Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) Portfolio – … · 2019-07-09 · Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) facility at Redmile Petroleum Storage Depot (PSD),

Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) Portfolio – Redmile

LAND QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT

Combined Phase One and Two: LQA

DIO Project Number: 13199

Prepared by SKM Enviros for the Ministry of Defence, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, under commission FTS3/ELMG/100

FINAL

June 2013

DEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANISATION

GPSS Portfolio – Redmile LAND QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT

Combined Phase One and Two: LQA

DIO Project Number: 13199

Task Officer Defence Infrastructure Organisation Kingston Road Sutton Coldfield West Midlands B75 7RL Tel: 0121 311 3618

Prepared by SKM Enviros for the Ministry of Defence, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, under commission FTS3/ELMG/100

MAIN CONTRIBUTORS Alec Hales

Report Issued by: ALAN WHITE

Report Reviewed by: CHRIS STEWART

Accepted by Task Officer on behalf of Defence Infrastructure Organisation:

Accepted by Sponsor:

SKM Enviros, Enviros House, Shrewsbury Business Park, Shrewsbury SY2 6LG Tel: +44 (0)1743 284800 Fax: +44 (0)1743 245558

GPSS Portfolio – Redmile Phase One & Two Land Quality Assessment Report Final

SKM Enviros

I:\JLWM\Projects\JL30611\Deliverables\Reports\Individual Sites\Redmile PSD\Final Report\Redmile Phase 1 & 2 LQA FINAL.docx PAGE i

Contents Land Quality Statement 1

Introduction 1

Site Description and History 1

Site Sensitivity 1

Potential Sources of Contamination 2

Preliminary Risk Assessment 2

Site Investigation Strategy 2

Investigation Works Undertaken 2

Ground Conditions Identified 3

Summary of Site Investigation Results 3

Updated Risks Assessment 3

1. Introduction 4

1.1. Objectives 4

1.2. Methodology 4

1.3. Framework for Contaminated Land Assessment 5

1.4. Structure of this Report 6

2. Site Description 7

2.1. Site Location 7

2.2. Site Layout 7

2.3. Site Operations and Site Use 7

2.4. Surrounding Area 11

2.5. Public Register Information 11

3. Site History 12

3.1. Historical OS Maps 12

3.2. MOD and Other Sources 13

4. Site Sensitivity 15

4.1. Geology 15

4.2. Hydrogeology 15

4.3. Hydrology 16

4.4. Ecology 16

4.5. Site Sensitivity 16


SKM Enviros

I:\JLWM\Projects\JL30611\Deliverables\Reports\Individual Sites\Redmile PSD\Final Report\Redmile Phase 1 & 2 LQA FINAL.docx PAGE ii

5. Initial Conceptual Site Model and Environmental Risk Assessment 17

5.1. Conceptual Model Outline 17

5.2. Potential Contaminant Sources 17

5.3. Identified Pathways 19

5.4. Identified Receptors 19

5.5. Preliminary Risk Assessment 20

5.6. Summary of Environmental Risks 29

6. Site Investigation Strategy 30

6.1. Scope of Works 30

6.2. Intrusive Works 31

6.3. Analytical Strategy 31

7. Site Investigation Methodology 32

7.1. Supervision 32

7.2. Summary of Works Undertaken 32

8. Summary of Ground Conditions 35

8.1. Ground Conditions 35

8.2. Natural Ground 36

8.3. Visual and Olfactory Contamination in Soils 36

8.4. Groundwater Levels 36

8.5. Visual and Olfactory Evidence of Contamination in Groundwater 36

8.6. Gas Concentrations at Borehole Locations 36

9. Methodology for Interpretation of Chemical Analysis Data 38

9.1. Generic Assessment Criteria 38

9.2. Criteria for Assessment 38

9.3. Averaging Areas and Data Handling 39

9.4. Physio-chemical Soil Properties 39

10. Review of Laboratory Analysis 41

10.1. Chemical Soil Analysis 41

10.2. Summary of Analytical Data 47


SKM Enviros

I:\JLWM\Projects\JL30611\Deliverables\Reports\Individual Sites\Redmile PSD\Final Report\Redmile Phase 1 & 2 LQA FINAL.docx PAGE iii

11. Updated Conceptual Site Model and Environmental Risk Assessment 48

11.1. Conceptual Site Model 48

11.2. Potential Contaminant Sources 48

11.3. Identified Pathways 49

11.4. Identified Receptors 49

11.5. Updated Risk Assessment 49

11.6. Updated Risk Assessment Summary 57

12. Overall Land Quality and Suitability for Use 58

13. References 59

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2A: Site Layout Potential Contaminant Sources & Exploratory Hole Locations (Sites 1 & 2)

Figure 2B: Site Layout Potential Contaminant Sources & Exploratory Hole Locations (Site 3)

Figure 3: Initial Conceptual Site Model

Figure 4: Groundwater Contour Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A Site Photographs

Appendix B Regulatory Data Search

Appendix C Historical Maps

Appendix D Risk Assessment Methodology

Appendix E Exploratory Hole Logs

Appendix F Laboratory Analysis Certificates

Appendix G Generic Assessment Criteria Methodology

Appendix H Assessment of Hydrocarbon Screening Value

Appendix I Tables of Chemical Analysis Results

Appendix J TPH Calculation Sheet


SKM Enviros

I:\JLWM\Projects\JL30611\Deliverables\Reports\Individual Sites\Redmile PSD\Final Report\Redmile Phase 1 & 2 LQA FINAL.docx PAGE 1

Land Quality Statement

Introduction

In August 2012, SKM Enviros (SKM) was commissioned by Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) to prepare a combined Phase One and Phase Two Land Quality Assessment (LQA) at the Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) facility at Redmile Petroleum Storage Depot (PSD), Leicestershire.

The objectives of this LQA, are to evaluate potential risks to human health and controlled waters which will allow identification of potential environmental risks for the MOD and support the disposal process for the site. The assessment has been completed on the understanding that the site is to be divested for continued or future commercial / industrial use (as a fuel management facility).

Site Description and History

The GPSS Redmile site is divided into three parcels of land known as Sites 1, 2 and 3, centred on National Grid Reference (NGR) 478680, 336043 (central point at Site 1), located approximately 900m north west of Redmile village. The site occupies a total area of 6.2 hectares. The Ordnance Survey map shows the site to be generally level with a slight slope down towards the Grantham Canal. Site 1 is located to the north of the canal, Site 2 is located to the south of the canal and Site 3 is located to the south west of Sites 1 and 2.

The PSD was commissioned circa 1939 and was fully operational until 1993 when the storage infrastructure on sites 1 and 3 was emptied and mothballed, the main features of which were large semi buried fuel storage tanks and connecting pipework. Site 2 remains an operational pumping station on the high pressure fuel pipeline between Misterton to the west and Sawtry to the east, offices are also still used on Site 1.

The surrounding area is predominantly arable land. Two residential properties lie adjacent to the northern boundary of Site 1. The Grantham Canal and associated towing path trends east to west between Sites 1 and 2 and to the north of Site 3.

Site Sensitivity

Setting Description

Hydrogeology The site is assessed as having a moderate sensitivity with regard to groundwater as it is underlain by solid strata classed as both Secondary A and B Aquifers. There is one groundwater abstraction entry located approximately 900m south west of the site boundary and used for general farming and domestic purposes. The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.

Hydrology The site is assessed as having a high sensitivity with regard to surface water. The nearest surface water body is located adjacent to the east corner of Site 1. A pond feature is located within Site 3. The Grantham Canal also adjoins all three sites and surface water drainage from the sites enter the canal (via interceptor). Six further ponds located within 500m of the site boundary- closest pond located approximately 170m east of Site 1. The River Whipling (The Grimmer) is located approximately 360m north east of Site 1.

Ecology Ecological sensitivity has been assessed as being high as all three parcels of the site lie adjacent to the Grantham Canal (a Site of Special Scientific Interest SSSI) with potential for transmission of pollutants via a direct pathway.


SKM Enviros


Potential Sources of Contamination

Potential sources of contamination have been identified at the site. The potential sources have been grouped by source type into the following categories:

S1 Underground fuel and oil storage and handling. Associated features at GPSS Redmile include; below ground redundant and active pipeline (including the offsite pipeline), redundant large semi buried fuel storage tanks, semi buried pumphouse and inset slop tanks.

S2 Above ground fuel and oil storage and handling. Associated features include; above ground redundant and active pipeline including valve chambers, redundant and active above ground fuel tanks, redundant and active pumphouse(s), redundant sample store and laboratory and redundant road loading gantry.

S3 Transformer buildings and switch rooms. Redundant transformer buildings located at Sites 1 and 3. Active transformer and switch room located at Site 2.

S4 Buried Tetraethyl Lead (TEL) sludge burial pit. TEL sludge was historically buried within a fenced off area at Site 1.

S5 Made Ground associated with an historical railway line located to the north of Site 1 and possible levelling in the central and northern areas of Site 2.

Preliminary Risk Assessment

Initially a number of potentially significant risks from potential sources of contamination were identified based on the site use, history and sensitivity. Predominantly the contaminants of concern were hydrocarbons, but also included PCBs from electrical transformers, TEL from a burial pit and other organic and inorganic contaminants potentially present in Made Ground. The preliminary risks ranged from moderate to low. A targeted intrusive investigation was undertaken in order to refine the preliminary risk assessment.

Site Investigation Strategy

The objective of the intrusive investigation was to target areas identified as presenting the greatest risks to land quality, controlled waters and site users identified by the preliminary qualitative risk assessment. In the first instance, it was considered appropriate to investigate all sources of contamination where a moderate or greater risk was assessed. In addition it was also considered appropriate and cost effective, to investigate other sources at the same time given their similar nature. This will add additional confidence to the site investigation results and help deliver the objectives of the LQA. The works were planned to provide sufficient detail to allow identification of any major contamination concerns on site and the formulation of an outline remedial options assessment, if required, or more detailed investigation where necessary.

Investigation Works Undertaken

An intrusive investigation was undertaken in November 2012. A total of eleven boreholes were drilled to a maximum depth of 4m below ground level and three were installed (one at each Site 1-3) to allow groundwater monitoring to be undertaken following completion of the drilling works. Gas taps were added to the borehole installations in order to obtain an initial gas appraisal, however, it is beyond the scope of this LQA to provide a gas risk assessment. In addition, two hand dug pits were excavated to allow additional shallow soil samples to be taken. Soil arisings from all borehole locations and hand dug pits were logged and samples were obtained for chemical analysis.


SKM Enviros


Ground Conditions Identified

Made Ground was identified in ten out eleven borehole locations excavated across the site and in both hand pits. The Made Ground predominantly comprised sandy gravelly clays and clayey sandy gravels containing clinker, brick and concrete. Made Ground was observed to extend to depths between 0.30m and 1.20m bgl.

Natural strata were encountered in ten out of eleven boreholes. A concrete obstruction at 1m bgl prevented further drilling at location WS07. The natural ground generally comprised clays with varying proportions of sand and flint / mudstone gravels overlying mudstone.

Groundwater rest levels in all three installed boreholes was at depths between 0.07 and 1.05 mbgl.

No visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was observed in any of the borehole or hand dug trial pit locations.

Summary of Site Investigation Results

The results demonstrate that there is no significant or extensive inorganic or organic contamination on site.

Contaminant Distribution

Soils – No inorganic or organic contaminants were detected at elevated concentrations.

Groundwater – No inorganic or organic contaminants were detected at elevated concentrations. All organic contaminants were below laboratory detection limits.

Updated Risks Assessment

An updated qualitative risk assessment was undertaken at the site based on the findings of both the desk study and the intrusive investigation. This assessment carried out in accordance with government guidance on contaminated land, establishes connecting links between a hazardous source via an exposure pathway to a potential receptor (a “pollutant linkage”). The significance of any risk is based upon consideration of both the likelihood of an event and the severity of the potential consequence. Assessments have been completed for continued or future commercial / industrial use (as a fuel management facility). The site investigation did not identify any contaminant concentrations in soils or groundwater that were greater than appropriate generic assessment criteria for commercial / industrial use. On this basis the updated risk assessment assessed all risks to be Negligible.

It should be noted that the assessment is based on a relatively small number of targeted sampling locations and there is the possibility that localised areas of contamination remain unidentified at the site. However, there is a good level of confidence from the information gathered that there is not significant and widespread contamination across the site.

Overall Land Quality and Suitability for Use

Overall, based on the findings of the desk study, intrusive investigation and risk assessments summarised above it is considered unlikely that there will be any land quality issues of concern constraining the use or redevelopment of the site for similar commercial / industrial use. Although the presence of the TEL sludge burial pit on site should be noted as a constraint to redevelopment in that area.


SKM Enviros


1. Introduction In August 2012, SKM Enviros (SKM) was commissioned by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) to undertake a combined Phase One and Two Land Quality Assessment (LQA) at the Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) facility at Redmile, Leicestershire, hereafter referred to as GPSS Redmile. This commission was carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of FATS3, the Framework Agreement for Technical Support under Tasking Order FTS3/ELMG/100.

1.1. Objectives

The objectives of this LQA are to evaluate potential risks to human health and controlled waters, which will allow identification of potential environmental risks to the MOD and support the disposal process for the site. The assessment has been completed on the understanding that the site is to be divested for continued or future commercial / industrial use (as a fuel management facility).

This LQA Report sets out the factual information and other evidence gathered through this desk based and subsequent intrusive assessment of the environmental condition of the site. The report establishes the overall site condition by identifying potential sources of contamination and receptors which may be sensitive to such contamination and by providing an appraisal of environmental risks.

1.2. Methodology

The assessment involved a review of available background information about the site and its neighbours from both public and Ministry of Defence (MOD) sources, together with a site reconnaissance undertaken on the 19th September 2012.

Information concerning current and past site use has been obtained by interviewing staff on site, from a review of historical site records and historical Ordnance Survey (OS) maps.

Information on the site sensitivity was obtained from geological and hydrogeological maps, together with information held by the Environment Agency and other regulatory authorities. These bodies were not contacted directly but the information was provided by a commercial search company, Landmark Information Group’s Envirocheck® report.

Data obtained from the public register relating to the site and its neighbours included information on the following:

Licensed and unlicensed waste disposal facilities (present and past);

Environmental Permits (formerly Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Permits) under the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

Local Authority Environmental Permits (formerly Pollution Control Authorisations) under the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

Consents or enforcements under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990;

Authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993;


SKM Enviros


Information regarding contaminative uses from the planning register;

Consents to discharge to controlled waters;

Consents to discharge trade effluent to the foul sewer;

Licensed groundwater and surface water abstractions;

Details of pollution incidents; and

Breaches or prosecutions under environmental legislation.

Based on the information gathered an initial conceptual site model and qualitative risk assessment has been undertaken addressing the significance of any potential contamination identified in relation to the current and future commercial / industrial use of the site. The risk assessment was used to inform an intrusive investigation targeting those risks assessed as unacceptable or requiring further information to confirm the level of risk. The following works were undertaken on site between 27th and 28th November 2012:

Excavation of thirteen hand dug trial pits to facilitate visual and olfactory observations of sub-surface conditions and collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis;

Completion of eleven boreholes using a Windowless sampling rig to depths of 4m bgl and installation of three groundwater monitoring points to facilitate the collection of groundwater data if required in the future.

Based on the works described above and on the data following laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater samples a Tier 1 generic risk assessment and update of the conceptual site model has been undertaken to assess the significance of any potential contamination identified in relation to the current or future commercial / industrial use of the site (as a fuel management facility).

1.3. Framework for Contaminated Land Assessment

Contaminated land risk assessment is based on development of a conceptual model for the site. This model is a representation of the relationship between contaminant sources, pathways and receptors developed on the basis of hazard identification. Risk assessment is the process of collating known information on a hazard or set of hazards in order to estimate actual or potential risks to receptors. The guiding principle behind this approach is an attempt to establish connecting links between a hazardous source, via an exposure pathway to a potential receptor, referred to as a ‘pollutant linkage’. If there is no pollutant linkage, then there is no risk. Therefore, only where a viable pollutant linkage is established does this assessment go on to consider the level of risk.

This approach is in accordance with the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Statutory Guidance on Contaminated Land (Ref. 1) and the DEFRA / Environment Agency (EA) Model Procedures (CLR11, Ref. 2). The risk assessment undertaken in this document comprises a ‘preliminary risk assessment’ in the terminology used in CLR11.


SKM Enviros


1.4. Structure of this Report

This report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2: Provides a description of the site layout and an outline of the activities undertaken and current potential sources of contamination;

Chapter 3: Outlines site history including a review of historical maps, anecdotal information from site sources and historical potential sources of contamination;

Chapter 4: Provides the environmental site setting and sensitivity in relation to its geology, hydrogeology, hydrology and ecology;

Chapter 5: Outlines the initial conceptual site model and qualitative risk assessment and provides justification for the areas prioritised for a further phase of intrusive assessment;

Chapter 6: Provides an outline of the site investigation strategy;

Chapter 7: Details the site investigation methodology;

Chapter 8: Summarises the ground conditions observed;

Chapter 9: Summarises the methodology for interpreting the chemical analysis results;

Chapter 10: Details the assessment of the chemical analysis results;

Chapter 11: Presents the updated conceptual site model for the site and the updated qualitative risk assessment;

Chapter 12: Presents a summary of the overall land quality and suitability of the site for its current use; and

Chapter 13: Details the references.


SKM Enviros


2. Site Description

2.1. Site Location

GPSS Redmile is centred on National Grid Reference 478680, 336043 (central point at Site 1), located approximately 900m north west of Redmile village in Leicestershire. The location of the site is shown on Figure 1.

2.2. Site Layout

The site occupies a total area of 6.2 hectares and is divided into three parcels of land known as sites 1, 2 and 3. Site 1 is located to the north of the disused Grantham Canal, Site 2 is located to the south of the disused Grantham Canal and Site 3 is located to the south west of Sites 1 and 2. Sites 2 and 3 are accessed via Redmile Lane, located to the south. The Ordnance Survey map shows the sites to be generally slope gently from the elevation of 57m above Ordnance Datum (aOD) on Site 3 to approximately 40m aOD on Site 1.

The current site layout is shown in Figures 2A and 2B. A selection of site photographs is provided in Appendix A.

2.3. Site Operations and Site Use

GPSS Redmile is a Petroleum Storage Depot (PSD) located on the UK OPA fuel pipeline. The buildings and infrastructure located at each of the parcel sites 1-3 include:

Table 2.1: Site Features

Site Parcel No. Features

1 (predominantly redundant)

Site office, air raid shelter, sample store, fire shed, toilet block, engine/ transformer house & switch room, road loading gantry, laboratory/ pump house, generator fuel tank, above ground fuel tanks, separate pump house & valve exchange, interceptor and four large semi buried fuel storage tanks.

2 (active) High pressure fuel pipeline, site office, motor pump house, switch room and transformers, garage above ground storage tank (slop tank) and interceptor.

During the SKM site walkover it was noted that site levelling activities may have historically been undertaken towards the central and northern areas of Site 2.

3 (redundant) Site office/ gate house, outbuildings, possible switch room and four large semi buried fuel storage tanks.

Anecdotal information from the site representative states that Sites 1 and 3 were mothballed in 1993 and all tanks were emptied during the mothballing process. The site offices at Sites 1 and 2 are currently used by Costain, however the other buildings and infrastructure at Site 1 are redundant. Site 2 is an active site, which pumps fuel through the high pressure pipeline.

2.3.1. Petroleum, Oil and Lubricant (POL) Storage

The petroleum, oil and lubricant storage noted on site during the site walkover are summarised in table 2.2. No visual evidence of spillage or leaks was identified during the site visit, and there are no records of spills or leaks held by the site managers (Costain).


SKM Enviros


Table 2.2: POL Storage

Location Above or below

ground Volume / Content Use / Description

Site 1- north east

Above ground. Diesel tank. Capacity - 16,000L.

Redundant generator fuel tank and generator house. Tank cleaned out in February 1992 and considered by the site representative to have been emptied as part of the mothballing process in 1993. Tank is single skinned, steel construction, and raised above soft ground with no secondary bunding.

Site 1- east Above ground. Historical fuel sample storage - small quantities capacity <5L sample containers.

Redundant laboratory and pump house. Historical fuel testing in laboratory. Pump house- above ground pipe work and motor.

Site 1- east Above ground. Historical fuel sample storage - small quantities <5L sample containers.

Redundant fuel sample store- historically used to store fuel samples and paints. During the SKM site walkover small quantities of paint and empty sample containers were noted within the store.

Site 1- east Above ground Fuel storage. Capacity not known.

Redundant above ground storage fuel tank, filter and above ground pipe work. Pipe work feeds into a road loading gantry. Tank is single skinned, steel construction, and raised above soft ground with no secondary bunding.

Site 1- east Above ground. Fuel pipeline. Redundant road loading gantry- historical extraction point from above ground pipe work.

Site 1- central Semi buried beneath raised grass mound

Fuel storage. Capacity and volume not known.

Two redundant semi buried fuel storage tanks located within a single raised grass mound. Integrity and capacity of the tanks is not known. The site representative indicated that the tanks were emptied in 1993 as part of the mothballing process.

Site 1- central Semi buried enclosure.

Fuel pipeline. Redundant valve exchange enclosure and above ground pipe work located over hardstanding.

Site 1- central Semi buried. Fuel pipeline. Redundant pump house - two linked enclosures. Above ground pipe work within the building.

Site 1- central Above ground. Fuel tank. Capacity 1,500L.

Redundant above ground fuel tank located over worn hardstanding. Located adjacent to above ground pipeline and large semi buried fuel tanks.

Site 1- southern area

Semi buried beneath raised grass mounds

Capacity 4x 610,000L. Redundant. Four large semi buried fuel tanks located within separate raised grass mounds. Integrity of the tanks is not known. The site representative indicated that the tanks were emptied in 1993 as part of the mothballing process.


SKM Enviros


Location Above or below

ground Volume / Content Use / Description

Site 2- north Above ground Fuel pipeline and valve chambers.

Active above ground pipe work and valve chambers associated with the high pressure pipeline.

Site 2- north Inset below ground

Fuel slop tank. Capacity not known.

Slop tank inset within bricked bund feature.

Site 2- central Above ground Fuel pipe work and motor.

Pump house building with motor and above ground pipe work.

Site 2- south Inset below ground

Fuel slop tank. Capacity 66,000L.

Recently built slop tank located within concrete bund feature. During the site walkover the gauge noted the tank as empty.

Site 2- south Above ground Possible small amounts of oils.

Garage / workshop building not entered during site walkover.

Site 3- central Semi buried beneath raised grass mounds

Capacity not known. Redundant. Four large semi buried fuel tanks located within two raised grass mounds. Integrity and capacity of the tanks is not known. The site representative indicated that the tanks were emptied in 1993 as part of the mothballing process.

Site 3- south Above ground Capacity not known. Redundant above ground fuel storage / slop tank.

2.3.2. Hazardous and Waste Material Storage

A small area located in the central western region of Site 1 was fenced off signposted as being an historical tetraethyl lead (TEL) sludge burial area. The site representative indicated that TEL was stored in 205 litre drums before burial.

Approximately 60 plastic containers (25L) of foam were noted within the fire shed during the site walkover.

Domestic solid wastes are taken off site and disposed of by Costain staff. No further wastes are generated on site or removed from site.

Three electricity transformer buildings were noted at GPSS Redmile. At Site 1 a redundant transformer house is located to the north east of the site and at Site 2 an active transformer building is located to the west of the site. The site representative confirmed that a redundant electrical transformer was also present in the pump house at Site 3, although this was locked and inaccessible during site visit. Given the age of the site and infrastructure, it is possible that the transformer apparatus may have contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). However, it was not known by the site representative whether the apparatus still contained PCBs and if so in what concentration.

The SKM walkover survey identified no further evidence of areas of the site used for storing other hazardous or waste materials.


SKM Enviros


2.3.3. Asbestos

It is beyond the scope of this LQA to assess or provide an inventory of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in the fabric of any current or former structures on the site. There is no known evidence of ground contaminated with ACMs.

2.3.4. Storage / Use of Munitions and Explosives

There is no known evidence or information relating to explosive ordnance and explosive residues at the site. The SKM walkover survey identified no evidence of areas of the site used for storing or where explosives have been used.

2.3.5. Burning Grounds and Incinerators

There is no known evidence or information relating to burning grounds or incinerators at the site. The SKM walkover survey identified no evidence of areas of the site used for burning.

2.3.6. Radiological Materials

There is no known evidence or information relating to radioactive sources held or previously held at the site. The SKM walkover survey identified no evidence of radioactive storage areas.

2.3.7. Vehicle Washing

The SKM walkover survey identified no evidence of areas of the site used for vehicle washing.

2.3.8. Site Drainage

On Site 1 surface water drainage is directed to an interceptor located on the northern boundary by the railway, this interceptor discharges to soakaway. Surface water drainage from Sites 2 and 3 are also directed through interceptors before being discharged into the canal. The site representative confirmed that the interceptors were fitted with alarms and automatic shutoff valves if oils are detected in the system. The interceptors are regularly inspected and maintained. Foul sewage is understood to be connected to the mains sewers located to the north, and off site.

2.3.8.1. Discharge Consents

No discharge consents are recorded on site. The closest discharge consent is listed for sewage discharges into the River Whipling (The Grimmer), located 365m east of the site boundary. A further three discharge entries relating to sewage discharges into the River Whipling are located 704m north, 779m east and 974m south east.

2.3.9. Other Information from the Site Visit

During the SKM walkover, all areas appeared to be suitably managed and in a tidy state. The operational Site 2 was particularly well managed and very tidy.


SKM Enviros


2.4. Surrounding Area

The GPSS Redmile site lies north west of Redmile village and north east of Barkestone-le-Vale village. The surrounding area is predominantly arable land. Two residential properties lie adjacent to the northern boundary of Site 1. The Grantham Canal (disused) and associated towing path trends east to west between Sites 1 and 2. Site 1 is accessed from Main Road located to the east and Sites 2 and 3 is accessed via Redmile Lane located to the south east. A wooded area with raised ground associated with an historical railway line is located to the north of the site (directly north of Site 1).

2.5. Public Register Information

The Envirocheck report, which contains public register information supplied by the Environment Agency and other statutory authorities, was purchased in August 2012. Key information relating to the site is identified and summarised below with a copy of the full report included in Appendix B.

2.5.1. Industrial Data Entries

The Envirocheck report identifies one inactive Contemporary Trade Directory Entry located approximately 600m south west of the site boundary relating to domestic cleaning services.

2.5.2. Fuel Station Entries

There are no fuel station entries identified within 1 km of the site.

2.5.3. Radon

The site is not in a Radon Affected Area (which is defined as an area with less than 1% of homes are above the action level for radon).

2.5.4. Environment Agency Recorded Pollution Incidents

There are two category 3 (minor) pollution incidents recorded to controlled waters documented in the Envirocheck® report within 1 km of the site. The closest is recorded in 1998 and located 85m north of Site 1. The incident relates to raw sewage leaking from a blocked sewer pipe on private septic tank.

2.5.5. Control of Major Accident Hazards Sites (COMAH)

The site is registered to the Oil and Pipelines Agency with an active lower tier entry.

2.5.6. Contaminated Land Entries

There are no areas within 1 km that have been determined as Contaminated Land under Section 78R of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

2.5.7. Planning Hazardous Substance Consents

There is one consent (granted in December 2006) registered to the Oil and Pipelines Agency located at the site, no further details are provided.


SKM Enviros


3. Site History The site history has been determined from a review of Ordnance Survey (OS) historical maps contained within the Envirocheck® report, and from information provided by site personnel during the site visit. The information below describes the significant historical activities on the site and in the surrounding area. The historical maps are presented in Appendix C. Note: the site boundary shown on the maps and plans in the Envirocheck® report should only be used to identify the approximate location of the site, SKME Figures 1, 2A and 2B show the correct site boundaries.

3.1. Historical OS Maps

It should be noted that sites with a military or defence connection were often not included on OS maps during the war years and subsequent cold war, for reasons of national security.

3.1.1. On Site

The earliest available map dated 1884 shows the site as undeveloped open land. The Grantham Canal is shown trending east to west bisecting Sites 1 and 2.

1952 historical map

Site 1 - no significant changes.

Site 2- the historical map shows five unnamed buildings / structures located in the central and northern areas. The historical map does not show any indication the site was levelled before the buildings were constructed. However, potential site levelling was noted during the SKM site walkover.

Site 3 - no significant changes.

1972 historical map

Site 1- the 1972 historical map shows five raised ground features associated with six semi buried fuel storage tanks located to the south of the site. Three Emergency Water Storage (EWS) tanks with interconnecting pipeline are shown in the central region. Approximately five buildings and an air raid shelter (raised ground) are shown to the north. The hardstanding is predominantly shown to the north with two tracks trending through the central region of the site. Raised ground is shown to the north west corner of Site 1. The raised ground is considered to be associated with a disused railway located north of the site boundary.

Site 2 - the historical map shows six unnamed buildings / structures and a track entering the site from south. A pipe line is shown across the Grantham Canal connecting Sites 1 and 2.

Site 3 - the historical map shows two large raised ground features associated with four semi buried fuel storage tanks. In addition, an above ground tank, pipe work, two buildings / structures and a track are shown on the historical map.

No significant changes or developments are shown on site from the 1993, 1996 or 2006 historical maps.


SKM Enviros


3.1.2. Off Site

The earliest map dated 1884 shows the surrounding land predominantly as open land.

1884 historical map

Redmile Lane is shown approximately 325m south east of Areas 1-3. Features relating to each site area are described in more detail below:

Site 1 - the Grantham Canal and associated towing path are shown adjacent to the southern boundary with Site 2 located directly south of the canal. The Great Northern & London & North Western Joint Railway and Redmile & Belvoir station are shown approximately 45m north of the boundary. Main Road is shown approximately 60m north east trending south east to north west.

Site 2 - the Grantham Canal and towing path is shown adjacent to the northern boundary and the Great Northern & London & North Western Joint Railway trending south west to north east and located approximately 20 m north of the site boundary.

Site 3 - the Grantham Canal and towing path is shown adjacent to the northern boundary and Area C located directly north of the canal.

1956 historical map

No significant changes occurred in the vicinity of Sites 2 and 3.

Site 1- by 1956 an Agricultural Hostel (Leicester & EC) is shown adjacent to the eastern boundary.

1972 historical map

Six ponds are shown within 500m of the site. The closest located approximately 170m east of Site 1. The 2006 historical map identifies the majority of ponds previously shown on the 1972 historical map, indicating little or no infilling activities associated with the surrounding ponds.

2006 and most recent OS map

No further changes are shown up to and including the most recent map, dated 2012.

3.2. MOD and Other Sources

The GPSS was established to provide a secure oil distribution network for the United Kingdom at the beginning of World War Two in 1939. Over a period of years the pipeline route has been extended and amended, certain sections renewed and re-laid or diverted until it now covers approximately 2,500km of pipe and associated storage depots, pumping stations and other sites (Ref. 3).

In March 2012, Costain was awarded the asset support contract for the operation and maintenance of the GPSS on behalf of the OPA. The Costain site representative confirmed that the redundant parts of the site (Sites 1 and 3) were mothballed in 1993. These areas were used for bulk fuel storage.


SKM Enviros


A previous site investigation undertaken by Environmental Assessment Group Ltd (EAG) noted the Redmile depot was built in 1938. Four large semi buried underground fuel storage tanks were built as part of the original layout of Sites 1 and 3. Site 2 was not described within the EAG report. The EAG report dated 1992 notes the rail line, adjacent to Site 1, was dismantled in the 1960’s.

3.2.1. Previous Investigations On Site

A previous site investigation and assessment of the ground conditions at GPSS Redmile was undertaken by Environmental Assessment Group Ltd (EAG) in February 1992 (report issued in April 1992) (Ref. 4). The investigation was undertaken prior to the closure of the site and the cessation of Texaco management and operation of the site. The site investigation included excavation of seven boreholes and five trial pits.

A survey of sub surface soil gas concentrations, headspace soil testing, chemical soil analysis and groundwater sampling was carried out. There were no visual or olfactory evidence of hydrocarbon contamination or elevated soil gas concentrations noted during the excavation of boreholes and trial pit locations. Petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in any of the soil samples, however, concentrations above laboratory detection limits (considered to be low boiling point kerosene) were shown in three out of the seven groundwater samples. Remedial action was not considered to be a requirement in view of the absence of other elevated concentrations in the remaining water samples and in any of the soil samples and the generally low hydrogeological sensitivity of the site. The report concluded that although the site had been used to dispose of leaded tank sludges and that Made Ground is present in the vicinity of the disused railway sidings, remedial action was not required as contaminants did not exceed any of the relevant UK guideline criteria at the time.


SKM Enviros


4. Site Sensitivity

4.1. Geology

4.1.1. Made Ground

The geological map for the area (Ref. 5) does not identify any Made Ground on site. However, given the site’s development, it is possible that Made Ground is present. This was proven by the EAG ground investigation in 1992 which identified shallow Made Ground at the site.

4.1.2. Drift

The geological map for the area (Ref. 5) indicates that drift deposits are absent beneath the site.

4.1.3. Solid

The geological map for the area (Ref. 5) indicates the solid geology underlying each area of site as follows:

Site 1 - variable strata including Fen Farm Limestone, Granby Member Mudstone consisting of interbedded limestone and Beckingham Member consisting of interbedded mudstone and limestone.

Site 2 - variable strata including Dry Doddington nodule beds consisting of calcareous mudstone and Beckingham Member consisting of mudstone and limestone.

Site 3 - variable strata including Dry Doddington nodule beds consisting of calcareous mudstone and Beckingham Member consisting of mudstone and limestone.

4.2. Hydrogeology

The Environment Agency (EA) website (Ref. 6) shows that the underlying solid strata is predominantly a Secondary B aquifer comprising lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering. However, the northern portion of Site 1 is recorded as a Secondary A aquifer containing 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 (Ref. 6).

The EA website (Ref. 6) does not list the site area as being within a designated groundwater source protection zone.

The Envirocheck report identifies one licenced groundwater abstraction entry recorded within 1 km of the site boundary. The groundwater abstraction entry is located approximately 900m south west of the site boundary and is used for general farming and domestic purposes.

The site also lies within a nitrate vulnerable zone where applications of fertiliser and nitrogenous compounds are restricted due to the risk to groundwater quality.


SKM Enviros


4.3. Hydrology

The nearest surface water is located adjacent to the south east corner of Site 1 and potentially interconnects via drains to the River Whipling (The Grimmer) located approximately 360m north east of the site. Various other watercourses are shown within 1 km of the site in all directions. The disused Grantham Canal is located adjacent to all three of the site parcels, the Site Representative confirmed that surface water drainage from each site parcel is discharged to the canal via oil / water interceptors. A pond feature is located on site to the south of Site 3, although the pond does not appear to interconnect with surrounding drains. There are approximately six further ponds located within 500m of the site boundary with the closest pond located approximately 170m east of Site 1.

The Environment Agency General Quality Assessment (GQA) Scheme assesses surface waters in England and Wales according to their chemical and biological quality. The nearest monitoring point is at the River Whipling (The Grimmer) located approximately 2.6 km north west of the site (EA ref. Redmile STW to conf. With Rundle Beck dated 2009). The river is classified as C (above average) for chemistry, no data recorded for biology, and 4 (above average) for nitrate and 5 (high) for phosphate (Ref. 6).

There is one discharge consent recorded within 1 km of the site. The discharge consent is shown 365m east of the site boundary and licensed for sewage discharge into the River Whipling.

4.4. Ecology

All three site parcels lie adjacent to the Grantham Canal, which is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest as a ‘standing open water’ habitat.

4.5. Site Sensitivity

Groundwater sensitivity: Moderate

The site is assessed as having a moderate sensitivity with regard to groundwater as it is underlain by solid strata classed as both Secondary A and B Aquifers. There is one groundwater abstraction entry located approximately 900m south west of the site boundary and used for general farming and domestic purposes. The site is not located within a groundwater source protection zone.

Surface Water Sensitivity: High

The site is assessed as having a high sensitivity with regard to surface water. The nearest surface water body is located adjacent to the east corner of Site 1. A pond feature is located within Site 3. The Grantham Canal also adjoins all three sites and surface water drainage from the sites enter the canal (via interceptor). Six further ponds located within 500m of the site boundary - closest pond located approximately 170m east of Site 1. The River Whipling (The Grimmer) is located approximately 360m north east of Site 1.

Ecological Sensitivity: High

Ecological sensitivity has been assessed as being high as all three parcels of the site lie adjacent to the Grantham Canal (a Site of Special Scientific Interest SSSI) with potential for transmission of pollutants via a direct pathway.


SKM Enviros


5. Initial Conceptual Site Model and Environmental Risk Assessment

This chapter presents the initial conceptual site model (CSM) developed for the site and identifies the presence of any potentially unacceptable risks. The conceptual model is a representation of the relationship between contaminant sources, pathways and receptors developed on the basis of hazard identification. Unique identification numbers or letters are allocated to each source, pathway and receptor, these are then carried forward to the CSM (as shown on Figure 3) and the risk assessment.

5.1. Conceptual Model Outline

The following provides a brief summary of the key features of the site (as detailed in full in Chapters 2 to 4) of relevance to the risk assessment. This initial conceptual model is shown schematically in Figure 3 along with the contaminant sources detailed below.

The GPSS Redmile site is divided into three parcel sites known as Sites 1 to 3. Site 1 is the most northerly site separated from Site 2 by the disused Grantham Canal. Site 3 is located approximately 350m south west of Site 2. GPSS Redmile is bordered by predominantly open agricultural land. GPSS Redmile was first developed around 1938 and used as a Petroleum Storage Depot located on the GPSS pipeline until the early 1990’s when the mothballing of Sites 1 and 3 were implemented. Site 2 is still currently an active pumping station and the site office at Site 1 has an electricity supply.

No records of drift deposits are recorded on the BGS website (Ref. 5). The site is underlain by Beckingham Member deposits, with other variable deposits of Fen Farm Limestone and Granby Member Mudstone at Site 1 and Dry Doddington nodule beds at Sites 2 and 3.

The aquifer classification is predominantly a Secondary B aquifer comprising lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering. However, the northern portion of Site 1 is recorded as a Secondary A aquifer containing 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.

One licenced groundwater abstraction located 900m south west of the site is used for general farming and domestic purposes. The site is not listed as being a designated groundwater source protection zone.

The site’s surface water drainage is discharges directly to adjacent surface waters via oil / water interceptors. The disused Grantham Canal is categorised as a SSSI and is located between Sites 1 and 2.

The future end use for which the assessment has been undertaken is continued or future commercial / industrial use.

5.2. Potential Contaminant Sources

A number of potential sources of contamination have been identified at the site including current and historical sources:


SKM Enviros


5.2.1. On Site

The potential on site sources of contamination at the GPSS Redmile site include:

Table 5.1 Potential On-Site Contaminant Sources

Po

ten

tial

So

urc

e N

um

ber

Potential Source (associated

contaminants given in brackets)

Associated feature

Po

ten

tial

So

urc

e L

oca

tio

n A

rea

(sh

ow

n

on

Fig

ure

s 2

an

d 3

)

S1

Underground fuel and oil storage and handling (Hydrocarbons -aviation fuel and other potential fuels).

Sites 1 & 3- redundant below ground pipework (plans showing the location of this pipework were not available).

Site 2- active below ground high pressure pipeline. Ref. 1.1

Site 1- redundant semi buried fuel storage tanks 5 and 6. Ref. 1.2

Site 1- redundant semi buried valve exchange enclosure and above ground pipe work.

Ref. 1.3

Site 1- redundant semi buried pump house- two linked enclosures. Ref. 1.4

Site 1- four redundant large semi buried fuel storage tanks located within separate raised grass mounds.

Ref. 1.5

Site 2- current slop tank located within inset brick bund. Ref. 1.6

Site 2- current recently built slop tank within inset brick bund. Ref. 1.7

Site 3- four redundant large semi buried fuel tanks located within two separate raised grass mounds.

Ref. 1.8

S2

Above ground fuel and oil storage and handling or where historical operational refuelling has taken place (Hydrocarbons - aviation fuel and other potential fuels).

Sites 1 & 3- redundant above ground pipework (plans showing the location of this pipework were not available).

Site 2- active above ground high pressure pipeline and valve chambers. Ref. 2.1

Site 1- redundant generator fuel tank and generator house. Ref. 2.2

Site 1- redundant laboratory and pump house. Ref. 2.3

Site 1- redundant fuel sample store. Ref. 2.4

Site 1- redundant above ground storage fuel tank, filter and pipe work. Ref. 2.5

Site 1- redundant road loading gantry. Ref. 2.6

Site 1- redundant above ground (1,500L capacity) fuel tank Ref. 2.7

Site 2- pump house building with motor and above ground pipe work. Ref. 2.8

Site 3- redundant above ground fuel storage / slop tank. Ref. 2.9

S3 Transformer buildings and switch rooms (PCBs).

Site 1- redundant transformer house. Ref. 3.1

Site 2- transformer building and switch room. Ref. 3.2

Site 3- redundant transformer / pump house building. Ref. 3.3

S4 Sludge burial pit (TEL). Site 1- historical buried TEL sludge area. Ref. 4.1

S5 Made Ground (metals and organics).

Site 1- Made Ground associated with historical rail line.

Site 2- Made Ground levelling in the central and northern regions. Ref. 5.1


SKM Enviros


5.2.2. Off Site

The potential sources of contamination off site include:

Po

ten

tial

So

urc

e N

um

ber

Potential Source (associated

contaminants given in brackets)

Associated feature

Po

ten

tial

So

urc

e L

oca

tio

n A

rea

(sh

ow

n o

n

Fig

ure

s 2

and

3)

S1 Below ground fuel handling (hydrocarbons)

Operational high pressure fuel pipeline entering Site 2 from the west and leaving Site 2 to the east.

Ref. 1.9

5.3. Identified Pathways

Potential environmental fate and exposure pathways specific to the site are:

Direct contact, ingestion or inhalation (pathway P1);

Leaching of contamination from soils via rainwater infiltration (pathway P2);

Vertical and lateral migration in groundwater (pathway P3);

Surface runoff into adjacent surface water via site drainage system or direct run-off (pathway P4);

Direct contact (buildings and services) (pathway P5); and

Vapour migration and accumulation of vapours (pathway P6).

5.4. Identified Receptors

Potential receptors specific to the site are:

Human health Current and future site users under commercial industrial use (receptor A).

Human health Personnel involved in below ground maintenance works (receptor B).

Groundwater Fen Farm Limestone, Granby Member Mudstone, Dry Doddington and Beckingham Member mudstone and limestone (Secondary A and B Aquifers) (receptor C).

Surface water Pond located on site 3, the Grantham Canal and surface water located adjacent to Site 1 (receptor D).

Buildings and Services As a result of chemical attack or vapour ignition / explosion (receptor E).

Flora and Fauna SSSI (disused Grantham Canal) between Sites 1 and 2 and adjacent the northern boundary of Site 3 (receptor F).


SKM Enviros


5.5. Preliminary Risk Assessment

A preliminary risk assessment has been undertaken for these potential source-pathway-receptor linkages to identify potentially unacceptable risks on a qualitative basis. This approach is based on DEFRA (Ref. 7) and Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) guidance (Ref. 8) on risk assessment and Model Procedures, whilst reference has also been given to the DIO LQA Management Guide (Ref. 9). Risk is therefore based on a consideration of both:

the likelihood of an event (probability – takes into account both the presence of the hazard and receptor and the integrity of the pathway); and

the severity of the potential consequence (takes into account both the potential severity of the hazard and the sensitivity of the receptor).

Further information on the risk assessment methodology used is given in Appendix D. The method of dealing with identified risks and the level of significance of those risks will be a function of site use. Potentially unacceptable risks identified for current and continued commercial / industrial use of the site are considered in Table 5.2 and summarised in Table 5.3.

Table 5.2: Potential environmental risks for current / future commercial / industrial use and during below ground maintenance works

Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors

Potential Pathways to Receptors

Associated Hazard

[severity]

Likelihood of Occurrence

Risk / Significance

S1.

Underground fuel storage and handling (on and off site). Large semi buried tanks (redundant) and high pressure fuel pipeline and associated infrastructure (active and redundant).

Hydrocarbons (aviation fuel and other fuels).

Humans Health hazard

All below ground tanks are understood to have been emptied when the site was mothballed in 1993. No evidence or records of spills or leaks, although there are no integrity test results available for the redundant infrastructure. However, the active pipeline is regularly inspected by pig and has wet stock telemetry at each end of the line allowing any significant leaks to be detected and dealt with promptly.

A. Current / future use

P1. Direct contact, ingestion, inhalation

Medium Unlikely Disturbance of the ground is unlikely during current operations.

Low

B. Below ground maintenance workers

P1 - Direct contact, ingestion, inhalation

Mild Low Likelihood Disturbance of the ground is likely, but any exposure during ground works will be very short term (acute rather than chronic).

Low

(Could be reduced to Negligible by utilising appropriate PPE / risk assessment)


SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S1.

Underground fuel storage and handling (on and off site). Large semi buried tanks (redundant) and high pressure fuel pipeline and associated infrastructure (active and redundant). continued

Hydrocarbons (aviation fuel and other fuels). continued

Controlled Waters Environmental impact

All below ground tanks are understood to have been emptied when the site was mothballed in 1993. No evidence of spills or leaks, although there are no integrity test results available for the redundant infrastructure. However, the active pipeline is regularly inspected by pig and has wet stock telemetry at each end of the line allowing any significant leaks to be detected and dealt with promptly

C. Groundwater Secondary A and B Aquifers

P2 and P3. Leaching of contamination from soils by rainwater infiltration and migration through groundwater

Impact on groundwater quality Severe [severe classification primarily due to the potentially large volumes of contaminant]

Low Likelihood Presence of contamination has not been proven, however if storage tanks have leaked in the past, the underlying aquifer may be directly affected. The tanks have been mothballed since 1993.

Moderate

D. Surface water (On site pond, Grantham Canal, drains and tributaries potentially interconnected to the River Whipling)

P3. Migration through groundwater base flow (although the canal is likely to be clay lined reducing the likelihood of hydraulic connectivity)

Impact on surface water Severe [severe classification primarily due to the potentially large volumes of contaminant and proximity or surface waters]

Low Likelihood No pollution incidents related to hydrocarbons have been reported by the Environment Agency. The tanks have been mothballed since 1993.

Moderate

P4. Surface water runoff

Impact on surface water Medium

Low Likelihood No contamination visible on ground surface and no pollution incidents in relation to the site have been reported. Majority of infrastructure is mothballed so the likelihood of new leaks and spills is limited. Active infrastructure is well monitored.

Moderate / Low


SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S1.

Underground fuel storage and handling (on and off site). Large semi buried tanks (redundant) and high pressure fuel pipeline and associated infrastructure (active and redundant). Continued


E. Buildings and services

P5. Direct contact

Damage to buildings and services Mild

Unlikely Site mothballed in 1993. Buildings and services have been present many years and no impacts to date.

Low

P6. Vapour accumulation

Damage to services and structures Severe

Low Likelihood No evidence or records of spills or leaks and buildings and services have been present many years with no recorded impacts to date. Presence of significant volumes of contamination within subsurface is possible given the size of the infrastructure and the integrity of redundant underground tanks not established.

Moderate

F. Flora and Fauna (SSSI- Grantham Canal).

P3 and P4. Migration though groundwater baseflow (although the canal is likely to be clay lined reducing the likelihood of hydraulic connectivity) and surface runoff

Damage to ecologically sensitive habitat Severe

Low Likelihood Presence of contamination has not been proven, however if fuel storage tanks have leaked in the past the adjacent Grantham Canal (SSSI) may be directly affected.

Moderate

S2.

Above ground fuel storage and handling. Tanks (redundant) and high pressure fuel pipeline and associated infrastructure (active and redundant).



All redundant above ground tanks are understood to have been emptied when the site was mothballed in 1993. No evidence or records of spills or leaks. Potential for historical spills / leaks in localised areas. Operational areas are very well maintained and managed



Medium Unlikely Disturbance of the ground is unlikely during normal operations.

Low


SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S2.

Above ground fuel storage and handling. Tanks (redundant) and high pressure fuel pipeline and associated infrastructure (active and redundant). Continued




Mild Low Likelihood Disturbance of the ground is likely, but any exposure during groundworks will be very short term (acute rather than chronic).

Low



All redundant above ground tanks are understood to have been emptied when the site was mothballed in 1993. No evidence or records of spills or leaks. Potential for historical spills / leaks in localised areas. Operational areas are very well maintained and managed

C. Groundwater P2 and P3. Leaching of contamination from soils by rainwater infiltration and migration through groundwater

Impact on groundwater quality within Secondary A and B Aquifers Medium

Low Likelihood Presence of contamination has not been proven, however if infrastructure has leaked in the past, the underlying aquifer may be directly affected. Above ground leaks (i.e. visible) are likely to have been rectified promptly.

Moderate / Low




Low likelihood No pollution incidents related to hydrocarbons have been reported by the Environment Agency. The tanks have been mothballed since 1993.

Moderate / Low



Low Likelihood No contamination visible on ground surface and no pollution incidents in relation to the site have been reported. Majority of infrastructure is mothballed so the likelihood of new leaks and spills is limited. Surface water drainage is intercepted.

Moderate / Low


SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S2.




P5. Direct contact


Unlikely The site was mothballed in 1993. Buildings and services have been present many years and no impacts to date.

Low



Unlikely The site was mothballed in 1993. No evidence or records of spills or leaks and buildings and services have been present many years with no recorded impacts to date. Presence of significant volumes of contamination within subsurface is unlikely from the above ground infrastructure on site.

Moderate / Low




Low Likelihood Presence of contamination has not been proven, however if fuel storage tanks have leaked in the past the adjacent Grantham Canal (SSSI) may be directly affected.

Moderate

S3. Electrical transformer buildings and switch rooms

PCBs Humans Health hazard

It is possible that the transformer apparatus may have contained PCBs. However, it was not known whether the apparatus still contained PCBs and if so at what concentration. However, the transformers are of a small size, therefore only small volumes of oil may have leaked. Any impacted ground likely to be very localised.

A. Current and future use


Medium Unlikely Disturbance of the ground in the vicinity of the transformer is unlikely during normal operations.

Low


SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S3. Electrical transformer buildings and switch rooms continued

PCBs continued

B. Below ground and Maintenance workers


Medium Low Likelihood Disturbance of the ground is likely, but any exposure during groundworks will be very short term (acute rather than chronic).

Moderate / Low

(Could be reduced by utilising appropriate PPE / risk assessment)


It is possible that the transformer apparatus may have contained PCBs. However, it was not known whether the apparatus still contained PCBs and if so at what concentration. However, the transformers are of a small size, therefore only small volumes of oil may have leaked. Any impacted ground likely to be very localised.



Unlikely

PCBs are highly immobile in the environment and unlikely to migrate far from the source of deposition.

Low




Unlikely PCBs are highly immobile in the environment and unlikely to migrate far from the source of deposition. If present any contamination is likely to be localised

Low




Low


SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance


PCBs continued



Damage to ecologically sensitive habitat Medium


Low

S4. Buried TEL sludge.

Tetraethyl Lead (TEL)


TEL burial areas are well marked with warning signs.




Low



Medium Low Likelihood Disturbance of the ground is likely, however the TEL burial area is well marked and excavations are restricted in the area. Any exposure during groundworks will be very short term (acute rather than chronic).

Moderate / Low

(Could be reduced by utilising appropriate PPE / risk assessment)


Potential for localised ground contamination. However, the practice of burying TEL sludge will not have continued for at least 20 years (site mothballed in 1993).



Likely TEL is known to have been buried although the containment measures and quantities of the buried sludge is not known.

Moderate


SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S4. Buried TEL sludge. Continued

Tetraethyl Lead (TEL) continued




Low likelihood No pollution incidents related to TEL have been reported by the Environment Agency. If present any contamination is likely to have been diluted by groundwater over time, before reaching surface water.

Moderate / Low




Unlikely. Buildings and services have been present many years with no recorded impacts to date.

Moderate / Low


P3. Migration though groundwater baseflow (although the canal is likely to be clay lined reducing the likelihood of hydraulic connectivity)


Unlikely No pollution incidents related to TEL have been reported by the Environment Agency. If present any contamination is likely to have been diluted by groundwater over time, before reaching the canal.

Moderate / Low

S5. Made Ground

Metals and organics


Potential contaminants from Made Ground.




Low



Medium Low Likelihood Disturbance of the ground is likely, but any exposure during groundworks will be very short term (acute rather than chronic).

Moderate / Low



Potential leachable contaminants from Made Ground. Made ground has been in situ for many years and leachable contaminants are likely to have already leached from the soils.


SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S5. Made Ground continued

Metals and organics continued



Low likelihood Presence of contamination has not been proven, but cannot be ruled out.

Moderate / Low




Unlikely Presence of contamination has not been proven, but cannot be ruled out. No pollution incidents in relation to the site have been reported by the Environment Agency.

Low



Unlikely Presence of contamination has not been proven, but cannot be ruled out. No pollution incidents in relation to the site have been reported by the Environment Agency.

Low


P5. Direct contact


Unlikely The site was mothballed in 1993. Buildings and services have been present many years and no impacts to date.

Low

F. Flora and Fauna (SSSI)


Damage to ecologically sensitive habitat Medium

Low Likelihood Presence of contamination has not been proven, but cannot be ruled out. No pollution incidents affecting the canal have been reported by the Environment Agency.

Moderate / Low


SKM Enviros


5.6. Summary of Environmental Risks

Table 5.3 below summarises the risks from the identified sources.

Table 5.3: Summary of Risks

Usage Scenario

Potential Contaminant Source

Underground fuel storage and

handling (Hydrocarbons)

Above ground fuel storage and

handling (Hydrocarbons)

Electrical transformer buildings and switch rooms (PCBs).

Buried TEL sludge (TEL).

Made Ground (metals and organics).

CSM Source S1 CSM Source S2 CSM Source S3 CSM Source S4 CSM Source S5

Human health: Current and future commercial / industrial use

Low Low Low Low Low

Human health: During below ground maintenance works

Low* Low* Moderate / Low* Moderate / Low* Moderate / Low*

Groundwater Moderate Moderate / Low Low Moderate Moderate / Low

Surface water (via baseflow)

Moderate Moderate / Low Low Moderate / Low Low

Surface water (via runoff)

Moderate / Low Moderate / Low Low - Low

Buildings and services (direct contact)

Low Low - - Low

Buildings and services (vapour accumulation)

Moderate Moderate / Low - Moderate / Low -

Flora and Fauna Moderate Moderate Low Moderate / Low Moderate / Low

*Risk can be reduced by utilising appropriate risk assessment and personal protective equipment (PPE)


SKM Enviros


6. Site Investigation Strategy

6.1. Scope of Works

The objective of the intrusive investigation was to target areas identified as presenting the greatest risks to land quality, controlled waters and site users identified by the preliminary qualitative risk assessment. In the first instance, it was considered appropriate to investigate all sources of contamination where a moderate or greater risk was assessed. In addition it was also considered appropriate, and cost effective, to investigate other sources at the same time given their similar nature. This will add additional confidence to the site investigation results and help deliver the objectives of the LQA. These areas are summarised in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Selected Investigation Targets

Source Ref. Highest Risks

Identified Source Description

Contaminants of Concern

S1. Underground fuel storage and handling

1.1

Moderate risks to groundwater, surface water, buildings and services and flora and fauna.

Site 1- redundant semi buried fuel storage tanks 5 and 6.

Hydrocarbons.

1.2 Site 1- redundant semi buried valve exchange enclosure and above ground pipe work.

1.3 Site 1- redundant semi buried pump house- two linked enclosures.

1.4 Site 1- four redundant semi buried large fuel tanks located within separate semi buried raised grass mounds.

1.5 Site 2- current slop tank located within sunken brick bund.

1.6 Site 2- current recently built slop tank within inset brick bund.

1.7 Site 3- four redundant semi buried large fuel tanks located within two separate semi buried raised grass mounds.

S2. Above ground fuel storage and handling

2.1

Moderate risk to flora and fauna.

Site 1- redundant generator fuel tank and generator house.

2.2 Site 1- redundant laboratory and pump house.

2.3 Site 1- redundant fuel sample store.

2.4 Site 1- redundant above ground storage fuel tank (no. 14), filter and pipe work.

2.5 Site 1- redundant road loading gantry.

2.6 Site 1- redundant above ground (1,500L capacity) fuel tank

2.7 Site 2- active above ground pipe work and valve chambers associated with the high pressure pipeline.

2.8 Site 2- pump house building with motor and above ground pipe work.

2.9 Site 3- redundant transformer / pump house building.

2.10 Site 3- redundant above ground fuel storage / slop tank.

2.11 Site 3- redundant outbuildings with possible historical small quantities of oil / chemical storage.


4.1 Moderate risk to groundwater.

Site 1- historical buried TEL sludge area. Tetraethyl Lead


SKM Enviros


6.2. Intrusive Works

An intrusive investigation has been designed to effectively target the highest identified risk sources listed in Table 6.1. At this stage the intention is that the planned works would provide sufficient detail to allow identification of any major contamination concerns on site and the formulation of an outline remedial options assessment, if required, or more detailed investigation where necessary.

6.3. Analytical Strategy

The development of the initial CSM included consideration of the potential contamination present on site at each identified source. The chosen analysis suite takes into account the findings of the desk study described in Chapters 2 to 4. Samples will be selected for analysis on the basis of historical information about site activities, together with olfactory and visual evidence from the arisings observed. The suites for soil and water are described in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 respectively.

Table 6.2: Selection of Laboratory Analytical Suites for Soils

Suite Reasoning behind sampling regime

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and further indicator suite for general contaminants.

Soil samples were analysed for TPH CWG (including BTEX and MTBE) to provide a detailed breakdown of contaminant profile.

Further indicator analysis was undertaken for general contaminants- Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, copper, nickel, zinc, boron, cyanide, phenols, PAH (EPA 16).

Additional analysis where required.

PCBs and a specific lead alkyl suite (including tretra ethyl lead, which is often added to fuels at PSDs)

Asbestos where Made Ground was observed in order to indicate the presence of asbestos fibres in shallow soils.

Table 6.3: Selection of Laboratory Analytical Suites for Groundwater

Suite Reasoning behind sampling regime

Arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, copper, nickel, zinc, boron, cyanide, phenols, PAH (EPA 16), TEL and TPH CWG.

A general suite of analysis was selected to adequately cover the potential soil contaminants described in Table 6.2.


SKM Enviros


7. Site Investigation Methodology

7.1. Supervision

SKM Enviros provided supervision throughout the works undertaken on the 27th and 28th November 2012. This involved the selection of borehole positions, instruction and co-ordination of drilling subcontractors, logging of investigation arisings, appropriate field testing and collection of soil samples.

7.2. Summary of Works Undertaken

7.2.1. Selection of Intrusive Locations and Service Clearance

Approximate locations for the majority of exploratory excavations were predetermined based on the findings of the desk study, identification of potential sources of contamination and preliminary qualitative risk assessment. An exploratory plan was sent to Costain for consideration prior to the commencement of intrusive works.

Service plans of the active Site 2 area were provided by Costain, although no plans were available for Sites 1 and 3. Before commencement of drilling each location was scanned with a cable avoidance tool (CAT) and Ground Penetration Radar (GPR). As an additional precaution a hand-dug trial pit was then excavated to a maximum depth of 1.2m below ground level (bgl).

7.2.2. Borehole Drilling

Boreholes were excavated at eleven locations using window sampling techniques. The locations are illustrated on Figures 2A and 2B. A percussion hammer was used to drive a 1m long sample barrel into the ground to recover soil samples for logging in a clear plastic sleeve liner. A clean liner was used on each advancement to minimise the likelihood of cross contamination between horizons. 110mm diameter casing was driven into the ground by the sample barrel to keep the boreholes open for further advancement. Window sampling techniques enabled good sample returns and also created minimal surface disturbance.

7.2.3. Hand Digging

Hand-dug pits were excavated at all locations (WS01-WS11) before using window sampling techniques and at a further two locations (HP01 and HP02) where shallow soil samples were sufficient to assess the risks identified. The locations of these pits are also shown on Figures 2A and 2B.

7.2.4. Soil Sampling

Soil arisings from all excavations were examined for visual and olfactory evidence of contamination and logged in accordance with BS:5930 and EN ISO 14688. SKM Enviros exploratory hole logs are provided in Appendix E. A selection of photographs showing the arisings seen on site are presented in Appendix A.


SKM Enviros


Soil samples were collected at regular intervals, on changes in strata and from any areas where visual or olfactory contamination was observed. Soil samples were obtained from the arisings using a stainless steel trowel. All sampling equipment was cleaned between samples to minimise the potential for cross-contamination. Visible dirt was removed from the stainless steel trowel after the collection of each sample and if further cleaning was necessary the trowel was also washed with detergent (Decon 90).

Soil samples were collected, placed in sealed sample containers (appropriate to the type of analysis to be undertaken and compliant with the laboratory’s UKAS and MCERTS methodologies) and labelled with site specific sample identification. All samples were packed into cold cool boxes with frozen ice packs with chain of custody documentation. Samples were transported to i2 Analytical UK Ltd, a UKAS accredited laboratory. Soil samples were tested to MCERTS standards where appropriate.

7.2.5. Borehole Installation

In order to assess groundwater conditions at the site, monitoring standpipes were installed in three window sampling boreholes (one at each of the three parcel sites). Boreholes were designed so data and samples are obtained from the appropriate horizon and to ensure that pollution pathways were not created.

Each borehole was constructed with 50mm slotted well screen at the base of the boring (response zone), within groundwater bearing strata, surrounded by a gravel filter pack. The wells were completed with 50mm plain well casing and sealed with bentonite clay. The remainder of the annulus was backfilled and completed with raised and flush sealed covers, secured in concrete. The plain well casing and bentonite seal prevents surface water run-off or near surface water, contamination or air from the atmosphere from directly entering the response zone of the standpipe. The standpipes were constructed of HDPE (high density polyethylene) and finished with gas taps to facilitate future monitoring if required. Table 7.1 summarises the installation details of each borehole.

Table 7.1: Borehole Installations

Location Drilled Depth (mbgl)

Installation Surface

Completion

Plain Pipe Slotted Pipe Gravel Gas Tap

Cover Top (mbgl)

Base (mbgl)

Top (mbgl)

Base (mbgl)

Top (mbgl)

Base (mbgl)

WS02 3 0 1 1 3 1 3 Y Flush

WS04 3 0 1 1 3 1 3 Y Flush

WS11 3.55 0 1 1 3.55 1 3.55 Y Raised

7.2.6. Groundwater Sampling

One round of groundwater monitoring was undertaken at the site, which was undertaken on 12th December 2012 (the laboratory certificates of analysis are appended in Appendix F). All installed boreholes were dipped with an oil/water interface meter and groundwater levels recorded. No free phase product was noted during dipping. Boreholes were then purged before sampling. Details of each borehole sampled, and the response to purging at each location, are summarised in Table 7.2. Each well was then left to recover for a period of time and sampled using a dedicated bailer.


SKM Enviros


Table 7.2: Borehole Monitoring

Borehole Sample

Obtained Response to Pumping

WS02 Purged borehole until three well volumes had been removed. Sample recovered after purging.



All water samples were collected in clean sample containers, relevant to the type of analysis required and provided by the accredited laboratory (i2). All sample containers were appropriately labelled with their location, packed into cold cool boxes with chain of custody documentation and transported to an accredited laboratory.

7.2.7. Gas Monitoring

One round of gas monitoring from the new boreholes was completed on the 12th December 2012 using a GA2000 gas analyser


SKM Enviros


8. Summary of Ground Conditions

8.1. Ground Conditions

This chapter summarises the ground conditions encountered during the Phase Two investigation of the site. Window sampling borehole logs are provided in Appendix E. The generalised sequence of deposits beneath the site is summarised in the following sections.

8.1.1. Made Ground

Made Ground was encountered in twelve of the thirteen exploratory hole locations. The details are provided in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Summary of Made Ground Observed.

Location Description Thickness

(m) Depth (mbgl)

WS01 Soft brown slightly gravelly clay. Gravel containing flint and brick. 0.4 0 – 0.4

WS02 Soft brown slightly gravelly clay. Gravel containing brick and shale. 0.8 0 – 0.8

WS03 Soft brown slightly gravelly slightly sandy clay. Gravel containing concrete, flint and quartz.

0.6 0 – 0.6

WS04 Soft to firm brown slightly gravelly clay. Gravel containing mudstone [reworked].

1.2 0 – 1.2

WS05 Soft brown slightly gravelly clay. Gravel containing flint and mudstone.

0.5 0 – 0.5

WS06 Soft brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay. Gravel containing clinker and brick.

0.35 0 –

0.35

WS07 Soft brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay. Gravel containing clinker and quartz.

1 0 – 1

WS08 Soft to firm slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay. Gravel containing clinker and limestone.

0.3 0 – 0.3

WS09 Soft brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay. Sand is of ash. Gravel containing clinker, limestone and flint.

0.6 0 – 0.6

WS10 Soft brown slightly sandy clay [reworked]. 0.3 0 - 0.3

HP01 Soft brown slightly gravelly clay. Gravel containing brick. 0.55 0 - 0.55

HP02 Soft brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay. Gravel containing sandstone with some clinker and brick cobble.

0.8 0 - 0.8

Grassed surfacing was generally observed across the site. Immediately beneath the grass was generally Made Ground, observed to extend to a maximum depth of 1.2m bgl at only one location (WS04), while other locations typically had Made Ground < 1m bgl. Samples of the Made Ground material were obtained for analysis at the laboratory.


SKM Enviros


8.2. Natural Ground

Natural strata were encountered in all boreholes. The natural ground generally comprised sandy gravelly clays overlying weak mudstone.

This is generally consistent with the review of geological maps in advance of the works which suggested the presence of mudstone. Limestone was also expected to be present based on the mapping, this investigation did not identify limestone.

8.3. Visual and Olfactory Contamination in Soils

No visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was detected in any of the borehole or hand dug trial pit locations. Clinker gravels were noted at five out of twelve sample locations where made ground was identified.

8.4. Groundwater Levels

Groundwater (moist/wet arisings) was encountered in five out of eleven window sample locations during drilling (illustrated on logs in Appendix E where appropriate). Groundwater level monitoring was undertaken at all three installed monitoring wells following a period of settlement. An oil/water interface meter was used to check for the presence of free product which was not identified in any of the boreholes. The results are summarised in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2: Groundwater Levels in Newly Installed Monitoring Boreholes

Well ID Depth to Base

(m bgl)

Groundwater level

mbgl maOD

WS02 3 1.05 45.73

WS04 3 0.63 56.19

WS11 3.52 0.07 40.22

Notes: All levels were measured to ground level.

A groundwater contour plan has been produced to illustrate the groundwater levels and directional flow at the site and is included as Figure 4. As illustrated, the groundwater is inferred to flow in a north easterly direction, from Site 3 towards Site 1.

8.5. Visual and Olfactory Evidence of Contamination in Groundwater

During groundwater sampling, no visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was noted.

8.6. Gas Concentrations at Borehole Locations

Gas monitoring was undertaken on 12th December 2012 at all three installed monitoring wells. The results are summarised in Table 8.3.


SKM Enviros


Table 8.3 Gas Concentrations in Newly Installation Monitoring Boreholes

Sampling Location

Date of Monitoring

Flow Methane (CH4)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Oxygen (O2)

Barometric Pressure

l/h % Vol % Vol % Vol mbars

WS02 12/12/2012 0 0 0.8 20.2 1016

WS04 12/12/2012 0 0 0 20.8 1016

WS11 12/12/2012 0 0 2.4 19.6 1017

At borehole WS11 a carbon dioxide concentration of 2.4% Vol was recorded. However, no flow rates were recorded above 0 l/h at all of the borehole locations. These results provide a snapshot view of ground gas conditions that are not indicative of a problem on site. However, it should be noted that in order for a full gas risk assessment to be carried out it would be standard practice to undertake multiple monitoring visits under varying atmospheric conditions.


SKM Enviros


9. Methodology for Interpretation of Chemical Analysis Data

9.1. Generic Assessment Criteria

In order to put the analytical results into context, the data for the site have in the first instance been screened against generic assessment criteria (GAC) derived from a number of sources. This is known as a Tier 1 assessment. Depending on the results of Tier 1 analysis further tiers of assessment may be deemed necessary.

9.2. Criteria for Assessment

The following information details the selection of generic criteria for the Tier 1 assessment.

9.2.1. Hazards to Human Health

Human health risk assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the approach currently advocated by the Environment Agency (EA) and DEFRA in England and Wales, using the CLEA (Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment) model (Ref. 2). The model evaluates the risks to human health from contaminants via different pathways for a range of land use scenarios based on a detailed review of published research. To date, the Environment Agency has published Soil Guideline Values for five metals / metalloids (arsenic, cadmium, selenium, nickel and mercury) and six organic compounds (benzene, xylene, toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol and for dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs).

For common substances where there is no SGV, SKM Enviros has calculated screening thresholds (GACs) for the standard CLEA land uses using the current CLEA methodology and model (version 1.06). The derivation of SKM Enviros GAC, including that for petroleum hydrocarbons, is fully detailed within Appendix G and H. All GACs are appropriate for industrial / commercial land uses.

9.2.2. Potential Contamination of Controlled Waters

The consideration of water pollution has been made in the specific context of the site and the risk it presents to controlled water.

9.2.2.1. EQS

EQS are concentrations below which it is generally accepted that a contaminant will have no effect on the aquatic environment. However, even when an EQS is exceeded, this does not necessarily mean that there is a significant impact on aquatic organisms or plants. Further studies would be required to confirm the extent of any impact. The full list of the EQS used in this assessment is provided on the chemical standards database on the Environment Agency website (Ref. 6).

In the absence of a published EQS the Surface Waters (Abstraction for Drinking Water) Regulations (England and Wales) 1996 (Ref. 10) for water requiring normal physical/chemical treatment has been used. In Chapter 10, EQS and DWS (drinking water standards) are referred to collectively as WQS (water quality standards).


SKM Enviros


9.2.2.2. Hydrocarbons

The EQS and DWS for petroleum hydrocarbons refer to visual and olfactory evidence or are based on a determination of the ‘effect’ on the receiving ecosystem. Therefore, there is no absolute value available for comparison of laboratory data.

A Tier 1 screening value of 500 µg/l is proposed (for kerosene/diesel/fuel oil), based on the following:

An Intervention Value of 0.6 mg/l for mineral oil in groundwater cited in the Dutch government guidelines (Ref. 11);

Remediation criteria for benzene of 0.3 mg/l and for ethyl benzene of 0.7 mg/l for freshwater aquatic life cited in Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria (Ref. 12); and,

A 48 hour “no-observed effect loading rate” to the water flea (Daphnia magna) due to kerosene contaminated water of between 0.3 and 0.9 mg/l (depending upon the type of hydrocarbon measured – Ref. 13).

Of note is that the Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations limit for mineral oil is that there is no film visible on the surface of the water and that there is no fuel odour (Ref. 14). More detailed justification is provided in Appendix H.

9.3. Averaging Areas and Data Handling

Consideration has been given to the most appropriate method of grouping the data. This can include separating the data spatially or by the different strata underlying the site. The required approach may differ for different contaminants as some may be associated with particular current or historical activities carried out in a particular location while others may be associated with materials (such as made ground) brought on to the site.

At the GPSS Redmile site intrusive locations were selected to target individual potential contaminant sources. Therefore, it is not considered appropriate to group the data spatially or by strata to undertake statistical analysis. Guideline standards were compared to discrete samples for Tier 1 assessment. Where the laboratory has recorded results less than the LOD, the LOD has been used as the screening value.

9.4. Physio-chemical Soil Properties

Certain soil properties will greatly affect the mobility, migration and availability of contaminants. It is important to assess these properties prior to Tier 1 screening in order that the results can be interpreted in the correct context.

9.4.1. Soil Organic Matter

The mobility of organic contaminants can be strongly influenced by the organic content of the soil. This particularly affects the exposure pathways involving absorption and inhalation for soil vapours as well as the leachability of these substances. A total of 19 samples were submitted for total organic carbon laboratory analysis.


SKM Enviros


The average SOM in each horizon was as follows:

Made Ground– 2.38%; and

Natural Material – 1.01%.

GACs based on 1% organic matter have been used for the assessment. As organic content increases, the mobility of organic contaminants decreases therefore 1% is considered conservative for a Tier 1 assessment.


SKM Enviros


10. Review of Laboratory Analysis

10.1. Chemical Soil Analysis

A total of nineteen soil samples were submitted for analysis of a range of determinants including metals, hydrocarbons (including BTEX and MTBE), phenols and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (see Table 10.1). The borehole locations are shown in Figures 2A and 2B. Chemical results are presented in Appendix I in tabular form. The full analytical certificates are presented in Appendix F.

The preliminary risk screening exercise, comparing data against GACs, is considered to be a Tier 1 assessment and gives an indication of Contaminants of Concern. As it is proposed that the site is to be sold for continued commercial / industrial use (as a fuel management facility) the Tier 1 risk screening will use this end use as a basis for the assessment.

Soil samples were selected on the basis of visual and olfactory evidence of contamination, and on the basis of the risk identified in each of the targeted locations. Samples were submitted for analysis of key contaminants associated with specific potential contaminant sources of concern as outlined in Table 10.1. The majority of these potential contaminant sources are associated with hydrocarbon storage and handling.

Table 10.1: Sample Selection & Analysis

Location ID

Sample Depth

(m)

Source Material

Target

Analysis

Met

als

(in

c cy

anid

e)

TP

H C

WG

PA

H

Ph

eno

ls

SO

M &

pH

Asb

esto

s S

cree

n

TE

L

PC

Bs

HP01 0.3 MG Possible levelling made ground materials and hydrocarbons

HP02 0.25 MG Possible levelling made ground materials and hydrocarbons

WS01

0.9 NG Possible levelling made ground materials and hydrocarbons

1.5 NG Above and below ground hydrocarbon storage.

WS02

0.4 MG Above and below ground hydrocarbon storage.


WS03 0.2 MG Above and below ground hydrocarbon storage. PCBs.

WS04 0.3 MG Above and below ground hydrocarbon storage.

WS05 0.2 MG Above and below ground

hydrocarbon storage.

1.2 NG

WS06 0.25 MG Above and below ground hydrocarbon storage. Transformer


SKM Enviros


Location ID

Sample Depth

(m)

Source Material

Target

Analysis

Met

als

(in

c cy

anid

e)

TP

H C

WG

PA

H

Ph

eno

ls

SO

M &

pH

Asb

esto

s S

cree

n

TE

L

PC

Bs


WS07 0.8 MG Above and below ground hydrocarbon storage.

WS08

0.2 MG Above and below ground hydrocarbon storage. T.E.L.

0.6 NG Above and below ground hydrocarbon storage. T.E.L.

WS09 0.4 MG Possible levelling made ground materials and above / below ground hydrocarbon storage.

WS10 0.25 MG Possible levelling made ground materials and above / below ground hydrocarbon storage.

WS11



Notes: MG – made ground, NG – natural ground

As the Made Ground identified on site was visually similar to the weathered natural ground and appeared to be worked with gravels of brick and clinker, both the Made Ground and natural samples have been assessed together.

10.1.1. Analysis of Inorganic Contaminants – Made Ground and Natural Ground

A total of nineteen samples were obtained from across the site (eleven Made Ground and eight natural ground) and of these all nineteen were submitted for general suite of inorganic analysis. Results of the initial screening are illustrated in Table 10.2. All soil samples have been compared to GAC for a commercial / industrial use.


SKM Enviros


Table 10.2: Inorganic Parameters in Soils (Made Ground and Natural Ground) (mg/kg)

Potential Contaminant

Analyses (No.)

GAC – Commercial /

industrial

Above GAC (No.)

Min Max Location of max.

Arsenic 19 640 0 6.4 23 WS06 (MG)

Water soluble Boron 19 192,495 0 0.5 6.6 WS06 (MG)

Cadmium 19 230 0 < 0.2 0.5 WS11 (NG)

Total Chromium 19 30,356 0 29 50 WS07 (MG)

Copper 19 71,742 0 16 84 WS06 (MG)

Iron 19 - NA 42,000 86,000 WS04 (MG)

Mercury 19 368 0 < 0.3 < 0.3 -

Nickel 19 1,800 0 26 55 WS06 (MG)

Selenium 19 13,000 0 < 1.0 < 1.0 -

Zinc 19 665,453 0 34 120 WS07 (MG) / WS11 (NG)

There were no exceedances of the GACs in any of the Made Ground or natural ground samples analysed for inorganic determinands.

10.1.2. Analysis of Organic Contamination – Made Ground and Natural Ground

Eleven Made Ground samples and eight natural ground samples were selected for fully speciated and banded TPH CWG analysis to analyse for hydrocarbon contamination.

Some individual hydrocarbon components can pose a risk to human health, due to their carcinogenic nature. There is also an additional non-cancer risk to human health posed by hydrocarbon mixtures as a whole. In order to assess these two aspects of the toxicology of hydrocarbons, individual fractions of TPH have been assessed and the TPH mixture assessed separately. The assessment approach is explained fully in Appendix G and H. TPH calculation sheets are provided in Appendix J. Key organic analysis is summarised in Table 10.3.


SKM Enviros


Table 10.3: Organic Parameters in Soils (Made Ground and Natural Ground) (mg/kg)

Potential Contaminant Analyses

(No.)

GAC1 -Commercial

Industrial

Above GAC (No.)

Min Max Location of max.

Benzo(a) anthracene 19 130 0 < 0.20 4.1 WS09 (MG)

Benzo(a) pyrene 19 14 0 < 0.10 3.8 WS09 (MG)

Benzo(b) fluoranthene 19 141 0 < 0.10 3.5 WS09 (MG)

Benzo(k) fluoranthene 19 140 0 < 0.20 2.4 WS09 (MG)

Chrysene 19 137 0 < 0.05 4.1 WS09 (MG)

Dibenzo(ah) anthracene 19 14 0 < 0.20 0.41 WS09 (MG)

Indeno(123cd) pyrene 19 140 0 < 0.20 1.6 WS09 (MG)

Naphthalene 19 204 0 < 0.05 < 0.05 -

Benzene 19 28 0 <0.001 <0.001 -

Ethylbenzene 19 518 0 <0.001 <0.001 -

Toluene 19 869 0 <0.001 <0.001 -

Xylenes2 19 1,679 0 <0.001 <0.001 -

TPH CWG 19 mixture specific

0 <10

200 (Aliphatic)

44 (Aromatic)

WS06 (NG)

Notes:

1. ESV based on SOM = 1%

2. Based on m, p and o-xylene total

There were no exceedances of the GACs in any of the Made Ground or natural ground samples analysed for organic determinands. TEL and PCBs were not detected above laboratory detection limits in the samples tested. Concentrations of TPH did not exceed the mixture specific GAC or GACs for individual fractions for a commercial / industrial end use in soil samples. The maximum TPH concentration was 200 mg/kg at WS06 (0.8m), which is considerably below the sample specific GAC calculated as 65,242 mg/kg.

10.1.3. Asbestos

Five Made Ground samples were analysed for asbestos containing material (ACM) / loose fibres of asbestos. No ACM was detected in the soil samples.

10.1.4. Groundwater Chemical Analysis

The locations of groundwater monitoring wells are illustrated in Figure 2A and 2B. Groundwater analytical results are presented in full in Appendix F and in tabular form in Appendix I. One round of groundwater analysis was undertaken on 12th December 2012 and all three boreholes were sampled.

EQS and DWS were used where available to assess the presence of substances in groundwater (as outlined in Section 9.2.2.). In the absence of EQS or DWS the results have been discussed qualitatively and in comparison to other available guideline values or background concentrations.


SKM Enviros


10.1.5. Inorganic Analysis

A summary of inorganic analysis data from the groundwater monitoring is summarised in Table 10.4.

Table 10.4: Inorganic Parameters in Groundwater

Contaminant Units No. of

analyses

WQS Max. Conc

No of samples

above WQS

Location of exceedances EQS1 DWS2

Arsenic µg/l 3 50 10 <1.0 0 -

Boron µg/l 3 2,000 1,000 330 0 -

Cadmium µg/l 3 5 5 <0.10 0 -

Chromium µg/l 3 20 50 0.6 0 -

Copper µg/l 3 10 2,000 2.2 0 -

Lead µg/l 3 25 <1.0 0 -

Mercury µg/l 3 1 1 <0.5 0 -

Nickel µg/l 3 200 20 1.5 0 -

Selenium µg/l 3 10 <4.0 0 -

Zinc µg/l 3 - 5,000 <0.4 0 -

pH pH

units 3 >6 to

<9 >6.5 to <10 7.1 to 7.2 0 -

Ammoniacal Nitrogen

mg/l 3

- 0.50 0.073 0 -

Conductivity mS/cm 3 - 2.5 2.3 0

Notes:

1. Freshwater EQS values have been used. Where more than one EQS value exists, the value for the protection of salmonid fish has been used.

2. DWS relate to the Water Supply (Water Quality) regulations (England and Wales) 2000 and 1989.

3. No WQS available.

The initial screen indicates no exceedences of the WQSs for inorganic contaminants.


SKM Enviros


10.1.6. Organic Analysis

A summary of organic analysis data from the groundwater samples is summarised in Table 10.5.

Table 10.5: Organic Parameters in Groundwater (µg/l)

Contaminant No. of

analyses

WQS Max

Conc

No of samples

above WQS Location of Exceedances

EQS1 DWS2

Naphthalene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Acenaphthene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Acenaphthylene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Fluoranthene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Anthracene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Phenanthrene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Fluorene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Chrysene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Pyrene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Benzo(a) anthracene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Benzo(b) fluoranthene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Benzo(k) fluoranthene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Benzo(a) pyrene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Benzo(g,h,i) perylene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3 10 3 < 0.01 0 -

Total PAHs, USEPA 16 3 10 0.1 < 0.01 0 -

TPH >C5-C35 3 5004 3 < 10 0 -

Benzene 3 30 1 < 1.0 0 -

Toluene 3 50 3 < 1.0 0 -

Ethylbenzene 3 20 3 < 1.0 0 -

m,p-Xylene 3 30 3 < 1.0 0 -

o-Xylene 3 30 3 < 1.0 0 -

Notes:

1) Freshwater EQS values have been used. Where more than one EQS value exists, the value for the protection of salmonid fish has been used.

2) DWS relate to the Water Supply (Water Quality) regulations (England and Wales) 2000 and 1989.

3) No WQS available.

4) TPH screening value based on Dutch and Canadian and other guideline values (further justification in Appendix G and H).


SKM Enviros


The initial screen indicates all concentrations for individual or total PAH were below laboratory minimum detection limits. Concentrations of TPH were below laboratory minimum detection limits at all three of the sampled boreholes. BTEX compounds were not detected in any of the three groundwater sample locations analysed. TEL was not detected above the laboratory detection limit in the sample analysed.

10.2. Summary of Analytical Data

The review of chemical analysis data is summarised in Table 10.6.

Table 10.6: Summary of Soil and Water Analytical Data

Contaminant Distribution

Soils – No inorganic or organic contaminants were detected at concentrations above screening values.

Groundwater – No inorganic or organic contaminants were detected at concentrations above screening values. All organic contaminants were below laboratory detection limits.

The results demonstrate that there is no significant or extensive inorganic or organic contamination on site.


SKM Enviros


11. Updated Conceptual Site Model and Environmental Risk Assessment

The following sections describe the updated CSM and the contaminant sources, pathways and potential receptors identified at the site following assessment of the chemical analysis results.

11.1. Conceptual Site Model

An updated CSM has been formulated based on the following site characteristics:

Current use: predominantly mothballed (Sites 1 and 3) operational Petroleum Storage Depot between c.1938 and 1993 and operational fuel pumping station (Site 2). Numerous potential contamination sources identified, predominantly relating to storage and handling of hydrocarbons;

Surrounding land use predominantly agricultural, with two residential properties adjacent to the northern boundary of Site 1.

Sites 1 and 2 are separated by the Grantham Canal, which is a sensitive ecological habitat (SSSI).

Made ground was identified at twelve of the thirteen exploratory locations across the site;

The geological map indicates that the site is underlain by Beckingham Member, Dry Doddington, Fen Farm Limestone, Granby Member, which all generally consist of interbedded mudstone and limestone. No superficial deposits are identified on the geological map, but superficial deposits of gravelly clays, possibly weather bedrock were noted during the site investigation. The bedrock was confirmed to be mudstone during the site investigation;

The site is underlain by a Secondary B Aquifer for the most part with a Secondary A Aquifer underlying the northern part of Site 1. Shallow groundwater was encountered beneath the site and inferred to be flowing in a north easterly direction. It is considered that there will be a degree of hydraulic continuity between the groundwater and local surface waters, although the canal is likely to be clay lined reducing the likelihood of hydraulic continuity with groundwater;

Chemical analysis of soil and groundwater samples did not identify any contaminants exceeding the screening criteria;

An initial round of gas monitoring did not identify any gas concentrations of concern; and

Human health receptors have been assessed for continued or future commercial / industrial end use (as a fuel management facility).

11.2. Potential Contaminant Sources

The initial potential sources of contamination identified at the site are detailed in Table 5.1. A total of five sources were identified, with a unique reference number. The potential sources investigated as part of the November 2012 intrusive works were sources which were identified to have the highest risks to receptors, although lower risk sources were also investigated at the same time. The list of sources investigated is presented in Table 6.1 and are detailed in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. The preliminary risk assessment for the potential sources investigated has been updated.


SKM Enviros


11.3. Identified Pathways

As per the original CSM.

11.4. Identified Receptors

As per the original CSM.

11.5. Updated Risk Assessment

An updated risk assessment has been undertaken for these potential source-pathway-receptor linkages to identify potentially unacceptable risks on a qualitative basis based on the chemical analysis results obtained from these intrusive works. This approach is based on DEFRA and the Environment Agency (Ref. 2) on risk assessment and Model Procedures, whilst reference has also been given to the DIO LQA Management Guide (Ref. 9) as described in Chapter 5. The updated risk assessment is presented in Table 11.1. Where risks have been updated based on the site investigation data the previous assessment is presented in brackets. The results of the updated risk assessment are summarised in Table 11.2.

Table 11.1: Updated summary of potential environmental risks for commercial / industrial end use and during below ground and maintenance works

Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S1.

Underground fuel storage and handling (on and off site). Large semi buried tanks (redundant) and high pressure fuel pipeline and associated infrastructure (active and redundant).


Humans Health hazard All soil samples analysed for organic contaminants were below the mixture specific GACs individual fractions for commercial / industrial end use.



Minor

(initial severity Medium which assumed contaminant concentrations of significance)

Unlikely No elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in shallow Made Ground or natural soils.

Negligible

(preliminary assessment Low)



Minor

(initial severity Mild which assumed contaminant concentrations of significance)

Low likelihood No elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in the shallow Made Ground or natural soils.

Negligible



All groundwater samples analysed for organic contaminants were below the relative WQS.


SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S1.



C. Groundwater

Secondary A and B Aquifers

P2 and P3. Leaching of contamination from soils by rainwater infiltration and migration through groundwater

Impact on groundwater quality

Minor (initial severity Severe which assumed contaminant concentrations of significance)

Low Likelihood No elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in groundwater underlying the site.

Negligible (preliminary assessment Moderate)

D. Surface water

(On site pond, Grantham Canal, drains and tributaries potentially interconnected to the River Whipling)


Impact on surface water

Minor (initial severity Severe which assumed contaminant concentrations of significance)

Unlikely No elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in groundwater underlying the site.



Impact on surface water

Minor (initial severity Medium which assumed contaminant concentrations of significance)

Unlikely No contamination visible on ground surface and no elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in shallow soils. Majority of infrastructure is mothballed so the likelihood of new leaks and spills is limited. Active infrastructure is well monitored.

Negligible

(preliminary assessment Moderate / Low)


P5. Direct contact

Damage to buildings and services Minor


Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations identified in the soil samples tested

Negligible



Damage to services and structures Minor

(initial severity Severe which assumed contaminant concentrations of significance)




SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S1.





Damage to ecologically sensitive habitat Minor


Unlikely No elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in groundwater underlying the site. No contamination visible on ground surface and no elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in shallow soils. Majority of infrastructure is mothballed so the likelihood of new leaks and spills is limited. Active infrastructure is well monitored


S2.

Above ground fuel storage and handling. Tanks (redundant) and high pressure fuel pipeline and associated infrastructure (active and redundant).


Humans Health hazard All soil samples analysed for organic contaminants were below the mixture specific GACs individual fractions for commercial / industrial end use.



Minor


Unlikely No elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in shallow Made Ground or natural soils.

Negligible




Mild


Low likelihood No elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in the shallow Made Ground or natural soils.

Negligible





Impact on groundwater quality within Secondary A and B Aquifers Minor



Negligible (preliminary assessment Moderate / Low)


SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S2.



D. Surface water



Impact on surface water Minor



Negligible





Unlikely No contamination visible on ground surface and no elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in shallow soils. Majority of infrastructure is mothballed so the likelihood of new leaks and spills is limited. Active infrastructure is well monitored.

Negligible



P5. Direct contact




Negligible






Negligible



SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S2.




P3 and P4. Migration though groundwater base flow (although the canal is likely to be clay lined reducing the likelihood of hydraulic connectivity) and surface runoff



Unlikely No contamination visible on ground surface and no elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in shallow soils. Majority of infrastructure is mothballed so the likelihood of new leaks and spills is limited. Active infrastructure is well monitored. No elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons detected in groundwater underlying the site

Negligible

(preliminary assessment Moderate)

S3. Electrical transformer buildings and switch rooms

PCBs Humans Health hazard Elevated contaminant concentrations were not identified in soils on site.



Minor


Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations detected in shallow Made Ground or natural soils.

Negligible




Minor


Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations detected in shallow Made Ground or natural soils.

Negligible



Elevated contaminant concentrations were not identified in soils or groundwater on site




Unlikely

PCBs are highly immobile in the environment and unlikely to migrate far from the source of deposition. Also, as no PCBs were detected in soils they are therefore unlikely to be present in groundwater.

Negligible



SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance


PCBs continued D. Surface water





Unlikely

PCBs are highly immobile in the environment and unlikely to migrate far from the source of deposition. If present any contamination is likely to be localised

Negligible





Unlikely


Negligible






Unlikely


Negligible



Tetraethyl Lead (TEL)

Humans Health hazard TEL concentrations in localised soils and groundwater at Site 1 were both below the laboratory minimum detection limit. Soil sample located adjacent to sludge burial pit and downstream groundwater sample located at WS11.



Minor


Unlikely Disturbance of the ground is unlikely during normal operations.

Negligible



SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance





Minor


Low Likelihood Disturbance of the ground is likely, however the TEL burial area is well marked and excavations are restricted in the area. Any exposure during groundworks will be very short term (acute rather than chronic). TEL not identified in soil samples.

Negligible



Potential for localised ground contamination. However, the practice of burying TEL sludge will not have continued for at least 20 years (site mothballed in 1993).




Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations detected in groundwater

Negligible

(preliminary assessment Moderate)

D. Surface water

(On site pond, canal, drains and tributaries potentially interconnected to the River Whipling)




Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations detected in soils or groundwater. The canal is up hydraulic gradient of the TEL burial pit

Negligible






Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations detected in soils or groundwater.

Negligible



SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance




P3. Migration though groundwater base flow (although the canal is likely to be clay lined reducing the likelihood of hydraulic connectivity)



Unlikely

The site investigation indicates that the SSSI is up hydraulic gradient of the TEL burial pit. No elevated contaminant concentrations detected in soils or groundwater.

Negligible


S5. Made Ground

Metals and organics

Humans Health hazard All soil samples analysed for organic and inorganic contaminants were below the appropriate GACs for commercial / industrial end use.



Minor


Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations detected in shallow Made Ground.

Negligible




Minor


Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations detected in shallow Made Ground.

Negligible







Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations identified in the groundwater samples tested.

Negligible



SKM Enviros


Potential Source

Potential Pollutant

Potential Receptors


Associated Hazard

[severity]


Risk / Significance

S5. Made Ground continued

Metals and organics continued

D. Surface water





Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations identified in the groundwater samples tested.

Negligible





Unlikely No contamination visible on ground surface and no elevated contaminant concentrations identified in samples tested.

Negligible



P5. Direct contact



Unlikely No elevated contaminant concentrations identified in the soil samples tested.

Negligible


F. Flora and Fauna (SSSI)




Unlikely

No elevated contaminant concentrations detected in soil or groundwater samples tested. .

Negligible


11.6. Updated Risk Assessment Summary

The updated risk assessment has taken into consideration the reasoning behind the preliminary risk assessment and the findings of the site investigation in order reassess the risks for the site based on continued or future commercial industrial use (as a fuel management facility). On this basis, the updated risk assessment did not identify any risks greater than Negligible.

It should be noted that the assessment is only based on a relatively small number of sampling locations and there is the possibility that localised areas of contamination remain unidentified at the site. However, there is a good level of confidence from the information gathered that there is not significant and widespread contamination across the site.


SKM Enviros


12. Overall Land Quality and Suitability for Use GPSS Redmile consists of three parcels of land which were commissioned as a fuel storage depot circa 1939. Storage and handling of hydrocarbons was the primary function of the site with large quantities passing through the site. Most of the site was mothballed in 1993 and the only operational use of the site now is as a pumping station for a below ground high pressure fuel pipeline.

Groundwater, surface water and ecological sensitivities for the site are assessed as Moderate and High respectively.

Initially a number of potentially significant risks from potential sources of contamination were identified based on the site use, history and sensitivity. Predominantly the contaminants of concern were hydrocarbons, but also included PCBs from electrical transformers, TEL from a burial pit and other organic and inorganic contaminants potentially present in Made Ground. A targeted intrusive investigation was undertaken in order to refine the preliminary risk assessment. The site investigation did not identify any contaminant concentrations in soils or groundwater that were greater than appropriate generic assessment criteria for commercial / industrial use. On this basis the updated risk assessment assessed all risks to be Negligible.

Overall the site is considered to be suitable for continued or future commercial / industrial use (as a fuel management facility). Although the presence of the TEL sludge burial pit on site should be noted as a constraint to redevelopment in that area.


SKM Enviros


13. References 1) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Environmental Protection Act 1990; Part

2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance. April 2012.

2) DEFRA/Environment Agency, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11, September 2004.

3) Ministry of Defence, Legislation to enable sale of the Government Pipeline and Storage System [information document], Reference DMC 00478 12/13. 04/11

4) Environmental Assessment Group Ltd (EAG), Environmental Assessment- Government storage Redmile Depot, February 1992 (report issued in April 1992).

5) British Geological Survey GeoIndex website (www.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex) accessed October 2012.

6) Environment Agency website (environment-agency.gov.uk) accessed October 2012.

7) Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, Environment Agency and Institute of Environmental Health. Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. HMSO July 2000.

8) Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), Contaminated Land Risk Assessment. A Guide to Good Practice. CIRIA C552, 2001.

9) Defence Estates (DIO), Contaminated Land Management: Land Quality Assessment (LQA) Management Guide, PG 01/07, March 2007

10) The Surface Water (Abstraction for Drinking Water) (Classification) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/3001).

11) Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, 1994, Intervention values and target values – soil quality standards.

12) Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1991, Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites, Ref CCME EPC-CS34.

13) Environment Agency, Review of Crude Oil Derived Petroleum Products in the Aquatic Environment, Draft R&D Technical Report P75/i688, 1999.

14) The Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations 1999, Statutory Instruments, 1991, Water, England and Wales.

15) Environment Agency, The UK Approach for Evaluating Human Health Risk from Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soils. Science Report P5-080/TR3, 2005.


SKM Enviros

I:\JLWM\Projects\JL30611\Deliverables\Reports\Individual Sites\Redmile PSD\Final Report\Redmile Phase 1 & 2 LQA FINAL.docx

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2A: Site Layout Potential Contaminant Sources & Exploratory Hole Locations (Sites 1 & 2)

Figure 2B: Site Layout Potential Contaminant Sources & Exploratory Hole Locations (Site 3)

Figure 3: Initial Conceptual Site Model

Figure 4: Groundwater Contour Plan

Source Reference

Description

1.1 Sites 1 & 3- redundant below ground pipework (plans showing the location of this pipework were not available).

Site 2- active below ground high pressure pipeline.

1.2 Site 1- redundant semi buried fuel storage tanks.

1.3 Site 1- redundant semi buried valve exchange enclosure and above ground pipe work.

1.4 Site 1- redundant semi buried pump house - two linked enclosures.

1.5 Site 1- four redundant large semi buried fuel storage tanks.

1.6 Site 2- current slop tank.

1.7 Site 2- current recently built slop tank.

1.8 Site 3- four redundant large semi buried fuel tanks.

1.9 Operational high pressure fuel pipeline entering and leaving the site (offsite).

2.1 Sites 1 & 3- redundant above ground pipework (plans showing the location of this pipework were not available). Site 2- active above ground high pressure pipeline and valve chambers.

2.2 Site 1- redundant generator fuel tank and generator house.

2.3 Site 1- redundant laboratory and pump house.

2.4 Site 1- redundant fuel sample store.

2.5 Site 1- redundant above ground storage fuel tank, filter and pipe work.

2.6 Site 1- redundant road loading gantry.

2.7 Site 1- redundant above ground fuel tank

2.8 Site 2- pump house building with motor and above ground pipe work.

2.9 Site 3- redundant above ground fuel storage / slop tank.

3.1 Site 1- redundant transformer house.

3.2 Site 2- transformer building and switch room.

3.3 Site 3- redundant transformer / pump house building.

4.1 Site 1- historical buried TEL sludge area.

5.1 Site 1- Made Ground associated with historical rail line.

Site 2- Made Ground levelling.

Sites 1 & 3- redundant below groundpipework.Site 2- active below ground highpressure pipeline.

Site 1- redundant semi buried fuelstorage tanks.

Site 1- redundant semi buried valveexchange enclosure and aboveground pipe work.

Site 1- redundant semi buried pumphouse - two linked enclosures.

Site 1- four redundant large semiburied fuel storage tanks.

Site 2- current slop tank.

Site 2- current recently built slop tank.

Site 3- four redundant large semiburied fuel tanks.

Operational high pressure fuel pipelineentering and leaving the site (offsite).

Direct contact , ingestion and inhalation

Leaching of contaminants via infiltration

Vertical and lateral migration in groundwater

Run off into nearby water bodies via site drainage& adjacent drainage ditch/direct run off

Direct contact with buildings/infrastructure

Vapour migration and accumulation

Human health, current and future users

Human health, below ground and maintenance workers

Groundwater

Surface water

Buildings and services

Ecological receptors

Geology

Potential Sources

Pathways Receptors

Head Deposits(Secondary Undiferentiated Aquifer)

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

A

B

C

D

E

F

Site 1Fen Farm Limestone, Granby MemberLimestone and Beckingham Member -Mudstone and Limestone

Site 2Dry Doddington - Mudstone andBeckingham Member - Mudstoneand Limestone

Site 3Dry Doddington - Mudstone andBeckingham Member - Mudstoneand Limestone

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Sites 1 & 3- redundant above groundpipework.

Site 2- active above ground highpressure pipeline and valve chambers.

Site 1- redundant generator fuel tankand generator house.

Site 1- redundant laboratory and pumphouse.

Site 1- redundant fuel sample store.

Site 1- redundant above groundstorage fuel tank, filter and pipe work.

Site 1- redundant road loading gantry.

Site 1- redundant above ground fueltank.

Site 2- pump house building withmotor and above ground pipe work.

Site 3- redundant above ground fuelstorage / slop tank.

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

Site 1- redundant transformer house.

Site 2- transformer building and switchroom.

Site 3- redundant transformer / pumphouse building.

Site 1- historical buried TEL sludgearea.

Site 1- Made Ground associated withhistorical rail line.

Site 2- Made Ground levelling.

3.1

3.2

3.3

4.1

5.1

Site 3 Site 1

Site B

oundary

Groundwater

C

Site B

oundary

Site B

oundary

Site B

oundary

Site B

oundary

Site B

oundary

Off site Site 2 Off Site Off SiteOff site

P3 P3 P3

P2

P2P2 P2 P2

P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2P2

A B A B A BP2P1

P4P4

P4P5

P6 P5 P6

SSSIGrantham

Canal

SSSIGrantham

Canal

P4

P13.3

1.9 5.11.1

5.1

3.12.3

2.2

4.1

2.1

1.1

2.4

2.5

1.3

2.6

2.7

1.41.21.5

1.61.7

2.1

2.83.21.8

2.9

2.1

P21.1

Made Ground

JL30611

FIGURE 3CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

N.T.S

AH HLD

AW FEB 2013

KEY:

Cop

yrig

ht E

nviro

s Lt

d. J

ul 0

2, 2

013

- 4:2

1pm

File

nam

e:H

LD37

48.d

wg

Plo

t dat

e:R

ef: I

:\Env

iros\

Des

ign\

PRO

JEC

TS\J

LWM

\JL3

0611

\Fig

ures

\Red

mile

PSD

\

NOTES:

REV. DESCRIPTION D A T E

CHECKED

CONTENT

SCALE

DATE

DRAWN

PROJECT No.

GPSS PORTFOLIO - REDMILE PSD

Potential Migration Pathway

Groundwater Level


SKM Enviros


APPENDICES


SKM Enviros


Appendix A Site Photographs

SCALE PROJECT CODE

N.T.S. JL30611

CONTENT DRAWN

AHA AF

CHECKED DATE

AHA FEBRUARY 2012

GPSS Portfolio – Redmile

APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO 1: Site office (Site 1) PHOTO 2: Redundant road loading gantry (Site 1)

PHOTO 3: Transformer and generator house (Site 1)

PHOTO 4: Redundant generator fuel tank (Site 1) PHOTO 5: Redundant air raid shelter (Site 1)

SCALE PROJECT CODE

N.T.S. JL30611

CONTENT DRAWN

AHA AF

CHECKED DATE

AHA FEBRUARY 2012



PHOTO 6: Redundant above ground fuel storage tank, filter and pipework (Site 1)

PHOTO 7: Redundant large semi buried fuel storage tank (Site 1)

PHOTO 8: Redundant inset manifold area PHOTO 9: TEL buried sludge area (Site 1)

PHOTO 10: Redundant interceptor (Site 1) PHOTO 11: Above ground pipeline (Site 2)

SCALE PROJECT CODE

N.T.S. JL30611

CONTENT DRAWN

AHA AF

CHECKED DATE

AHA FEBRUARY 2012



PHOTO 12: Inset slop tank (Site 2) PHOTO 13: New bunded slop tank (Site 2)


SKM Enviros


Appendix B Regulatory Data Search

Order Number: 40893748_1_1 Date: 17-Aug-2012 rpr_ec_datasheet v47.0 A Landmark Information Group Service

Datasheet

Order Details:Order Number:

Customer Reference:

National Grid Reference:

Slice:

Site Area (Ha):

Search Buffer (m):

Site Details:

Client Details:

40893748_1_1

JL30611: Redmile PSD

478430, 335790

A

2.86

1000

Site at 478200, 335600

MR A WhiteSKM EnvirosEnviros House, Sitka DriveShrewsbury Business ParkShrewsburySY2 6LG

Report:®Envirocheck


Summary

Agency & Hydrological

Waste

Hazardous Substances

Geological

Industrial Land Use

Sensitive Land Use

Data Currency

Data Suppliers

Useful Contacts

Introduction

Copyright Notice

Natural England Copyright Notice

Ove Arup Copyright Notice

Peter Brett Associates Copyright Notice

Radon Potential dataset Copyright Notice

The Environment Act 1995 has made site sensitivity a key issue, as the legislation pays as much attention to the pathways by which contamination could spread, and to the vulnerable targets of contamination, as it does the potential sources of contamination. For this reason, Landmark's Site Sensitivity maps and Datasheet(s) place great emphasis on statutory data provided by the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; it also incorporates data from Natural England (and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents) and Local Authorities; and highlights hydrogeological features required by environmental and geotechnical consultants. It does not include any information concerning past uses of land. The datasheet is produced by querying the Landmark database to a distance defined by the client from a site boundary provided by the client.

In the attached datasheet the National Grid References (NGRs) are rounded to the nearest 10m in accordance with Landmark's agreements with a number of Data Suppliers.

© Landmark Information Group Limited 2012. The Copyright on the information and data and its format as contained in this Envirocheck® Report ("Report") is the property of Landmark Information Group Limited ("Landmark") and several other Data Providers, including (but not limited to) Ordnance Survey, British Geological Survey, the Environment Agency and Natural England, and must not be reproduced in whole or in part by photocopying or any other method. The Report is supplied under Landmark's Terms and Conditions accepted by the Customer. A copy of Landmark's Terms and Conditions can be found with the Index Map for this report. Additional copies of the Report may be obtained from Landmark, subject to Landmark's charges in force from time to time. The Copyright, design rights and any other intellectual rights shall remain the exclusive property of Landmark and /or other Data providers, whose Copyright material has been included in this Report.

Site of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserve, Ramsar, Special Protection Area, Special Conservation Area, Marine Nature Reserve data (derived from Ordnance Survey 1:10000 raster) is provided by, and used with the permission of, Natural England who retain the copyright and Intellectual Property Rights for the data.

The Data provided in this report was obtained on Licence from Ove Arup & Partners Limited (for further information, contact [email protected]). No reproduction or further use of such Data is to be made without the prior written consent of Ove Arup & Partners Limited. The information and data supplied in the product are derived from publicly available records and other third party sources and neither Ove Arup & Partners nor Landmark warrant the accuracy or completeness of such information or data.

The cavity data presented has been extracted from the PBA enhanced version of the original DEFRA national cavity databases. PBA/DEFRA retain the copyright & intellectual property rights in the data. Whilst all reasonable efforts are made to check that the information contained in the cavity databases is accurate we do not warrant that the data is complete or error free. The information is based upon our own researches and those collated from a number of external sources and is continually being augmented and updated by PBA. In no event shall PBA/DEFRA or Landmark be liable for any loss or damage including, without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from the use of this data.

Information supplied from a joint dataset compiled by The British Geological Survey and the Health Protection Agency.

Report Section Page Number

Contents

Report Version v47.0

-

1

6

7

8

30

31

32

38

39


Summary

Data Type PageNumber On Site 0 to 250m 251 to 500m


Waste

501 to 1000m

Contaminated Land Register Entries and Notices

Discharge Consents

Enforcement and Prohibition Notices

Integrated Pollution Controls

Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control

Local Authority Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control

Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Controls

Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control Enforcements

Nearest Surface Water Feature

Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters

Prosecutions Relating to Authorised Processes

Prosecutions Relating to Controlled Waters

Registered Radioactive Substances

River Quality

River Quality Biology Sampling Points

River Quality Chemistry Sampling Points

Substantiated Pollution Incident Register

Water Abstractions

Water Industry Act Referrals

Groundwater Vulnerability

Bedrock Aquifer Designations

Superficial Aquifer Designations

Source Protection Zones

Extreme Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences

Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences

Areas Benefiting from Flood Defences

Flood Water Storage Areas

Flood Defences

BGS Recorded Landfill Sites

Historical Landfill Sites

Integrated Pollution Control Registered Waste Sites

Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Landfill Boundaries)

Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Locations)

Local Authority Recorded Landfill Sites

Registered Landfill Sites

Registered Waste Transfer Sites

Registered Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites

Yes

1

Yes

Yes

1

n/a

n/a

n/a

1

1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

10

1

1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

(*up to 2000m)

pg 1

pg 3

pg 3

pg 4

pg 4

pg 4

pg 4


Summary



Geological

Industrial Land Use

501 to 1000m

Control of Major Accident Hazards Sites (COMAH)

Explosive Sites

Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances (NIHHS)

Planning Hazardous Substance Consents

Planning Hazardous Substance Enforcements

BGS 1:625,000 Solid Geology

BGS Estimated Soil Chemistry

BGS Recorded Mineral Sites

BGS Urban Soil Chemistry

BGS Urban Soil Chemistry Averages

Brine Compensation Area

Coal Mining Affected Areas

Mining Instability

Man-Made Mining Cavities

Natural Cavities

Non Coal Mining Areas of Great Britain

Potential for Collapsible Ground Stability Hazards

Potential for Compressible Ground Stability Hazards

Potential for Ground Dissolution Stability Hazards

Potential for Landslide Ground Stability Hazards

Potential for Running Sand Ground Stability Hazards

Potential for Shrinking or Swelling Clay Ground Stability Hazards

Radon Potential - Radon Affected Areas

Radon Potential - Radon Protection Measures

Contemporary Trade Directory Entries

Fuel Station Entries

1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

1

n/a

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1

(*up to 2000m)

pg 7

pg 7

pg 8

pg 8

pg 28

pg 28

pg 28

pg 29

pg 30


Summary


Sensitive Land Use

501 to 1000m

Areas of Adopted Green Belt

Areas of Unadopted Green Belt

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Forest Parks

Local Nature Reserves

Marine Nature Reserves

National Nature Reserves

National Parks

Nitrate Sensitive Areas

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

Ramsar Sites

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Special Areas of Conservation

Special Protection Areas

1

1

(*up to 2000m)

pg 31

pg 31

Order Number: 40893748_1_1 Date: 17-Aug-2012 rpr_ec_datasheet v47.0 A Landmark Information Group Service Page 1 of 39


MapID Details

QuadrantReference (Compass Direction)

EstimatedDistanceFrom Site

Contact NGR

1

2

3

4

Discharge Consents

Discharge Consents

Discharge Consents

Discharge Consents

A12SW(E)

A14SE(N)

A12SE(E)

A8SW(SE)

463

704

779

960

1

1

1

1

Operator:Property Type:Location:Authority:Catchment Area:Reference:Permit Version:Effective Date:Issued Date:Revocation Date:Discharge Type:Discharge Environment:Receiving Water:Status:Positional Accuracy:




P M & N NeedSewage Disposal Works - OtherPeacock Farm Guest House, Redmile, Nottingham, NottinghamshireEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/22588/S117th December 199317th December 1993Not SuppliedSewage Discharges - Final/Treated Effluent - Not Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River

River Whipling (The Grimmer)Post National Rivers Authority Legislation where issue date > 31/08/1989Located by supplier to within 100m

E N Baggaley & SonMixed FarmingGlebe Farm - Pstp, Redmile, Nottingham, NottsEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/02358/S112th November 196812th November 1968Not SuppliedSewage Discharges - Final/Treated Effluent - Not Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River

Trib Of Grimmer DykePre National Rivers Authority Legislation where issue date < 01/09/1989Located by supplier to within 100m

P M & N NeedSewage Disposal Works - OtherPeacock Farm Guest House, Redmile, Nottingham, NottinghamshireEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/21236/S11st November 199229th February 199216th December 1993Sewage Discharges - Final/Treated Effluent - Not Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River

River Whipling (The Grimmer)Revoked: New Consent issued (Water Act 1989, Section 113)Located by supplier to within 10m

Severn Trent Water LimitedSewage Disposal Works - Water CompanyRedmile Stw Church Lane, Redmile, Nottingham, NottinghamshireEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/12024/R12nd May 19862nd May 19867th November 2006Sewage Discharges - Stw Storm Overflow/Storm Tank - Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River

River Whipling (The Grimmer)Pre National Rivers Authority Legislation where issue date < 01/09/1989Located by supplier to within 10m

479150335970

478200336600

479460335850

479380335290



MapID Details



Contact NGR

4

4

4

4

Discharge Consents

Discharge Consents

Discharge Consents

Discharge Consents

A8SW(SE)

A8SW(SE)

A8SW(SE)

A8SW(SE)

960

967

967

967

1

1

1

1





Severn Trent Water LimitedSewage Disposal Works - Water CompanyRedmile Stw Church Lane, Redmile, Nottingham, NottinghamshireEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/12024/R12nd May 19862nd May 19867th November 2006Sewage Discharges - Final/Treated Effluent - Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River


Severn Trent Water LimitedSewage Disposal Works - Water CompanyRedmile Stw Church Lane, Redmile, Nottingham, NottinghamshireEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/46191/R316th August 201116th August 2011Not SuppliedSewage Discharges - Final/Treated Effluent - Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River

River Whipling (The Grimmer)Varied under EPR 2010Located by supplier to within 10m

Severn Trent Water LimitedSewage Disposal Works - Water CompanyRedmile Stw Church Lane, Redmile, Nottingham, NottinghamshireEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/46191/R21st January 201024th September 200915th August 2011Sewage Discharges - Final/Treated Effluent - Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River


Severn Trent Water LimitedSewage Disposal Works - Water CompanyRedmile Stw Church Lane, Redmile, Nottingham, NottinghamshireEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/46191/R18th November 20062nd May 198631st December 2009Sewage Discharges - Final/Treated Effluent - Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River


479380335290

479390335290

479390335290

479390335290



MapID Details



Contact NGR

4

4

4

5

Discharge Consents

Discharge Consents

Discharge Consents



A8SW(SE)

A8SW(SE)

A8SW(SE)

A11SW(NE)

A11NW(NE)

974

974

974

0

187

1

1

1

-

1




Property Type:Location:Authority:Pollutant:Note:

Incident Date:Incident Reference:Catchment Area:Receiving Water:Cause of Incident:Incident Severity:Positional Accuracy:

Severn Trent Water LimitedSewage Disposal Works - Water CompanyRedmile Stw Church Lane, Redmile, Nottingham, NottinghamshireEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/46191/R316th August 201116th August 2011Not SuppliedSewage Discharges - Stw Storm Overflow/Storm Tank - Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River

River Whipling (The Grimmer)Varied under EPR 2010Located by supplier to within 10m

Severn Trent Water LimitedSewage Disposal Works - Water CompanyRedmile Stw Church Lane, Redmile, Nottingham, NottinghamshireEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/46191/R21st January 201024th September 200915th August 2011Sewage Discharges - Stw Storm Overflow/Storm Tank - Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River


Severn Trent Water LimitedSewage Disposal Works - Water CompanyRedmile Stw Church Lane, Redmile, Nottingham, NottinghamshireEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionRiver Smite CatchmentT/66/46191/R18th November 20062nd May 198631st December 2009Sewage Discharges - Stw Storm Overflow/Storm Tank - Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River


Private Sewage (Non-PLC): Septic TankDisused Railway Bridge, Bottlesford To MeltonEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionCrude SewagePublic Water Affected; Raw Sewage Leaking From Septic Tank To Rail Way Line14th July 19982804767Trent Catchment : River SmiteNot GivenBlocked SewerCategory 3 - Minor IncidentLocated by supplier to within 100m

479360335250

479360335250

479360335250

478511335904

478700336200



MapID Details



Contact NGR

6

7


River Quality

River Quality

Water Abstractions


Drift Deposits








A8NE(E)

A7NW(S)

A11NE(NE)

A2SW(SW)

A10SE(W)

A10SE(W)

A10SE(N)

A10SE(N)

998

0

385

918

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

Property Type:Location:Authority:Pollutant:Note:Incident Date:Incident Reference:Catchment Area:Receiving Water:Cause of Incident:Incident Severity:Positional Accuracy:

Name:GQA Grade:Reach:Estimated Distance (km):Flow Rate:Flow Type:Year:

Name:GQA Grade:Reach:Estimated Distance (km):Flow Rate:Flow Type:Year:

Operator:Licence Number:Permit Version:Location:Authority:Abstraction:Abstraction Type:Source:Daily Rate (m3):Yearly Rate (m3):Details:Authorised Start:Authorised End:Permit Start Date:Permit End Date:Positional Accuracy:

Soil Classification:Map Sheet:Scale:

Aquifer Desination:

Aquifer Desination:

Aquifer Desination:

Water Company Sewage: Foul SewerPeacock Inn, REDMILEEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionCrude SewageDitch; Sewage; Public Health Risk20th December 19952800050Trent Catchment : River SmiteWatercourseBlocked SewerCategory 3 - Minor IncidentLocated by supplier to within 100m

Grantham CanalRiver Quality BBridge At Woolsthorpe To Hickling23.6

Flow greater than 80 cumecsCanal2000

GrimmerRiver Quality DRedmile Stw To Conf. With Rundle Beck6

Flow less than 0.31 cumecsRiver2000

A J & Mrs J H Fitzherbert03/28/66/0007100Barkestone - WellEnvironment Agency, Midlands RegionGeneral Farming And DomesticWater may be abstracted from a single pointGroundwaterNot SuppliedNot SuppliedBarkestone - Well01 April31 March1st April 2000Not SuppliedLocated by supplier to within 10m

Not classifiedSheet 23 Leicestershire1:100,000

Secondary Aquifer - B

Secondary Aquifer - B

Secondary Aquifer - A

None

No Data Available

None

None

None

479600335550

478445335729

479029336131

477900334700

478429335792

478429335792

478397335981

478383335952



MapID Details



Contact NGR


Flood Defences

None

None


Waste

MapID Details



Contact NGR

Local Authority Landfill Coverage


0

0

8

9

Name:

Name:

Leicestershire County Council - Has supplied landfill data

Melton Borough Council - Landfill data has been supplied by another authority

478429335792

478429335792



MapID Details



Contact NGR

8

9

Control of Major Accident Hazards Sites (COMAH)


A11SW(NE)

A11SW(NE)

0

15

3

4

Name:Location:Reference:Type:Status:Positional Accuracy:

Name:Location:Authority:Application Ref:Hazardous Substance:Maximum Quantity:Application date:Decision:Positional Accuracy:

Oil And Pipelines AgencyRedmile Psd, Main Road, Nottinghamshire, NG13 0GQNot SuppliedLower TierActiveManually positioned to the address or location

The Oil And Pipelines AgencyRedmile Psd, Barkstone Lane, Redmile, Ng13 0gqMelton Borough Council06/01200/HAZUnknown at time of report

07th December 2006Deemed Consent GrantedGrantedLocated by supplier to within 100m

478572335984

478500335900


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR








A10SE(W)

A7NW(SE)

A11SW(NE)

A11SW(N)

A10SE(N)

A10SE(N)

A10SE(W)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

5

5

5

5

5

5

Description:

Source:Soil Sample Type:Arsenic Concentration:Cadmium Concentration:Chromium Concentration:Lead Concentration:Nickel Concentration:






Lower Lias

British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information ServiceRural Soil15 - 25 mg/kg

<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information ServiceRural Soil<15 mg/kg

<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478429335792

478431335786

478634336000

478512336000

478429336000

478383335951

478429335792


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A10SE(N)

A6NE(SW)

A10SE(NW)

A6NW(W)

A10SW(W)

A10SE(NW)

31

63

159

170

218

249

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478397335980

478206335502

478303336048

478000335759

478000335792

478205336064


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A10SW(W)

A6SW(SW)

A6SW(SW)

A10SE(NW)

A11SE(E)

A10SW(W)

251

260

284

295

312

313

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478000335814

478000335425

478000335392

478194336000

479000335792

478000335908


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A11SE(E)

A10SE(NW)

A7SW(S)

A10SW(W)

A11SE(NE)

A11NE(NE)

316

340

342

345

352

381

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

479000336000

478094336000

478592335376

478000335949

479000336117

479000336172


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A10SW(NW)

A7NE(E)

A11NE(NE)

A11NE(NE)

A11NE(NE)

A11NE(NE)

386

401

424

425

441

450

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478000336000

479000335703

479039336192

479057336164

479000336267

478984336298


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A10NE(NW)

A2NE(S)

A11NE(NE)

A11NE(NE)

A3NW(S)

A12NW(NE)

452

454

475

484

487

490

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478163336286

478401335095

478933336387

479081336237

478430335094

479108336206


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A7SW(S)

A12NW(NE)

A11NE(NE)

A10NW(NW)

A7NE(SE)

A10NW(NW)

492

497

501

507

512

514

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478567335126

479133336174

479000336355

478000336235

478963335497

478000336181


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A2NW(SW)

A10SW(W)

A7NE(SE)

A2NE(S)

A10NW(NW)

A15SE(NE)

515

517

520

550

552

553

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478000335098

477808336000

479000335530

478429335000

477992336227

478798336555


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A15SE(NE)

A7NE(SE)

A12NW(NE)

A9SE(W)

A15SE(NE)

A11NE(NE)

555

557

557

563

577

577

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478831336545

479015335489

479199336177

477750336000

478990336473

479045336420


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A2NW(SW)

A12NW(NE)

A12SW(E)

A15SE(NE)

A2NW(SW)

A2NW(SW)

585

591

593

596

603

608

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478049335000

479205336239

479279336000

479000336489

478000335000

478000334994


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A2NW(SW)

A15SW(N)

A7SE(SE)

A15SW(N)

A12NW(NE)

A15SW(N)

627

636

639

640

650

669

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

477945335000

478756336654

479000335358

478646336672

479221336326

478580336701


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A3NW(S)

A15SW(N)

A3NW(S)

A1NE(SW)

A1NE(SW)

A7SE(SE)

677

680

682

713

746

747

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478649335000

478716336706

478716335026

477683335101

477635335102

479000335216


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A3NE(SE)

A1NE(SW)

A1NE(SW)

A2NW(SW)

A3NE(SE)

A8SW(SE)

750

754

755

761

774

777

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478802335000

477708335021

477729335000

478000334830

478802335000

479252335420


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A1NE(SW)

A3NE(SE)

A10NW(NW)

A15NW(N)

A14SW(NW)

A7SE(SE)

784

786

788

791

800

814

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

477687335000

478922335090

477821336410

478629336824

478000336586

479000335125


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A1NE(SW)

A1NE(SW)

A15NW(N)

A2SW(S)

A1NE(SW)

A3NE(SE)

822

822

822

828

835

840

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

477617335014

477612335019

478436336861

478000334759

477612335000

479000335089


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A1NE(SW)

A9SW(W)

A3SW(S)

A1NE(SW)

A3NE(SE)

A2SE(S)

846

847

866

869

872

883

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

477596335000

477412336000

478589334742

477563335000

479000335045

478428334686


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A15NW(N)

A15NW(N)

A15NW(N)

A3NE(SE)

A2SE(S)

A3SW(S)

884

897

897

906

907

913

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478564336916

478670336929

478695336927

479000335000

478372334652

478566334691


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A15NW(N)

A1NE(SW)

A3SW(S)

A14SW(NW)

A14SW(NW)

A15NE(NE)

917

921

925

943

962

963

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478545336947

477490335000

478586334685

478008336784

477932336746

479000336916


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A15NW(N)

A15NW(N)

A15NW(N)

A1NW(SW)

A15NW(N)

A15NW(N)

967

967

968

972

972

972

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478516337000

478602337000

478514336996

477347335105

478602337005

478512337000


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A14NE(N)

A15NW(N)

A3NE(SE)

A15NE(N)

A14NE(N)

A14NE(N)

973

973

981

981

986

987

5

5

5

5

5

5








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

478429337000

478723337000

479047334941

478782337000

478425337000

478425337001


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR




BGS Measured Urban Soil Chemistry

BGS Urban Soil Chemistry Averages


Mining Instability









A14NE(N)

A8SW(SE)

A4NW(SE)

A10SE(W)

A10SE(W)

A10SE(W)

A11SW(NE)

A10SE(W)

A11SW(NE)

A10SE(N)

987

987

991

0

0

0

0

0

14

45

5

5

5

-

2

2

2

2

2

2




Mining Evidence:Source:Boundary Quality:

Hazard Potential:Source:







<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

Inconclusive Coal MiningOve Arup & PartnersAs Supplied

Very LowBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service

No HazardBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service

LowBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service




No data available

No data available

In an area that might not be affected by coal mining

No Hazard

No Hazard

478423337001

479360335232

479226335087

478429335792

478429335792

478429335792

478535335868

478429335792

478630335903

478417335829


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A10SE(W)

A10SE(W)

A10SE(N)

A10SE(NW)

A10SE(W)

A10SE(W)

0

0

0

160

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

2





Protection Measure:

Source:

Affected Area:

Source:





No radon protective measures are necessary in the construction of new dwellings or extensionsBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service

The property is in a lower probability radon area, as less than 1% of homes are above the action levelBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service

478429335792

478429335792

478383335952

478303336049

478429335792

478429335792


Industrial Land Use

MapID Details



Contact NGR

10Contemporary Trade Directory Entries

A2NW(SW)

595 -Name:Location:Classification:Status:Positional Accuracy:

Merry Maids Of Grantham & Newark34 The Green, Barkestone, Nottingham, NG13 0HHCleaning Services - DomesticInactiveManually positioned to the address or location

478042334992


Sensitive Land Use

MapID Details



Contact NGR

11

12



A10SE(W)

A10SE(N)

0

0

6

7

Name:Description:Source:

Name:Multiple Areas:Total Area (m2):Source:Reference:Designation Details:Designation Date:Date Type:

Not SuppliedNVZ AreaDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA - formerly FRCA)

Grantham CanalN94526.45Natural England1000045Not Supplied1st July 1983Notified

478429335792

478405335877


Data Currency

Agency & Hydrological Version Update CycleContaminated Land Register Entries and Notices

Discharge Consents

Enforcement and Prohibition Notices

Integrated Pollution Controls

Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control

Local Authority Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control

Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Controls

Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control Enforcements



Prosecutions Relating to Authorised Processes

Prosecutions Relating to Controlled Waters

Registered Radioactive Substances

River Quality

River Quality Biology Sampling Points

River Quality Chemistry Sampling Points

August 2012August 2012March 2012

November 2011

April 2012April 2012

June 2012June 2012

October 2008October 2008


February 2012March 2011March 2012March 2012



December 2011

December 1999September 1999

June 2012June 2012

June 2012June 2012


November 2001

January 2011

January 2011

Annual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling Update

QuarterlyQuarterly

QuarterlyQuarterly

Not ApplicableNot Applicable

QuarterlyQuarterly




Quarterly


MonthlyMonthly

MonthlyMonthly

QuarterlyQuarterly

Not Applicable

Annually

Annually

Melton Borough Council - Community ServicesRushcliffe Borough Council - Environmental Health DepartmentNewark And Sherwood District Council - Environmental ServicesSouth Kesteven District Council - Environmental Health

Environment Agency - Anglian RegionEnvironment Agency - Midlands Region




Rushcliffe Borough Council - Environmental Health DepartmentSouth Kesteven District Council - Environmental HealthMelton Borough Council - Environmental Health DepartmentNewark And Sherwood District Council - Environmental Services



Ordnance Survey

Environment Agency - Midlands RegionEnvironment Agency - Anglian Region




Environment Agency - Head Office




Data Currency

Agency & Hydrological Version Update CycleSubstantiated Pollution Incident Register

Water Abstractions

Water Industry Act Referrals


Drift Deposits



Source Protection Zones





Flood Defences

April 2012April 2012April 2012

July 2012July 2012


January 2011

January 1999

September 2011

September 2011

July 2012

July 2012

July 2012

July 2012

July 2012

July 2012

QuarterlyQuarterlyQuarterly

QuarterlyQuarterly

QuarterlyQuarterly

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Annually

Annually

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Environment Agency - Anglian Region - Northern AreaEnvironment Agency - Midlands Region - East AreaEnvironment Agency - Midlands Region - Lower Trent Area





British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service









Data Currency

Waste Version Update CycleBGS Recorded Landfill Sites

Historical Landfill Sites

Integrated Pollution Control Registered Waste Sites

Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Landfill Boundaries)

Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Locations)


Local Authority Recorded Landfill Sites

Registered Landfill Sites

Registered Waste Transfer Sites

Registered Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites

June 1996

July 2012July 2012July 2012

October 2008October 2008

July 2012July 2012July 2012

April 2012April 2012April 2012

May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000

May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000

March 2003March 2003



Not Applicable





Not ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot Applicable

Not ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot Applicable









Leicestershire County CouncilLincolnshire County CouncilMelton Borough Council - Environmental Health DepartmentNewark And Sherwood District Council - Environmental ServicesNottinghamshire County Council - Environment DepartmentRushcliffe Borough Council - Environmental Health DepartmentSouth Kesteven District Council - Environmental Health

Leicestershire County CouncilLincolnshire County CouncilMelton Borough Council - Environmental Health DepartmentNewark And Sherwood District Council - Environmental ServicesNottinghamshire County Council - Environment DepartmentRushcliffe Borough Council - Environmental Health DepartmentSouth Kesteven District Council - Environmental Health

Environment Agency - Anglian Region - Northern AreaEnvironment Agency - Midlands Region - Lower Trent Area




Data Currency

Hazardous Substances Version Update CycleControl of Major Accident Hazards Sites (COMAH)

Explosive Sites

Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances (NIHHS)

Planning Hazardous Substance Enforcements


May 2012

June 2012

November 2000

April 2012August 2007August 2012

December 2011February 2012

June 2010March 2012

April 2012August 2007August 2007August 2012

December 2011February 2012

March 2012

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Not Applicable

Annual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling Update

Annual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling Update

Health and Safety Executive



Melton Borough CouncilNottinghamshire County CouncilLeicestershire County CouncilNewark And Sherwood District Council - Planning DepartmentRushcliffe Borough Council - Development ServiceLincolnshire County Council - Highways and Planning DepartmentSouth Kesteven District Council

Melton Borough CouncilLincolnshire County Council - Highways and Planning DepartmentNottinghamshire County CouncilLeicestershire County CouncilNewark And Sherwood District Council - Planning DepartmentRushcliffe Borough Council - Development ServiceSouth Kesteven District Council


Data Currency

Geological

Industrial Land Use

Version

Version

Update Cycle

Update Cycle



BGS Recorded Mineral Sites

Brine Compensation Area


Mining Instability










Contemporary Trade Directory Entries

Fuel Station Entries

August 1996

January 2010

April 2012

August 2011

January 2012

October 2000

February 2011

February 2011

February 2011

February 2011

February 2011

February 2011

February 2011

July 2011

July 2011

May 2012

May 2012

Not Applicable

Variable

Bi-Annually

Not Applicable

As notified

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

As notified

As notified

Quarterly

Quarterly




Cheshire Brine Subsidence Compensation Board

The Coal Authority - Mining Report Service

Ove Arup & Partners










Thomson Directories

Catalist Ltd - Experian


Data Currency

Sensitive Land Use Version Update CycleAreas of Adopted Green Belt

Areas of Unadopted Green Belt

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Forest Parks

Local Nature Reserves

Marine Nature Reserves

National Nature Reserves

National Parks

Nitrate Sensitive Areas


Ramsar Sites


Special Areas of Conservation

Special Protection Areas

August 2012August 2012

August 2012August 2012

July 2012

February 2012

April 1997

February 2012

August 2012

February 2012

February 2012

February 2012

February 2012

February 2012

February 2012

February 2012

August 2012

As notifiedAs notified

As notifiedAs notified

Bi-Annually

Annually

Not Applicable

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Not Applicable

Annually

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Newark And Sherwood District CouncilRushcliffe Borough Council - Development Service

Newark And Sherwood District CouncilRushcliffe Borough Council - Development Service

Natural England

Natural England

Forestry Commission

Natural England

Natural England

Natural England

Natural England

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA - formerly FRCA)


Natural England

Natural England

Natural England

Natural England


Data Suppliers

Ordnance Survey

Environment Agency

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

The Coal Authority

British Geological Survey

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

Countryside Council for Wales

Scottish Natural Heritage

Natural England

Health Protection Agency

Ove Arup

Peter Brett Associates

Data Supplier Data Supplier Logo

A selection of organisations who provide data within this report


Useful Contacts

Contact Name and Address Contact Details

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

-

-

Environment Agency - National Customer Contact Centre (NCCC)

British Geological Survey - Enquiry Service


Melton Borough Council

Landmark Information Group Limited


Natural England

Leicestershire County Council

Melton Borough Council - Environmental Health Department

Health Protection Agency - Radon Survey, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards

Landmark Information Group Limited

PO Box 544, Templeborough, Rotherham, S60 1BY

British Geological Survey, Kingsley Dunham Centre, Keyworth, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG12 5GG

Explosives Inspectorate, 1.2 Redgrave Court, Merton Road, Bootle, L20 7HS

Council Offices, Nottingham Road, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE130UL

5 - 7 Abbey Court, Eagle Way, Sowton, Exeter, Devon, EX2 7HY

Government Buildings, Otley Road, Lawnswood, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS16 5QT

Northminster House, Northminster Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE1 1UA

County Hall, Glenfield, Leicestershire, LE3 8RH

Council Offices, Nottingham Road, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE130UL

Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ

The Smith Centre, Henley On Thames, Oxfordshire, RG9 6AB

Telephone: 08708 506 506Email: [email protected]

Telephone: 0115 936 3143Fax: 0115 936 3276Email: [email protected]: www.bgs.ac.uk

Telephone: 0151 951 3092Fax: 0151 951 3891Email: [email protected]: www.hse.gov.uk

Telephone: 01664 502502Fax: 01664 410283Website: www.melton.gov.uk

Telephone: 01392 441761Fax: 01392 441709Email: [email protected]: www.landmarkinfo.co.uk

Telephone: 0113 2613333Fax: 0113 230 0879

Telephone: 0845 600 3078Fax: 01733 455103Email: [email protected]: www.naturalengland.org.uk

Website: www.leics.gov.uk

Telephone: 01664 502502Fax: 01664 410283Website: www.melton.gov.uk

Telephone: 01235 822622Fax: 01235 833891Email: [email protected]: www.hpa.org.uk

Telephone: 0844 844 9952Fax: 0844 844 9951Email: [email protected]: www.landmarkinfo.co.uk

Please note that the Environment Agency / SEPA have a charging policy in place for enquiries.

Order Details

Site DetailsSite at 478200, 335600

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

40893748_1_1JL30611: Redmile PSD478430, 335790A2.86

Tel:Fax:Web:

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

Page 1 of 4A Landmark Information Group Service v47.0 17-Aug-2012

Site Sensitivity Map - Segment A6

Order Details



40893748_1_1JL30611: Redmile PSD478430, 335790A2.86

Tel:Fax:Web:




Order Details



40893748_1_1JL30611: Redmile PSD478430, 335790A2.86

Tel:Fax:Web:




Order Details



40893748_1_1JL30611: Redmile PSD478430, 335790A2.86

Tel:Fax:Web:




Order Details


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

40893748_1_1JL30611: Redmile PSD478430, 335790A2.861000

Tel:Fax:Web:



Site Sensitivity Map - Slice A

Order Details


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

40893748_1_1JL30611: Redmile PSD478430, 335790A2.861000

Tel:Fax:Web:



Flood Map - Slice A

Documents

Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) Portfolio – … · 2019-07-09 · Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) facility at Redmile Petroleum Storage Depot (PSD),