inha
latio
(m3 d
ay
Gre
en v
Indo
or
Body
he
Out
doo
Tota
l s(m
2 )
4 15.10 0.9 12.2 0.35 0.28 6.36E 01 6.85 3.30 5.46 3.96 0.54 11.965 16.90 1.0 12.2 0.35 0.28 7.04E-01 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.266 19.70 1.1 12.2 0.33 0.26 7.94E-01 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.267 22.10 1.2 12.4 0.22 0.15 8.73E-01 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.268 25.30 1.2 12.4 0.22 0.15 9.36E-01 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.269 27.50 1.3 12.4 0.22 0.15 1.01E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.26
10 31 40 1 3 12 4 0 22 0 15 1 08E+00 3 74 1 77 3 38 1 85 0 16 4 2610 31.40 1.3 12.4 0.22 0.15 1.08E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2611 35.70 1.4 12.4 0.22 0.14 1.19E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2612 41.30 1.4 13.4 0.22 0.14 1.29E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2613 47.20 1.5 13.4 0.22 0.14 1.42E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2614 51.20 1.6 13.4 0.22 0.14 1.52E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2615 56.70 1.6 13.4 0.21 0.14 1.60E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2616 59 00 1 6 13 4 0 21 0 14 1 63E 00 3 74 1 77 3 38 1 85 0 16 4 2616 59.00 1.6 13.4 0.21 0.14 1.63E+00 3.74 1.77 3.38 1.85 0.16 4.2617 70.00 1.6 14.8 0.33 0.27 1.78E+00 2.94 1.40 1.79 1.61 0.22 2.9718 70.90 1.6 12.0 0.33 0.27 1.80E+00 2.94 1.40 1.79 1.61 0.22 2.97
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 4 of 5
Building School Soil Sand
24-Feb-14
6.81E+04 5.40E-015.00E-01 3.00E-01
3.50E+00 2.40E-01Living space height (above ground, m)
Building footprint (m2)Living space air exchange rate (hr-1)
Porosity, Total (cm3 cm-3)Porosity, Air-Filled (cm3 cm-3)
Porosity, Water-Filled (cm3 cm-3)
0.00E+00 7.00E-02
4.40E+00 7.36E-034.50E+02 3.51E-01
1.18E+00
Pressure difference (soil to enclosed space, Pa)
3.50E+03Floor crack area (cm2)
Foundation thickness (m)
Living space height (below ground, m) Residual soil water content (cm3 cm-3)
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm s-1)van Genuchten shape parameter m (dimensionless)
Bulk density (g cm-3)
5.00E-01 Threshold value of wind speed at 10m (m s-1) 7.20E+00Empirical function (Fx) for dust model (dimensionless) 1.22E+00
2.83E+02
7.50E+005 00E+00
Dust loading factor (μg m-3)
Ambient soil temperature (K)
Soil pHSoil Organic Matter content (%) 5.00E+00
2.90E-02
3.62E-019.83E-087.68E-017 54E 08
Effective total fluid saturation (unitless)
Relative soil air permeability (unitless)Intrinsic soil permeability (cm2)
Eff ti i bilit ( 2)
Soil Organic Matter content (%)
Fraction of organic carbon (g g-1)
7.54E-08Effective air permeability (cm2)
CLEA Current Works workbook
CLEA Software Version 1.06 Report generated Page 5 of 5
Soil - Vapour Model Air Dispersion Model
24-Feb-14
0 Mean annual windspeed at 10m (m s-1) 5.00Depth to top of source (beneath building) (cm) 45050 2400.00
Default soil gas ingress rate? Yes 0.00
Depth to top of source (no building) (cm)
Air dispersion factor at height of 1.6m *
Air dispersion factor at height of 0.8m *
1.00E+00 Fraction of site cover (m2 m-2) 0.75
3.31E+07 * Air dispersion factor in g m-2 s-1 per kg m-3
Averaging time surface emissions (yr) 6Finite vapour source model? NoThickness of contaminated layer (cm) 200
Soil gas ingress rate (cm3 s-1)
Building ventilation rate (cm3 s-1)
Thickness of contaminated layer (cm) 200
Soil - Plant ModelAverage High
Dry weight conversion factor
Preparation correction factor
Soil loading factor
Homegrown fraction
g DW g-1 FW dimensionless g g-1 DW dimensionless0.096 0.05 0.33 1.00E-03 2.00E-010.103 0.06 0.40 1.00E-03 1.00E+000.210 0.02 0.13 1.00E-03 1.00E+000.058 0.06 0.40 1.00E-03 6.00E-010 166 0 09 0 60 1 00E 03 6 00E 01Sh b f it
Green vegetablesRoot vegetablesTuber vegetablesHerbaceous fruit
0.166 0.09 0.60 1.00E-03 6.00E-010.157 0.04 0.27 1.00E-03 6.00E-01
Gardener type None
Tree fruitShrub fruit