C6559 Phase II PC Club-opt/Microsoft...Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited

Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited

1 Riverside House, Heron Way,

Newham, Truro, TR1 2XN.

Tel: 01872 261775

Fax: 01872 261883

HAYLE COMMUNITY RUGBY FACILITIES LIMITED

CARWIN RISE

LOGGANS MOOR HAYLE CORNWALL TR27 5DG

REPORT ON PHASE II SITE INVESTIGATION

Contract: C6559

Date: March 2010

Carwin Rise Loggans Moor Hayle Cornwall TR27 5DG

Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited

1 Riverside House, Heron Way,

Newham, Truro, TR1 2XN.

Tel: 01872 261775

Fax: 01872 261883

REPORT ON PHASE II SITE INVESTIGATION

Carried out at

CARWIN RISE

LOGGANS MOOR HAYLE CORNWALL TR27 5DG

Prepared for

HAYLE COMMUNITY RUGBY FACILITIES LIMITED

Hendra Croft

Scotland Road

Newquay

CORNWALL

TR8 5QR

Contract No: C6559

Date: March 2010


Contract No. C6559

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On the instructions of Hayle Community Rugby Facilities Limited, a ground

investigation was undertaken to determine ground conditions to enable foundation and

road/hard standing design to be carried out, together with a contamination risk

assessment and a review of gas emissions.

The site is situated on Carwin Rise, approximately 2km to the north east of the town

centre of Hayle, Cornwall and may be located by National Grid Reference

SW579389. The site is underlain by the Mylor Slate Formation of the Devonian

period.

The site work was carried out on the 18th

September 2009 and 22nd

February 2010.

Twenty one trial pits, designated TP1 to TP21, were dug by mechanical excavator at

the positions shown on the site plan. Representative disturbed samples were taken at

the depths shown on the trial pit records and despatched to the laboratory. Samples for

environmental purposes were collected in amber glass jars and kept in a cool box.

Soak-away permeability tests were carried out in trial pits TP1, TP2 and TP3, in line

with guidelines given in BRE Digest 365. Ten in-situ CBR tests were also carried out

across the site.

It is recommended that consideration could be given to the adoption of shallow spread

foundations to support the proposed structures. Foundations should be taken through

any topsoil and placed in the underlying natural strata at a minimum depth of

1.00mBGL.

Spread foundations may be designed to an allowable bearing pressure of 90kPa, a

figure which would provide an adequate factor of safety against shear failure.

It may be considered that the underlying less weathered Mylor Slate may give a

greater bearing strength and consideration may be given to extending the foundation

depths.

It is unlikely that foundation depths would exceed 3.0mBGL and this would allow for

spread foundations installed upon trench fill. An allowable bearing pressure of at least

175kPa can be assumed at this depth.

For the purposes of this contamination risk assessment, the results of the soil analyses

have been compared to the Assessment Criteria (AC) derived in-house using the

CLEA Software Version 1.06, CLEA SGVs published in Environment Agency

Science Reports SCR050021 and SC050021/SR3, where available, and Generic

Assessment Criteria (GAC), determined by LQM and CIEH, in accordance with

current legislation and guidance.

The risk assessment identifies that a ‘source – pathway – receptor’ linkage potentially

occurs with radon impacting upon the identified receptors.


Contract No. C6559 Page 1 of 17

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION 3

2.0 SITE SETTING 3

2.1 Site Location 3

2.2 Geological Setting 3

3.0 SITE WORK 4

4.0 LABORATORY TESTS 4

4.1 Geotechnical Testing 4

4.2 Chemical Testing 5

5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED 6

5.1 Sequence 6

5.2 Topsoil 6

5.3 Mylor Slate Formation 6

5.4 Groundwater 6

6.0 EARTHWORKS ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO THE

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7

7.1 Structural Details 7

7.2 Assessment of Soil Condition 7

7.3 Foundation Design 8

7.4 Ground Floor Slabs 8

7.5 Excavations 9

7.6 Road and Hard Standing Design 9

7.7 Soak-away 9

7.8 Chemical Attack on Buried Concrete 9

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT IN

RELATION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 10

8.1 Contaminated Land 10

8.2 Risk Assessment 10

8.3 Pollutant Linkage 10

8.4 Risk Assessment – Human Health 11

8.5 Risk Assessment - Controlled Waters 12

8.6 Gas Generation 12

8.7 Protection Of Services 13

8.8 Risk Evaluation 13

8.9 Summary of Risk Evaluation 13

9.0 MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATION 13

9.1 Remediation and Verification 13



9.2 Management of Unidentified Sources of Contamination 14

9.3 Consultation 14

9.4 Risk Management During Site Works 15

10.0 REFERENCES 15

APPENDIX 1 - DRAWINGS

Figure A1.1 - Site Plan

Figure A1.2 - Exploratory Hole Location Plan

APPENDIX 2 - SITE WORK

General Notes on Site Work Figures A2.1–A2.21 - Trial Pit Records

Figures A2.22-A2.25 - Results of Soak-away Permeability Tests

Figure A2.26-A2.36 - Results of In-situ CBRs

APPENDIX 3 - LABORATORY TESTS

General Notes on Laboratory Tests on Soils iii/i-iii/iii Test Report C6559/1 - Results of Laboratory Tests

- Plasticity Classification Chart

APPENDIX 4 - CHEMICAL TESTS

Report No 10-35960 - Certificate of Analysis, Sample Description

- Results of Chemical Tests on Soils

APPENDIX 5 - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Figure A5.1 - Determination of Water Demand/Mature Height of Trees

Figure A5.2 - Foundation Depths – Medium Volume Change Soils

Figure A5.3 - Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC)

APPENDIX 6 - CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

General Notes on Chemical Contamination vi/i-vi/iv Figure A6.1 - Summary Table for Statistical Tests

Figure A6.2-A6.7 - CLEA v1.06 Site Specific Assessment Criteria



1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 It is understood that the proposed development comprises of a new rugby

ground with associated facilities and car parking.

1.1.2 On the instructions of Hayle Community Rugby Facilities Limited, a site

investigation was undertaken to determine ground conditions to enable

foundation and road/hard standing design to be carried out, together with a

contamination risk assessment and a review of gas emissions.

1.1.3 This report should be read in conjunction with the Phase I Desk Study which

was reported under reference C6559 in September 2009.

1.1.4 It is recommended that a copy of this report be submitted to the relevant

authorities to enable them to carry out their own site assessments and provide

any comments.

1.1.5 This report has been prepared for the sole use of the Client for the purpose

described and no extended duty of care to any third party is implied or offered.

Third parties using any information contained within this report do so at their

own risk.

1.1.6 The comments given in this report and the opinions expressed herein are based

on the information received, the conditions encountered during site works, and

on the results of tests made in the field and laboratory. However, there may be

conditions prevailing at the site which have not been disclosed by the

investigation and which have not been taken into account in the report.

1.1.7 The comments on groundwater conditions are based on observations made at

the time the site work was carried out. It should be noted that groundwater

levels vary owing to seasonal or other effects.

2.0 SITE SETTING

2.1 Site Location

2.1.1 The site is situated on Carwin Rise, approximately 2km to the north east of the

town centre of Hayle, Cornwall and may be located by National Grid

Reference SW579389.

2.1.2 A site plan is included in Appendix 1, Figure A1.1.

2.2 Geological Setting

2.2.1 Details of the geology underlying the site have been obtained from the British

Geological Survey map, Sheet No. 351/358, ‘Penzance’, solid and drift

edition, 1:50000 scale, published 1984.

2.2.2 The site is underlain by the Mylor Slate Formation of the Devonian period.

2.2.3 The geological map indicates the site to adjoin an area of Alluvium.



3.0 SITE WORK

3.1.1 The site work was carried out on the 18th

September 2009 and 22nd

February

2010. The locations of exploratory holes have been planned, where possible,

in general accordance with CLR 4, ref. 10.1 and the site work carried out on

the basis of the practices set out in BS 10175:2001, ref. 10.2, BS 5930:1999

ref. 10.3 and ISO 1997:2007, ref 10.4.

3.1.2 Twenty one trial pits, designated TP1 to TP21, were dug by mechanical

excavator at the positions shown on the site plan, Appendix 1, Figure A1.2.

The depths of trial pits, descriptions of strata encountered and comments on

groundwater conditions are given in the trial pit records, Appendix 2, Figures

A2.1 to A2.21.

3.1.3 Representative disturbed samples were taken at the depths shown on the trial

pit records and despatched to the laboratory.

3.1.4 Samples for environmental purposes were collected in amber glass jars and

kept in a cool box.

3.1.5 The ground levels at the trial pit locations were not determined.

3.1.6 Soak-away permeability tests were carried out in trial pits TP1, TP2 and TP3,

in line with guidelines given in BRE Digest 365, ref 10.6. The results are

included in Figures A2.22 – A2.25.

3.1.7 Ten in-situ CBR tests were carried out across the site. The results are included

in Figures A2.26-A2.36.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTS

4.1 Geotechnical Testing

4.1.1 All soil samples were prepared in accordance with BS1377: Part One: 1990

and representative subsamples were taken for testing. The following

geotechnical analyses was carried out as detailed below:

No. Test British Standard Reference Notes

24 Moisture

Content

BS 1377: Part 2: Clause 3.2 For comparison with Atterberg limits (if

required) the measured moisture content

would have to be corrected to give the

equivalent moisture content of the

fraction passing the 425 micron sieve.

9

Atterberg

Limits

BS 1377: Part 2: Clause 4.3 The plastic limit was determined for the

same samples using the definitive method

detailed in Clause 5.3. The samples were

wet sieved in accordance with Clause 4.2.4

(marked with‘s’ in Table 1 of the results).



No. Test British Standard Reference Notes

11 Particle Size

Distribution

BS 1377: Part 2: Clause 9.2 Samples prepared in accordance with

Clause 7.3 and 7.4.5. (wet sieve)

9 Sedimentation BS 1377: Part 2: Clause 9 Results were directly linked to the particle

size distribution curve.

1 Compactions BS 1377: Part 4: Clause 3.5

and 3.6

Samples prepared in accordance with

Clause 3.2A (2.5kg rammer)

5 pH BS 1377: Part 3: Clause 9.5 Samples prepared in accordance with

Clause 9.4.

5 Water Soluble

Sulphate

BS 1377: Part 3: Clause 5.5 The samples prepared in accordance with

Clause 5.3.

4.1.2 Ten compactions were attempted but nine failed due to reasons stipulated in

the following chapters.

4.1.3 The results of the geotechnical laboratory testing report C6559/1, together

with a Plasticity Classification Chart can be found in Appendix 3.

4.2 Chemical Testing

4.2.1 The suite of chemical analyses has been based upon the findings of the desk

study, along with any on-site observations, to investigate the potential sources

of contamination identified in the conceptual model. The chemical analyses

were carried out on fifteen samples of soil. The nature of the analyses is

detailed below:

4.2.2 Metals Suite - arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, copper,

nickel and zinc.

4.2.3 Others - pH, organic matter content, water soluble sulphate.

4.2.4 The results of these tests are shown in Appendix 4, Report No 10-35960.



5.0 GROUND CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED

5.1 Sequence

5.1.1 The sequence of the strata encountered during the investigation generally

confirms the anticipated geology as interpreted from the geological map.

5.1.2 The sequence and indicative thicknesses of strata are provided below:

Strata Encountered Depth Encountered (m) Strata Thickness

(m) From To

Topsoil 0.00 0.20 to 0.80 0.20 to 0.80

Completely Weathered

Mylor Slate Formation 0.20 to 0.80 1.10 to 3.10 0.50 to 2.50

Weathered Mylor Slate

Formation 0.50 to 3.10 1.90 to 4.10

At least 2.60

Base Unproven

5.2 Topsoil

5.2.1 Topsoil was encountered in every exploratory hole excavated across the site

and was found to vary in thickness from 0.20m to 0.80m.

5.3 Mylor Slate Formation

5.3.1 Completely Weathered Mylor Slate Formation was encountered across the

majority of the site with the exception of TP2, TP12, and TP14-TP16, and was

recovered as a principally cohesive material with varying amounts of granular

material.

5.3.2 Every exploratory hole was terminated within the Weathered Mylor Slate

Formation, which was principally recovered as a granular material.

5.4 Groundwater

5.4.1 Groundwater was encountered at depths of varying from 2.80m to 4.00mBGL.

6.0 EARTHWORKS ASSESSMENT IN RELATION

TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

6.1 General

6.1.1 Compaction and classification tests were carried out on samples from the trial

pits carried out in the area to be cut. It is proposed to utilise this cut material

for raising the levels of the lower parts of the site.

6.2 Topsoil

6.2.1 All topsoil should be stripped prior to any earthworks taking place.

6.2.2 Particle Size Distributions indicated 43 to 64% silt/clay, 12 to 38% sand and

18 to 30% gravel.



6.2.3 Completely Weathered Mylor Slate Formation

6.3.1 The Completely Weathered Mylor Slate Formation was found to vary in

thickness across the site. It was principally recovered as a cohesive material

ranging from clay of low plasticity to silt of intermediate to very high

plasticity.

6.3.2 The ratios of the natural moisture content (NMC) to the plastic limit (PL) of

the samples was found to be above the generally acceptable limit of 1.2,

however in the majority of instances were found to be +/- 4% from the plastic

limit and may be deemed acceptable for use as a fill material. Some clay was

found too dry with moisture contents of 18%.

6.2 Weathered Mylor Slate Formation

6.3.1 Particle size distributions were carried out on four samples of the Weathered

Mylor Slate Formation indicated 4 to 46% silt/clay, 5 to 21% sand, 40 to 72%

gravel and 2% cobble content, suggesting silty sandy gravel soil with low

cobble content.

6.3.2 Nine samples were subject to 2.5kg compaction testing to determine

maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC).

6.3.3 Out of the nine samples tested only one test was fully complete as the eight

samples were aborted due to the material being ‘crushable’.

6.3.4 The MDD of the Weathered Mylor Slate Formation was determined to be

1.68Mg/m3 with an OMC of 11%.

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO THE

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

7.1 Structural Details

7.1.1 It is understood that the proposed development is to consist of developing a

new rugby facility with associated pitches and areas of hard-standing. A new

building will be central to the development and a considerable ‘cut and fill’

programme is required to level the site.

7.1.2 Precise structural details were not available at the time of preparation of this

report.

7.2 Assessment of Soil Condition

7.2.1 The Completely Weathered Mylor Slate Formation encountered on the site

was principally cohesive in nature but contained differing proportions of

granular material varying in size from sand to gravel.



7.3 Foundation Design

7.3.1 The results of laboratory tests indicate the Completely Weathered Mylor Slate

Formation is of intermediate plasticity and of medium volume change

potential as defined by the National House Building Council, ref 10.7 and

other published data, refs 10.8 and 10.9. Changes in moisture content will

result in small changes in volume, seasonal changes being exacerbated by the

presence of trees. It is recommended that for design purposes, medium

volume change potential should be adopted.

7.3.2 On the basis of observations made on site together with results of in-situ and

laboratory tests, it is recommended that consideration could be given to the

adoption of shallow spread foundations to support the proposed structures.

7.3.3 Outside the zone of influence of existing and proposed trees, it is

recommended that conventional shallow spread footings should be taken

through any topsoil and placed in the underlying natural strata at a minimum

depth of 1.00mBGL.

7.3.4 Within the zone of influence of recently removed, existing or proposed trees,

foundations should be taken through the topsoil and placed at depths

recommended by the NHBC for soils of medium volume change potential.

The relevant sections of the NHBC Standard are included in Appendix 5,

Figures A5.1 and A5.2. Compressible material should be placed on the inside

faces of foundations as specified by the NHBC.

7.3.5 Plasticity Index Testing indicated clay consistency to varying between stiff

and very stiff.

7.3.6 It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that spread foundations may be

designed to an allowable bearing pressure of 90kPa, a figure which would

provide an adequate factor of safety against shear failure.

7.3.7 It may be considered that the underlying less weathered Mylor Slate may give

a greater bearing strength and consideration may be given to extending the

foundation depths. It is unlikely that foundation depths would exceed

3.0mBGL and this would allow for spread foundations installed upon trench

fill. An allowable bearing pressure of at least 175kPa can be assumed.

7.3.8 It is possible that shallow foundations within the same structure could be

supported on different strata, in this instance between the weathering profiles

from cohesive to granular material, resulting in possible differential

settlements developing due to the different settlement characteristics of these

strata. In these circumstances it is recommended that nominal reinforcement

be included within the foundations to minimise differential settlement.

7.4 Ground Floor Slabs

7.4.1 On the basis of the details of the proposed site, it is envisaged that the ground

floor slab will be cast upon suitably engineered fill.



7.4.2 Should the floor slab be cast upon an area of natural ground and within the

influence of trees, the floor slab should be suspended over a void. This would

also take into account any minor heave from the unloading of the cut area.

7.5 Excavations

7.5.1 On the basis of observations on site, together with the results of in-situ and

laboratory tests, it is considered that excavations to less than 1.20mBGL

should stand unsupported in the short term. Side support for safety purposes

should of course be provided to all excavations which appear unstable, and

those in excess of 1.20m deep, in accordance with Health and Safety

Regulations, ref. 10.10.

7.5.2 Groundwater could be expected in excavations taken to depths in excess of

2.80mBGL.

7.6 Road and Hard Standing Design

7.6.1 The structural design of a road or hard standing is based on the strength of the

sub-grade, which is assessed on the California Bearing Ratio, CBR, scale.

7.6.2 On the basis of in-situ and laboratory classification tests it is recommended

that for formation prepared in the Weathered Mylor Slate Formation, a sub-

grade CBR value of 3.5% be adopted for design purposes.

7.6.3 Any areas of soft or deleterious material should be excavated and replaced

with a properly compacted granular fill.

7.6.4 For routine cases, all material within 450mm of the road surface should be non

frost-susceptible.

7.7 Soak-away

7.7.1 The results of in-situ soak-away permeability tests ref: 10.6 in trial pit TP2

gave soil infiltration rates (f), for the Weathered Mylor Slate Formation

deposits of between 1.81x10-5

m/s and 1.46x10-5

m/s.

7.7.2 Tests undertaken in trial pits TP1 and TP3, showed no decrease in head over a

period of five hours. Locally the results indicate the underlying natural

material to vary between poor drainage characteristics and practically

impervious, ref 10.11.

7.7.3 It is suggested that the site may not be suitable for a soak-away sustainable

urban drainage (SUDS) scheme.

7.8 Chemical Attack on Buried Concrete

7.8.1 The site has been classified in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1, ref.

10.12, as natural ground without the presence of pyrite and laboratory testing

undertaken accordingly. It is recommended that the guidelines given in BRE

Special Digest 1, ref. 10.12, be adopted. Relevant details of this digest are

included in Appendix 5, Figure A5.3.



7.8.2 The results of chemical tests in the non-pyritic soils indicate a sulphate

concentration in the soil of less than 100mg/l as a 2:1 water/soil extract, with

pH values in the range of 7.0 to 7.9.

7.8.3 It is recommended that for conventional shallow foundations the groundwater

should be regarded as mobile.

7.8.4 On the basis of the laboratory test results it is considered that a Design

Sulphate Class for this material may be taken as DS-1. The site conditions

would suggest that an ACEC class for the site of AC-1 would be appropriate.

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT IN

RELATION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

8.1 Contaminated Land

8.1.1 The statutory definition of contaminated land is defined in the Environmental

Protection Act 1990, ref 10.13, which was introduced by the Environment Act

1995, ref 10.14, as;

• ‘Land which appears to the Local Authority in whose area it is situated to

be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land,

that –

• significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of

such harm being caused; or

• significant pollution of controlled waters is being caused, or there is a

significant possibility of such pollution being caused.’

8.2 Risk Assessment

8.2.1 The definition of contaminated land is based on the principles of risk

assessment. Risk is defined as a combination of:

• The probability, or frequency of exposure to a substance with the

potential to cause harm, and:

• The seriousness of the consequence.

8.3 Pollutant Linkage

8.3.1 The basis of an environmental risk assessment involves identifying a ‘source’

of contamination, a ‘pathway’ along which the contamination may migrate

and a ‘receptor’ at risk from the contamination.

8.3.2 Current legislation defines the various elements of the pollution linkage as:

• A contaminant is a substance, which is in or under the ground and which

has the potential to cause harm or to cause pollution of controlled waters.



• A pathway is one or more routes through which a receptor is being

exposed to, or affected by, a contaminant, or could be so affected.

• A receptor is either a living organism, an ecological system, a piece of

land or property, or controlled water.

8.3.3 A pollutant linkage indicates that all three elements have been identified. The

site can only be defined as ‘Contaminated Land’ if a pollutant linkage exists

and the contamination meets the criteria in Section 7.1 above.

8.3.4 The guidance proposes a four-stage approach for the assessment of

contamination and the associated risks. The four stages are listed below:

• Hazard Identification

• Hazard Assessment

• Risk Assessment

• Risk Evaluation

8.3.5 The hazard identification and hazard assessment have been based upon the

Phase I Desk Study and formed the conceptual site model; detailed in our

report, reference C6559, dated September 2009.

8.3.6 The risk assessment and evaluation stages are presented in this phase II

interpretive report, after an intrusive ground investigation has taken place.

8.4 Risk Assessment – Human Health

8.4.1 The proposed development consists of a new rugby ground with associated

facilities and car parking. Should the proposed development be changed in the

future then further risk assessment may be required.

8.4.2 The results of the soil analyses have been compared to CLEA SGVs published

in Environment Agency Science Reports SC050021/SR3, ref 10.15 and

SC050021, ref 10.16, where available, and Generic Assessment Criteria

(GAC), determined by LQM and CIEH, ref 10.17, as well as Assessment

Criteria (AC) derived in-house using the CLEA Software Version 1.06, ref

10.18. The CLEA AC has been derived by Ian Farmer Associates in

accordance with current legislation and guidance, as detailed in Appendix 6.

8.4.3 The results of chemical analyses have been processed in accordance with

recommendations set out in the CIEH and CL:AIRE document ‘Guidance on

Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’, ref 10.19.

8.4.4 Where the concentrations determined on site are at or below the most sensitive

(residential) Guidance Level, they are considered not to pose a risk and are

removed from further consideration, unless otherwise stated.



8.4.5 Arsenic levels were observed to be above the residential Guidance Level, and

as such a risk assessment based on guidelines for a female worker at the rugby

ground has been undertaken.

8.4.6 The CLEA guidance values used within this contamination assessment have

been based upon the following assumptions regarding the receptor. A female

worker at the rugby ground has been used as the most sensitive receptor, as

this type of receptor could potentially be present on site most days over a

working lifetime of 49 years.

8.4.7 This type of receptor, is likely to be on site for 260 days a year and on site 9

hours a day. The exposure duration used allows for the receptor being outside

for 185 days per year (good weather).

8.4.8 In addition the skin adherence factors used are dependant on the type of

clothing worn and the amount of skin exposed; in this instance we have based

it upon a female worker in work wear.

8.4.9 The resultant site specific assessment criteria has been calculated as 500mg/kg

for arsenic, all samples analysed on site fall below this criteria, and as such no

remediation of the site will be required.

8.5 Risk Assessment - Controlled Waters

8.5.1 The site is located on a variably permeable minor aquifer, but is not located

within a groundwater source protection zone. There twelve groundwater

abstraction wells within 1km of the site. The nearest is located 353m to the

north east of the site and is for general farming and domestic use.

8.5.2 The nearest surface watercourse is surface watercourse is an unnamed stream

located adjacent to the south western boundary of the site.

8.5.3 Given the ground conditions encountered at the site and the results of this

contamination assessment, it is considered unlikely that further assessment of

the risks to controlled waters may be required.

8.6 Gas Generation

8.6.1 On the basis of the Phase I desk study, other than from radon, no pollutant

linkage was suggested from other natural or anthropogenic sources of gas. No

special precautions need be adopted within the proposed structures to prevent

the ingress of toxic gases.

8.6.2 The National Radiological Protection Board indicates the site to lie within an

area where there is a probability of more than 30% of present or future homes

being above the action level of 200Bq/m3. As such, the site is classified as a

Radon Affected Area. This is confirmed by the Building Research

Establishment, Report 211.

8.6.3 Therefore, full radon protective measures will be required in the proposed

development.



8.7 Protection Of Services

8.7.1 Due to the increasing number of developments being undertaken on

potentially contaminated land, the Water Supply Industry has identified the

need to protect newly laid water supply pipes. They are likely to impose

constraints on the nature of water supply pipes that are to be laid in

contaminated land. Guidance on the selection of materials for water pipes is

provided by the Water Regulations Advisory Scheme, ref 10.23.

8.8 Risk Evaluation

8.8.1 The conceptual model formed within the Phase I Desk Study has been updated

to reflect the findings of the contamination risk assessment and the revised

conceptual model, detailing the relevant pollutant linkages, is tabulated below:

Source Potential Pathways Receptor Group

Radon

• Migration

• Ingression

Humans and buildings

• Gas ingress into

building/s

• Site occupants

1 – Assumes no remediation is undertaken

2 – Pathway exists only during the construction period

8.9 Summary of Risk Evaluation

8.9.1 The above assessment identifies that the ‘source – pathway – receptor’ linkage

potentially occurs with radon impacting upon the identified receptors.

Therefore, it would be necessary to manage the risk at this location by either

eliminating one of the links or by minimising the potential effects.

9.0 MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATION

9.1 Remediation and Verification

9.1.1 The risk management framework set out in the Model Procedures for the

Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11, ref. 10.24, is applicable to the

redevelopment of sites that may be affected by contamination.

9.1.2 The risk management process set out in the Model Procedures has three main

components:

• Risk assessment

• Options appraisal

• Implementation

9.1.3 This initial risk assessment has identified the presence of elevated radon

concentrations across the site. Relevant pollutant linkages have been

identified, as demonstrated in the updated conceptual model.

9.1.4 An important part of the risk management process is identifying and informing

all stakeholders with an interest in the outcome of the risk management



project. To this end, if the regulators have not yet been contacted with regard

to the redevelopment of this site, it is recommended that they be supplied with

a copy of both the Phase I Desk Study and this Phase II Site Investigation

report in order to enable liaison to be undertaken with them.

9.1.5 Although no gas monitoring was undertaken, based upon the desk study and

the ground conditions encountered on site, it is considered that full radon

protective measures should be installed in the proposed development, in line

with BRE guidelines, to prevent the ingress of radon.

9.1.6 No other remedial measures will be necessary on the site.

9.2 Management of Unidentified Sources of

Contamination

9.2.1 There is the possibility that other sources of contamination may be present on

the site, which was not detected during the investigation. Should such

contamination be identified or suspected during the site clearance or ground

works, these should be dealt with accordingly. A number of options are

available for handling this material, which include:

• The removal from site and disposal to a suitably licensed tip of all

material suspected of being contaminated. The material would need to

be classified prior to disposal.

• Short-term storage of the suspected material while undertaking

verification testing for potential contamination. The storage area should

be a contained area to ensure that contamination does not migrate and

affect other areas of the site. Depending upon the amounts of material

under consideration, this could be either a skip or a lined area.

• Having a suitably experienced environmental engineer either on-call or

with a watching brief for the visual and olfactory assessment of the

material, and sampling for verification purposes.

9.3 Consultation

9.3.1 During the development of a contaminated site, consultation may be required

for a number of reasons with a number of regulatory Authorities. The

following provides an indication as to the most likely Authorities with which

consultation may be required.

• Local Authority. There may be a planning condition regarding

contamination and consultation will be required with a designated

Contaminated Land Officer within the Environmental Health

Department. The Local Authority is generally concerned with human

health risks. Some Authorities now require ‘Completion Certificates’ to

be signed off following remediation works.

9.3.2 Based on the results of any consultation, there may be specific remediation

requirements imposed by one or more of the Authorities.



9.4 Risk Management During Site Works

9.4.1 During ground works, some simple measures may have to be put in place to

mitigate the risk of contamination affecting the site workers and the environs.

The majority of the proposed measures represent good practice for the

construction industry and include:

• Informing the site workers of the contamination on site and the potential

health effects from exposure.

• Where appropriate, the provision of suitable Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE) for workers who may be potentially impacted by

working in areas of the contamination.

• Ensuring good hygiene is enforced on site and washing facilities are

maintained on the site. Workers are discouraged from smoking, eating or

drinking without washing their hands first.

• Dust monitoring, and if necessary, suppression measures should be put

into practice where contamination is becoming airborne.

9.4.2 Where contaminated materials are being removed from the site they should be

disposed of at a suitably licensed landfill, with a ‘duty of care’ system in place

and maintained throughout the disposal operations.

10.0 REFERENCES

10.1 CLR 4, ‘Sampling strategies for contaminated land’. Report by The Centre for

Research into the Built Environment, the Nottingham Trent University, DoE, 1994.

10.2 British Standards Institute: BS 10175 ‘Code of practice for the investigation of

potentially contaminated sites’, BSI 2001.

10.3 British Standards Institute: BS 5930 ‘Code of practice for site investigations’, BSi

1999.

10.4 ISO 1997, Part 2:2007, ‘Euro-code 7 – Geotechnical Design – Part 2, Ground

Investigation and Design’

10.5 British Standard 1377:1990, Part 9, ‘Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering

Purposes’.

10.6 Building Research Establishment, Digest 365, Soak-away Design, 2003.

10.7 National House-Building Council, Standards, Chapter 4.2, 2003 ‘Building Near

Trees’.

10.8 BRE Digest 240, ‘Low-rise buildings on shrinkable clay soils: Part 1’. September

1993



10.9 Geotechnique, June 1983.

10.10 Health and Safety Executive, ‘Health and Safety in Excavations’, HSG 185, 1999.

10.11 British Code of Practice for Foundations, BS 8004:1986

10.12 Building Research Establishment, Special Digest 1, ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’,

2005.

10.13 The Environmental Protection Act, Part IIA, Section 78, 1990.

10.14 Environment Act 1995, Section 57, DoE 1995.

10.15 Environment Agency Science Report SC050021/SR3, 2008, ‘Updated technical

background to the CLEA model’

10.16 Environment Agency Science Report SC050021, 2009, ‘Contaminants in Soil:

Updated Collation of Toxicological Data and Intake Values for Humans’

10.17 Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment (2nd

Edition),

Nathanial P, McCaffery C, Ashmore M, Cheng Y, Gillett A, Ogden R, and Scott D,

Land Quality Press, Nottingham, published July 2009.

10.18 CLEA Software Version 1.06 (downloaded from the Environment Agency website,

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk January 2010)

10.19 ‘Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’,

Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and Contaminated Land:

Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE) May 2008.

10.20 An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality, Shapiro, S. S. and Wilk, M. B. 1965

10.21 Environment Agency Science Report SC050021/SR2 ‘Human health toxicological

assessment of contaminants in soil’

10.22 Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment, Nathanial CP,

McCaffery C, Ashmore M, Cheng Y, Gillett A, Hooker P and Ogden RC, Land

Quality Press, Nottingham, published November 2006.

10.23 Water Regulations Advisory Scheme, Information and Guidance Note, October 2002,

‘The Selection of Materials for Water Supply Pipes to be laid in Contaminated Land’.

10.24 CLR 11, ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land’, DEFRA

and Environment Agency, 2004.

10.25 ISO 22475-1:2006, ‘Geotechnical Investigation and Testing – Sampling Methods and

Groundwater Measurements’ Part 1: Technical Principles for Execution.

10.26 ISO 14688 Part 1:2002 and Part 2:2004, ‘Geotechnical Investigation and Testing –

Identification and Classification of Soil’.



10.27 CLR 2, ‘Guidance on preliminary site inspection of contaminated land’, Report by

Applied Environmental, DoE 1994.

10.28 CLR 3 ‘Documentary Research on Industrial Sites’, Report by RPS Consultants Ltd.,

DOE, 1994

10.29 CLR 8, ‘Potential contaminants for the assessment of contaminated land’.

DEFRA/EA, March 2002.

10.30 Environment Agency, 2003, ‘Review of the Fate and Transport of Selected

Contaminants in the Soil Environment’. Draft Technical Report P5-079/TR1.

Bristol: Environment Agency

10.31 CLR 10, ‘The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA): Technical

basis and algorithms’. DEFRA/EA, March 2002.

For and on behalf of Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited

Lucy Quick Michael Austin

BSc (Hons) ACSM AIEMA BEng ACSM FGS

GeoEnvironmental Engineer Engineering Geologist

APPENDIX 1

DRAWINGS

Title:Scale:Date Drawn: 11-09-2009 As Shown

Site Location Plan

Project: Job No.: C6559

Figure Number: A1.1

Hayle RFC Relocation

Client: Hayle Community Rugby Facilities Ltd

Trial Pits

Trial Pits with TP3

TP20TP21

soakaways

TP7

TP9TP10 TP11

TP12 TP18

TP19

TP1 TP6

TP8

TP12

TP16

TP17TP18

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP14

TP15

Title: Trial Pit Location PlanScale: NTSDate Drawn: 24 02 10

TP13

Project: Hayle RFC Relocation Job No.: C6559

Title: Trial Pit Location PlanScale: NTSDate Drawn: 24-02-10

Figure Number: A1.1

Client: Hayle Community Rugby Facilities Ltd

APPENDIX 2

SITE WORK

Appendix 2 pages ii/i-ii/ii ii/i

APPENDIX 2

GENERAL NOTES ON SITE WORKS

A2.1 SITE WORK

A2.1.1 General

Site work is carried out in general accordance with the guidelines given in ISO 1997, 10.4

and BS 5930, ref 10.3.

A2.1.2 Trial Pits

Shallow trial pits are generally dug by mechanical excavator, however, in difficult access

locations or adjacent to structures, such pits may be hand dug. Pits are best used where

the ground will stand unsupported and generally, the maximum depth of machine dug pits

is 4m to 5m. Where personnel are required to enter pits, it is essential that side support is

provided. Entry by personnel into unsupported pits deeper than 1.2m is not allowed for

health and safety reasons.

Trial pits allow the in-situ condition of the ground to be examined both laterally and

vertically and also allow discontinuities to be recorded. The field record should give the

orientation of the pit with details of which face was logged, assessment of stability of

sides of pit and groundwater as well as the strata encountered. Photographs of the pit

should also be taken.

In-situ testing, such as hand penetrometer, hand vane, Macintosh probe, or similar, can be

undertaken in the sides or base of pits while both disturbed and undisturbed samples

recovered.

It is generally advisable to backfill the pits as soon as possible, open pits should not be

left unattended.

A2.2 IN-SITU TESTS

A2.2.1 California Bearing Ratio, CBR

The California Bearing Ratio test is used to evaluate the strength of subgrade by

measuring the load required to cause a plunger of standard size (50mm diameter) into the

ground at a standard rate (1.00mm/min) and comparing the result with a standard

material, ref 10.5.

The test is arbitrary in that the results cannot be accurately related to any of the

fundamental properties governing soil strength. However, in that the deformation is

predominantly shear, the CBR can be regarded as an indirect measurement of shear

strength and modulus of subgrade reaction.

Alternative methods of determining the equivalent CBR by cone penetrometer can be

undertaken. The Mexicone consists of a 30° cone of 129mm² cross-section that is pushed

into the ground at a steady rate. The load is determined through a compression spring that

deflects under load and is calibrated to give a direct reading of CBR on a dial. The

instrument is best suited in cohesive or fine granular soil, but in gravelly soil it should not

be used.

Appendix 2 pages ii/i-ii/ii ii/ii

A2.3 SAMPLES

A2.3.1 General

Samples have been recovered and stored in accordance with the guidelines given in ISO

22475-1:2006, ref 10.25 and BS 5930, ref 10.3.

J represents sample recovered in an amber jar, generally for environmental analysis

CBR represents California Bearing Ratio test

B represents large bulk disturbed samples

D represents small disturbed sample

W represents water sample

represents water strike

represents level to which water rose

A2.4 DESCRIPTION OF SOILS

A2.4.1 General

The procedures and principles given in ISO 14688 Parts 1 and 2, ref 10.26, supplemented

by section 6 of BS 5930, ref. 10.3 have been used in the soil descriptions contained within

this report.

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er

LegendDescriptionDepth

(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)

Level(mOD)Sample / Tests

1:25 LVQ A2.1


Hayle Community Rugby Facilities

Ocean Architects

TP1

C6559

SW 579 38918/09/2009

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Excavation Method Dimensions

Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks

Scale (approx) Logged By Figure No.

Excavated using JCB 3CX 1.80 x 0.5

Refusal at 3.30mBackfilled with arisings.No groundwater encountered.All sides stable.Soakaway test undertaken

0.30 D1

(0.50)

0.50

Brown organic slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy TOPSOIL. Gravel is fine to medium, angular to subangular of thinly laminated mudstone.

1.00 B2

(0.60)

1.10

Orange brown silty gravelly CLAY with occasional cobbles of subangular to subrounded quartz.

(2.20)

3.30

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey firm silty slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is angular to subangular of very weak mudstone. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

Complete at 3.30m

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.10



Ocean Architects

TP10

C6559

SW 579 38922/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



Groundwater encountered at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.Terminated at 4.0m

0.20 B1

All sides stable.

(0.50)

0.50


0.50 D2

1.50 B3

(1.60)

2.10

Grey locally mottled orange gravelly soft to firm CLAY with occasional cobbles of quartz. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation

2.50 B4 (0.90)

3.00

Whitish grey slightly gravelly silty soft to firm CLAY with occasional cobbles of quartz. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation

3.80 B5

(1.00)

4.00

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Yellow grey silty fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.11



Ocean Architects

TP11

C6559

SW 579 38922/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



1

All sides stable.Groundwater encountered at 3.80mBackfilled with arisings.Terminated at 4.0m

0.30 D1

(0.50)

0.50


1.50 B2

(1.30)

1.80

Orange locally mottled grey sandy gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation

2.50 B3

(1.70)

3.50

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Yellow grey silty slightly clayey fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

3.50 B4

fast(1) at 3.80m.

(0.50)

4.00

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Dark brown grey sandy slightly fine to medium, angular to subangular GRAVEL of weak to very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.2



Ocean Architects

TP12

C6559

SW 579 38918/09/2009

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



Refusal at 1.90mBackfilled with arisings.No groundwater encountered.All sides stable.

0.30 D1

(0.50)

0.50


1.60 B2

(1.40)

1.90

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Brown locally grey slightly clayey sandy fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded Gravel with occasional cobbles of mudstone.

Complete at 1.90m

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.13



Ocean Architects

TP13

C6559

SW 579 38923/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



1

All sides stable.Terminated at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.Groundwater encountered at 2.80m.

0.30 D1

(0.50)

0.50


1.00 B2

(0.60)

1.10


2.00 B3

(1.40)

2.50

Grey slightly silty gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation

fast(1) at 2.80m.

3.00 B4

(1.50)

4.00

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Orange brown clayey silty fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.14



Ocean Architects

TP14

C6559

SW 579 38923/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



All sides stable.Refused at 2.80mBackfilled with arisings.No Groundwater encountered

0.50 D1

(0.60)

0.60


1.20 B2 (1.20)

1.80

Yellow grey silty slightly clayey fine to medium angular to subrounded GRAVEL of Mudstone. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation

2.50 B3

(1.00)

2.80

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey silty fine to coarse angular and tabular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

Complete at 2.80m

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.15



Ocean Architects

TP15

C6559

SW 579 38923/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks




0.30 D1(0.60)

0.60


0.80 B2

(0.80)

1.40

Yellow grey silty slightly clayey fine to medium angular to subrounded GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone with occasional cobbles of quartz. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation

1.40 B3

2.00 B4(1.40)

2.80

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Orange brown fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

Complete at 2.80m

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.16



Ocean Architects

TP16

C6559

SW 579 38922/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks




(0.60)

0.60


0.60 D1

1.20 B2 (1.20)

1.80

Grey silty slightly clayey fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL and occasional COBBLES of weak to very weak Mudstone. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation

2.00 B3

3.00 B4

(1.30)

3.10

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Yellow grey silty fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone with occasional quartz veining. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

Complete at 3.10m

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.17



Ocean Architects

TP17

C6559

SW 579 38923/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



All sides stable.Terminated at 3.2mBackfilled with arisings.

0.20 D1

No Groundwater encountered.

(0.40)

0.40


1.00 B2

1.60 B3

(1.40)

1.80


2.50 B4(1.40)

3.20

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Brown silty sandy fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

Complete at 3.20m

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.18



Ocean Architects

TP18

C6559

SW 579 38923/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



All sides stable.Terminated at 3.20m

0.10 B1

Backfilled with arisings.No Groundwater encountered.

(0.30)

0.30


0.30 D2

1.50 B3

(1.50)

1.80

Grey locally mottled orange silty gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation

2.00 B4

3.00 B5

(1.40)

3.20

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Yellow grey silty clayey fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

4.00 B6

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.19



Ocean Architects

TP19

C6559

SW 579 38923/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks


Excavated using JCB 3CX 2.2. x 0.5

1

All sides stable.Terminated at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.

0.20 D1

Groundwater encountered at 3.80m.

(0.40)

0.40


1.00 B2

(0.80)

1.20

Orange locally mottled grey silty gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation

2.00 B3

(1.20)

2.40

Grey silty slightly gravelly CLAY. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation

3.50 B4

moderate (1) at 3.80m.

(1.60)

4.00

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey silty slightly clayey fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.2



Ocean Architects

TP2

C6559

SW 579 38918/09/2009

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



Refusal at 2.30mBackfilled with arisings.No groundwater encountered.

0.20 D1

All sides stable.Soakaway test undertaken

(0.50)

0.50


1.50 B2

(1.80)

2.30

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Brown locally grey silty slightly clayey medium to coarse, subangular to subrounded Gravel with occasional cobbles of mudstone.

Complete at 2.30m

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.20



Ocean Architects

TP20

C6559

SW 579 38923/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



1

All sides stable.Terminated at 4.1m

0.10 B1

Backfilled with arisings.

(0.20) 0.20


0.20 D2

No Groundwater encountered.

1.50 B3

(2.20)

2.40


(1.70)

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey silty slightly clayey fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

3.00 B4

moderate (1) at 3.80m.

1/2

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.20



Ocean Architects

TP20

C6559

SW 579 38923/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



(1.70) 4.10

Complete at 4.10m

2/2

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.21



Ocean Architects

TP21

C6559

SW 579 38923/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



1

All sides stable.Terminated at 3.5mBackfilled with arisings.Groundwater encountered at 2.80m.

(0.30)

0.30


0.30 D1

0.90 B2

(0.90)

1.20

Orange locally mottled grey silty gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Weathered Mylor Slate Formation

1.80 B3

(0.90)

2.10


fast(1) at 2.80m.

3.00 B4

(1.40)

3.50

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey silty fine to coarse angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

Complete at 3.50m

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.3



Ocean Architects

TP3

C6559

SW 579 38918/09/2009

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



Soakaway test undertakenAll sides stable.No groundwater encountered.Backfilled with arisings.Refusal at 2.90m

0.40 D1

(0.50)

0.50


0.80 B2

(0.50)

1.00

Orange brown silty gravelly CLAY with occasional cobbles of subangular to subrounded quartz.

2.00 B3(1.90)

2.90

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey firm silty slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is angular to subangular of very weak mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

Complete at 2.90m

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.4



Ocean Architects

TP4

C6559

SW 579 38922/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



1

All sides stable.Groundwater encountered at 2.80m.Backfilled with arisings.Terminated at 2.90m

0.40 D1

(0.50)

0.50


1.00 B2

(0.60)

1.10

Grey locally mottled orange silty soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation

2.00 B3

2.50 B4

very fast(1) at 2.80m.

(1.80)

2.90

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Orange Brown silty clayey fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

Complete at 2.90m

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.5



Ocean Architects

TP5

C6559

SW 579 38922/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



1

All sides stable.Groundwater encountered at 3.7mBackfilled with arisings.Terminated at 4.00m

0.30 B1

0.60 D2

(0.80)

0.80


1.50 B3

(1.80)

2.60

Grey locally mottled orange silty CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

3.00 B4

fast(1) at 3.70m.

(1.40)

4.00

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey locally mottled orange firm silty clayey fine to medium GRAVEL of very weak mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.6



Ocean Architects

TP6

C6559

SW 579 38922/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



Terminated at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.No groundwater encounteredAll sides stable.

0.40 D1

(0.60)

0.60


1.40 B2

(0.90)

1.50

Grey locally mottled orange silty slightly gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation

(2.50)

4.00

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Grey locally orange silty clayey fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.7



Ocean Architects

TP7

C6559

SW 579 38922/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



Terminated at 4.1mBackfilled with arisings.No groundwater encounteredAll sides stable.

0.40 D1

(0.60)

0.60


1.40 B2

(0.90)

1.50

Grey locally mottled orange silty slightly gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation

(2.60)

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Dark grey soft slightly silty CLAY. Completetely weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

1/2

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.7



Ocean Architects

TP7

C6559

SW 579 38922/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



(2.60) 4.10

Complete at 4.10m

2/2

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.8



Ocean Architects

TP8

C6559

SW 579 38922/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



1

Terminated at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.Point seepages from 3.60mAll sides stable.

0.30 B1

0.50 D2

(0.60)

0.60


1.00 B3 (0.90)

1.50

Cream locally mottled orange silty slightly gravelly soft to firm CLAY. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation

2.20 B4

3.50 B5

Water strike(1) at 3.60m.

(2.50)

4.00

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Cream locally mottled orange fine to coarse, angular to subangular GRAVEL of weak Mudstone with occasional cobbles of quartz. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

1/1

Location

Ground Level (mOD)

Dates

Site

Client

Engineer

Number

JobNumber

Sheet

Wat

er


(m)(Thickness)

Depth(m)


1:25 LVQ A2.9



Ocean Architects

TP9

C6559

SW 579 38922/02/2010

Plan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Trial Pit

WaterDepth(m)

Field Records

Remarks



All sides stable.Terminated at 4.0mBackfilled with arisings.No Groundwater encountered.

0.40 D1

(0.50)

0.50


1.00 B2

(1.30)

1.80


2.00 B3

(0.80)

2.60

Whitish grey slightly gravelly silty soft to firm CLAY with occasional cobbles of quartz. Completely weathered Mylor Slate Formation

3.00 B4

(1.40)

4.00

MYLOR SLATE FORMATION recovered as; Yellow grey silty fine to medium angular to subangular GRAVEL of very weak Mudstone. Highly weathered Mylor Slate Formation.

4.00 B5

1/1

Client:Site:

Job No: Test No:

Time (min) Depth (mm) Length (m) = 1.800 800 Width (m) = 0.501 800 Depth (m) = 3.302 8003 800 800mm4 800 800mm5 800 800mm

10 800 800mm20 800 800mm30 80060 800 0.90090 800 12.400120 800 0.000180 800210 800240 800 n/a300 800 n/a

n/a normal testpit with stone

Input by: LVQ Date: 18/09/2009Checked by: MJA Date: 22/09/2009

No decrease in head over a period of 5 hours, unable to determine permeability.

CALCULATION OF SOIL INFILTRATION RATE

tp 75 (min) =tp 25 (min) =

Soil infiltration rate, f, (m/s) =Soil infiltration rate, f, (m/s) =

Volume outflow 75 - 25% (m3) =

Depth to water at start of test =Depth to water at end of test =

Depth to water at 50% level =

Notes

From the graph:

Size of Soakaway

TP1 test 1

Base area of pit (m2) =Eff area of loss 75 - 25% (m2) =


SOAKAWAY DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH BRE DIGEST 365: 1991BRE Digest 365, Figure 2, Page 5

Hayle Community Rugby Facilities LtdHayle RFC Relocation


C6559

700

900

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dep

th (m

m)

Time (mins)

Client:Site:

Job No: Test No:


10 1000 1525mm20 1200 1913mm30 121060 1530 0.90090 1600 4.465120 1670 0.698180 2040210 2200240 2300 14

158

1.81E-05 normal testpit with stone



tp 75 (min) =tp 25 (min) =





Notes

From the graph:

Size of Soakaway

TP2 test 1






C6559

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

0 40 80 120 160 200 240

Dep

th (m

m)

Time (mins)

Client:Site:

Job No: Test No:


10 1070 1600mm20 1180 1950mm30 124060 1400 0.90090 1510 4.120120 1600 0.630180 1840210 1970240 2140 32300 2300 206

1.46E-05 normal testpit with stone



tp 75 (min) =tp 25 (min) =





Notes

From the graph:

Size of Soakaway

TP2 test 2






C6559

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

0 40 80 120 160 200 240

Dep

th (m

m)

Time (mins)

Client:Site:

Job No: Test No:


10 600 600mm20 600 600mm30 60060 600 0.90090 600 11.480120 600 0.000180 600210 600240 600 n/a300 600 n/a

n/a normal testpit with stone


TP3 test 1






C6559

No decrease in head over a period of 5 hours, unable to determine permeability.


tp 75 (min) =tp 25 (min) =





Notes

From the graph:

Size of Soakaway

500

700

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Dep

th (m

m)

Time (mins)

IAN FARMER ASSOCIATES Riverside House

Office 1Heron Way

NewhamTruro

CornwallTR1 2XN

Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883

PROJECT NAME : Hayle RFC Relocation PROJECT NO : C6559

Penetration 2.5mm 5.0mm

Force (kN) 0.42 0.61Value 3.2 3.1CBR

MOISTURESAMPLE DETAILS BELOW

3.2

CONTENT (%)

CBR VALUELOCATION

CBR 1/ TP4 1 20

DEPTH (m)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e (k

N)

Penetration (mm)

Insitu CBRBS1377:Part 9:1990

Page 2 of 2


Office 1Heron Way

NewhamTruro

CornwallTR1 2XN

Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883





4

CONTENT (%)

CBR VALUELOCATION

CBR 2/ TP8 1 28

DEPTH (m)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e (k

N)

Penetration (mm)


Page 2 of 2


Office 1Heron Way

NewhamTruro

CornwallTR1 2XN

Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883





3.5

CONTENT (%)

CBR VALUELOCATION

CBR 3/ TP9 1 30

DEPTH (m)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e (k

N)

Penetration (mm)


Page 2 of 2


Office 1Heron Way

NewhamTruro

CornwallTR1 2XN

Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883





4

CONTENT (%)

CBR VALUELOCATION

CBR 4/ TP10 0.5 32

DEPTH (m)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e (k

N)

Penetration (mm)


Page 2 of 2


Office 1Heron Way

NewhamTruro

CornwallTR1 2XN

Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883





4.2

CONTENT (%)

CBR VALUELOCATION

CBR 5/ TP13 1 18

DEPTH (m)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e (k

N)

Penetration (mm)


Page 2 of 2


Office 1Heron Way

NewhamTruro

CornwallTR1 2XN

Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883





5.9

CONTENT (%)

CBR VALUELOCATION

CBR 6/ TP15 0.8 20

DEPTH (m)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e (k

N)

Penetration (mm)


Page 2 of 2


Office 1Heron Way

NewhamTruro

CornwallTR1 2XN

Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883





4

CONTENT (%)

CBR VALUELOCATION

CBR 7/ TP17 1 18

DEPTH (m)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e (k

N)

Penetration (mm)


Page 2 of 2


Office 1Heron Way

NewhamTruro

CornwallTR1 2XN

Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883





3.5

CONTENT (%)

CBR VALUELOCATION

CBR 8/ TP18 0.3 21

DEPTH (m)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e (k

N)

Penetration (mm)


Page 2 of 2


Office 1Heron Way

NewhamTruro

CornwallTR1 2XN

Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883





3.7

CONTENT (%)

CBR VALUELOCATION

CBR 9/ TP19 1 23

DEPTH (m)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e (k

N)

Penetration (mm)


Page 2 of 2


Office 1Heron Way

NewhamTruro

CornwallTR1 2XN

Tel: 01872 261 775Fax: 01872 261 883





3.5

CONTENT (%)

CBR VALUELOCATION

CBR 10/ TP20 0.2 45

DEPTH (m)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forc

e (k

N)

Penetration (mm)


Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX 3

LABORATORY TESTS

Appendix 3 pages iii/i-iii/iii iii/i

APPENDIX 3

GENERAL NOTES ON LABORATORY TESTS ON SOILS

A3.1 GENERAL

A3.1.1 Where applicable all tests are carried out in accordance with the relevant British Standard.

The laboratory test procedures are as below:

Test Name Procedures

BS1377:1990

Part:Clause

Moisture Content 2:3

Liquid Limit 2:4

Plastic Limit and Plastic Index 2:5

Particle Size Distribution 9.2

Sedimentation 9.4

Sulphate content 3:5

pH Value 3:9

Compaction Test 4:3

A3.1.2 Where an external laboratory carried out testing, their report, including test methods is

included in this Appendix.

A3.1.3 A summary sheet of laboratory test results undertaken by Ian Farmer Laboratories is

included, however where copies of the individual test results are required these will be

provided on request.

A3.1.4 Any discussion in this report is based on the values and results obtained from the

appropriate tests. Due allowance should be made, when considering any result in

isolation, of the possible inaccuracy of any such individual result. Details of the accuracy

of results are included in this section, where applicable.

A3.2 MOISTURE CONTENT

A3.2.1 Unless stated to the contrary, the moisture content of a soil sample was determined by the

standard oven drying method, BS 1377, Part 1, Test 3. The result is reported to an

accuracy of ±0.5%

A3.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS

A3.3.1 The Liquid Limit, LL, is the moisture content at which the soil passes from the liquid to

plastic state. Unless stated to the contrary, the Liquid Limit was determined using the

four point, cone penetrometer method, Test 4. The value is reported to the nearest whole

number, to an accuracy of ±0.5%.

A3.3.2 The Plastic Limit, PL, is the moisture content at which soil passes from the plastic to

solid state and becomes too dry to remain in a plastic condition. The Plastic Limit was

determined using the method described in Test 5. The value is reported to the nearest

whole number, to an accuracy of ±0.5%.

A3.3.3 The Plasticity Index, PI, is the numerical difference between the liquid and plastic limits,

corresponding to the range of moisture contents over which a soil is in a plastic state. The

determination of the Plasticity Index is covered by Test 5.

Appendix 3 pages iii/i-iii/iii iii/ii

A3.4 SOIL CLASSIFICATION

A3.4.1 Classification of soils is usually undertaken by means of the Plasticity Classification

Chart, sometimes called the A-Line Chart. This is graphical plot of PI against LL with

the A-Line defined as PI = 0.73(LL - 20).

A3.4.2 This line is defined from experimental evidence and does not represent a well defined

boundary between soil types, but forms a useful reference datum. When the values of LL

and PI for inorganic clays are plotted on the chart they generally lie just above the A-Line

in a narrow band parallel to it, while silts and organic clays plot below this line.

A3.4.3 Clays and silts are divided into five zones of plasticity:

Low Plasticity (L) LL less than 35

Intermediate Plasticity (I) LL between 35 and 50

High Plasticity (H) LL between 50 and 70

Very High Plasticity (V) LL between 70 and 90

Extremely High Plasticity (E) LL greater than 90

A3.4.4 In general, clays of high plasticity are likely to have a lower permeability, are more

compressible and consolidate over a longer period of time under load than clays of low

plasticity. Clays of high plasticity are more difficult to compact as fill material.

A3.5 CHEMICAL TESTS

A3.5.1 The total sulphate content of soil was determined using the gravimetric method detailed in

BS1377: Part 3:1990, Test 5. The results are recorded to an accuracy of ±0.1%.

A3.5.2 The water soluble sulphate content of soil was determined using the gravimetric method

detailed in BS1377: Part 3: 1990, Test 5. The results are recorded to an accuracy of

±0.1g/l.

A3.5.3 The sulphate content of groundwater was determined using the gravimetric method

detailed in BS1377: Part 3: 1990, Test 5. The results are record to an accuracy of ±0.1g/l.

A3.5.4 The pH value was determined electrometrically using the procedures given in BS 1377:

Part 3: 1990, Test 9. The results are recorded to an accuracy of ±0.1 pH units.

A3.5.5 The total sulphur content of soil was determined using the ignition in oxygen method

detailed in TRL Report 447, Test 4B.

A3.6 COMPACTION TESTS

A3.6.1 Whenever soil is placed as fill, it is generally necessary to compact it into a dense state.

Laboratory compaction tests are carried out to provide the basis for control procedures.

Compaction tests provide the following information.

A3.6.2 The relationship between the dry density and moisture content for a given degree of

compactive effort.

A3.6.3 The moisture content for the most efficient compaction. This is defined as the Optimum

Moisture Content, OMC, being the moisture content of the soil at which a specified

amount of compaction will produce the maximum dry density.

Appendix 3 pages iii/i-iii/iii iii/iii

A3.6.4 The Maximum Dry Density, being the dry density obtained using a specified amount of

compaction at the optimum moisture content.

A3.6.5 There are three basic laboratory compaction tests, these being as follows:

Type of test

(BS1377:1990 Part 4) Container

Rammer

mass

(kg)

drop

(mm)

No of

Layers

Blows

Per

Layer

Light compaction BS mould (1l)

CBR mould

2.5

2.5

300

300

3

3

27

62

Heavy compaction BS mould (1l)

CBR mould

4.5

4.5

450

450

5

5

27

62

Vibrating hammer CBR mould 32 to vibro 3 (1 min)

14 Faraday Close, District 15, Pattinson North Industrial Estate, Washington, Tyne & Wear, NE38 8QJ.Tel. 0191 4166375 Fax. 0191 4191578 Email. [email protected] Internet.www.ianfarmerassociates.co.uk

Ian Farmer Associates (1998) LtdRiverside HouseOffice 1, Heron WayNewham, TruroCornwall, TR1 2XN

TEST REPORT - C6559/1

F.A.O. Mr M Austin

Site : Hayle RFC Relocation

Job Number : C6559

Originating Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities

Originating Reference : C6559

Date Sampled : Not Given

Date Scheduled : 25/02/10

Date Testing Started : 04/03/10

Date Testing Finished : 12/03/10

Remarks : First Report for above Job Number••Samples will be disposed of 28 days after the report is issue unlessotherwise agreed

•This report may contain results from tests which are not included withinthe scope of the UKAS accreditation. Please see final sheet for details.

Craig LilleyAuthorised By:

Position : Laboratory Manager Date : 12/03/10

Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 3661447Registered Office: Unit 1, Bamburgh Court, TVTE, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, NE11 0TX

Offices in: Coventry (02476) 456565. Harpenden, Herts. (01582) 460018. Truro (01827) 261775Warrington (01925) 855440. Newcastle upon Tyne (0191) 4828500. Motherwell (01698) 230231.

1464

Page 1 of 16

DETERMINATION OF MOISTURE CONTENT, LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTIC LIMITAND DERIVATION OF PLASTICITY AND LIQUIDITY INDEX

Laboratory Test Report - C6559/1

Borehole/Trial Pit

Depth(m) Sample

Natural/

Sieved

NaturalMoistureContent

%

Sample Passing425µm Sieve

Percentage%

MoistureContent

%

LiquidLimit

%

PlasticLimit

%

PlasticityIndex

%Liquidity

Index Class Description / Remarks

Job Number

C6559

Page


Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities

Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.4 Preparation of samples for classification tests BS 1377:PART 2:1990:4.2 & 5.2 Sample preparations

Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:3.2 Determination of moisture content 4.3 Determination of the liquid limit 5.3 Determination of the plastic limit and plasticity index

TP10 0.50 D2 Natural 32 100 32 46 28 18 0.22 MI Brown SILT / CLAY

TP12 1.60 B2 Natural 12 Brown slightly clayey slightly silty sandy GRAVEL

TP13 1.00 B2 Natural 18 100 18 48 29 19 -0.58 MI Brown SILT / CLAY

TP13 2.00 B3 Natural 27 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL


TP14 2.50 B3 Natural 20 Brown slightly sandy slightly silty slightly clayey GRAVEL includes cobbles


TP15 1.40 B3 Natural 20 Brown gravelly CLAY


TP16 1.20 B2 Natural 18 Grey CLAY


TP17 1.00 B2 Natural 18 89 20 39 26 13 -0.46 MI Grey SILT / CLAY



TP18 0.30 D2 Natural 21 Brown CLAY

TP18 1.50 B3 Natural 30 100 30 47 26 21 0.19 CI Brown CLAY


TP19 1.00 B2 Natural 23 93 25 40 26 14 -0.07 MI Brown slightly gravelly SILT / CLAY

TP20 0.20 D2 Natural 45 100 45 76 51 25 -0.24 MV Brown SILT / CLAY

TP4 1.00 B2 Natural 20 100 20 34 22 12 -0.17 CL Grey slightly gravelly CLAY


TP6 1.40 B2 Natural 15 Brown CLAY


TP9 1.00 B2 Natural 30 Brown CLAY

2 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10

Uniformity Coefficient

Particle Proportions

Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing

DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION


Job Number

C6559

Page



Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.3 Initial preparation 7.4.5 Particle size tests

Preparation Details : Sample washed with no dispersant used, Oven Dried at 105 - 110°C

Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 2:1990:9 Determination of particle size distribution

Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/

HydrometerDescription

PipetteTP10 0.20 B1 Brown slightly clayey slightly gravelly sandy SILT

200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 100

37.5 mm 100

28 mm 100

20 mm 100

14 mm 92

10 mm 91

6.3 mm 89

5 mm 88

3.35 mm 87

2 mm 86

1.18 mm 84

600 µm 81

425 µm 76

300 µm 64

212 µm 55

150 µm 52

63 µm 49

20 µm 41

6 µm 23

2 µm 6

1.6 mm

260.2 µm

3.0 µm

92.9

0%

14%

38%

42%

6%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium CoarseCLAY

SILT SAND GRAVELCOBBLES BOULDERS

3 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10



Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing



Job Number

C6559

Page






Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/


PipetteTP12 1.60 B2 Brown slightly clayey slightly silty sandy GRAVEL

200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 100

37.5 mm 73

28 mm 71

20 mm 65

14 mm 57

10 mm 53

6.3 mm 49

5 mm 47

3.35 mm 45

2 mm 42

1.18 mm 39

600 µm 34

425 µm 32

300 µm 27

212 µm 25

150 µm 23

63 µm 21

20 µm 18

6 µm 12

2 µm 5

42.9 mm

16.5 mm

5.0 µm

3431.3

0%

58%

21%

15%

5%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



4 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10



Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing



Job Number

C6559

Page






Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/


PipetteTP13 2.00 B3 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL

200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 100

37.5 mm 100

28 mm 85

20 mm 78

14 mm 76

10 mm 69

6.3 mm 64

5 mm 62

3.35 mm 59

2 mm 56

1.18 mm 53

600 µm 50

425 µm 49

300 µm 47

212 µm 46

150 µm 45

63 µm 43

20 µm 38

6 µm 24

2 µm 10

28.2 mm

3.9 mm

-

-

0%

44%

13%

33%

10%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



5 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10



Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing



Job Number

C6559

Page






Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/



200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 100

37.5 mm 92

28 mm 78

20 mm 66

14 mm 58

10 mm 54

6.3 mm 50

5 mm 47

3.35 mm 45

2 mm 42

1.18 mm 40

600 µm 37

425 µm 35

300 µm 32

212 µm 30

150 µm 28

63 µm 27

20 µm 23

6 µm 12

2 µm 4

32.8 mm

15.2 mm

5.0 µm

3041.3

0%

58%

16%

22%

4%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



6 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10



Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt/Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing



Job Number

C6559

Page






Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/


N/ATP14 2.50 B3 Brown slightly sandy slightly silty slightly clayey GRAVEL includes cobbles

200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 91

37.5 mm 84

28 mm 73

20 mm 54

14 mm 46

10 mm 39

6.3 mm 33

5 mm 31

3.35 mm 28

2 mm 26

1.18 mm 24

600 µm 23

425 µm 22

300 µm 22

212 µm 22

150 µm 21

63 µm 21

40.0 mm

22.5 mm

-

-

2%

72%

5%

21%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



7 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10



Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing



Job Number

C6559

Page






Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/



200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 100

37.5 mm 100

28 mm 89

20 mm 82

14 mm 75

10 mm 71

6.3 mm 67

5 mm 65

3.35 mm 63

2 mm 60

1.18 mm 57

600 µm 54

425 µm 53

300 µm 51

212 µm 50

150 µm 48

63 µm 47

20 µm 39

6 µm 23

2 µm 9

23.1 mm

2.2 mm

2.0 µm

953.2

0%

40%

13%

37%

9%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



8 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10



Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing



Job Number

C6559

Page






Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/


PipetteTP18 0.10 B1 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy gravelly SILT

200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 100

37.5 mm 100

28 mm 86

20 mm 86

14 mm 81

10 mm 77

6.3 mm 74

5 mm 73

3.35 mm 72

2 mm 70

1.18 mm 68

600 µm 65

425 µm 62

300 µm 51

212 µm 47

150 µm 45

63 µm 44

20 µm 38

6 µm 19

2 µm 8

19.1 mm

406.8 µm

3.0 µm

150.7

0%

30%

27%

35%

8%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



9 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10



Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing



Job Number

C6559

Page






Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/



200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 100

37.5 mm 100

28 mm 94

20 mm 91

14 mm 83

10 mm 79

6.3 mm 73

5 mm 69

3.35 mm 64

2 mm 59

1.18 mm 53

600 µm 48

425 µm 46

300 µm 45

212 µm 44

150 µm 44

63 µm 43

20 µm 37

6 µm 19

2 µm 5

15.4 mm

2.3 mm

3.0 µm

683.9

0%

41%

16%

37%

5%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



10 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10



Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing



Job Number

C6559

Page






Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/



200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 100

37.5 mm 100

28 mm 87

20 mm 85

14 mm 82

10 mm 80

6.3 mm 79

5 mm 78

3.35 mm 78

2 mm 77

1.18 mm 76

600 µm 74

425 µm 73

300 µm 72

212 µm 69

150 µm 67

63 µm 65

20 µm 56

6 µm 25

2 µm 6

21.3 mm

39.1 µm

3.0 µm

14.0

0%

23%

12%

58%

6%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



11 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10



Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing



Job Number

C6559

Page






Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/



200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 100

37.5 mm 100

28 mm 100

20 mm 93

14 mm 89

10 mm 84

6.3 mm 79

5 mm 77

3.35 mm 75

2 mm 71

1.18 mm 66

600 µm 62

425 µm 61

300 µm 57

212 µm 54

150 µm 53

63 µm 50

20 µm 44

6 µm 27

2 µm 11

11.0 mm

405.4 µm

-

-

0%

29%

21%

39%

11%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



12 / 16

Grading Analysis

D85

D60

D10



Cobbles + Boulders

Gravel

Sand

Silt/Clay

Sieve /Particle

Size

%Passing



Job Number

C6559

Page






Remarks :

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Pipette/


N/ATP8 0.30 B1 Brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly SILT / CLAY

200 mm 100

150 mm 100

125 mm 100

90 mm 100

75 mm 100

63 mm 100

50 mm 100

37.5 mm 100

28 mm 100

20 mm 93

14 mm 89

10 mm 85

6.3 mm 82

5 mm 80

3.35 mm 77

2 mm 74

1.18 mm 70

600 µm 66

425 µm 65

300 µm 59

212 µm 55

150 µm 52

63 µm 50

9.6 mm

328.5 µm

-

-

0%

26%

24%

50%

0.002 0.0063 0.02 0.063 0.2 0.63 2 6.3 20 63 200 6300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



13 / 16

DETERMINATION OF THE pH VALUE AND THE SULPHATE CONTENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER


Borehole/Trial Pit

Depth(m) Sample

Concentration of Soluble Sulphate

%

SoilS04 in 2:1Total S04water:soil

g /l

Groundwaterg /l

Percentageof samplepassing

2mm Sieve%

pH Description / Remarks

Job Number

C6559

Page



Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:1990:7.5 Preparation of soil for chemical tests BS 1377:PART 3:1990:5.2, 5.3, 5.4 & 9.4

Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 3:1990:5 Determination of the sulphate content of soil and ground water BS 1377:PART 3:1990:9 Determination of the pH value

TP12 1.60 B2 <0.1 75 7.7 Brown slightly clayey slightly silty sandy GRAVEL

TP13 2.00 B3 <0.1 84 7.6 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL

TP15 0.80 B2 <0.1 81 7.8 Brown slightly clayey slightly sandy silty GRAVEL

TP16 2.00 B3 <0.1 78 7.0 Grey CLAY

TP8 1.00 B3 <0.1 95 7.9 Brown SILT / CLAY

14 / 16

DETERMINATION OF DRY DENSITY/MOISTURE CONTENT RELATIONSHIP


Job Number

C6559

Page



Method of Preparation : BS 1377:PART 1:7.6, BS 1377:PART 4:1990:3.2 Preparation of samples for compaction tests

Method of Test : BS 1377:PART 4:1990:3.4/3.4 Determination using 2.5 kg rammer or 3.5/3.6 Determination using 4.5kg rammer: PART 2:1990:8.2 Determination of particle density

Remarks :

Description

Percentage retained 37.5 mm

Percentage retained 20.0 mm

Grading Zone

Mould Type

MAX DRY DENSITY Mg/m³

Single or separate samples

Particle density

Method of compaction

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT %

Borehole /

Trial Pit

Depth

(m)Sample

Job Number

TP13 1.00 B2 Brown SILT / CLAY

0 %

4 %

2

1 Litre/proctor

Max size of cohesive lumps 20 mm

Single

2.65 Assumed

2.5kg Rammer

1.68 11

3.50 5.50 7.50 9.50 11.50 13.50 15.50 17.50

DryDensityMg/m³

Moisture Content %

5%10%1.72

1.70

1.68

1.66

1.64

1.62

1.60

15 / 16

Test Report : C6559/1

Site : Hayle RFC RelocationJob Number : C6559Originating Client : Hayle Community Rugby Facilities

All opinions and interpretations contained within this report are outside of our Scope ofAccreditation.

The following tests contained within this report are not UKAS Accredited.

Date of Issue : 12/03/10

Page 16 of 16

APPENDIX 4

CHEMICAL TESTS

Date: 12/03/2010

2139 Certificate Number: 10-35960

Client: Ian Farmer Associates

1 Riverside House

Heron Way

Newham

Truro

TR1 2XN

Our Reference: 10-35960

Client Reference: C6559

Contract Title: Hayle RFC Relocation

Description: 15 soil samples

Date Received: 26/02/2010

Date Started: 26/02/2010

Date Completed: 12/03/2010

Test Procedures: Identified by prefix DETSn, details available upon request.

Notes: Observations and interpretations are outside the scope of UKAS accreditation

* denotes test not included in laboratory scope of accreditation

# denotes test that holds MCERT accreditation, however, MCERTS

accreditation is only implied if the report carries the MCERTS logo

$ denotes tests completed by an approved subcontractor

I/S denotes insufficient sample to carry out test

U/S denotes that the sample is not suitable for testing

DETSM denotes tests carried out by DETS Midlands laboratory

Solid samples will be disposed 1 month and liquids 2 weeks

after the date of issue of this test certificate

Asbestos subsamples will be kept for 6 months

Approved By:

Authorised Signatories: Rob Brown

Business Manager

Certificate of Analysis

This certificate is issued in accordance with the accreditation requirements of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The results reported herein

relate only to the material supplied to the laboratory. This certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the prior written approval of the

laboratory.

Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Limited

Unit 2, Park Road Industrial Estate South, Consett, Co Durham, DH8 5PY

Tel: 01207 582333 • Fax 01207 582444 • email: [email protected] • www.dets.co.uk

Page 1 of 4

Soil SamplesOur Ref: 10-35960

Client Ref: C6559

244718 244719 244720 244721 244722

TP1 TP3 TP4 TP6 TP7

0.30 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

22/02/2010 22/02/2010 22/02/2010 22/02/2010 22/02/2010

Test Units DETSxx

Arsenic mg/kg DETS 042# 77 120 94 86 92

Cadmium mg/kg DETS 042# 1.0 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.0

Chromium mg/kg DETS 042# 27 27 37 37 28

Copper mg/kg DETS 042# 49 110 74 68 75

Lead mg/kg DETS 042# 51 78 41 44 40

Mercury mg/kg DETS 081# < 0.05 0.38 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.06

Nickel mg/kg DETS 042# 26 26 25 25 19

Selenium mg/kg DETS 042# < 0.5 0.6 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Zinc mg/kg DETS 042# 220 430 210 210 190

Organic matter % DETS 002# 1.9 3.2 3.3 3.7 4.3

Sulphate Aqueous Extract as SO4 mg/l DETS 076# 30 46 35 26 44

pH DETS 008# 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3

Depth

Other Ref

Sample Type

Summary of Chemical Analysis


Lab No.

Sample Ref

Derwentside Environmental Testing Services Ltd Page 2 of 4


Client Ref: C6559

Test Units DETSxx

Arsenic mg/kg DETS 042#

Cadmium mg/kg DETS 042#

Chromium mg/kg DETS 042#

Copper mg/kg DETS 042#

Lead mg/kg DETS 042#

Mercury mg/kg DETS 081#

Nickel mg/kg DETS 042#

Selenium mg/kg DETS 042#

Zinc mg/kg DETS 042#

Organic matter % DETS 002#

Sulphate Aqueous Extract as SO4 mg/l DETS 076#

pH DETS 008#

Depth

Other Ref

Sample Type



Lab No.

Sample Ref

244723 244724 244725 244726 244727

TP8 TP9 TP11 TP12 TP13

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.30

22/02/2010 22/02/2010 22/02/2010 23/02/2010 23/02/2010

52 99 91 100 80

0.9 1.1 0.9 1.3 1

33 31 24 38 49

37 61 61 55 63

34 40 38 110 41

< 0.05 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

22 24 18 26 28

< 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

180 230 190 230 220

3.3 3.9 4.4 2.9 3.0

24 31 37 26 27

8.4 8.3 8.2 8.3 8.4



Client Ref: C6559

Test Units DETSxx

Arsenic mg/kg DETS 042#

Cadmium mg/kg DETS 042#

Chromium mg/kg DETS 042#

Copper mg/kg DETS 042#

Lead mg/kg DETS 042#

Mercury mg/kg DETS 081#

Nickel mg/kg DETS 042#

Selenium mg/kg DETS 042#

Zinc mg/kg DETS 042#

Organic matter % DETS 002#

Sulphate Aqueous Extract as SO4 mg/l DETS 076#

pH DETS 008#

Depth

Other Ref

Sample Type



Lab No.

Sample Ref

244728 244729 244730 244731 244732

TP14 TP15 TP17 TP19 TP21

0.50 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.30

23/02/2010 23/02/2010 23/02/2010 23/02/2010 23/02/2010

130 61 110 90 110

1.2 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.9

44 51 27 27 26

97 38 86 44 35

45 34 65 56 260

< 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

26 28 17 21 21

< 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

300 200 210 190 170

4.1 1.7 4.7 5.7 3.6

27 51 34 27 41

8.3 8.3 8.3 8.1 8.2


APPENDIX 5

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Depth

of

Sig

nific

ant T

ree Influence (

m)

D/H

Minimum Depth 0.9m

2

2.5

Low water demand Moderate water demand Moderate water demand

High water demand High water demand

Reproduced from National House Building Council, Standards 2003 Chapter 4.2, 'Building Near Trees'

Broad Leaf

Conifers

D = Distance between tree and foundation

H = Height of Tree

Foundations greater than 2.5m deep to be Engineer designed

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

CL

AS

SIF

ICA

TIO

N C

HA

RT

Site: C

arw

in R

ise, Loggan

s Moor, H

ayle, C

orn

wall

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex (

%)

L LOWI

INTERMEDIATE H HIGH V VERY HIGH E EXTREMELY HIGH

CH

CV

CE

A-LineCI

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

CL

AS

SIF

ICA

TIO

N C

HA

RT

Site: C

arw

in R

ise, Loggan

s Moor, H

ayle, C

orn

wall

C6559

Job

no

.

Fig

no

.

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

Pla

stic

ity I

nd

ex (

%)

Liquid Limit (%)

L LOWI

INTERMEDIATE H HIGH V VERY HIGH E EXTREMELY HIGH

6

SILTS generally plot below A Line

CLAYS generally plot above A Line

CL

CH

CV

CE

A-Line

PI = 0.73 (LL-20)

ML MI MH

MV

ME

CI

Job no.

Fig.

Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification for brownfield locationsa

Sulphate and magnesium Groundwater

ACEC

Class for

location

Design

Sulphate

Class for

Location

2:1 water/soil extract b Groundwater

Total

potential

sulphate

Static

water

Mobile

water

(SO4

mg/l) (Mg mg/l)

(SO4

mg/l)

(Mg

mg/l) (SO4%) (pH)

d (pH)

d

DS-1 <500 <400 <0.24 ≥2.5 AC-1s

>6.5d AC-1

5.5-6.5 AC-2z

4.5-5.5 AC-3z

2.5-4.5 AC-4z

DS-2 500-1500 400-1400 0.24-0.6 >5.5 AC-1s

>6.5 AC-2

2.5-5.5 AC-2s

5.5-6.5 AC-3z

4.5-5.5 AC-4z

2.5-5.5 AC-5z

DS-3 1600-

3000

1500-

3000

0.7-1.2 >5.5 AC-2s

>6.5 AC-3

2.5-5.5 AC-3s

5.5-6.5 AC-4

2.5-5.5 AC-5

DS-4 3100-

6000

≤1200 3100-

6000

≤1000 1.3-2.4 >5.5 AC-3s

>6.5 AC-4

2.5-5.5 AC-4s

2.5-6.5 AC-5

DS-4m 3100-

6000

>1200e

3100-

6000

>1000e 1.3-2.4 >5.5 AC-3s

>6.5 AC-4m

2.5-5.5 AC-4ms

2.5-6.5 AC-5m

DS-5 >6000 ≤1200 >6000 ≤1000 >2.4 >5.5 AC-4s

2.5-5.5 ≥2.5 AC-5

DS-5m >6000 >1200e >6000 >1000

e >2.4 >5.5 Ac-4ms

2.5-5.5 ≥2.5 AC-5m

Notes

a Brownfield locations are those sites, or parts of sites, that might contain chemical residues produced or associated with industrial

production

b The limits of Design Sulphate Classes based on 2:1 water/soil extracts have been lowered from previous Digests

c Applies only to locations where concrete will be exposed to sulphate ions (SO4), which may result from the oxidation of sulphides

such as pyrite, following ground disturbance

d An additional account is taken of hydrochloric and nitric acids by adjustment to sulphate content

e The limit on water-soluble magnesium does not apply to brackish groundwater (chloride content between 12000mg/l and 17000mg/l).

This allows ‘m’ to be omitted from the relevant ACEC classification. Seawater (chloride content about 18000mg/l) and stronger

brines are not covered by this table.

Explanation of suffix symbols to ACEC class

• Suffix ‘s’ indicates that the water has been classified as static

• Concrete placed in ACEC Classes that include the suffix ‘z’ have primarily to resist acid conditions and may be made with any of the

cements in Digest

• Suffix ‘m’ relates to the higher levels of magnesium in Design Sulphate Classes 4 and 5

AGGRESSIVE CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR CONCRETE (ACEC) C6559

Hayle RFC A5.3

APPENDIX 6

CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/iv vi/i

APPENDIX 6

GENERAL NOTES ON CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

A6.1 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND DEFINITIONS

A6.1.1 The statutory definition of contaminated land is defined in the Environmental Protection

Act 1990, ref 10.13, which was introduced by the Environment Act 1995, ref 10.14;

‘Land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a

condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that –

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

being caused; or

(b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused.’

A6.1.2 The UK guidance on the assessment of contaminated has developed as a direct result of

the introduction of these two Acts. The technical guidance supporting the new legislation

has been summarised in a number of key documents collectively known as the

Contaminated Land Reports (CLRs), a proposed series of twelve documents. Seven were

originally published in March 1994, four more were published in April 2002, while the

last remaining guidance document, CLR 11, ref 10.24 was published in 2004. In 2008

CLR reports 7 to 10 were withdrawn by DEFRA and the Environment Agency and

updated version of CLR 9 and 10 were produced in the form of Science Reports SR2, ref

10.21 and SR3, ref 10.15.

A6.1.3 In establishing whether a site fulfils the statutory definition of ‘contaminated land’ it is

necessary to identify, whether a pollutant linkage exists in respect of the land in question

and whether the pollutant linkage:

• is resulting in significant harm being caused to the receptor in the pollutant linkage,

• presents a significant possibility of significant harm being caused to that receptor,

• is resulting in the pollution of the controlled waters which constitute the receptor, or

• is likely to result in such pollution.

A6.1.4 A ‘pollutant linkage’ may be defined as the link between a contaminant ‘source’ and a

‘receptor’ by means of a ‘pathway’.

A6.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

A6.2.1 The guidance proposes a four-stage assessment process for identifying potential pollutant

linkages on a site. These stages are set out in the table below:

Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/iv vi/ii

No. Process Description

1 Hazard

Identification

Establishing contaminant sources, pathways and receptors

(the conceptual model).

2 Hazard Assessment Analysing the potential for unacceptable risks (what linkages

could be present, what could be the effects).

3 Risk Estimation

Trying to establish the magnitude and probability of the

possible consequences (what degree of harm might result and

to what receptors, and how likely is it).

4 Risk Evaluation Deciding whether the risk is unacceptable.

A6.2.2 Stages 1 and 2 develop a ‘conceptual model’ based upon information collated from desk

based studies, and frequently a walkover of the site. The walkover survey should be

conducted in general accordance with CLR 2, ref 10.27. The formation of a conceptual

model is an iterative process and as such, it should be updated and refined throughout

each stage of the project to reflect any additional information obtained.

A6.2.3 The extent of the desk studies and enquiries to be conducted should be in general

accordance with CLR 3, ref 10.28. The information from these enquiries is presented in a

desk study report with recommendations, if necessary, for further work based upon the

conceptual model. CLR 8, ref. 10.29, together with specific DoE ‘Industry Profiles’

provides guidance on the nature of contaminants relating to specific industrial processes.

Although CLR 8 has been withdrawn, no replacement guidance has been published that

lists the contaminants likely to be present on contaminated sites and as such the guidance

relating to this issue of CLR 8 is considered to still be relevant.

A6.2.4 If potential pollutant linkages are identified within the conceptual model, a Phase 2 site

investigation and report will be recommended. The investigation should be planned in

general accordance with CLR 4, ref 10.1. The number of exploratory holes and samples

collected for analysis should be consistent with the size of the site and the level of risk

envisaged. This will enable a contamination risk assessment to be conducted, at which

point the conceptual model can be updated and relevant pollutant linkages can be

identified.

A6.2.5 A two-stage investigation may be more appropriate where time constraints are less of an

issue. The first stage investigation being conducted as an initial assessment for the

presence of potential sources, a second being a more refined investigation to delineate

wherever possible the extent of the identified contamination.

A6.2.6 All site works should be in general accordance with the British Standards, BS 5930:1999,

ref. 10.3, ISO 1997, ref 10.4 and BS 10175:2001, ref 10.2.

A6.2.7 The generic contamination risk assessment screens the results of the chemical analysis

against generic guidance values. Soils will be compared to Assessment Criteria (AC)

generated using the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Software Version

1.04 beta, ref 10.17. Toxicological and physico-chemical/fate and transport data used to

generate the AC has been derived from a hierarchy of data sources as follows:

1. Environment Agency or Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs

(DEFRA) documents;

2. Other documents produced by UK Government or state organisations;

3. European institution documents;

4. International organisation documents;

Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/iv vi/iii

5. Foreign government institutions.

A6.2.8 In the case of the majority of contaminants considered, the toxicological data has been

drawn from the relevant CLR 9 TOX report, or updated toxicological data published by

the Environment Agency (2009), ref. 10.16, where available. Where no TOX report is

available reference has been made to the health criteria values, derived for use in Land

Quality Press (2006), ref 10.22, as this is considered to represent a peer reviewed data

source. Similarly, fate and transport data has been derived in the first instance from

Environment Agency (2003), ref 10.30 and for contaminants not considered in this

document the fate and transport data used in previous versions of the CLEA model has

been used.

A6.2.9 Recommendations for tolerable intakes of lead are based on evaluation of the relationship

between exposure and blood lead levels. Consequently the Tox report for lead considers a

health criteria value based on an uptake dose, whereas the CLEA model estimates

exposure in terms of an intake dose, therefore, the CLEA model is not considered

appropriate for determining an assessment criteria for lead. In the absence of a current

published assessment criterion, the SGVs for lead reported in R&D Publication CLR 10

ref 10.31 have been used in this assessment.

A6.2.10 Chemical laboratory test results are processed as follows. A statistical analysis of the

results is conducted, as detailed in CIEH and CL:AIRE ‘Guidance on Comparing Soil

Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’, ref 10.17. Individual concentrations

are compared to the selected guideline values to identify concentrations of contaminants

that are above the selected screening criteria.

A6.2.11 Initially the distribution of the data set is tested using the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, ref

10.20 to determine if the data set is, or is not, normally distributed. Where the distribution

of the data is shown to be normal, the mean value test is applied to determine whether the

mean characteristics of the selected soil unit present a significant possibility of significant

harm to human health. Where the data is not normally distributed a method based on the

Chebychev Theorem can be applied to test the same hypothesis. The significance of the

data is further tested using the maximum value test. This determines whether the highest

recorded contaminant concentrations are from the same statistical distribution or whether

they may represent a ‘hot spot’.

A6.2.12 Where the risk estimation identifies significant concentrations of one or more

contaminants, a further risk evaluation needs to be undertaken.

A6.2.13 The risk evaluation will address the potential pollutant linkages between an identified

source of contamination and the likely receptors both on and off site.

A6.2.14 The potential receptors include:

1) Humans – current site occupants, construction workers, future site users and

neighbouring site users.

2) Controlled Waters – surface water and groundwater resources

3) Plants – current and future site vegetation

4) Building materials

A6.2.15 The potential hazards to be considered in relation to contamination are:

a) Ingestion and inhalation.

b) Uptake of contaminants via cultivated vegetables.

c) Dermal contact

Appendix 6 pages vi/i-vi/iv vi/iv

d) Phytotoxicity (the prevention or inhibition of plant growth)

e) Contamination of water resources

f) Chemical attack on building materials and services

g) Fire and explosion

A6.2.16 Dependent on the outcome of the initial, generic contamination risk assessment, further

detailed assessment of the identified risks may be required.

A6.3 Generic Guidance Values Used Within Contamination Risk Assessment

Residential End Use

Determinant

Guidance Value

(mg/kg) Primary Data Source

2.5% SOM

Metals

Arsenic 32 EA 2009

Beryllium 51 LQM CIEH GAC

Boron 291 LQM CIEH GAC

Cadmium 10 EA 2009

Chromium (III) 3000 LQM CIEH GAC

Chromium (VI) 4.3 LQM CIEH GAC

Copper 2330 LQM CIEH GAC

Lead 450 CLEA SGV 10

Inorganic Mercury 169 EA 2009

Nickel 130 EA 2009

Selenium 350 EA 2009

Vanadium 75 LQM CIEH GAC

Zinc 3750 LQM CIEH GAC

1 SOM – Soil Organic Matter

User

Company

Contact number

Report title

Job Number

Notes

Ian Farmer Associates

C6559


STEP 1: REPORT DETAILS Back to GuideClear All Details

SELECT LAND USE Residential without homegrown produce RATIO MODE FALSE

LAND USE OPTIONS

RECEPTOR Female (res)

BUILDING Office (post 1970) START AC 17 END AC 17

STEP 2: BASIC SETTINGS Apply Settings to Model

Office (post 1970)

Female (res)

Residential without homegrown produce

Back to Guide

BUILDING Office (post 1970) START AC 17 END AC 17

SOIL TYPE Sandy loam pH 8 SOM (%) 3.5

EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

ORAL ROUTES DERMAL ROUTES INHALATION ROUTES

TRUE indoor TRUE TRUE

FALSE outdoor TRUE TRUE

FALSE TRUE

TRUE

Apply Settings to Model

direct soil and dust ingestion

consumption of homegrown produce

soil attached to homegrown produce

indoor

outdoor

indoor dust

outdoor dust

indoor vapour

outdoor vapour

Sandy loam

Office (post 1970)

Female (res)


Back to GuideApply Settings to

Model

direct soil and dust ingestion

consumption of homegrown produce

soil attached to homegrown produce

indoor

outdoor

indoor dust

outdoor dust

indoor vapour

outdoor vapour

Sandy loam

Office (post 1970)

Female (res)


Back to Guide

Oral HCV Inhalation HCVAir-water partition

coefficient (Kaw)

Diffusion

coefficient

in air

Diffusion

coefficient in

water

Relative

molecular

mass

Vapour

pressure

Water

solubilityKoc Kow Kd

Dermal

absorption

fraction

Soil - plant

availability

correction

Root - shoot

correction factor

Root - root store

correction factor

Root - tuber

correction factor

Root - fruit

correction

factor

Soil-to-plant concentration factor

(green vegetables)


(root vegetables)


(tuber vegetables)


(herbaceous fruit)


(shrub fruit)


(tree fruit)Relative bioavailability (RBAsoil,tox)

Compare with Compare with

Chem

ical ty

pe

Type

µg k

g-1

BW

day

-1

Ora

l exposure

Derm

al exposure

Inhala

tion

exposure

Type

µg k

g-1

BW

day

-1

Ora

l exposure

Derm

al exposure

Inhala

tion

exposure

Com

bin

e o

ral and

inhala

tion A

C

µg d

ay

-1

µg d

ay

-1

cm

3 c

m-3

m2

s-1

m2

s-1

g m

ol-1

Pa

mg L

-1

Log (

cm

3 g

-1)

Log (

dim

ensio

nle

ss)

cm

3 g

-1

dim

ensio

nle

ss

dim

ensio

nle

ss

dim

ensio

nle

ss

dim

ensio

nle

ss

dim

ensio

nle

ss

dim

ensio

nle

ss

mg g

-1 p

lant

(DW

or

FW

basis

) over

mg g

-1 D

W s

oil

Type

mg g

-1 p

lant

(DW

or

FW

basis

) over

mg g

-1 D

W s

oil

Type

mg g

-1 p

lant

(DW

or

FW

basis

) over

mg g

-1 D

W s

oil

Type

mg g

-1 p

lant

(DW

or

FW

basis

) over

mg g

-1 D

W s

oil

Type

mg g

-1 p

lant

(DW

or

FW

basis

) over

mg g

-1 D

W s

oil

Type

mg g

-1 p

lant

(DW

or

FW

basis

) over

mg g

-1 D

W s

oil

Type

Soil

Airborn

e d

ust

Arsenic inorganic ID 3.00E-01 Yes Yes No ID 2.00E-03 No No No No NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1.25E+06 NR NR 5.00E+02 3.00E-02 NR NR NR NR NR 4.30E-04 numeric fw 4.00E-04 numeric fw 2.30E-04 numeric fw 3.30E-04 numeric fw 2.00E-04 numeric fw 1.10E-03 numeric fw 0.50 1.0 1.00 1.00

Chemical Name

Inhalation

MDI for

adults

Oral MDI

for adults

Sub-s

urf

ace s

oil

to indoor

air

corr

ection f

acto

r

(dim

ensio

nle

ss)

Soil-

to-d

ust

transport

facto

r

(g g

-1 D

W)

ADVANCED SETTINGS Restore Defaults Back to MenuRestore Defaults Back to MenuRestore Defaults Back to Menu

Ratio of ADE to relevant Health Criteria Value Soil Assessment Criteria Soil Saturation Limit Pathway Contributions (%)

oral HCV inhal HCV Combined oral HCV inhal HCV Combineddirect soil

ingestion

sum of consumption

of homegrown

produce and attached

dermal contact

(indoor)

dermal contact

(outdoor)

inhalation of dust

(indoor)

inhalation of dust

(outdoor)

inhalation of

vapour (indoor)

inhalation of vapour

(outdoor)

oral

background

inhalation

backgroundTotal

Number Chemical (dimensionless) (dimensionless) (dimensionless) mg kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1 % % % % % % % % % % %

1 Arsenic 1.00 0.00 NR 5.00E+02 NR NR NR 84.85 0.00 7.00 8.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

STEP 5: RESULTS Find AC Print Reports Back to GuideFind AC Print Reports Back to Guide

C6559 Phase II PC Club-opt/Microsoft...Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited

Documents

Transcript of C6559 Phase II PC Club-opt/Microsoft...Ian Farmer Associates (1998) Limited