ansford, castle cary geo-environmental assessment

East Wing, Station House

Broadclyst Station Exeter, EX5 3AS

Tel: 01392 460800

E-mail: [email protected] www.redrockgeo.co.uk

Red Rock Geoscience Ltd

Registered in England No. 07503027 Registered Office: 1 Colleton Crescent, Exeter, EX24DG

PROJECT NAME

ANSFORD, CASTLE CARY

REPORT

GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT (GIR)

CLIENT

ANDREW HOPKINS

REFERENCE NO

RP7003-GIR

15 March 2019

REVISION RECORD

Revision Reference Date Author(s) Checked

00 RP7003-GIR 15 03 2019 RT APC

ANSFORD, CASTLE CARY GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT (GIR)

RP7003 – Ansford, Castle Cary_GIR-RevD00 PAGE I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Commission & Objectives

Red Rock Geoscience Ltd (‘Red Rock’) was commissioned by JRC Consulting, acting on behalf of Andrew Hopkins, to undertake an intrusive ground investigation for the proposed residential housing development site at Ansford, Castle Cary. The geo-environmental objectives of this assessment were to identify the site’s historical land use, potential resulting contamination and associated risks, prior to more detailed intrusive investigations and determination of possible remediation requirements in order to enable the safe development of the site. The geotechnical objectives of this investigation were to determine the distribution, nature and engineering properties of the soils underlying the site to assist with the design of foundations to the proposed residential properties, road pavements and soakaway drainage. It should be noted that this investigation is focused towards the proposed developments at the site and may need to be re-assessed should the development proposals be revised.

Geotechnical Findings & Recommendations

Ground Conditions Encountered

Near surface ground conditions generally comprise Topsoil, localised Made Ground, cohesive Head Deposits, cohesive Residual Soil and Langport Member, Blue Lias Formation and Charmouth Mudstone Formation (Undifferentiated).

Foundation Design

In general, the cohesive soils encountered below the Made Ground and soft Topsoil will be suitable for the construction of traditional strip or shallow trench fill foundations for the proposed development. To have a consistent design, such foundations should be designed on the basis of a net safe bearing capacity of 100kN/m2 to cater for the variability in the shear strength of the underlying soils.

Floor Design

As a result of the near-surface cohesive soils with a medium to high volume change potential, it is recommended that a fully suspended floor construction be used. The minimum sub-floor void dimension should be 150mm (suspended cast insitu concrete ground floor) or 300mm (pre-cast concrete floor, including 150mm ventilation allowance) in accordance with tables 9 and 10 of NHBC Chapter 4.2.

Buried Concrete Design Sulphate Class

Laboratory sulphate analyses undertaken on soil samples indicate that buried concrete can be design in accordance with design sulphate class DS-3 ACEC class of AC-2s of BRE Special Digest 1 (2005).

Soakaway Drainage Potential

The insitu soakaway tests were abandoned due to very slow rates of infiltration. This relatively slow rate of percolation, together with the typical high groundwater table, indicates that soakaways are unlikely to form an effective method for surface water drainage for this site.

Geo-Environmental Findings & Recommendations

Assessment of geo-environmental test Results

A total of 8 no. samples were tested for standard metals and metalloids. No results recorded values above the generic guideline values. A total of 8 no. samples were tested for speciated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). No results recorded values above the generic guideline values. A total of 2 no. samples were tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). No results recorded values above the generic guideline values.


RP7003 – Ansford, Castle Cary_GIR-RevD00 Page II

Geo-Environmental Findings & Recommendations

Human Health Risk Assessment

Significant levels of contamination are unlikely on this site. No visual signs of vegetation distress or any indication that soils may be toxic to Fauna or Flora. Any impact to vegetation would be localised in nature. Presence of contamination in concentrations likely to pose a risk to water resources not expected. Contaminant percolation, leaching, and migration unlikely to be extensive in view of the underlying geology. Contamination unlikely to be extensive or in concentrations likely to pose a risk to future concrete structures or pipework. No Radon Protection or ground gas assessment required on site.

Unidentified Contamination

Regular inspections should be carried out by ground workers during any excavation work, and advice should be sought in the event that unexpected ground conditions are encountered. Should any visual or olfactory signs of contamination be found during construction works, soils should be tested and assessed. Should further testing and assessment identify areas of unacceptable risk, appropriate remedial measures would need to be implemented. A detailed remediation strategy should be prepared, any remedial works and associated clean-up levels would need to be discussed with and approved by the Regulatory Authorities. Additionally, a Validation Statement would need to be prepared upon completion of any remedial works, detailing the works undertaken and the results of the associated validation testing.

Recommended Further Work

Once layout plans and building levels have been finalized, assessment of the foundation requirements and depths will need to be considered on a plot by plot basis, and further ground investigations are recommended.


RP7003 – Ansford, Castle Cary_GIR-RevD00 PAGE III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Commission ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Development Proposals ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.4 Site Location and Description .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.5 Published Geological Information ........................................................................................................................... 2

1.6 Summary of the Findings of the Geo-environmental Desk Study ............................................................................ 2

2 FIELDWORK ................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Trial Pits ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Insitu DCP (Dynamic Cone Penetration) Testing ...................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Insitu Soakaway Testing ........................................................................................................................................... 4

3 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Contamination Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................................... 5

4 GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED ........................................................................................................................ 6

4.1 Strata Encountered .................................................................................................................................................. 6

4.2 Signs of Contamination ............................................................................................................................................ 8

4.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

5 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Ground Conditions Summary................................................................................................................................... 9

5.2 Foundation Design ................................................................................................................................................... 9

5.3 Floor Design ........................................................................................................................................................... 10

5.4 Retaining Wall Design ............................................................................................................................................ 10

5.5 Foundation Excavation Considerations ................................................................................................................. 10

5.6 Buried Concrete Design Sulphate Class ................................................................................................................. 11

5.7 Road Pavement Design .......................................................................................................................................... 11

5.8 Soakaway Drainage Potential ................................................................................................................................ 12

6 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ 13

6.1 Assessment of Geo-environmental Results ........................................................................................................... 13

6.2 Assessment of Pollutant Linkages .......................................................................................................................... 15

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 18

7.1 General .................................................................................................................................................................. 18

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Exploratory Hole Location Plan

Appendix B. Trial Pit Records

Appendix C. Soakaway Test Results

Appendix D. In-situ DCP Test Results

Appendix E. Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results


RP7003 – Ansford, Castle Cary_GIR-RevD00 Page IV

Appendix F. Geo-Environmental Laboratory Test Results

Appendix G. Generic Assessment Criteria Values

Appendix H. Risk Assessment of Pollutant Linkages

Appendix I. General Notes and Limitations

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Geotechnical Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................................................. 5

Table 3.2: Geo-environmental Laboratory Testing - Soils ............................................................................................................. 5

Table 4.1: Summary Table of Strata Encountered ......................................................................................................................... 6

Table 4.3: Summary of Groundwater Strikes in Exploratory Holes ............................................................................................... 8

Table 5.1: Minimum Foundation Depths Indicated by Exploratory Holes .................................................................................... 9

Table 6.1: Assessment of Results – Metals & Metalloids ............................................................................................................ 13

Table 6.2: Assessment of Results – PAHs .................................................................................................................................... 14

Table 6.3: Assessment of Results – TPHs ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Table 6.4: Risk Assessment Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 15


RP7003 – Ansford, Castle Cary_GIR-RevD00 Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Commission

Red Rock Geoscience Ltd (‘Red Rock’) was commissioned by JRC Consulting, acting on behalf of Andrew Hopkins, to undertake an intrusive ground investigation for the proposed residential housing development site at Ansford, Castle Cary.

A factual and interpretative report was required on the investigation.

1.2 Development Proposals

The development proposals comprise residential properties with associated gardens, public open space, garages and access roads.

An outline of the proposals are shown on the Exploratory Hole Location Plan, enclosed in Appendix A.

1.3 Objectives

The geo-environmental objectives of this assessment were to identify the site’s historical land use, potential resulting contamination and associated risks, prior to more detailed intrusive investigations and determination of possible remediation requirements in order to enable the safe development of the site.

The geotechnical objectives of this investigation were to determine the distribution, nature and engineering properties of the soils underlying the site to assist with the design of foundations to the proposed residential properties, road pavements and soakaway drainage.

It should be noted that this investigation is focused towards the proposed developments at the site and may need to be re-assessed should the development proposals be revised.

Reference should be made to the ‘General Notes and Limitations’ included in Appendix I at the end of this report, which provide information on the procedures followed in the investigation and data assessment, and explains the context within which this report should be read.

The current report was developed on the basis of the various current publications by UK policy makers, in particular the NHBC Standards1 and model procedures by DEFRA2.

The geo-environmental sections of this report only address potential ground contamination issues and do not include issues pertaining to ecology, habitat, or wider environmental concerns. Appropriate professionals with expertise in these areas should be consulted.

1.4 Site Location and Description

The site is located in Ansford, Castle Cary, and is centred on National Grid Reference 363476, 133308. The site is formed of two irregularly shaped fields of different sizes, and is approximately 9.63 Ha in total. The site dips gently from east to west.

The site area is mostly bounded by hedgerows and mature trees, as well as infrastructure including Ansford Hill Road (southern border), Station Road (western border) and Castle Cary Train Station (northern border).

1 NHBC, 2019, Standards. 2 Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) & Environment Agency, 2004, Contaminated Land Report 11 Model

Procedures for the Management of Contamination.



The site is bordered by residential housing and gardens to the west and south-east, to the south by housing developments and agricultural land and to the north and east by additional agricultural grassy fields.

1.5 Published Geological Information

Published geological information from the British Geological Survey (1:50,000 scale Solid Geological Map) indicates that the solid geology beneath the site comprises the Lias Group, the Dyrham Formation and Marlstone Rock Formation (undifferentiated) of Jurassic and Triassic geological age. The Dyrham Formation and Marlstone Rock Formation typically comprise siltstone. The Lias Group typically comprises interbedded limestone and mudstone.

Although not shown on the geological maps, this solid geology would typically be overlain by a mantle of Residual Soil derived from the insitu weathering of the underlying bedrock.

Superficial deposits of River Terrace Deposits (undifferentiated) are shown to be in close proximity to the site associated with the River Brue.

1.6 Summary of the Findings of the Geo-environmental Desk Study

The review of the historic maps indicates that the site comprises undeveloped open fields from at least the 1890s. The layouts of the hedges have changed over the years and farm buildings (Hillcrest Farm) have developed on the southern boundary during the 1930s.

The land surrounding the site was originally open fields and the town of Ansford from at least the 1880s. Throughout the 1900s, Ansford and Castle Cary underwent gradual expansion, with residential areas eventually surrounding the site to the south-east. Infrastructure was also advanced to support the expansion, including the development of many roads, bridges and railway lines. The surrounding area has also encompassed churches, schools and residential housing located within 500m from the site boundary. There are no active or historical trade entries likely to have impacted the site.

Based on an assessment of the Desk Study Data significant contamination on the site is unlikely to be present however localized contamination resulting from the sites historic agricultural may be possible. Localised hydrocarbon contamination may be present due to the historical and current use of farm vehicles on the site area. Asbestos containing materials (ACMs) may be present within the buildings present on site and a survey may be prudent prior to demolition.

The varied bedrock underlying the site is classified as ‘Secondary A Aquifer’ and ‘Secondary B Aquifer’ in accordance with the new Environment Agency designations for aquifer classification. Secondary A Aquifers are comprised of permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as Minor Aquifers. Secondary B Aquifers are comprised of predominantly lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering. These are generally the water-bearing parts of the former non-aquifers.

No Radon Protection or ground gas assessment required on site.



2 FIELDWORK

2.1 Methodology

The investigation comprised:

• 15 no. trial pits used to identify the underlying strata to aid foundation design (TP01 – TP13)

• 4 no. trial pits used for soakaway testing in accordance with BRE 3653 (SA01 – SA04)

• 10 no. DCP (Dynamic Cone Penetration) Tests (DCP01 – DCP10)

The ground investigation fieldwork was undertaken in general accordance with BS 5930 (2015)4. Samples collected were typically classed a Category ‘C’ in accordance with BSI (2007)5, and assessment of strength and consistency were undertaken using traditional field techniques as described in BSI (2002)6. Soils have been logged, generally in accordance with BSI (2004)7. Where relevant, the bedrock was logged in accordance with BSI (2003)8.

The locations of the exploratory holes are shown on the Exploratory Hole Location Plan, enclosed as Appendix A.

The fieldwork was undertaken on the 11th and 12th of February 2019 and was supervised full-time by an engineering geologist.

2.2 Trial Pits

13 trial pits were excavated using a JCB 3CX hydraulic excavator to depths of between 2.2 and 3.2m below existing ground level to provide information on both the geotechnical and geo-environmental conditions. The trial pits were positioned by Red Rock in relation to development layouts.

The profiles of strata, or other features, were recorded as excavation proceeded and measurements taken from ground level. Trial pits were entered where safe to do so to allow logging, in-situ testing and sampling. Subsoil samples were taken where appropriate for subsequent laboratory examination and analyses.

Trial Pit Records are enclosed in Appendix B, and in addition to detailed strata descriptions give information on any groundwater, stability and samples recovered.

On completion, the trial pits were backfilled with arisings.

3 Building Research Establishment. (2007). Digest 365: Soakaway design. London: Building Research Establishment. 4 British Standards Institute. (2015). BS 5930 with Addendum 2: Code of practice for site investigations. London: BSI. 5 British Standards Institute. (2007). BS EN 1997-2: Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design. Part 2 Ground investigation and testing. London: BSI. 6 British Standards Institute. (2002). BS EN ISO 14688-1:2002. Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification and classification of soil – Part 1: Identification and description: London BSI 7 British Standards Institute (2004). BS EN ISO14688-2:2004. Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification and classification of soil – Part 2: Principles for a classification. London: BSI 8 British Standards Institute. (2003). BS EN ISO 14689-1: Geotechnical investigation and testing – Identification and classification of rock – Part 1: Identification and description. London: BSI



2.3 Insitu DCP (Dynamic Cone Penetration) Testing

10 insitu dynamic cone penetration (DCP) tests were undertaken using the TRL apparatus to provide a continuous insitu measurement of the estimated strength of the soils beneath areas of proposed road pavement. This apparatus conforms to that described in TRL Project Report PR/INT/277/04 and the values obtained can be equated to equivalent estimated CBR value using the approach described in Advice Note 73/06 Revision 1 (2009) ‘Design Guidance for Road Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25)’. The results of the DCP tests are presented in both tabular and graphical form in Appendix D.

2.4 Insitu Soakaway Testing

4 insitu soakaway percolation tests were undertaken in trial pits SA01 to SA04 in general accordance with the procedures detailed in BRE 365. The positions of the soakaway trial pits were located by Red Rock in relation to development layouts.

During the fieldwork, the soakaway tests (SA01 – SA04) were abandoned due to extremely slow infiltration rates. Water levels in these test pits did not reduced and stayed at the water level they commenced at across a period of between 170 - 220 minutes.

The results of the soakaway tests are enclosed in Appendix C.



3 LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

The following geotechnical laboratory tests were undertaken on selected samples obtained during the site investigation:

Table 3.1: Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Test Number of Samples

Moisture Content 5

Liquid and Plastic (Atterberg) Limits 5

pH, total sulphate, soluble sulphate and total sulphur (BRE SD1 Suite) - Soils 5

Laboratory testing was undertaken, where appropriate, in accordance with BS1377 (BSI, 1990) and test results are enclosed as Appendix E. All testing was undertaken in UKAS accredited laboratories.

3.2 Contamination Laboratory Testing

On the basis of the past site usage and observations during the intrusive investigations, the following chemical testing was undertaken on selected near surface soil samples.

Table 3.2: Geo-environmental Laboratory Testing - Soils

Test Number of Samples

Metal & metalloid suite: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc and pH

8

Speciated Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 8

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (3-Band Speciation) 2

Organic Matter 8

The geo-environmental Laboratory test results are enclosed as Appendix F.



4 GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED

4.1 Strata Encountered

The strata sequence encountered in the exploratory holes were in general agreement with that expected based on the published information, and are summarised in the table below:

Table 4.1: Summary Table of Strata Encountered

Stratum SA01 SA02 SA03 SA04 TP01

Topsoil 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3

Head Deposits 0.3 – 1.6 0.3 – 1.2 0.3 – 1.0 0.3 – 1.1 0.3 – 1.2

Residual Soil 1.6 – 2.6 1.2 – 2.8 1.0 – 2.3 1.1 – 2.6 1.2 – 2.4

Langport Member, Blue Lias Formation and Charmouth Mudstone Formation (Undifferentiated)

– – 2.3 – 2.7 – 2.4 – 2.5

Stratum TP02 TP03 TP04 TP05 TP06

Topsoil 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.2 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3

Head Deposits 0.3 – 1.2 0.2 – 0.9 0.3 – 1.1 0.3 – 1.5 0.3 – 1.8

Residual Soil 1.2 – 2.3 0.9 – 2.2 1.1 – 2.3 1.5 – 2.9 1.8 – 3.0


2.3 – 2.6 2.2 – 2.8 2.3 – 2.6 – –

Stratum TP07 TP08 TP09 TP10 TP11

Topsoil 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3

Head Deposits 0.3 – 1.5 0.3 – 0.7 0.3 – 1.7 0.3 – 1.6 0.3 – 1.2

Residual Soil 1.5 – 2.0 0.7 – 2.4 1.7 – 2.6 1.6 – 2.9 1.2 – 2.3


2.0 – 2.4 2.4 – 2.5 – 2.9 – 3.2 2.3 – 2.6

Stratum TP12 TP13 TP14 TP15

Topsoil 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.1 0.0 – 0.3 0.0 – 0.3

Made Ground – 0.1 – 0.4 – –

Head Deposits 0.3 – 1.2 0.4 – 1.9 0.3 – 1.4 0.3 – 1.1

Residual Soil 1.2 – 2.6 1.9 – 2.6 1.4 – 3.0 1.1 – 2.2

Topsoil

Material interpreted as Topsoil was encountered in all of the trial pit locations, to depths of between 0.1 and 0.3m. These materials typically comprised soft dark brown slightly sandy clay with occasional roots and rootlets.



Made Ground

Material interpreted as Made Ground was encountered in TP13, to depths of 0.4m. These materials typically comprised soft light yellowish brown to dark brown silty clay and slightly sandy clay, which included wore fragments of rubber and a neoprene rubber gasket.

Head Deposits

Material interpreted as Head Deposits was encountered in all of the trial pit locations, to depths of between 0.3 and 1.9m. These materials typically comprised firm to stiff light brownish grey silty clay, with extremely close fissures and occasional medium sized gravel fragments of subangular mudstone. The material also contained occasional shear surfaces/ slickensides.

Slickenside/shear surfaces are smooth surfaces caused by frictional movement along two planes. The presences of these surfaces are an indication of previous land slipped material. These surfaces were noted to depths of between 0.5m and 1.6m in trial pits TP07, TP09 and TP12. The observed shear surfaces were not continuous and therefore were not considered to be one unique shear surface controlling the stability of the site.

The material interpreted as Head Deposits also occasionally consisted of stiff light orangish brown slightly gravelly sandy clay; where the gravel is fine to medium grained subangular mudstone.

Insitu shear vane tests recorded undrained shear strength values between 53 and 100 kPa (Average 69.75 kPa) indicating the stratum to having medium undrained shear strength.

The index property test results obtained on samples of this sub-stratum gave natural moisture content (NMC) values of between 29% and 30%, and Plasticity Index values of between 40% and 44%. These results classify the soils as high to very high plasticity clay on the Casagrande classification system. In each case, the NMC is similar than the respective Plastic Limit, indicative of material with a plastic consistency. After correcting the Plasticity Index values for the ‘stone’ content (material >0.425mm), the samples tested have modified plasticity index values of between 40% and 44% indicating them to have a high volume change potential in accordance with the criterion NHBC Chapter 4.29.

Residual Soil

Material interpreted as Residual Soil was encountered in all of the trial pit locations, to depths of between 0.7 and 3.0m. These materials typically comprised firm to stiff light blueish grey silty clay, with extremely close fissures and light brown silt infill. The material also contained occasional fine to coarse grain sized gypsum crystals.

This material also occasionally consisted of dense dark bluish grey clayey sandy gravel; where the gravel is fine to medium grained subangular mudstone. This material was found in layers within TP10 and in small cobble sized pockets throughout the Residual Soil within the western side of the site area.

Insitu shear vane tests recorded undrained shear strength values between 60 and 90 kPa (Average 82.5 kPa) indicating the stratum to having high undrained shear strength.

The index property test results obtained on samples of this sub-stratum gave natural moisture content (NMC) values of between 24% and 26%, and Plasticity Index values of between 20% and 26%. These results classify the soils as intermediate to high plasticity clay on the Casagrande classification system. In each case, the NMC is similar than the respective Plastic Limit, indicative of material with a plastic consistency. After correcting

9 NHBC. (2019). Standards. Amersham: NHBC



the Plasticity Index values for the ‘stone’ content (material >0.425mm), the samples tested have modified plasticity index values of between 20% and 26% indicating them to have a medium volume change potential in accordance with the criterion NHBC Chapter 4.210.


Material interpreted as Langport Member, Blue Lias Formation and Charmouth Mudstone Formation (Undifferentiated) was encountered in the majority of trial pit locations, to depths of between 2.2 and 3.2m. This stratum typically comprised extremely weak light blueish grey mudstone. The mudstone is thinly bedded and extremely closely fractured. Occasional iron staining and silt infill present on the fracture surfaces.

4.2 Signs of Contamination

Although Made Ground was encountered in TP13, there was no visual or olfactory evidence of contamination noted.

4.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in the exploratory holes as summarized in the following table:

Table 4.3: Summary of Groundwater Strikes in Exploratory Holes

Exploratory Hole Depth Water

Encountered (mbgl) Comment(s)

SA01 1.60 Seepage

TP10 1.80 Seepage

TP03 1.40 Seepage

TP06 2.70 Seepage

10 NHBC. (2019). Standards. Amersham: NHBC



5 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

5.1 Ground Conditions Summary

Near surface ground conditions generally comprise Topsoil, localised Made Ground, cohesive Head Deposits, cohesive Residual Soil and Langport Member, Blue Lias Formation and Charmouth Mudstone Formation (Undifferentiated).

5.2 Foundation Design

In general, the cohesive soils encountered below the Made Ground and soft Topsoil will be suitable for the construction of traditional strip or shallow trench fill foundations for the proposed development. To have a consistent design, such foundations should be designed on the basis of a net safe bearing capacity of 100kN/m2 to cater for the variability in the shear strength of the underlying soils.

Plasticity Index testing has shown that the clay soils have an medium to high volume change potential in accordance with NHBC Chapter 4.2. Therefore, outside the zone of influence of existing, proposed or recently removed trees, foundations should be placed a depth of at least 1.0m to prevent problems associated with shrinkage and swelling (allowing for geographical climate zone correction).

Evidence of ancient land-slipping in the form of residual shear surfaces was noted in some of the trial pits. The maximum observed depths of these shear surfaces in the trial pits was 1.7m (TP09). Although shear surfaces were noted in these pits, similar features must be expected elsewhere where the same geological stratum (Head Deposits) exists. The shear surfaces, where seen, were not continuous and there is not considered to be one unique shear surface controlling the stability of the site. However, there is theoretically potential for re-activation of ancient land slipping along these pre-existing shear surfaces if foundation loads are imposed above the level of the basal surfaces, and if there is continuity down slope of such surfaces. Although, as discussed, the latter is not considered likely, the potential consequences of these shear surfaces must not be discounted. Consequently, all foundations should be taken through any pre-existing shear surfaces in the Head Deposits and into the underlying Residual Soil stratum.

Foundations should be placed at a depth of at least 250mm below any Made Ground or 150mm below relic shear zone (whichever is the greater depth). Based on these criteria, the following foundation depths are indicated by the exploratory hole data.

Table 5.1: Minimum Foundation Depths Indicated by Exploratory Holes

Exploratory Hole Foundation Depth (mbgl) Factor Governing Foundation Depth

SA01 – TP03 ≥1.00m Minimum depth for shrinkable clay soils

TP04 – TP06 ≥1.00m Minimum depth for shrinkable clay soils

TP07 ≥1.00m Minimum depth for shrinkable clay soils and 150mm below relic shear zone

TP08 ≥1.00m Minimum depth for shrinkable clay soils

TP09 ≥1.75m 150mm below relic shear zone.


TP12 ≥1.25m 150mm below relic shear zone.




Foundations within the zone of influence of such trees should be locally deepened in accordance with the requirements of NHBC Chapter 4.2, or until granular (non-shrinkable) soil is encountered.

Any foundations for external walls that are sufficiently close to existing trees (that are to remain or be removed) such that the foundation depth indicated by NHBC Chapter 4.2 is greater than 1.5m, should incorporate precautions against potential heave in accordance with Sitework Clause 4.2-S4 of the NHBC guidance.

To allow for the variability in the nature and/or stiffness of the soils at and directly below proposed strip foundation level, it is recommended that they be appropriately reinforced to accommodate potential differential settlement.

5.3 Floor Design

As a result of the near-surface cohesive soils with a medium to high volume change potential, it is recommended that a fully suspended floor construction be used. The minimum sub-floor void dimension should be 150mm (suspended cast insitu concrete ground floor) or 300mm (pre-cast concrete floor, including 150mm ventilation allowance) in accordance with tables 9 and 10 of NHBC Chapter 4.2.

5.4 Retaining Wall Design

Due to the sloping nature of the site, the development proposals may need to include the construction of retaining walls.

As discussed above, evidence of ancient land-slipping in the form of residual shear surfaces was noted in the Head Deposits stratum in some of the trial pits, with shear surfaces observed to depths of 1.6m. Although shear surfaces were noted in these pits, similar features must be expected elsewhere where the same geological stratum (Head Deposits) exists. Although the observed shear surfaces were not continuous and there is not considered to be one unique shear surface controlling the stability of the site, their localised presence could have a critically significant effect on the stability of any retaining structure. Consequently, unless the strata to be retained by a particular structure is proven to not contain any pre-existing shear surfaces, it is recommended that residual shear strength parameters be used for the Head Deposits stratum in the design.

When the location and retained height of any retaining structures within the development layout has been finalised, additional trial pitting investigations could be undertaken at the location of each structure to confirm the depth (or absence) of any shear surfaces, which would identify any retaining structures that can be designed on the basis of peak rather than residual shear strength parameters.

The ground investigation indicates that groundwater is likely to be encountered at relatively shallow depth across the site between 1.4m and 2.7m below existing ground levels. Therefore, appropriate drainage may need to be incorporated into the slope, or the wall will need to be designed to accommodate an appropriate groundwater level behind.

If a gravity wall is to be founded on shrinkable clays and located within the zone of influence of existing, proposed or recently removed trees, the foundations will need to be locally deepened in accordance with the requirements of NHBC Chapter 4.2.

5.5 Foundation Excavation Considerations

Groundwater was encountered at relatively shallow depth across the site in the exploratory holes, at depths of between 1.4m and 2.7m. Based on these observations, groundwater is likely to be encountered in excavations below a typical depth of 1.8m and will require dewatering. Based on the nature of the materials present, it is anticipated that simple sump pumping will be sufficient to deal with any ground water ingress



into trenches and other small excavations to around 1.8m depth. However, the depth to groundwater can vary both spatially across the site and in response to seasonal fluctuations, and it is recommended that groundwater control be undertaken in accordance with the guidance given in CIRIA Report C515 (2000)11.

The trial pits indicate that foundation excavations are likely to be generally stable. However, all excavations should be monitored and, if necessary, supported in accordance with appropriate guidance such as CIRIA Report 97 (1992).

5.6 Buried Concrete Design Sulphate Class

Laboratory sulphate analyses undertaken on soil samples indicate that buried concrete can be design in accordance with design sulphate class DS-3 ACEC class of AC-2s of BRE Special Digest 1 (2005).

5.7 Road Pavement Design

The development proposal includes the construction of estate roads and car-parking areas.

The likely Subgrade soils will comprise firm to stiff light brownish grey to light blueish grey silty clay. Atterberg Limit tests on these soils indicate them to have a Plasticity Index of between 20% and 44%.

On the basis of these criteria, Highways Agency Interim Advice Note (IAN 73/06) (Draft HD 25, 2009) recommends a long-term (equilibrium moisture content) design CBR value of 2.5% on the presumption that the Subgrade is protected by adequate site drainage (including during construction) and is promptly covered with a capping layer or sub-base.

The insitu DCP tests undertaken on areas of proposed highway pavement produced lower bound CBR values of between 2.0% and 4.0%. Consideration of these test values suggests a construction phase design CBR value of 2.0% is applicable.

On the basis of the above design values, the road pavement design is governed by the construction phase/Permanent Works condition and an overall design CBR value of 2.0% is therefore recommended.

The likely Subgrade soils will be susceptible to appreciable deterioration (softening) if allowed to become saturated (particularly if trafficked), with a consequential reduction in both construction phase and Permanent Works CBR value. Therefore, the formation should be prevented from being exposed to heavy rainfall and be adequately drained through all construction phases.

Because the Subgrade soils comprise a clay/silt material, it is recommended that an appropriate separation geotextile be placed on the formation to prevent potential subsequent deterioration of the basal capping / sub-base layers via impregnation of ‘fines’ during initial pavement construction layers and/or fluctuations in groundwater level.

The Subgrade soils are likely to be frost susceptible. Consequently, based on TRL Research Report 45 (1986)12,in this geographical area the total pavement construction thickness should comprise at least 450mm of non-frost susceptible materials to prevent problems of frost heave. However, based on the CBR design value the construction thickness required for structural reasons is likely to provide sufficient cover.

If any roads are to be adopted by the Local Authority, it is recommended the pavement design criteria be agreed with them prior to the commencement of construction. To this end, the adopting authority may insist

11 Preene, M., Roberts, T.O.L., Powrie, W. and Dyer, M.R., (2000). Groundwater Control: Design and Practice. C515. London: CIRIA. 12 Sherwood, P.T. and Roe, P.G., (1986). Winter air temperatures in relation to frost damage to roads. TRRL Research Report 45. Berkshire:

Department of Transport.



that they conduct their own supplementary investigation to satisfy themselves of the engineering characteristics of the subgrade soils.

For any road pavement construction, the Formation should be carefully inspected and (if necessary) tested to identify any localized weaker areas with a CBR value lower than the design value. Any such areas should be excavated out and replaced with capping material or Class C10 concrete.

5.8 Soakaway Drainage Potential

The insitu soakaway tests were abandoned due to very slow rates of infiltration. This relatively slow rate of percolation, together with the typical high groundwater table, indicates that soakaways are unlikely to form an effective method for surface water drainage for this site.

It should be noted that the infiltration characteristics of soils can be variable both spatially across the site and with depth below ground level. Similarly, the depth to groundwater (and presence of perched groundwater) can also vary both spatially across the site and in response to seasonal fluctuations. Provided the locations of the tests undertaken coincide with the anticipated locations and levels of proposed soakaways, and worst case seasonal groundwater levels do not vary significantly from those encountered in this investigation, these infiltration parameters are applicable for detailed soakaway design.



6 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

6.1 Assessment of Geo-environmental Results

Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health

The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) model enables the derivation of site-specific assessment criteria for contaminants present on a site. The most recent model (CLEA v1.07) was released in September 2009 together with guidance documents including toxicological reports for selected contaminants and standard land use scenarios. In addition, Land Quality Management (LQM) in association with Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) published in 2009 Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) values for a number of other contaminants not included in the EA publication. The 2009 generic assessment criteria values have been revised in 2015 and published as ‘Suitable For Use Levels’ (S4ULs) which have been utilised in this report for assessment of contaminant levels. In addition, guideline values for use in Part IIA determinations (‘Category 4 screening Levels’ – C4SLs) were also published in 2014 by DEFRA which included lead. In the absence of a lead S4UL, the C4SL for lead was utilised.

Development proposals comprise residential properties with gardens, open areas, garages and associated access roads. Therefore, the site is being considered under a scenario of Residential with Plant Uptake. The human health generic assessment criteria guideline values used in this assessment are enclosed in Appendix G.

Laboratory contamination results are included as Appendix F. The results are summarised, and where appropriate, discussed in further detail below.

Metals and Metalloids

A total of 8 (1no of samples of Made ground and 7no of samples of natural ground) were tested for standard metals and metalloids.

Table 6.1: Assessment of Results – Metals & Metalloids

Determinant Human Health Criteria Recorded Range No. of Results Elevated above criteria Values

Arsenic 37.00 8.2 – 11 0

Cadmium 10.00 < 0.2 0

Chromium III 910.00 38 – 49 0

Chromium VI 6.00 < 0.4 0

Lead 210.00 24 – 33 0

Mercury (inorganic) 170.00 < 0.3 0

Nickel 130.00 20 – 43 0

Selenium 250.00 < 1.0 0

Copper 2,400.00 18 – 30 0

Zinc 3,700.00 79 – 140 0

Notes: All concentrations in mg/kg



Hydrocarbons (PAHs and TPHs)

A total of 8 (1no of samples of Made ground and 7no of samples of natural ground) were tested for speciated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). The results of the PAH and TPH testing are summarised in the table below and enclosed in Appendix F.

Table 6.2: Assessment of Results – PAHs

Determinant Human Health Criteria Recorded Range Number of Samples above

Criteria Values

Naphthalene 2.30 < 0.05 0

Acenaphthylene 170.00 < 0.05 0

Acenaphthene 210.00 < 0.05 0

Fluorene 170.00 < 0.05 0

Phenanthrene 95.00 < 0.05 0

Anthracene 2,400.00 < 0.05 0

Fluoranthene 280.00 < 0.05 – 0.26 0

Pyrene 620.00 < 0.05 – 0.23 0

Benzo(a)anthracene 7.20 < 0.05 – 0.19 0

Chrysene 15.00 < 0.05 – 0.14 0

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.60 < 0.05 – 0.24 0

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 77.00 < 0.05 – 0.12 0

Benzo(a)pyrene 2.20 < 0.05 – 0.23 0

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 0.24 < 0.05 0

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 27.00 < 0.05 0

Benzo(ghi)perylene 320.00 < 0.05 0

Notes: All concentrations in mg/kg Human health criteria assumes 1% soil organic matter as per laboratory results

Table 6.3: Assessment of Results – TPHs


Criteria Values

TPH Aliphatic EC5-6 42.00 < 0.001 0

TPH Aliphatic EC6-8 100.00 < 0.001 0

TPH Aliphatic EC8-10 27.00 < 0.001 0



TPH Aliphatic EC16-35 65,000.00 <8.0 -8.6 0

TPH Aromatic EC5-7 70.00 0

TPH Aromatic EC7-8 130.00 < 0.001 0



Table 6.3: Assessment of Results – TPHs


Criteria Values

TPH Aromatic EC8-10 34.00 < 0.001 0

TPH Aromatic EC10-12 74.00 < 0.001 0

TPH Aromatic EC12-16 140.00 < 1.0 0

TPH Aromatic EC16-21 260.00 < 2.0 0

TPH Aromatic EC21-35 1,100.00 < 10 0

Notes: All concentrations in mg/kg Human health criteria assumes 1% soil organic matter as per laboratory results

6.2 Assessment of Pollutant Linkages

A number of exposure pathways link the contamination to the receptor and potential risks are dependent on active pathways. The qualitative assessment of potential pollutant linkages based on the Desk Study information involves the matching of the identified sources of contamination to the receptors through the possible migration pathways. These links must be completed for there to be any risk associated with the site and its development.

This assessment is presented in terms of the Source (S), Pathway (P) and Receptor (R) concept and applying a qualitative value judgement to this appraisal. The assessment assigns a level of risk to each SPR link based on the probability and potential consequence of the risk being realised. A final level of risk is assessed assuming control measures are in place during the development or recommendations are followed.

A detailed conceptual model and the assessment of pathways and pollutant linkage tables are enclosed in Appendix H together with associated risk phrases and matrices. A summary is presented in the following table.

Table 6.4: Risk Assessment Summary

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR RISK ASSESSMENT

Metals & Metalloids

Hydrocarbons

(TPHs and PAHs)

Indoor / outdoor ingestion of and dermal contact with soils and dust Indoor / outdoor inhalation of fugitive dust

Future Site Users / Residents Site Construction Workers

Negligible Risk Low contaminant concentrations recorded. Adequate precautions and appropriate personal hygiene and safety protocols should be employed by all construction workers on site at all times.

Metals & Metalloids

Hydrocarbons

(TPHs and PAHs)

Ingestion of tainted mains water


Guidance on the selection of materials for water supply pipes can be sought from the UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) publication “PE Pipes for Contaminated Land”, 2010.





Ground Gas (Landfill gas)

Indoor / outdoor inhalation of vapour or gas


Low Risk Adequate precautions and appropriate personal hygiene and safety protocols should be employed by all construction workers on site at all times.

Radon Indoor / outdoor inhalation of vapour or gas

Future Site Users / Residents

Negligible Risk The site is located within an area where less than 1% of homes are above the action level, and No Radon protective measures are required.

Asbestos Containing Materials

(ACMs) in the soil

Indoor / outdoor inhalation of airborne asbestos fibres


Low Risk No asbestos was identified in the soil.

Metals & Metalloids

Hydrocarbons

(TPHs and PAHs)

General contaminant uptake on site General contaminant uptake on adjacent land Exposure due to contaminated surface water runoff and/or contaminated surface water bodies

Flora and Fauna Negligible Risk Low contaminant concentrations recorded.

Metals & Metalloids

Hydrocarbons

(TPHs and PAHs)

Surface Water Mobilisation Rivers, Streams and Other Surface Water Bodies

Low contaminant concentrations recorded.

Metals & Metalloids

Hydrocarbons

(TPHs and PAHs)

Groundwater Mobilisation Groundwater and Water Abstractions

Negligible Risk Low contaminant concentrations recorded. There are no groundwater abstraction points at locations likely to be impacted by activities on the subject site.





Naturally elevated

Sulphates

Hydrocarbons (TPHs and

PAHs)

Ground Gas (Landfill gas)

Adverse Effects to Future Built Environment by Direct attack, mobilisation, and Permeation of Aggressive Contaminants

Pipe-work, Ducts and Concrete Structures

Low Risk Guidance on the selection of materials for water supply pipes can be sought from the UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) publication “PE Pipes for Contaminated Land”, 2010.



7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

Environmental testing recorded generally low contaminant concentrations in the soils and no remedial measures are required with respect to soils and groundwater.

The site is located within an area where less than 1% of homes are above the action level. Radon protective measures are not required.

The following are general recommendations:

• Adequate precautions and appropriate personal hygiene and safety protocols should be employed by all construction workers on site at all times.

• Guidance on the selection of materials for water supply pipes can be sought from the UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) publication “PE Pipes for Contaminated Land”, 2010.

• Regular inspections should be carried out by ground workers during any excavation work, and advice should be sought in the event that unexpected ground conditions are encountered. Should any visual or olfactory signs of contamination be found during construction works, soils should be tested and assessed.

• Should further testing and assessment identify areas of unacceptable risk, appropriate remedial measures would need to be implemented. A detailed remediation strategy should be prepared, any remedial works and associated clean-up levels would need to be discussed with and approved by the Regulatory Authorities. Additionally, a Validation Statement would need to be prepared upon completion of any remedial works, detailing the works undertaken and the results of the associated validation testing. It is emphasised that such works are unlikely to be necessary on the basis of the assessments undertaken.

Appendix A. EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN

DRAWING TITLE

EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN

PROJECT

ANSFORD, CASTLE CARY

DRAWING NO.

RP7003-D1-R1

SCALE

NOT TO SCALE

CLIENT

ANDREW HOPKINS

East Wing, Station House,

Broadclyst Station, EX5 3AS www.redrockgeo.co.uk

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 01392 460800

TP01 SA01

SA02

SA03

SA04

TP08

TP07

TP02

TP03

TP04

TP05

TP06

TP10

TP09

TP11

TP12

TP13

DCP01

DCP02

DCP03

DCP04

DCP05

DCP06

DCP07

DCP01

SA01

TP01

DCP08

DCP09

DCP10

KEY

DCP

SOAKAWAY

TEST

TRIAL PIT

North

TP15

TP14

http://www.redrockgeo.co.uk/

mailto:[email protected]

Appendix B. TRIAL PIT RECORDS

Wat

er

Stri

ke Samples & In Situ Testing

Depth Type ResultsDepth

(m)

0.30

1.60

2.60

Level(m) Legend Stratum Description

Soft dark brown slightly sandy CLAY with occasional roots and rootlets (TOPSOIL).

Firm to stiff light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures (RESIDUAL SOIL).

Firm to stiff light blueish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures and light brown silt infill. Occasional fine grained gypsum crystals. Evidence of relict structure (RESIDUAL SOIL).

End of Pit at 2.60m

1

2

3

4

5

0.25 ES

1.10 HVP=781.20 D

1.70 D

2.00 HVP=60

Trial Pit LogTrialPit No

SA01Sheet 1 of 1

Project Name: Ansford

Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date11/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.60

0.70

1.65 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:

CAT scanned prior to excavation. Groundwater encountered at 1.6m. Excavated using a JCB 3CX. Soakaway undertaken in accordance with BRE 365. HVP/HVR = Hand Shear Vane Peak/ Residual (kPa). Trial Pit terminated at target depth/ due to hard strata. Trial pit backfilled upon completion.Generally Stable

Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.20

2.80



Stiff light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures (RESIDUAL SOIL).

Stiff light blueish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures and light brown silt infill. Occasional fine grained gypsum crystals. Evidence of relict structure (RESIDUAL SOIL).

End of Pit at 2.80m

1

2

3

4

5

0.90 HVP=83


SA02Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date11/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.80

0.70

1.70 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:

CAT scanned prior to excavation. No groundwater encountered. Excavated using a JCB 3CX. Soakaway undertaken in accordance with BRE 365. HVP/HVR = Hand Shear Vane Peak/ Residual (kPa). Trial Pit terminated at target depth/ due to hard strata. Trial pit backfilled upon completion.Generally Stable

Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.00

2.30

2.70



Firm light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures (RESIDUAL SOIL).


Extremely weak light bluish grey MUDSTONE. Mudstone is thinly bedded and extremely closely fractured. Occasional iron staining and silt infill on fracture surfaces (LANGPORT MEMBER, BLUE LIAS FORMATION AND CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION (UNDIFFERENTIATED)).

End of Pit at 2.70m

1

2

3

4

5

0.25 ES

0.90 HVP=55

1.60 HVP=80


SA03Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date11/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.70

0.65

2.20 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.10

2.60



Firm to stiff light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures. Land drain encountered at 0.9m (RESIDUAL SOIL).


End of Pit at 2.60m

1

2

3

4

5

0.35 ES

0.90 HVP=75


SA04Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date11/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.60

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.20

2.30

2.60



Firm light brownish grey slightly gravelly silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures. Gravel is medium subangular mudstone (RESIDUAL SOIL).


Extremely weak light bluish grey MUDSTONE. Mudstone is thinly bedded and extremely closely fractured. Occasional iron staining and silt infill on fracture surfaces. Recovered as a gravelly clay (LANGPORT MEMBER, BLUE LIAS FORMATION AND CHARMOUTH MUDSTONE FORMATION (UNDIFFERENTIATED)).

End of Pit at 2.60m

1

2

3

4

5

1.10 HVP=70


TP02Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.60

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:

CAT scanned prior to excavation. No groundwater encountered. Excavated using a JCB 3CX. HVP/HVR = Hand Shear Vane Peak/ Residual (kPa). Trial Pit terminated at target depth. Trial pit backfilled upon completion.Generally Stable

Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.20

2.402.50






End of Pit at 2.50m

1

2

3

4

5

0.90 HVP=70

2.00 D


TP01Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date11/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.50

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.20

0.90

2.20

2.80





Shear surfaces encountered at 1.7m bgl.


End of Pit at 2.80m

1

2

3

4

5

0.20 ES

0.50 D

0.80 HVP=60


TP03Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date11/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.80

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:

CAT scanned prior to excavation. Groundwater encountered at 1.4m. Excavated using a JCB 3CX. HVP/HVR = Hand Shear Vane Peak/ Residual (kPa). Trial Pit terminated at target depth. Trial pit backfilled upon completion.Generally Stable

Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.10

2.30

2.60



Firm light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures. Land drain at 0.9m (RESIDUAL SOIL).



End of Pit at 2.60m

1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ES

0.90 HVP=53


TP04Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.60

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.50

2.90



Stiff light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures. (RESIDUAL SOIL).


End of Pit at 2.90m

1

2

3

4

5

0.90 HVP=100

1.55 D


TP05Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.90

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.80

3.00



Stiff light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures. (RESIDUAL SOIL).

Between 0.8 and 2.7m: Cobble sized pockets of light brownish orange slightly sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is fine to medium subangular mudstone.

Stiff light blueish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures and light brown silt infill. Occasional fine to course grained gypsum crystals. Evidence of relict structure (RESIDUAL SOIL).

End of Pit at 3.00m

1

2

3

4

5

0.80 HVP=87


TP06Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth3.00

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.50

2.00

2.40



Firm light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures. (RESIDUAL SOIL).

Shear surfaces encountered at 0.8m bgl.



End of Pit at 2.40m

1

2

3

4

5

0.25 ES

0.80 HVP=65

1.90 HVP=75


TP07Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.40

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

0.70

2.402.50






End of Pit at 2.50m

1

2

3

4

5

0.40 ES0.40 HVP=55

0.80 HVP=90


TP08Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.50

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.70

2.60



Stiff light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures. Land drain at 0.5m (RESIDUAL SOIL).

Shear surfaces encountered between 0.75 to 1.6m bgl.

Stiff light blueish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures and light brown silt infill. Occasional fine to course grained gypsum crystals. Evidence of relict structure (RESIDUAL SOIL).

End of Pit at 2.60m

1

2

3

4

5

0.75 D0.75 HVP=77

1.60 HVP=85


TP09Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.60

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.90

3.20




Stiff light blueish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures and light brown silt infill. Occasional fine to course grained gypsum crystals. Evidence of relict structure (RESIDUAL SOIL). Stiff dark grey and orange slightly gravelly sandy CLAY, with extremely close fissures. Gravel is fine to medium grained subangualr mudstone (RESIDUAL SOIL). Dense dark blueish grey clayey sandy GRAVEL. Gravel is fine to coarse subangular extremely weak mudstone (RESIDUAL SOIL).


End of Pit at 3.20m

1

2

3

4

5

0.80 HVP=70

1.70 HVP=85

1.90 D

3.00 D


TP10Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth3.20

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:

CAT scanned prior to excavation. Groundwater encountered at 1.8m. Excavated using a JCB 3CX. HVP/HVR = Hand Shear Vane Peak/ Residual (kPa). Trial Pit terminated at target depth. Trial pit backfilled upon completion.Generally Stable

Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.20

2.30

2.60



Firm light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures. Land drain at 0.8m (RESIDUAL SOIL).

Stiff light blueish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures and light brown silt infill. Occasional fine to course grained gypsum crystals. Evidence of relict structure. Occasional cobble sized pockets of light brownish orange gravelly sand (RESIDUAL SOIL).


End of Pit at 2.60m

1

2

3

4

5

1.00 HVP=72

1.30 HVP=90

1.70 HVP=90


TP11Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.60

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.20

2.60




Shear surfaces encountered between 0.5 to 1.1m bgl.


End of Pit at 2.60m

1

2

3

4

5

0.50 HVP=62


TP12Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.60

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.100.20

0.40

1.90

2.60


Soft dark brown slightly sandy CLAY with occasional roots and rootlets (TOPSOIL). Soft light yellowish brown silty CLAY, with worn rubber fragments (MADE GROUND). Soft dark brown slightly sandy CLAY, with a neoprene rubber gasket (MADE GROUND). Firm light brownish grey silty CLAY, with extremely close fissures. (RESIDUAL SOIL).


End of Pit at 2.60m

1

2

3

4

5

0.25 ES

0.80 HVP=60

2.00 D


TP13Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.60

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

0.90

1.40

3.00




Stiff light orangish brown sandy CLAY. Sand is fine to medium grained. Occasional fine grained gravel sized fragments of mudstone (RESIDUAL SOIL).


End of Pit at 3.00m

1

2

3

4

5

0.80 HVP=60


TP14Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth3.00

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Wat

er

Stri



(m)

0.30

1.10

2.20





End of Pit at 2.20m

1

2

3

4

5

0.90 HVP=58

1.50 HVP=95


TP15Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.RP7003

Co-ords:Level:

Date12/02/2019

Location:

Client:

Castle Cary

Andrew Hopkins

Dimensions (m):

Depth2.20

0.65

2.00 Scale1:25

LoggedRT

Remarks:

Stability:


Appendix C. SOAKAWAY TEST RESULTS

Project: SA04

Project No: 1

Client: 11.2.2019

HEAD

SOAKAWAY

(minutes) (m) (m)

0.0 1.10 1.50 100.0 GL1.0 1.10 1.50 100.0

2.0 1.10 1.50 100.0 Depth to water3.0 1.10 1.50 100.0

4.0 1.10 1.50 100.0 WL5.0 1.10 1.50 100.0

10.0 1.10 1.50 100.0 Trial Pit Effective30.0 1.10 1.50 100.0 depth depth

100.0 1.06 1.54 102.7

226.0 1.02 1.58 105.3

200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0 Trial Pit Length = 2.00 m200.0 Trial Pit Width = 0.65 m200.0 Trial Pit Start Depth = 0.00 m200.0 Trial Pit End Depth = 2.60 m200.0

200.0 Trial Pit Test Depth = 2.60 m200.0

200.0 Effective depth (Head of Water) = 1.50 m200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0 % of effective depth200.0 75% 25%200.0 1.48 2.23 m bgl200.0 1.13 0.38 m200.0 - - minutes200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0 Vp75-25 = 0.98 m3

200.0 ap50 = 5.28 m2

200.0 tp75-25 = 0 min200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0 Soil Infiltration rate, f = - m/sec200.0

200.0

200.0Sheet 1 of 2

Remarks:

Depth from GLHeadTime

Andrew Hopkins Date :

ELAPSED

TIME

DEPTH to

water below

ground level

HEAD

(% effective

depth)

TRIAL PIT

IN-SITU TESTING - Soakaway Test

Ansford, Castle Cary Test Location :

RP7003 Test No :

25% Effective Depth

75% Effective Depth

Project: SA04

Project No: 1

Client: 11.2.2019Andrew Hopkins Date :



RP7003 Test No :

tp75 = minutestp25 = minutes

Sheet 2 of 2

Remarks:

--

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

% o

f E

ffective D

epth

Elapsed Time (minutes)

75%

25%

Project: SA03

Project No: 1

Client: 11.2.2019

HEAD

SOAKAWAY

(minutes) (m) (m)

0.0 1.32 1.38 100.0 GL1.0 1.32 1.38 100.0

2.0 1.32 1.38 100.0 Depth to water3.0 1.32 1.38 100.0

4.0 1.32 1.38 100.0 WL5.0 1.32 1.38 100.0


171.0 1.32 1.38 100.0

200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0




200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0


200.0

200.0

200.0 Vp75-25 = 0.99 m3

200.0 ap50 = 5.36 m2

200.0 tp75-25 = 0 min200.0

200.0

200.0


200.0

200.0Sheet 1 of 2

Remarks:



ELAPSED

TIME

DEPTH to

water below

ground level

HEAD

(% effective

depth)

TRIAL PIT



RP7003 Test No :

25% Effective Depth

75% Effective Depth

Project: SA03

Project No: 1




RP7003 Test No :


Sheet 2 of 2

Remarks:

--

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

% o

f E

ffective D

epth


75%

25%

Project: SA02

Project No: 1

Client: 11.2.2019

HEAD

SOAKAWAY

(minutes) (m) (m)

0.0 1.07 1.73 100.0 GL1.0 1.07 1.73 100.0

2.0 1.07 1.73 100.0 Depth to water3.0 1.07 1.73 100.0

4.0 1.07 1.73 100.0 WL5.0 1.07 1.73 100.0


174.0 1.03 1.77 102.3

200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0




200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0


200.0

200.0

200.0 Vp75-25 = 1.03 m3

200.0 ap50 = 5.34 m2

200.0 tp75-25 = 0 min200.0

200.0

200.0


200.0

200.0Sheet 1 of 2

Remarks:



ELAPSED

TIME

DEPTH to

water below

ground level

HEAD

(% effective

depth)

TRIAL PIT



RP7003 Test No :

25% Effective Depth

75% Effective Depth

Project: SA02

Project No: 1




RP7003 Test No :


Sheet 2 of 2

Remarks:

--

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

% o

f E

ffective D

epth


75%

25%

Project: SA01

Project No: 1

Client: 11.2.2019

HEAD

SOAKAWAY

(minutes) (m) (m)

0.0 1.07 1.53 100.0 GL1.0 1.07 1.53 100.0

2.0 1.07 1.53 100.0 Depth to water3.0 1.07 1.53 100.0

4.0 1.07 1.53 100.0 WL5.0 1.07 1.53 100.0


199.0 1.07 1.53 100.0

200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0




200.0

200.0

200.0

200.0


200.0

200.0

200.0 Vp75-25 = 0.88 m3

200.0 ap50 = 4.75 m2

200.0 tp75-25 = 0 min200.0

200.0

200.0


200.0

200.0Sheet 1 of 2

Remarks:

RP7003



ELAPSED

TIME

DEPTH to

water below

ground level

HEAD

(% effective

depth)

TRIAL PIT



Test No :

25% Effective Depth

75% Effective Depth

Project: SA01

Project No: 1

Client: 11.2.2019

RP7003




Test No :


Sheet 2 of 2

Remarks:

--

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

% o

f E

ffective D

epth


75%

25%

Appendix D. IN-SITU DCP TEST RESULTS

Project:Project No: RP7003

DCP No: DCP01 Date: 11-Feb-19

Start Depth (m): 0.00 Test Surface: cc

0 80 0 0

1 300 220 1 220.0 1.0 0.4 0.7

1 350 270 2 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 390 310 3 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 420 340 4 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 450 370 5 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 480 400 6 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 510 430 7 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 540 460 8 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 560 480 9 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

1 590 510 10 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 610 530 11 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

2 660 580 13 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 710 630 15 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 770 690 17 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 820 740 19 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 860 780 21 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

2 910 830 23 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 950 870 25 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

Summary TRL(Note 1)

CSIR(Note 2) Av'ge

CBR (Weighted Average %) 7.2 4.8 6.0

CBR (Minimum %) 1.0 0.4 0.7CBR (Maximum %) 12.7 9.1 10.9

Notes:

1) TRRL, Road Transport Note 8: Largely applicable to granular soils (Log CBR = 2.48 - 1.057 log (Penetration Rate))

2) CSIR (2009): More applicable to cohesive soils (CBR = 410 x (Penetration Rate)-1.27)

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION (DCP) TEST RESULTS

Ansford, Castle Cary

INPUT DATA

Incremental

DCP Blows

End of Increment …Cummulative

Blows

Increment

Penetration Rate

(mm/blow)

Approximate Equivalent CBR (%)

DCP Depth

(mm)

Test Depth

(mm)TRL

(Note 1)CSIR

(Note 2) Av'ge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15 20 25

De

pth

(m

m)

Cummulative No of Blows

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR %

TRL Correlation CSIR Correlation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR Profile to HA 73/06 Clause 893 (%)

TRL Correlation

CSIR Correlation




0 110 0 0

1 330 220 1 220.0 1.0 0.4 0.7

1 380 270 2 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 420 310 3 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 450 340 4 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 490 380 5 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 520 410 6 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 550 440 7 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 600 490 8 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 640 530 9 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 680 570 10 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 710 600 11 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 730 620 12 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

2 760 650 14 15.0 17.3 13.2 15.2

2 800 690 16 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

2 840 730 18 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

2 880 770 20 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

2 920 810 22 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

Summary TRL(Note 1)

CSIR(Note 2) Av'ge



Notes:





INPUT DATA

Incremental

DCP Blows


Blows

Increment

Penetration Rate

(mm/blow)


DCP Depth

(mm)

Test Depth

(mm)TRL

(Note 1)CSIR

(Note 2) Av'ge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15 20 25

De

pth

(m

m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR %


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

De

pth

(m

m)


TRL Correlation

CSIR Correlation




0 130 0 0

1 300 170 1 170.0 1.3 0.6 1.0

1 380 250 2 80.0 2.9 1.6 2.3

1 420 290 3 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 460 330 4 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 490 360 5 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 510 380 6 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

2 570 440 8 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 630 500 10 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 700 570 12 35.0 7.0 4.5 5.8

2 760 630 14 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 810 680 16 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 860 730 18 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 900 770 20 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

Summary TRL(Note 1)

CSIR(Note 2) Av'ge



Notes:





INPUT DATA

Incremental

DCP Blows


Blows

Increment

Penetration Rate

(mm/blow)


DCP Depth

(mm)

Test Depth

(mm)TRL

(Note 1)CSIR

(Note 2) Av'ge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15 20 25

De

pth

(m

m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR %


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

De

pth

(m

m)


TRL Correlation

CSIR Correlation




0 95 0 0

1 210 115 1 115.0 2.0 1.0 1.5

1 250 155 2 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 290 195 3 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 340 245 4 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 370 275 5 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 390 295 6 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

1 420 325 7 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 490 395 9 35.0 7.0 4.5 5.8

2 570 475 11 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

2 640 545 13 35.0 7.0 4.5 5.8

2 700 605 15 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 760 665 17 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 800 705 19 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

2 850 755 21 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 890 795 23 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

Summary TRL(Note 1)

CSIR(Note 2) Av'ge



Notes:





INPUT DATA

Incremental

DCP Blows


Blows

Increment

Penetration Rate

(mm/blow)


DCP Depth

(mm)

Test Depth

(mm)TRL

(Note 1)CSIR

(Note 2) Av'ge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15 20 25

De

pth

(m

m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR %


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

De

pth

(m

m)


TRL Correlation

CSIR Correlation




0 100 0 0

1 365 265 1 265.0 0.8 0.3 0.6

1 410 310 2 45.0 5.4 3.3 4.3

1 440 340 3 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 460 360 4 20.0 12.7 9.1 10.9

1 490 390 5 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 530 430 6 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 570 470 7 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 610 510 8 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 640 540 9 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 680 580 10 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 710 610 11 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 740 640 12 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 770 670 13 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 800 700 14 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 830 730 15 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 860 760 16 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 890 790 17 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 920 820 18 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

Summary TRL(Note 1)

CSIR(Note 2) Av'ge



Notes:





INPUT DATA

Incremental

DCP Blows


Blows

Increment

Penetration Rate

(mm/blow)


DCP Depth

(mm)

Test Depth

(mm)TRL

(Note 1)CSIR

(Note 2) Av'ge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

De

pth

(m

m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR %


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

De

pth

(m

m)


TRL Correlation

CSIR Correlation




0 0.9 0 0

1 300 299.1 1 299.1 0.7 0.3 0.5

1 370 369.1 2 70.0 3.4 1.9 2.6

1 420 419.1 3 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 460 459.1 4 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 490 489.1 5 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 530 529.1 6 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 560 559.1 7 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 590 589.1 8 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 620 619.1 9 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 650 649.1 10 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 680 679.1 11 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 710 709.1 12 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 770 769.1 14 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 830 829.1 16 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 900 899.1 18 35.0 7.0 4.5 5.8

2 960 959.1 20 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

Summary TRL(Note 1)

CSIR(Note 2) Av'ge



Notes:





INPUT DATA

Incremental

DCP Blows


Blows

Increment

Penetration Rate

(mm/blow)


DCP Depth

(mm)

Test Depth

(mm)TRL

(Note 1)CSIR

(Note 2) Av'ge

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 5 10 15 20 25

De

pth

(m

m)


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 10

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR %


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

De

pth

(m

m)


TRL Correlation

CSIR Correlation




0 95 0 0

1 330 235 1 235.0 0.9 0.4 0.7

1 370 275 2 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 420 325 3 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 465 370 4 45.0 5.4 3.3 4.3

1 500 405 5 35.0 7.0 4.5 5.8

1 550 455 6 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 590 495 7 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 630 535 8 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 670 575 9 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 700 605 10 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 770 675 12 35.0 7.0 4.5 5.8

2 830 735 14 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 880 785 16 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 950 855 18 35.0 7.0 4.5 5.8

Summary TRL(Note 1)

CSIR(Note 2) Av'ge



Notes:





INPUT DATA

Incremental

DCP Blows


Blows

Increment

Penetration Rate

(mm/blow)


DCP Depth

(mm)

Test Depth

(mm)TRL

(Note 1)CSIR

(Note 2) Av'ge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15 20

De

pth

(m

m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR %


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

De

pth

(m

m)


TRL Correlation

CSIR Correlation




0 80 0 0

1 300 220 1 220.0 1.0 0.4 0.7

1 390 310 2 90.0 2.6 1.4 2.0

1 440 360 3 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 490 410 4 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 540 460 5 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 590 510 6 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 640 560 7 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 690 610 8 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 740 660 9 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 780 700 10 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 820 740 11 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 860 780 12 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 900 820 13 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 940 860 14 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

Summary TRL(Note 1)

CSIR(Note 2) Av'ge



Notes:





INPUT DATA

Incremental

DCP Blows


Blows

Increment

Penetration Rate

(mm/blow)


DCP Depth

(mm)

Test Depth

(mm)TRL

(Note 1)CSIR

(Note 2) Av'ge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

De

pth

(m

m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 10

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR %


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

De

pth

(m

m)


TRL Correlation

CSIR Correlation




0 60 0 0

1 290 230 1 230.0 1.0 0.4 0.7

1 350 290 2 60.0 4.0 2.3 3.1

1 390 330 3 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 430 370 4 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 470 410 5 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 510 450 6 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 560 500 7 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 610 550 8 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 650 590 9 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 690 630 10 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

2 740 680 12 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 800 740 14 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 860 800 16 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 920 860 18 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 950 890 20 15.0 17.3 13.2 15.2

Summary TRL(Note 1)

CSIR(Note 2) Av'ge



Notes:





INPUT DATA

Incremental

DCP Blows


Blows

Increment

Penetration Rate

(mm/blow)


DCP Depth

(mm)

Test Depth

(mm)TRL

(Note 1)CSIR

(Note 2) Av'ge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25

De

pth

(m

m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 10 20

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR %


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

De

pth

(m

m)


TRL Correlation

CSIR Correlation




0 80 0 0

1 250 170 1 170.0 1.3 0.6 1.0

1 310 230 2 60.0 4.0 2.3 3.1

1 350 270 3 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 400 320 4 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 440 360 5 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 490 410 6 50.0 4.8 2.9 3.8

1 520 440 7 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 560 480 8 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 590 510 9 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

1 630 550 10 40.0 6.1 3.8 5.0

1 660 580 11 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 710 630 13 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 770 690 15 30.0 8.3 5.5 6.9

2 820 740 17 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 870 790 19 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

2 920 840 21 25.0 10.1 6.9 8.5

Summary TRL(Note 1)

CSIR(Note 2) Av'ge



Notes:





INPUT DATA

Incremental

DCP Blows


Blows

Increment

Penetration Rate

(mm/blow)


DCP Depth

(mm)

Test Depth

(mm)TRL

(Note 1)CSIR

(Note 2) Av'ge

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15 20 25

De

pth

(m

m)


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20

De

pth

(m

m)

CBR %


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

De

pth

(m

m)


TRL Correlation

CSIR Correlation

Appendix E. GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

TEST CERTIFICATE

Liquid and Plastic Limits

Tested in Accordance with: BS 1377-2: 1990: Clause 4.3 and 5

Client: Client Reference:

Client Address: Job Number:

Date Sampled:

Date Received:

Contact: Date Tested:

Site Name: Sampled By:

Site Address:

Test Results

Laboratory Reference: Depth Top [m]:

Hole No.: Depth Base [m]:

Sample Reference: Sample Type:

Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:

Legend, based on BS 5930:2015 Code of practice for site investigations

Plasticity Liquid Limit

C Clay L Low below 35

M Silt I Medium 35 to 50

H High 50 to 70

V Very high 70 to 90

E Extremely high exceeding 90

Organic O append to classification for organic material ( eg CHO )

Remarks:

Approved: Dariusz Piotrowski Signed: Darren Berrill

PL Geotechnical Laboratory Manager Geotechnical General Manager

Date Reported: GF 236.3

Red Rock Geoscience Ltd RP7003


Broadclyst, Exeter,

Devon, EX5 3AS

19-28964

11/02/2019

14/02/2019

Tested in natural condition

Rebecca Thorne 21/02/2019

Ansford, Castle Cary Red Rock

Not Given

1155470 2.00

TP01 Not Given

Not Given D

Brown to grey slightly sandy CLAY

24 52 28 24 100

piotrowskid berrilld

27/02/2019"Opinions and interpretations expressed here in are outside of the scope of the UKAS Accreditation.

This report may not be reproduced other than in full without the prior written approval of the issuing laboratory.

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

The analysis was carried out at i2 Analytical Limited, ul. Pionierow 39, 41-711 Ruda Slaska, Poland."

As Received Moisture

Content [%]

Liquid Limit

[%]

Plastic Limit

[%]

Plasticity Index

[%]

% Passing 425µm

BS Test Sieve

CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

LIQUID LIMIT

Page 1 of 1 for and on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd

TEST CERTIFICATE





Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:

Test Results




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:






Broadclyst, Exeter,

Devon, EX5 3AS

19-28964

11/02/2019

14/02/2019




Not Given

1155471 0.50

TP03 Not Given

Not Given D

Light brown CLAY

30 68 28 40 100







Content [%]

Liquid Limit

[%]

Plastic Limit

[%]

Plasticity Index

[%]

% Passing 425µm

BS Test Sieve

CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

LIQUID LIMIT


TEST CERTIFICATE





Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:

Test Results




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:






Broadclyst, Exeter,

Devon, EX5 3AS

19-28964

12/02/2019

14/02/2019




Not Given

1155472 1.90

TP10 Not Given

Not Given D

Grey to brown slightly sandy CLAY

26 52 26 26 100







Content [%]

Liquid Limit

[%]

Plastic Limit

[%]

Plasticity Index

[%]

% Passing 425µm

BS Test Sieve

CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

LIQUID LIMIT


TEST CERTIFICATE





Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:

Test Results




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:






Broadclyst, Exeter,

Devon, EX5 3AS

19-28964

12/02/2019

14/02/2019




Not Given

1155473 2.00

TP13 Not Given

Not Given D

Brown to grey slightly sandy CLAY

25 46 26 20 100







Content [%]

Liquid Limit

[%]

Plastic Limit

[%]

Plasticity Index

[%]

% Passing 425µm

BS Test Sieve

CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

LIQUID LIMIT


TEST CERTIFICATE





Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:

Test Results




Soil Description:

Sample Preparation:





H High 50 to 70




Remarks:






Broadclyst, Exeter,

Devon, EX5 3AS

19-28964

12/02/2019

14/02/2019




Not Given

1155474 0.75

TP09 Not Given

Not Given D

Light brown CLAY

29 76 32 44 100







Content [%]

Liquid Limit

[%]

Plastic Limit

[%]

Plasticity Index

[%]

% Passing 425µm

BS Test Sieve

CL

CI

CH

CV

CE

MLMI

MH

MV

ME

A line

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

PLA

STIC

ITY

IN

DEX

LIQUID LIMIT


SUMMARY REPORT

Summary of Classification Test Results

Tested in Accordance with:



Date Sampled:

Date Received:



Site Address:

Test results

m m % % % % % Mg/m3 Mg/m3 %

2.00Not

GivenD 24 100 52 28 24

0.50Not

GivenD 30 100 68 28 40

0.75Not

GivenD 29 100 76 32 44

1.90Not

GivenD 26 100 52 26 26

2.00Not

GivenD 25 100 46 26 20

Note: # UKAS accredited; NP - Non plastic

Comments:





27/02/2019

"Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside of the scope of the UKAS Accreditation.




1155473 TP13 Not Given Brown to grey slightly sandy CLAY Atterberg 4 Point

1155472 TP10 Not Given Grey to brown slightly sandy CLAY Atterberg 4 Point

1155474 TP09 Not Given Light brown CLAY Atterberg 4 Point

1155471 TP03 Not Given Light brown CLAY Atterberg 4 Point

1155470 TP01 Not Given Brown to grey slightly sandy CLAY Atterberg 4 Point

LL PL PI bulk PDRemarksMC#

Atterberg# Density

Tota

l

Po

rosi

ty

%

Passing

425um

Not Given

Laboratory

Reference

Hole

No.

Sample

Description

Reference

Depth

Top

Depth

BaseType

Red Rock Geoscience Ltd MC by BS 1377-2: 1990: Clause 3.2; Atterberg by BS 1377-2: 1990: Clause

4.3, Clause 4.4 and 5; PD by BS 1377-2: 1990: Clause 8.2 RP7003


Broadclyst, Exeter,

Devon, EX5 3AS

19-28964

11/02 - 12/02/2019

14/02/2019




Rebecca Thorne

t: 01392 460800 t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404

e: [email protected] e:

Project / Site name: Samples received on: 14/02/2019

Your job number: RP7003 Samples instructed on: 14/02/2019

Your order number: RP7003 Analysis completed by: 22/02/2019

Report Issue Number: 1 Report issued on: 22/02/2019

Samples Analysed:

Signed:

Reporting ManagerFor & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.

Standard Geotechnical, Asbestos and Chemical Testing Laboratory located at: ul. Pionierów 39, 41 -711 Ruda Śląska, Poland.

Accredited tests are defined within the report, opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of accreditation.

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

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

Jordan Hill

5 soil samples


Red Rock Geoscience LtdEast WingStation HouseBroadclystExeterDevonEX5 3AS

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

Analytical Report Number : 19-28839

[email protected]

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


Iss No 19-28839-1 Ansford, Castle Cary RP7003

Page 1 of 4

Analytical Report Number: 19-28839

Project / Site name: Ansford, Castle Cary

Your Order No: RP7003

Lab Sample Number 1154822 1154823 1154824 1154825 1154826Sample Reference SA01 SA01 TP05 TP10 TP09Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 1.20 1.70 1.55 1.90 0.75Date Sampled 11/02/2019 11/02/2019 12/02/2019 12/02/2019 12/02/2019Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Analytical Parameter

(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1Moisture Content % N/A NONE 16 15 15 19 21Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.43 0.38

General Inorganics

pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.9Total Sulphate as SO4 mg/kg 50 MCERTS 180 220 3200 4700 320Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS 0.018 0.038 1.6 0.15 0.047Total Sulphur mg/kg 50 MCERTS 71 100 1600 1700 190




Page 2 of 4



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample

NumberDepth (m) Sample Description *

1154822 SA01 None Supplied 1.20 Light brown clay.1154823 SA01 None Supplied 1.70 Light brown clay.1154824 TP05 None Supplied 1.55 Brown clay.1154825 TP10 None Supplied 1.90 Brown clay and sand.1154826 TP09 None Supplied 0.75 Brown clay.

* These descriptions are only intended to act as a cross check if sample identities are questioned. The major constituent of the sample is intended to act with respect to MCERTS validation. The laboratory is accredited for sand, clay and loam (MCERTS) soil types. Data for unaccredited types of solid should be interpreted with care.

Stone content of a sample is calculated as the % weight of the stones not passing a 10 mm sieve. Results are not corrected for stone content.




Page 3 of 4



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

Analytical Test Name Analytical Method Description Analytical Method ReferenceMethod

number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Moisture Content Moisture content, determined gravimetrically. In-house method based on BS1377 Part 2, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests

L019-UK/PL W NONE

pH in soil (automated) Determination of pH in soil by addition of water followed by automated electrometric measurement.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests

L099-PL D MCERTS

Stones content of soil Standard preparation for all samples unless otherwise detailed. Gravimetric determination of stone > 10 mm as % dry weight.

In-house method based on British Standard Methods and MCERTS requirements.

L019-UK/PL D NONE

Sulphate, water soluble, in soil (16hr extraction)

Determination of water soluble sulphate by ICP-OES. Results reported directly (leachate equivalent) and corrected for extraction ratio (soil equivalent).

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests, 2:1 water:soil extraction, analysis by ICP-OES.

L038-PL D MCERTS

Total sulphate (as SO4 in soil) Determination of total sulphate in soil by extraction with 10% HCl followed by ICP-OES.


L038-PL D MCERTS

Total Sulphur in soil Determination of total sulphur in soil by extraction with aqua-regia, potassium bromide/bromate followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on BS1377 Part 3, 1990, and MEWAM 2006 Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil

L038-PL D MCERTS

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

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

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

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




Page 4 of 4

Appendix F. GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Rebecca Thorne

t: 01392 460800 t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404




Your order number: Analysis completed by: 15/03/2019


Samples Analysed:

Signed:

Quality ManagerFor & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.





[email protected]

Dr Claire Stone

2 soil samples








Page 1 of 5



Lab Sample Number 1172490 1172491Sample Reference TP08 TP13Sample Number None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 0.40 0.25

Date Sampled 11/02/2019 11/02/2019Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1Moisture Content % N/A NONE 19 25Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 0.47 0.43

Monoaromatics & Oxygenates

Benzene ug/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 < 0.001TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC6 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 < 0.001TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 < 0.001TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 < 2.0TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 8 MCERTS < 8.0 < 8.0TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTS < 8.0 8.6TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 < 0.001TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC7 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 < 0.001TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 < 0.001TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 < 2.0TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 < 10




Page 2 of 5



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample


1172490 TP08 None Supplied 0.40 Light brown clay and sand with gravel.1172491 TP13 None Supplied 0.25 Brown loam and clay with gravel and vegetation.






Page 3 of 5





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

BTEX and MTBE in soil (Monoaromatics)

Determination of BTEX in soil by headspace GC-MS. In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073B-PL W MCERTS


L019-UK/PL W NONE



L019-UK/PL D NONE

TPHCWG (Soil) Determination of hexane extractable hydrocarbons in soil by GC-MS/GC-FID.

In-house method with silica gel split/clean up.

L088/76-PL W MCERTS








Page 4 of 5

Sample Deviation Report

Sample ID Other_ID Sample Type Job Sample Number Sample Deviation Code test_name test_ref Test Deviation code

TP08 S 19-32056 1172490 c BTEX and MTBE in soil (Monoaromatics) L073B-PL c

TP08 S 19-32056 1172490 c TPHCWG (Soil) L088/76-PL c

TP13 S 19-32056 1172491 c BTEX and MTBE in soil (Monoaromatics) L073B-PL c

TP13 S 19-32056 1172491 c TPHCWG (Soil) L088/76-PL c

Iss No:19-32056-1 Ansford, Castle Cary RP7003Key: a - No sampling date b - Incorrect container

c - Holding time d - Headspace e - Temperature Page 5 of 5

Rebecca Thorne

t: 01392 460800 t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404




Your order number: Analysis completed by: 22/02/2019


Samples Analysed:

Signed:

Reporting ManagerFor & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.





Jordan Hill

8 soil samples





[email protected]




Page 1 of 7



Lab Sample Number 1154723 1154724 1154725 1154726 1154727Sample Reference SA01 SA03 SA04 TP03 TP04Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.20 0.50Date Sampled 11/02/2019 11/02/2019 11/02/2019 11/02/2019 11/02/2019Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE - < 0.1 - < 0.1 < 0.1Moisture Content % N/A NONE - 27 - 25 21Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE - 0.48 - 0.48 0.43

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

General Inorganics

pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS - 7.0 - 7.3 7.8Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS - 6.5 - 6.8 2.2

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 0.26 - < 0.05 < 0.05Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 0.23 - < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 0.19 - < 0.05 < 0.05Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 0.14 - < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 0.24 - < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 0.12 - < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - 0.23 - < 0.05 < 0.05Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05

Total PAH

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS - 1.41 - < 0.80 < 0.80




Page 2 of 7



Lab Sample Number 1154723 1154724 1154725 1154726 1154727Sample Reference SA01 SA03 SA04 TP03 TP04Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None SuppliedDepth (m) 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.20 0.50Date Sampled 11/02/2019 11/02/2019 11/02/2019 11/02/2019 11/02/2019Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Heavy Metals / Metalloids

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 8.2 - 11 11Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS - 3.5 - 3.7 2.0Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS - < 0.2 - < 0.2 < 0.2Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS - < 4.0 - < 4.0 < 4.0Chromium (III) mg/kg 1 NONE - 38 - 41 49Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 38 - 41 49Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 27 - 30 18Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 33 - 24 30Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS - < 0.3 - < 0.3 < 0.3Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 20 - 26 43Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - < 1.0 - < 1.0 < 1.0Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - 85 - 140 79




Page 3 of 7



Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE

Moisture Content % N/A NONE

Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025

General Inorganics

pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS

Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS

Speciated PAHs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS

Total PAH

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS

1154728 1154729 1154730TP07 TP08 TP13

None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied0.25 0.40 0.25

11/02/2019 11/02/2019 11/02/2019None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

< 0.1 - -29 - -

0.47 - -

- Not-detected Not-detected

7.7 - -7.0 - -

< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -< 0.05 - -

< 0.80 - -




Page 4 of 7



Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of

de

tectio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Heavy Metals / Metalloids

Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS

Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS

Chromium (III) mg/kg 1 NONE

Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS

Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS

1154728 1154729 1154730TP07 TP08 TP13

None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied0.25 0.40 0.25

11/02/2019 11/02/2019 11/02/2019None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

9.9 - -3.2 - -

< 0.2 - -< 4.0 - -

41 - -41 - -28 - -28 - -

< 0.3 - -28 - -

< 1.0 - -92 - -




Page 5 of 7



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample


1154723 SA01 None Supplied 0.25 -1154724 SA03 None Supplied 0.25 Brown loam and clay with gravel and vegetation.1154725 SA04 None Supplied 0.35 -1154726 TP03 None Supplied 0.20 Brown loam and clay with vegetation.1154727 TP04 None Supplied 0.50 Brown clay and loam.1154728 TP07 None Supplied 0.25 Brown loam and clay with vegetation.1154729 TP08 None Supplied 0.40 -1154730 TP13 None Supplied 0.25 -






Page 6 of 7





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Asbestos identification in soil Asbestos Identification with the use of polarised light microscopy in conjunction with disperion staining techniques.

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

Boron, water soluble, in soil Determination of water soluble boron in soil by hot water extract followed by ICP-OES.

In-house method based on Second Site Properties version 3

L038-PL D MCERTS

Cr (III) in soil In-house method by calculation from total Cr and Cr VI.

In-house method by calculation L080-PL W NONE

Hexavalent chromium in soil Determination of hexavalent chromium in soil by extraction in water then by acidification, addition of 1,5 diphenylcarbazide followed by colorimetry.

In-house method L080-PL W MCERTS

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

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

L038-PL D MCERTS


L019-UK/PL W NONE

Organic matter (Automated) in soil Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising with potassium dichromate followed by titration with iron (II) sulphate.

BS1377 Part 3, 1990, Chemical and Electrochemical Tests""

L009-PL D MCERTS

pH in soil (automated) Determination of pH in soil by addition of water followed by automated electrometric measurement.


L099-PL D MCERTS

Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in soil Determination of PAH compounds in soil by extraction in dichloromethane and hexane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards.

In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L064-PL D MCERTS



L019-UK/PL D NONE








Page 7 of 7

Appendix G. GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA VALUES

Generic Assessment Criteria for Protection of Human Health

Statutory Non-Statutory Plymouth West Devon AtkinsStatutory

Part 2A

SGVs (1) S4ULs (2) (3) (4) (5) C4SLs (6)

Arsenic 37.00 32.00 37.00 63.00 140.00 37.00

Cadmium 10.00 10.00 11.00 (7) 26.00

Chromium III 910.00 910.00

Chromium VI 6.00 6.00 21.00

Copper 2,400.00 2,400.00

Mercury inorganic 40.00 Withrawn 40.00

Nickel 130.00 130.00

Lead 210.00 210.00 (6) 210.00

Selenium 250.00 350.00 250.00

Zinc 3,700.00 3,700.00

Berylium 1.70 1.70

Boron 290.00 290.00

Mercury Elemental 1.20 Withrawn 1.20

Mercury Methyl 11.00 Withrawn 11.00

Vanadium 410.00 410.00

Cyanide 34.00 34.00

Statutory

Part 2A

1% 2.5% 6% C4SLs (6)

Naphthalene 2.30 5.60 13.00

Acenaphthylene 170.00 420.00 920.00

Acenaphthene 210.00 510.00 1,100.00

Fluorene 170.00 400.00 860.00

Phenanthrene 95.00 220.00 440.00

Anthracene 2,400.00 5,400.00 11,000.00

Fluoranthene 280.00 560.00 890.00

Pyrene 620.00 1,200.00 2,000.00

Benzo(a)anthracene 7.20 11.00 13.00

Chrysene 15.00 22.00 27.00

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.60 3.30 3.70

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 77.00 93.00 100.00

Benzo(a)pyrene 2.20 2.70 3.00 5.00

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 27.00 36.00 41.00

Dibenzo(ah)Anthracene 0.24 0.28 0.30

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 320.00 340.00 350.00

Coal Tar (3) 0.79 0.98 1.10

Statutory

Part 2A

1% 2.5% 6% C4SLs (6)

TPH Aliphatic EC5-6 42.00 78.00 160.00

TPH Aliphatic EC6-8 100.00 230.00 530.00

TPH Aliphatic EC8-10 27.00 65.00 150.00

TPH Aliphatic EC10-12 48.00 (8) 118.00 (8) 283.00 (8)

TPH Aliphatic EC12-16 24.00 (8) 59.00 (8) 142.00 (8)

TPH Aliphatic EC16-35 65,000.00 92,000.00 110,000.00

TPH Aliphatic EC35-44 65,000.00 92,000.00 110,000.00

TPH Aromatic EC5-7 70.00 140.00 300.00

TPH Aromatic EC7-8 130.00 290.00 660.00

TPH Aromatic EC8-10 34.00 83.00 190.00

TPH Aromatic EC10-12 74.00 180.00 380.00

TPH Aromatic EC12-16 140.00 330.00 660.00

TPH Aromatic EC16-21 260.00 540.00 930.00

TPH Aromatic EC21-35 1,100.00 1,500.00 1,700.00

TPH Aromatic EC35-44 1,100.00 1,500.00 1,700.00

TPH Ali / Aro EC44-70 1,600.00 1,800.00 1,900.00

TPH 3-Band C6-10 27.00 65.00 150.00

TPH 3-Band C10-21 24.00 (8) 59.00 (8) 142.00 (8)

TPH 3-Band C21-40 1,100.00 1,500.00 1,700.00

1% 2.5% 6%

BTEX Benzene (1) 0.09 0.17 0.37

BTEX Toluene (1) 130.00 290.00 660.00

BTEX Ethylbenzene (1) 47.00 110.00 260.00

BTEX m Xylene (1) 60.00 140.00 330.00

BTEX p Xylene (1) 59.00 140.00 320.00

BTEX o Xylene (1) 56.00 130.00 310.00

Phenol (1) 120.00 200.00 380.00

Chlorophenols (1) 0.87 2.00 4.50

Pentachlorophenol (1) 0.22 0.52 1.20

Methyl Tributyl Ether (MTBE) (2) 49.00 84.00 160.00

Tributyl Tin oxide (TBTO) (2) 0.25 0.59 1.30

1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (2) 0.35 0.85 2.00

Isopropylbenzene (2) 11.00 27.00 64.00

Propylbenzene (2) 34.00 82.00 190.00

Cresols (total) (2) 80.00 180.00 400.00

Styrene (2) 8.10 19.00 43.00

Notes:

(1) Environment Agency SGV, 2009

(2) LQM / CIEH S4UL, 2015 and where unavailable CL:AIRE 2009 or In-House derived using CLEA UK V1.07 with C4SL setting

(4) West Devon Borough Council, Arsenic Advice Note for Environmental Health Officers

(5) No guideline value has been published for cyanide for the UK setting. A generic value derived by ATKINS is used

(6) DEFRA, 2014, Category 4 Screening Levels (C4SLs)

(7) LQM / CIEH GAC, 2015, based on a lifetime exposure via the oral, inhalation and dermal pathways

Notes on the Derivation of Generic Assessment Criteria (SGVs / S4ULs):

* Calculation of SGVs and S4ULs reflect a minimal risk approach

* Vapour inhalation rates updated as per USEPA 2011

PAH

Congeners

(mg/Kg)

Residential with Plant Uptake

and Primary Schools

Assessment

Criteria

Metals and

Metalloids

Cyanide

(mg/Kg)


and Primary Schools

Assessment Criteria S4ULs (2)

* Metals and Metalloids not sensitive to soil organic matter variations


and Primary Schools

Assessment Criteria S4ULs (2)

TPH

Speciation

(mg/Kg)


and Primary Schools

Assessment Criteria S4ULs / GAC

Misc. Organics

(mg/Kg)

(3) Arsenic criteria based on Clark, L.M., 2012, A critical review of the policy for arsenic risk assessments in Plymouth, Master of Science Dissertation

(8) Value set at the vapour saturation limit. The CLEA UK model does not take into consideration oral or dermal exposure via direct contact with free phase product, nor does it

consider inhalation exposure from vapours derived from free phase product (i.e. LNAPLs and DNAPLs). as a result, the model can under-estimate the risk at higher soil

concentrations. This may happen when the calculated S4UL or SGV exceeds the soil saturation limit. On this basis the SGV/S4UL should be set at, or equal to, the aqueous or vapour

soil saturation limits (whichever the lowest). However, where the vapour inhalation pathway is not considered to be a critical pathway (i.e. <10% of exposure total) this rule can be

over-ridden. This has been the approach of the EA and LQM/CIEH and EIC/AGS/CL:AIRE in the generation of their respective generic assessment criteria values.

It is generally the approach of Red Rock Geoscience Ltd to set the GACs at the vapour saturation limit unless the vapour inhalation pathway is less than 10% of the total exposure.

* The typical soil scenario considered appropriate for the derivation of the generic value was SANDY LOAM

* All chemical parameters as per CLEA UK default values. Default pH=7. Default Soil Organic Matter (SOM)=1%, 2.5 or 3%, and 6%

* Exposure values changed as per S4UL publication, 2015. All other soil, land use, and exposure parameters were taken as per EA Publication EA SC050021/SR3

“Updated Technical Background to the CLEA Model”, 2009

Notes on Lead:

The calculation of a generic assessment criteria for lead differs from the calculation of guideline values for other contaminants in that it uses the blood level concentrations as

opposed to ingestion and inhalation intake concentrations. The approach taken by DEFRA for the calculation of the C4SL for lead utilised the IEUBK and Carlisle & Wade models to

estimate intake values on the basis of blood level concentrations that could then be used in the CLEA UK model. As a result the CLEA UK Model can now be used to calculate a GAC

for lead. However, in the absense of data for calculation of a lead GAC reflecting the minimal risk approach, the C4SL approach reflecting a low level of toxicological concern is used

instead.

Appendix H. RISK ASSESSMENT OF POLLUTANT LINKAGES

Classification Definition Severe Medium Mild Minor None

RISK PHRASES AND MATRICES

Risk Matrix of Probability

and Consequence

Classification of Probability of Risk

Probabili

ty o

f Ris

k

Consequences

High Likelihood

There may be a pollutant linkage present and an event appears very likely in

the short term or almost inevitable in the long term; or there is already

evidence of harm to receptor.

High Likelihood Very High High Moderate Low Very Low

LikelyPollutant linkage may be present, and it is probable that there will be a long

term risk and possibly a short term risk.Likely High Moderate Low Very Low Negligible

Low LikelihoodPollutant linkage may be present, and it is possible that there will be a long

term risk, though not certainLow Likelihood Moderate Low Very Low Negligible Negligible

UnlikelyPollutant linkage may be present, but the circumstances are such that an

event is improbable, even in the long term. Unlikely Low Very Low Negligible Negligible Negligible

No Risk Identified

No contaminants identified above guideline values likely to pose a risk to

human health, fauna, flora, the water resources or the future built

environment.

No Risk

identifiedVery Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Classification Definition

Severe

Acute risks to human health

Catastrophic damage to buildings and property

Major pollution of controlled waters

Medium

Chronic risk to human health

Pollution of sensitive controlled waters

Significant effects on sensitive ecosystems or species

Significant damage to buildings or structures

MildPollution of non-sensitive waters

Minor damage to buildings or structures

Minor

Requirement for protective equipment during site works to mitigate health

effects

Damage to non-sensitive ecosystems or species

None Identified

Damage to human health, and the wider environment not expected.

Requirement for basic protective equipment during site works still required

as good practice.

Classification of Severity of Consequence

Probabili

ty o

f Ris

k

NOTES:

Contaminated Land Risk Assessment involves the matching of the identified potential sources of contamination to the receptors

through the possible migration pathways. These links must be completed for there to be any risk associated with the site.

This assessment of pollutant linkages is presented in terms of the Source (S), Pathway (P) and Receptor (R) concept and applying

a qualitative value judgement to this appraisal. The assessment assigns a level of risk to each SPR link based on the probability

and potential consequence of the risk being realised. The scale of risk is based on matrices as presented in the tables.

Red Rock Geoscience ltd.

A:\RR - Jobs\RR Job Templates\Report Templates\2012 - New Report Templates (WIP)\RPxxxx RA of Pollutant Linkages V07.xlsx Page 1 of 1

Appendix I. GENERAL NOTES AND LIMITATIONS

GENERAL NOTES AND LIMITATIONS

PAGE 1 of 1

General Notes

The report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client named in the document and copyright remains with Red Rock

Geoscience Ltd (RRG). Prior written permission must be obtained to reproduce all or part of the report. It has been prepared on the

understanding that you will only disclose its contents to parties directly involved in the current investigation, preparation, and

development of the site. Further copies may be obtained with the Client's written permission, from RRG who retains the master

copy of the report.

Reports are prepared for the specific purpose stated in the document and in relation to the nature and extent of proposals made

available to RRG. The recommendations should not be used for other schemes on or adjacent to the site. The assessment of the

factual data, where called for, is provided to assist the Client and his Engineer and/or Advisers in the preparation of the designs.

All assessments and recommendations should be forwarded to the relevant planning authorities for comment and approval prior to

implementation.

Phase I Assessments

Phase I desk study reports are largely based on data supplied by third parties and is therefore interpreted in accordance with the

guidance notes and limitations provided by the data supplier.

Site walkover comments are based on simple observation by the Engineer and do not include extensive environmental,

geotechnical, or structural surveys.

Phase II Assessments

Phase II site investigation reports are based on the ground and groundwater conditions encountered in the exploratory holes,

together with the results of field and laboratory testing in the context of the proposed development. There may be special

conditions appertaining to the site, which have not been revealed by the investigation and which may not have been taken into

account in the report. RRG cannot be responsible for any changes in ground conditions following completion of fieldwork (e.g.

subsequent spillages, leakages, excavations, etc. on or adjacent to the site).

Positioning of exploratory holes depends on the existence of utility services, existing structures, and / or access restrictions.

Methods of design and/or construction other than those proposed or referred to in the report may require consideration during the

evolution of the proposals and if this is the case further assessment of the geotechnical data appropriate to these methods would

be required.

The accuracy of results reported depends upon the technique of measurement, investigation, and test used and these values should

not be regarded necessarily as characteristics of the strata as a whole.

The evaluation and conclusions do not preclude the variation in ground conditions between the test holes. Hence this report should

be used in this context and not be construed necessarily as a comprehensive characterisation of the entire site conditions.

The samples selected for environmental and geotechnical laboratory testing are prepared and tested by an UKAS accredited and

when possible or necessary MCERTS accredited external laboratory.

Any unavoidable variations from specified procedures are identified in the report.

Whilst reports may have expressed an opinion on possible configurations of strata between or beyond exploratory holes, or on the

possible presence of features based on visual, verbal, written, cartographical, photographic, or published evidence, this is for

guidance only and no liability can be accepted for its accuracy.

Ground conditions should be monitored during the construction of the works by ground-workers and the recommendations of the

report re-evaluated as necessary.

Any comments on groundwater conditions have been based on observations made at the time of the investigation, unless

specifically stated otherwise. It should be noted, however, that the observations are subject to the method and speed of boring,

drilling, or excavation and that groundwater levels will vary due to seasonal effects and rainfall.

Where the investigation has taken account of possible effects of gases from fill or natural sources within, below, or outside the site,

assessment has been based on current guidance provided by the CIRIA 665 Publication.

Unless specifically stated, the investigation has not taken account of any environmental soil or water guideline values other than the

current and approved guideline values for the United Kingdom. Where these are not available, others such as the Canadian

Environmental Guidelines, the US EPA guidelines and/or European Union Drinking Water Standards may be used as indicative only.

Site-specific assessment criteria values have been calculated using the current CLEA UK model V1.07, published by the Environment

Agency in 2015.

ansford, castle cary geo-environmental assessment

Documents