Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land Quality ...... · Figure 1 – Site Location Plan (Drawing...

Land Quality Assessment: Combined Phase 1 and 2: Final GPSS Portfolio: Kelmarsh Petroleum Storage Depot

Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land Quality Assessment Combined Phase 1 & Phase 2 GPSS Portfolio: Kelmarsh Petroleum Storage Depot Final

July 2013 Contract Number: FTS3/ELMG/101

Land Quality Assessment

Combined Phase 1 And 2

GPSS Portfolio: Kelmarsh Petroleum Storage Depot

Final Defence Infrastructure Organisation Prepared by Atkins Limited for

Estates Management Central The Ministry of Defence

Kingston Road Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Sutton Coldfield under contract number

B75 7RL FTS3/ELMG/101

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for the Defence Infrastructure Organisation’s information and use in relation to the Combined Phase 1 and 2 Land Quality Assessment for the GPSS Portfolio: Kelmarsh Petroleum Storage Depot.

Document History Job number: 5106238 Document ref: Kelmarsh PSD Combined Phase 1/2 LQA

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 2.0 Final M L NW E July 2013

TASK OFFICER

---------------------------------

PROJECT SPONSOR

----------------------------------


3

Table of Contents Chapter Pages Land Quality Statement i 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Terms of Reference 1 1.2. Objectives 1 1.3. Methodology 1 1.4. Scope of Work and Sources of Information 2 1.5. Structure of this Report 3

2. Site Description and Setting 4 2.1. Site Location 4 2.2. Surrounding Area 4 2.3. Site Description 4 2.4. Site History 6 2.5. Environmental Setting 7 2.6. Site Sensitivity 8 3. Preliminary Conceptual Site Model 9 3.1. Potential Sources of Contamination 9 3.2. Potential Receptors 9 3.3. Preliminary Phase 1 Environmental Risk Assessment 11 3.4. Preliminary Conceptual Site Model for Investigation 11 4. Site Investigation 14 4.1. Objectives 14 4.2. Methodology 14 4.3. Investigation Findings 16

5. Assessment of Risks 19 5.1. Introduction 19 5.2. Tier 2 Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment 19 5.3. Risk Assessment Summary 22 6. Conclusions 24 6.1. Overall Land Quality 24 6.2. Environmental Risks 24 6.3. Suitability of Investigated Areas for Continued Use 25

Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Plan (Drawing 5106238-DWG-021)

Figure 2 – Site Layout Plan & Potential Sources of Contamination (Drawing 5106238-DWG-022)

Figure 3 – Preliminary Conceptual Site Model for Site Investigation (Drawing 5106238-DWG-023)

Figure 4 – Exploratory Hole Location Plan (Drawing 5106238-DWG-024)

Figure 5 – Revised Conceptual Site Model (Drawing 5106238-DWG-025)

Appendices Appendix A - Envirocheck

Appendix B – Historical Maps


4

Appendix C – Environmental Risk Assessment Classification Tables

Appendix D - Site Investigation Factual Report

Appendix E – Laboratory Results


i

Land Quality Statement Introduction and Terms of Reference Atkins Limited (Atkins) was instructed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) branch of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to carry out a Combined Phase 1 and 2 Land Quality Assessment (LQA) of the Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) Portfolio: Kelmarsh Petroleum Storage Depot (PSD), (the Site) under contract FTS3/ELMG/101 between Atkins and DIO. This Combined Phase 1 and 2 LQA is required to assess the environmental quality of the Site and evaluate potential environmental liabilities from contamination associated with the Site.

Site Location and Surrounding Land Use This Site is located approximately 1.5km to the northeast of the village of Kelmarsh and 1.2km to the southwest of the village of Arthingworth in Northamptonshire. The approximate Ordnance Survey National Grid Reference for the Site is 474541 280680.

Surrounding land is predominantly open fields and woodlands

Site Description Kelmarsh PSD occupies approximately 6.57 hectares and is an irregular shaped parcel of land comprising approximately 95% grassland and 5% hardstanding. Most of the buildings are located in the south part of the Site by the entrance off Kelmarsh Road and underground and aboveground storage tanks are located in the centre and north.

The Site was used as a PSD with hydrocarbons pumped to the Site. The hydrocarbons were directed to a series of underground storage tanks (USTs) and then transported off the Site to the various end users, including RAF and military bases in Northamptonshire, by road and rail and later by pipeline. Atkins understands that the hydrocarbons stored included aviation fuel, kerosene and diesel.

Records indicate that the Site was decommissioned sometime in the 1990s.

Currently, the only Site activities are an active pipeline which runs in and out of the Site in the south by the Site entrance, together with the pipeline inspection gauge. The Site is now on ‘care and maintenance’.

Site History The Site was developed as a PSD in the 1940s and hydrocarbons supplied to the Site by pipeline and stored on-site in seven USTs. Distribution was by rail until the 1960s when the rail sidings were demolished. Road loading was in use until mothballing of the Site in the early 1990s when Site operations ceased.

Environmental Setting Published information shows the Site is underlain by Superficial Deposits (in the northeast) and Whitby Mudstone formation. Site-specific information from the Phase 2 Site Investigation indicates Made Ground is present in isolated areas to depths ranging from 0.70 to 1.90m below ground level (bgl) resting on natural strata comprising stiff clay and sand, possibly Superficial Deposits and/or totally weathered bedrock.

Superficial Deposits are a Secondary Aquifer and bedrock is Unproductive Strata. Groundwater has been detected at the Site at depths ranging from 0.7 to 2.49mbgl with a possible flow towards the southeast.

Site Sensitivity Receptors Sensitivity Summary Description

Groundwater Moderate Shallow groundwater is present in the Superficial Secondary Aquifer/or Bedrock. Surface Waters Moderate River Ise is within 250m

Flora/Fauna Low Ecological sensitivity is considered low because no designated ecological receptors have been identified within 1km of the Site


ii

Potential Sources of Contamination Atkins Phase 1 LQA identified a number of historic, on-site potentially contaminative activities from past operations including potential leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from tanks, pipework, loading areas, drums storage, workshops, generators, substations, interceptors and in Made Ground itself, although there was no documentary information or physical evidence to confirm that contamination was present from these potential sources. In addition, it was practice in the past to bury sediment from tank cleaning in pits, often called ‘graves’ and four are present on the Site.

On- and off-site humans, controlled waters and property (buildings and infrastructure) were identified as potential receptors to the sources of contamination listed above. Potential contaminant linkages (PCLs) were identified and subject to a preliminary qualitative environmental risk assessment.

Phase 2 Site Investigation PCLs related directly to past/current Site operations and considered to pose a potential moderate or high risk were investigated as part of the Phase 2 LQA. This comprised the advancing of ten window samples installed with combined groundwater/ground gas monitoring installations. Samples of soil and groundwater were analysed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, tetraethyl and tetramethyl lead and asbestos.

A generic quantitative risk assessment (GQRA) for human, controlled waters and property receptors was carried out by comparison of soil and water concentration data with generic assessment criteria (GAC) for human receptors and controlled waters receptors assessed by comparison of groundwater concentration data with drinking water standards (DWS) for the groundwater receptor, and environmental quality standards (EQS) for the surface water receptor. Ground gas results were assessed for human and property receptors.

No asbestos was identified in the soil samples analysed. Visual and olfactory evidence of contamination, comprising hydrocarbon type odours, were observed in soil in AWS005 and AWS004, but contaminants in the soil samples analysed were either below the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) or the commercial/industrial land-use GAC.

Contaminants in groundwater samples were all reported below laboratory method detection limits.

The Characteristic Situation (CS) for carbon dioxide and methane was CS2 because of concentrations detected in AWS005.

Phase 2 Environmental Risk Assessment The environmental risk assessment is summarised below:

• a moderate risk has been identified to current/future construction/maintenance workers from contaminants in soil and groundwater even if they do not exceed the GAC because they may be in direct contact with contaminants when they are required to excavate and handle soil. However, this will be reduce to low risk if robust risk assessments are carried out to identify appropriate personnel protective equipment and suitable working methods to protect these receptors, in accordance with current guidance and recommended good working practices;

• a low risk has been identified to current/future on-site human receptors from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a low risk has been identified to current/future off-site human receptors from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a low risk has been identified to groundwater from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater; • a low risk has been identified to surface water from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater; • a low risk has been identified to current/future on-site human receptors from the methane/carbon dioxide

detected; • a low risk has been identified to current/future off-site human receptors from the methane/carbon dioxide

detected; • a negligible risk has been identified to on-site property from the contamination detected in the

soil/groundwater and a low risk from the methane detected; and • a negligible risk has been identified to off-site property from the contamination detected in the

soil/groundwater and a low risk from the methane detected.


iii

It should be noted that the assessment of ground gas and groundwater risks has been based on one round of monitoring only and the ground gas CS could change if further monitoring was to be carried out. Identified risks to groundwater could increase or decrease based on further monitoring.

Overall Land Quality and Suitability for Use Based on the Combined Phase 1/2 LQA carried out, the Site is considered suitable for use as a PSD (i.e. commercial/industrial), although it should be noted that assessment of ground gas and groundwater associated risks are based on only one round of monitoring.


1

1. Introduction 1.1. Terms of Reference

The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) commissioned Atkins Limited (Atkins) to undertake a Combined Phase 1 and 2 Land Quality Assessment (LQA) of sites in the Government Pipelines and Storage System (GPSS) Portfolio under contract FTS3/ELMG/101 between Atkins and DIO. The GPSS is a UK pipeline system run by the Oil and Pipelines Agency (OPA) for the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and consists of approximately 2,500km of pipeline and associated facilities. The network, interconnected with several private networks, was constructed before WW2 to supply fuel for Operation Pluto.

This report relates to the Kelmarsh Petroleum Storage Depot (PSD), hereafter also called the Site. The Site was used for the storage and distribution of hydrocarbons but was mothballed in the 1990s.

1.2. Objectives It is MOD policy to undertake a voluntary programme to ‘assess land quality across the defence estate’ to ‘provide a proper knowledge of the condition of the estate and ensure that it is ‘suitable for use’ and not causing harm to the environment. Where it is identified that unacceptable risk is posed by the presence of contamination, action must be taken to reduce and control the risks to an acceptable level’. The MOD has implemented the LQA process to achieve this aim and undertakes phased investigations where potential risks are identified to human and environmental receptors from contamination. This process is described in the DIO Practitioner Guide 07/121.

Objectives of this LQA are to determine potential environmental liabilities associated with each Site in the portfolio as part of the GPSS divestiture programme.

1.3. Methodology The initial phase of the LQA process is the Phase 1 LQA (Desk Study) which develops a preliminary conceptual site model (CSM). This describes the relationships between contaminants, pathways and receptors and identifies potential contaminant linkages (PCLs) where a source, pathway and receptor linkage is considered to exist. Based on the preliminary CSM and PCLs, potential unacceptable contamination risks associated with the Site can be identified. The Phase 2 LQA (Site/Ground Investigation) is carried out to investigate the PCLs and update the preliminary CSM.

This LQA Report sets out the factual information and other evidence gathered through a combined desk based assessment and site investigation relating to the environmental condition of the Site. The report establishes the overall Site condition by identifying and investigating PCLs and providing an appraisal of environmental risks, identifying potential unacceptable contamination risks and the interaction of those risks with the surrounding environment. This has informed potential environmental liabilities from contamination associated with the Site.

It is understood that the Site is effectively mothballed with fuel storage and loading facilities now inactive and the pipeline station being the only operational part of the Site. At this stage, proposed future use has not been identified. Therefore, for the purposes of the LQA, Atkins has assumed that proposed future use will remain the same as past use (PSD) and potential risks have been assessed for commercial and industrial end-use scenarios only.

1 Contaminated Land Management: Land Quality Assessment (LQA) Management Guide, 07/12, Estates Strategy and Policy Group, January 2013


2

1.4. Scope of Work and Sources of Information The following has been carried out:

• Phase 1 Desk Study comprising:

- Review of Envirocheck Report2 from the Landmark Information Group which included historical maps. The Envirocheck Report is presented as Appendix A and the Historical Maps as Appendix B;

- Review of current topographic Ordnance Survey (OS) map;

- Review of published geology including the Geology Datasheet included with the Envirocheck Report in Appendix A which is based on the British Geological Survey (BGS) geology map of Market Harborough3;

- Review of BGS website4;

- Review of Environment Agency5 , Northampton County Council and Daventry District Council6 websites;

- Review of the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website7;

- Review of readily available aerial photographs on the internet;

- Request for information from and discussion with Costain (Site Facility Management Company) and the Oil Pipeline Agency (OPA) regarding past operations, below and above ground tanks and pipework, drum storage areas (including petrol, oil and lubricant stores), waste arisings, handling and storage, water source and use, wastewater streams, treatment (for example interceptors and discharges), asbestos containing material, polychlorinated biphenyls in equipment and past pollution incidents; and

- Site Reconnaissance by Atkins and Costain (Facility Management Company) on 21st

September 2012 to carry out a detailed inspection of the Site and identify potential locations for and constraints with the Phase 2 Site Investigation.

• Phase 2 Site Investigation comprising:

- Project Set-up and Preparation. This has included all aspects of project set up and preparation for the works and preparation and agreement of the Design Brief/Method Statement for the Site investigation works, and

- Site Investigation, the details of which are summarised in Chapter 4 of this report;

• Environmental Risk Assessment, presented in Chapter 5 of this Report; and

• Reporting.

No previous reports were available for review but existing boreholes were noted on the Site. No photographs could be taken.

It should be noted that the Phase 1 information confirmed that the Site had not been used for MoD purposes in the past. As such, Atkins considered that it was not necessary to obtain a Defence Radiological Protection Services (DRPS) Radiological Desk Study Report, explosive ordnance clearance documentation or carry out further enquiries into the potential for burning grounds or MoD specific contaminants to be present.

The work has been carried out with due regard for UK national and regional policies relevant to the assessment and industry standards, guidance and codes of conduct.

2 Envirocheck Report Number 41006971_1__1, Landmark Information Group, August 2012 3 Geology Map number 170 of Market Harborough, British Geological Survey, 1968 4http://bgs.ac.uk 5http://environment-agency.gov.uk 6 http//:www.northamptonshire.gov.uk and www.daventrydc.gov.uk 7 http://www.magic.gov.uk


3

1.5. Structure of this Report This report has been structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 presents the Phase 1 LQA findings including a description of the Site, location and surrounding land, layout, operations and history, together with environmental setting and Site sensitivity, based primarily on information collected as part of the Phase 1 LQA data sources;

• Chapter 3 identifies potential sources of contamination, receptors and pathways based on the Phase 1 LQA data sources and presented the preliminary CSM (PCSM);

• Chapter 4 describes the Phase 2 Site Investigation carried out and investigation findings;

• Chapter 5 presents the environmental risk assessment; and

• Chapter 6 presents the conclusions of this Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 LQA.


4

2. Site Description and Setting 2.1. Site Location

This Site is located approximately 1.5km to the northeast of the village of Kelmarsh and 1.2km to the southwest of the village or Arthingworth in Northamptonshire. The approximate Ordnance Survey National Grid Reference for the Site is 474541 280680. A Site location plan is enclosed as Figure 1 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-021).

2.2. Surrounding Area Surrounding land is predominantly open fields and woodlands:

• North: Open agricultural land is adjacent to the north with the River Ise, which flows from southwest to northeast, approximately 250m to the north. Arthingworth Lodge is approximately 250m to the northeast;

• East: Open agricultural land is adjacent to the east and Kelmarsh Road which runs from northeast to southwest, is approximately 150m to the east and adjacent to the southeast;

• South: Open agricultural land is adjacent to the south beyond Kelmarsh Road. A disused railway line is adjacent to the south-southwest on the far side of Kelmarsh Road with Stable Farm (formerly Kelmarsh Arms) approximately 50m to the south-southwest; and

• West: A disused railway line (Brampton Valley Way Linear Park) forms the west Site boundary with open agricultural land to the west, Langborough Wood is approximately 250m to the southwest and the River Ise is approximately 250m to the west.

No statutory Contaminated Land Register entries or notices are recorded on or within 1km of the Site. No historic/active landfill entries are noted on or within 1km of the Site.

2.3. Site Description The Site description below has been based on review of the data listed in Chapter 1, discussion with Costain/OPA and Atkins Site Reconnaissance.

2.3.1. Site Layout Kelmarsh PSD occupies approximately 6.57 hectares and is an irregular shaped parcel of land comprising approximately 95% grassland and 5% hardstanding. Most of the buildings are located in the south part of the Site by the entrance off Kelmarsh Road. The Site layout is shown in Figure 2 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-022) and comprises:

• pipeline in the south by the Site entrance;

• former Site office, mess room, control room and workshop in the southwest, to the west of the roadway into the Site;

• former road loading area in the southeast by the Site entrance;

• former Foam Store in the southwest, to the north of the former offices;

• former storage building to the southeast by the Site entrance;

• interceptors in the south by the Site entrance;

• former fire pump tank and concrete lined emergency water supply (EWS) tank to the north of the former offices by the west Site boundary;

• former pump house and additive manifold in the centre southeast and former manifold and valve compounds in the east;


5

• five former “slops” underground storage tanks (UST), former lube oil tanks and former generator room in the centre southwest;

• former rail sidings (running northwest to southeast) in the centre, noted as mounded and comprising Made Ground. This included a former rail loading gantry but the sidings and branch line were dismantled in the 1960s;

• seven USTs in the north, aligned northwest to south east, with a row of four in the south and a row of three in the north;

• former Foam Store to the northwest and concrete lined EWS to the southwest of the USTs; and

• tetraethyl lead pits, two to the north and two to the south of the USTs.

Buildings were of brick construction and generally single storey, with boarded windows and were locked. Compounds were generally of concrete construction.

2.3.2. Site Activities The Site was constructed during the 1940s and used as a PSD with hydrocarbons pumped to the Site. The hydrocarbons were directed to a series of USTs then transported off the Site to the various end users, including RAF and military bases in Northamptonshire, by road and rail and later by pipeline. Atkins understands that the hydrocarbons stored included aviation fuel, kerosene and diesel.

Records indicate that the Site was decommissioned sometime in the 1990s.

Currently, the only Site activities are an active pipeline which runs in and out of the Site in the south by the Site entrance, together with the pipeline inspection gauge (PIG). The Site is considered by the OPA as on ‘care and maintenance’.

2.3.3. Underground Storage Tanks and Pipework There are seven, circular, 3000m3 capacity USTs in the north which were used to store the hydrocarbons listed above (aviation fuel, kerosene and diesel.). The tanks are covered with earth and camouflaged with grass. Each UST has vents and monitoring equipment on the topside. Access/maintenance tunnels are located in the vicinity of each UST.

Five 30’ x 9’ slop USTs are located in the vicinity of the manifold compounds. These tanks are reported to be orientated vertically, concrete lined and are covered by earth.

These USTs are understood to be empty, having been mothballed since the early 1990s.

No visual or olfactory indications of contamination or surface staining were noted during Atkins Reconnaissance.

2.3.4. Aboveground Storage Tanks and Pipework A former lube oil aboveground storage tank (AST) is located to the west of the slop tanks. This formerly contained lube oil.

No visual or olfactory indications of contamination or surface staining were noted during Atkins Reconnaissance.

2.3.5. Drum Storage OPA/Costain was not able to provide details of the former drum stores on-site, such as those used to store petrol, oil and lubricants. However, there are two former Foam Stores still present. These comprise single- storey, brick buildings with locked access doors.

No visual or olfactory indications of contamination or surface staining were noted during Atkins Reconnaissance. However, 205-litres drums (over 20, some of which are full) of multiple processed fuel oil (PFO) were present on concrete by the road side in the west part of Site.


6

2.3.6. Waste The Site has not been operational for 20+ years and no wastes are generated currently. Costain/OPA had no records of waste arisings and management when operational other than stating that slops were stored and the interceptor required regular emptying.

It should be noted that it was practice in the past to bury sediment from tank cleaning in pits, often called ‘graves’. Four tetraethyl lead pits were identified.

No visual or olfactory indications of contamination or surface staining were noted during Atkins’ Site Reconnaissance.

2.3.7. Water The Site has not been operational for 20+ years and no water used currently. However, it was from mains supply and likely to be used for domestic/washing/sanitary when the Site was in use, although there are no extant records.

2.3.8. Wastewater, Interceptors and Sumps Sanitary wastewater was generated but there are no records to indicate where it was discharged. Surface water run-off, roof run-off and rainwater were directed to an interceptor located in the south of the Site. Site drainage was reported to discharge via a channel into a ditch to the southeast of the Site.

No visual or olfactory indications of contamination or surface staining were noted during Atkins’ Site Reconnaissance.

2.3.9. Asbestos and Polychlorinated Biphenyls Some of the buildings on the Site are signed as containing asbestos. However, Costain/OPA was not able to provide an asbestos register for the Site.

Costain/OPA has not been able to confirm whether polychlorinated biphenyls were present in electrical equipment. It was not possible to inspect electrical equipment because buildings were locked and not necessarily safe to enter.

2.3.10. Recorded Pollution Incidents No visual or olfactory indications of contamination or surface staining were noted during Atkins visit. Costain/OPA had no records of past pollution incidents.

2.4. Site History The Site was developed as a PSD in the 1940s and hydrocarbons supplied to the Site by pipeline and stored on-site in seven USTs. Distribution was by rail until the 1960s when the rail sidings were demolished. Road loading was in use until mothballing of the Site in the early 1990s when Site operations ceased.

2.4.1. On-site Date: Scale Land Use

1885: 1:10,560 Site comprises agriculture land. A portion of the railway embankment of the London and North Western Railway is present in the southwest corner of Site.

1886: 1:2,500 No apparent change. 1900: 1:2,500 No apparent change. 1901: 1:10,5600 No apparent change. 1926: 1:2,500 No apparent change. 1927: 1:10,5600 No apparent change. 1952: 1:10,000 Railway siding entering the Site from the west. No further Site features

apparent (it should be noted maps of this era had all military camps and other strategic Sites removed).

1958: 1:10,000 No Site features apparent (it should be noted maps of this era had all


7

Date: Scale Land Use military camps and other strategic Sites removed).

1968:1:2,500 Site road layout, buildings, tank topography and sidings clearly shown. Site described as Depot.

1970 – 1971: 1:10,000 Topography associated with development of Site as a PSD. Site labelled as a depot.

1994: 1:2,500 Sidings no longer apparent on-site. 2006: 1:10,000 No apparent change. 2012: 1:10,000 No apparent change.

2.4.2. Surrounding Area Date: Scale Land Use

1885: 1:10,560 Surrounding area mainly consists of agricultural land and woodland. Langborough Wood shown to the southwest. River Ise shown approximately 250m to the west and north. London and North Western Railway adjacent to the west and southwest border of Site. Kelmarsh Station located on the southwest corner/border of the Site. A Brick Field shown approximately 50m to the southwest. A public house (Railway Arms) shown approximately 50m to the south-southwest of the Site entrance. Arthingworth Lodge shown approximately 250m to the northeast.

1886: 1:2,500 No apparent change. 1900: 1:2,500 No apparent change. 1901: 1:10,560 Various springs shown within 300m of the Site to the north, west and south.

The Brick Field shown as Brick Works with excavation up to the west boundary of the railway.

1926: 1:2,500 No apparent change. 1927: 1:10,560 Allotments shown approximately 500m to the northeast.

Brick Works to the southwest now labelled as disused. 1952: 1:10,000 No apparent changes. 1958: 1:10,000 No apparent changes. 1968: 1:2,500 Kelmarsh Station no longer present. 1970 – 1971: 1:10,000 A disused wind pump shown approximately 250m to the north of the Site. 1994: 1:2,500 No apparent change. 2006: 1:10,000 A pond shown in the area of former clay pit and ponds present at

Arthingworth Lodge. 2012: 1:10,000 Public house has now been replaced with a residential dwelling.

2.5. Environmental Setting

2.5.1. Topography Topographically, the Site is located on a slight hill, ranging from an elevation of 110m to 132m above ordnance datum (AOD). The highest point of the hill is located slightly to the north of the centre of the Site and levels slope gently down in all directions.

2.5.2. Geology Published geological information indicates that the Site is underlain by:

• Superficial Deposits: Glaciofluvial Deposits under the northeast corner of the Site; and

• Bedrock: The Site is underlain by the Whitby Mudstone formation (Lower Jurassic).

Geological information has not indicated the presence of Made Ground. However, Made Ground could be present under the Site, possibly imported during Site construction.

2.5.3. Hydrogeology

2.5.3.1. Aquifer and Soil Classification Superficial Deposits in the northeast are classed as a Secondary A Aquifer overlain by soil of low leaching potential. Bedrock is classed as Unproductive Strata. There are three existing boreholes


8

on-site. The locations are shown on Figure 2 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-022). Two of these were dipped and water levels were between 0.68 and 4.33m below ground level (bgl).

2.5.3.2. Abstractions and Groundwater Source Protection Zones There are no current, licensed groundwater abstractions or consents to discharge to ground on or within 500m of the Site.

The Site does not lie within a groundwater Source Protection Zone.

2.5.3.3. Pollution Incidents to Groundwater There are no recorded pollution incidents to groundwater on or within 500m of the Site.

2.5.4. Hydrology The River Ise flows from southwest to northeast approximately 250m to the north and west. The River Ise has a River Quality Grade B (good).

2.5.4.1. Abstractions and Discharge consents There are no current, licensed surface water abstractions or consents to discharge to surface water on or within 500m of the Site.

2.5.4.2. Pollution Incidents to Controlled Water No recorded pollution incidents to surface water have been identified on or within 500m of the Site.

2.5.4.3. Flood Risk Environment Agency information indicates that no part of the Site lies within an area at risk of flooding from rivers without defences (Zone 3) or extreme flood events from rivers and sea without defences (Zone 2).

2.5.5. Other Environmental Information The Site is situated within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone

Information from the BGS National Geoscience Information Service indicates that the Site is located within a radon affected area, because between 5% and 10% of homes are above action level for radon. According to the information no radon protection measures are considered necessary in the construction of new dwellings or extensions.

2.6. Site Sensitivity 2.6.1. Groundwater

Groundwater sensitivity is considered moderate because shallow groundwater is present in the Superficial Secondary Aquifer.

2.6.2. Surface Water Surface water sensitivity is considered moderate because the River Ise is within 250m.

2.6.3. Ecological Systems Ecological sensitivity is considered low because no designated ecological receptors have been identified within 1km of the Site.


9

3. Preliminary Conceptual Site Model 3.1. Potential Sources of Contamination

3.1.1. Current on-site Activities/Operations The Site has been mothballed since the 1990s and tanks and buildings emptied and decommissioned. There is one active pipeline which enters and exits the Site but this is maintained/monitored closely for leaks.

Therefore, no current, potentially contaminative on-site sources of contamination have been identified, although, unless removed, there is the potential for spillage from the PFO drums currently stored outside on concrete but with no other secondary containment.

3.1.2. Historical On-site Activities/Operations A number of historic, on-site, potentially contaminative activities have been identified, although there is no documentary information or physical evidence to confirm that contamination is present from these potential sources:

1. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from USTs and associated pipework. 2. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the ASTs, valves, manifolds, pumps and associated pipework. 3. Former rail and road loading areas (including potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the areas and associated pipework). 4. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons and foam from the drum storage areas. 5. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the interceptor/drains. 6. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the former generator, substation and workshop. 7. Presence of contamination in the tetraethyl lead sludge pits. 8. Potential for contaminants to be present in Made Ground which may have been imported to facilitate construction together with organic contaminants associated with the former railway sidings and railway track along the west boundary.

These potential sources are shown on Figure 2 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-022).

3.1.3. Current Off-site Activities/Operations Surrounding land is predominantly fields with the occasional house. These are not considered to be potentially contaminative activities which could give rise to contaminants in, on or under the land at the Site.

Therefore, no current, off-site potentially contaminative activities have been identified.

3.1.4. Historical Off-site Activities/Operations Historical surrounding land was predominantly fields with occasional house and a former railway line to the west. Fields and houses are not considered to be potentially contaminative activities which could have given rise to contaminants in, on or under the land at the Site.

The Brick Works and associated excavations to the west have not been infilled. As such, these are not considered a potentially contaminative off-site activity. Contaminants associated with the railway track have already been considered as a potential on-site source.

3.2. Potential Receptors

3.2.1. Human Receptors Potential, current on-site human receptors include the occasional facility management workers who access the Site. The potential, future on-site human receptors will either remain the same as


10

current (occasional occasional facility management workers) or comprise workers (including construction workers) and visitors to the Site if reuse commences.

These potential current/future on-site human receptors could be exposed to potential contamination by the following pathways:

• dermal contact with contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in shallow groundwater if excavation takes place below the groundwater table;

• ingestion of contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in shallow groundwater if excavation takes place below the groundwater table;

• inhalation of contaminants in soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed; and

• inhalation of hydrocarbon vapours/ground gas.

Potential current/future off-site human receptors include farm workers in adjacent fields and occupants of/visitors to Stable Farm to the southwest. These potential current/future off-site human receptors could be exposed to potential contamination by the following pathways:

• dermal contact with contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in migrating groundwater if off-site excavation takes place below the groundwater table;

• ingestion of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in migrating groundwater if off-site excavation takes place below the groundwater table;

• inhalation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed; and

• inhalation of migrating hydrocarbon vapours/ground gas.

3.2.2. Controlled Waters Receptors Groundwater in the Superficial Deposits and Bedrock (if present) is a potential receptor by leaching of contaminants from the unsaturated soil zone to groundwater and migration of light non aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL).

The River Ise a potential surface water receptor by discharge of contaminants in drains and laterally migrating groundwater and LNAPL. The river is approximately 250m from the Site and too far for discharge of contaminants in surface water run-off.

3.2.3. Ecological Receptors No designated ecological receptors that have been identified on or within 500m of the Site.

3.2.4. Other Receptors Livestock are grazed adjacent to the Site and could be exposed by exposed by:

• dermal contact with contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off;

• ingestion of contaminants in grass, windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off;

• inhalation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust; and

• inhalation of migrating hydrocarbon vapours/ground gas.


11

3.2.5. Property Receptors On-site buildings/infrastructure are also a potential current/future property receptor by direct contact with contaminants in soil and shallow groundwater and accumulation of ground gas.

Off-site property (buildings/infrastructure) includes Stable Farm to the southwest by direct contact with contaminants in migrating shallow groundwater and accumulation of migrating ground gas.

3.3. Preliminary Phase 1 Environmental Risk Assessment A preliminary environmental risk has been carried out following current best practice and industry guidance. Definitions of probability and consequence have been based on guidance in the DIO Practitioners Guide 07/12 and are summarised in Appendix C. A combination of probability and consequence produces a risk level based on the risk evaluation and likely action required. The DIO Practitioners Guide 07/12 provides seven categories of risk as shown in Appendix C. The land contamination risk, which is a function of the probability and the consequence, can then be defined using the risk matrix in Appendix C.

Based on the information reviewed as part of Atkins’ Phase 1 LQA, potential sources of contamination have been identified and a preliminary CSM developed, together with PCLs or source-receptor-pathway linkages. The preliminary CSM is summarised in Table 3.1 and shown on Figure 3 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-023).

A preliminary environmental risk assessment for the Site has been carried out and the potential sources of contamination identified at the Site are considered to pose a:

• moderate risk to current/future facility management workers on-site;

• moderate risk to future workers/visitors on-site if the Site is re-opened;

• moderate/low risk to current/future off-site human receptors;

• moderate risk to current/future construction/maintenance workers on-site;

• high risk to groundwater;

• moderate risk to surface water;

• moderate/low risk to on-site property;

• moderate/low risk to off-site property; and

• negligible risk to off-site livestock.

3.4. Preliminary Conceptual Site Model for Investigation Atkins’ site investigation forming the Phase 2 LQA, in particular the chemical analysis suite selected, has focussed on those sources associated with the Site’s operation as a PSD, specifically petroleum products because these are considered to be the principal potential contaminants at the Site and those considered to potentially pose a risk.

Analysis for metals and other inorganic compounds which could be present in, for example, Made Ground, did not form part of Atkins’ proposed scope of work in our bid and as such, has not been carried out. This is also the case for contaminants associated with potential off-site sources of contamination which are also excluded from the Phase 2 LQA site investigation design. The objective of the Phase 2 LQA has been to focus on the potential risks and potential environmental liability posed by the Site operations and off-site sources are considered to be the liability of the off-site polluter. In addition, discharge of contaminants in Site drains to surface water is considered a facility management issue and has not been considered further as a pathway on this basis.

Therefore, Source 8 and discharge to surface water in drains have not been investigated as part of the Phase 2 LQA. The preliminary qualitative environmental risk assessment has identified a


12

negligible risk to off-site livestock. Therefore, off-site livestock have not been investigated as part of the Phase 2 LQA on this basis.


13

Table 3.1: Preliminary Conceptual Site Model

Source of Contamination Receptors Pathways

Historic On-site Activities/Operations 1. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from USTs and associated pipework. 2. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the ASTs, valves, manifolds, pumps and associated pipework. 3. Former rail and road loading areas (including potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the areas and associated pipework). 4. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons and foam from the drum storage areas. 5. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the interceptor/drains. 6. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the former generator, substation and workshop. 7. Presence of contamination in the tetraethyl lead sludge pits. 8. Potential for contaminants to be present in Made Ground which may have been imported to facilitate construction together with organic contaminants associated with the former railway sidings and railway track along the west boundary.

Humans On-site: Current/Future Facility Management Workers Future Site Workers/Visitors (if Site is reopened) Current/Future Construction/Maintenance Workers

Dermal contact with contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in shallow groundwater if excavation takes place below the groundwater table. Ingestion of contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in shallow groundwater if excavation takes place below the groundwater table. Inhalation of contaminants in soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed. Inhalation of vapours/ground gas.

Humans Off-site Current/Future occupants of/visitors to Stable Farm and farm workers

Dermal contact with contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in migrating groundwater if off-site excavation takes place below the groundwater table Ingestion of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed and in migrating groundwater if off-site excavation takes place below the groundwater table. Inhalation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and contaminant) is exposed. Inhalation of migrating vapours/ground gas.

Groundwater Leaching of contaminants from the unsaturated soil zone to groundwater and migration of LNAPL.

Surface Water (River Ise) Discharge of contaminants in laterally migrating groundwater and migration of LNAPL.

Property On-site (buildings/infrastructure)

Direct contact with contaminants in soil/groundwater. Accumulation of migrating ground gas into the buildings and enclosed spaces.

Property Off-site (buildings/infrastructure)

Direct contact with contaminants in migrating groundwater. Accumulation of migrating ground gas into buildings and enclosed spaces.

Other Receptors Off-site (Livestock)

Dermal contact with contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off. Ingestion of contaminants in windblown soil, soil-derived dust and entrained in surface water run-off. Inhalation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust. Inhalation of migrating vapours/ground gas.


14

4. Site Investigation 4.1. Objectives

The site investigation was undertaken as part of Combined Phase 1/2 LQA to provide site-specific factual data relating to the ground conditions, soil chemistry, groundwater quality, presence of vapours/ground gas and investigation the PCLs identified by the preliminary CSM and preliminary environmental risk assessment.

4.2. Methodology

4.2.1. General Approach Atkins Phase 2 LQA Site Investigation was designed with reference to UK guidance. This included: i) CLR11; ii) British Standard (BS) 101758; iii) BS59309; iv) R&D Technical Report P5-065/TR10; v) R&D Technical Report P5-066/TR11; and vi) CLR412.

BS10175 suggests a Phase 2 exploratory investigation should be both targeted and non-targeted, the latter typically at 25 to 50m centres adopting a square or herringbone grid as recommended in CLR4. A Phase 3 main investigation should also be both targeted and non-targeted, the latter typically at 10 to 25m centres, again adopting a square or a herringbone grid as recommended in CLR4. The Stage 1 investigation of P5-066/TR suggests 50m centres.

Based on the use of the Site, guidance quoted above and likely constraints in terms of accessible locations, Atkins has adopted a targeted investigation as described in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1: Rationale for the Investigation Locations

Location Rationale

AWS001 Down gradient of interceptor, road loading area and drum storage - Sources 3, 4 and 5. AWS002 Down gradient of slop tanks – Source 2. AWS003 Down gradient of manifold compound and lube oil tanks – Sources 2 and 6 AWS004 Down gradient of main storage tanks and former rail loading/sidings – Sources 1 to 3. AWS005 Down gradient of main storage tanks and former rail loading/sidings – Sources 1 to 3. AWS006 Down gradient of main storage tanks and former rail loading/sidings – Sources 1 to 3. AWS007 Down gradient of main storage tanks and former rail loading/sidings – Sources 1 to 3. AWS008 Down gradient of main storage tanks and secondary rail loading/siding – Sources 1 to 3. AWS009 Down gradient of main storage tanks and in tetraethyl lead pit – Sources 1 to 3 and 7. AWS010 Down gradient of main storage tanks and in tetraethyl lead pit Sources 1 to 3 and 7

The intrusive works was undertaken by Geotechnical Engineering Limited (GEL) between 29/10/2012 and 30/10/2012 and consisted of 10 targeted window sampler boreholes which were drilled by a percussive based “Terrier” rig to depths of 5mbgl. Locations are shown on Figure 4 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-024).

All 10 boreholes were completed as groundwater monitoring installations to facilitate the collection of groundwater samples and ground gas monitoring.

Each borehole location was cleared for underground services prior to drilling by a utility clearance company. In addition, a hand-dug pit was excavated to approximately 1.2mbgl before drilling commenced.

8 British Standard 10175, Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites, 2001/2010 9 BS5930, Code of Practice for Site Investigation, 1999 10 R&D Technical Report P5-065/TR, Technical Aspects of Site Investigation, Environment Agency, 2000 11 R&D Technical Report P5-066/TR, Development of Appropriate Soil Sampling Strategies for Land Contamination, Environment Agency, 2000 12 Contaminated Land Report 4, Sampling Strategies for Contaminated Land, Environment Agency, 1994


15

4.2.2. Investigation Locations and General Details Locations of the window sampler boreholes were surveyed to National Grid co-ordinates and elevations to Ordnance Datum. The locations of the windowless sampling boreholes are presented on Figure 4 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-024). The borehole records are presented in Appendix D.

All standpipe installations in the windowless sampler boreholes comprised a 50mm diameter pipe and the screened response zone was surrounded by a gravel filter pack. The top of the installations were completed with bentonite seals and cement, with raised lockable steel covers. Installation construction details are provided on the borehole records in Appendix D.

4.2.3. Soil Sampling The sampling strategy was designed to obtain representative soil samples from each stratum encountered. Representative soil samples were stored in containers under appropriate conditions prior to onward transmission to the laboratory, with chain of custody documentation for environmental samples.

Soil samples were recovered from all exploratory holes advanced on the Site. Typically samples were recovered at 0.3m, 0.5m and 1mbgl with further samples every metre and/or at change of strata. Additional samples were taken if any visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was observed. Soil samples comprised one 250ml and one 60ml glass jars which were kept in cool boxes and were dispatched to the appointed, accredited chemical analysis laboratory, i2 Analytical, under chain of custody conditions within 48 hours of sampling.

4.2.4. Groundwater Monitoring Groundwater samples were obtained on 16th January 2013 as part of a post works monitoring exercise to determine the quality of the groundwater. Depth to groundwater and the presence/absence (and thickness) of LNAPL were recorded using an interface probe. If no LNAPL was noted, each well was purged of up to three wells volumes prior to sampling. Representative water samples were taken immediately on completion of purging and placed in laboratory provided containers under appropriate conditions prior to onward transmission to the laboratory, with chain of custody documentation.

4.2.5. Vapour/Ground Gas Monitoring Soil vapour monitoring was undertaken during the ground investigation on each environmental sample collected. The soil vapour monitoring was recorded using a Mini-Rae 2000 calibrated with 100 parts per million (ppm) isobutylene. This instrument is designed to give an indication of the presence and semi-quantitative concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil vapour.

Monitoring was undertaken after the soil samples had been collected and placed within the sampling jars allowing for potential vapours to accumulate within the headspace of the sampling jars. The peak value in ppm was recorded and is included on the borehole records presented within Appendix D.

One round of ground gas monitoring was undertaken on 16th January 2013 as part of a post works monitoring programme methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide, oxygen and flow rate. Ground gas was monitored using a GA-2000. Ground gas monitoring results are presented in Appendix D.

4.2.6. Laboratory Analysis Soil and groundwater samples collected during the investigation were dispatched to and received by I2 Analytical Ltd within 48 hours of sampling. Twenty soil and nine groundwater samples were scheduled for testing as described below.

Soil Testing Suite – List of Contaminants


16

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Criteria Working Group (CWG);

• USEPA 16 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs);

• Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene And Xylenes (BTEX) and MTBE;

• Tetramethyl Lead;

• Tetraethyl Lead;

• pH;

• Fraction of Organic Carbon (FOC); and

• Asbestos Screen.

Water Testing Suite – List of Contaminants

• TPH CWG;

• USEPA 16 PAHs;

• BTEX and MTBE;

• pH;

• Tetramethyl Lead; and

• Tetraethyl Lead.

Results are presented in Appendix E. The testing suite selected, as indicated in Atkins original proposal, focussed specifically on the principal contaminants likely to be associated with a PSD as demonstrated by the suite described above, together with soil parameters (FOC) and asbestos because of the potential from the former rail activities and Atkins standard procedures requires analysis of all samples for asbestos as a matter of course. Analysis for metals and other inorganic compounds did not form part of Atkins’ proposed scope of work and as such, has not been carried out.

4.3. Investigation Findings

4.3.1. Topsoil Topsoil was encountered at all 10 locations across the Site. It ranged from thicknesses of 0.1m to 0.3m (AWS003, AWS008 and AWS009).

4.3.2. Made Ground Made Ground was encountered in six of the 10 locations. It ranged from a thickness of 0.7m (AWS007) to 1.9m (AWS005). The Made Ground consisted of reworked natural soils that contained gravels of flint and brick. Bitumen gravel was encountered between 0.5 and 1.4mbgl in AWS002, possibly a former area of tarmac since broken up.

Window sampler boreholes in the rail sidings/loading (AWS004 to AWS008) encountered Made Ground described as black, ashy sandy, gravel containing slag and clinker between 0.1 and 0.8mbgl.

Hydrocarbon type odours were noted between 1 and 2mbgl in ASW005 in the former rail sidings/loading area with soil vapour readings of 64.4ppm.

4.3.3. Natural Strata Natural strata were encountered in all locations. These were directly under topsoil in AWS001, AWS003, AWS009 and AWS010 and under Made Ground in remaining six boreholes.

Natural strata generally consisted of stiff brown/grey, sandy clay with occasional sand lenses and gravel size pockets of gypsum. These may be totally weathered bedrock.


17

A band of sand was only recorded in AWS010 below 3.9mbgl. This borehole is in the northeast and these may be Superficial Deposits.

Slight hydrocarbon type odours were noted between 1.5 and 2.5mbgl in AWS004 in the east of the Site, although soil vapour readings were only 5.8ppm to 12.1ppm. Slight hydrocarbon odours were noted in AWS005 between 1.9 and 2.0mbgl in the centre of the Site, with a soil vapour reading of 2.5ppm recorded.

4.3.4. Groundwater Groundwater was only encountered in AWS009 (1.3mbgl in natural strata) and AWS010 (3.6mbgl in natural strata) during drilling but was recorded in all boreholes during the monitoring. Details are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Water Levels during Monitoring

Location Stratum Screened Dip Levels (mbgl)

Dip Level (mAOD

Base of Borehole (mbgl)

AWS001 Natural 1.1 111.94 4.05 AWS002 Natural 1.3 114.58 3.75 AWS003 Natural 1.37 113.32 3.90 AWS004 Reworked/Made Ground 2.49 117.19 4.00 AWS005 Reworked/Made Ground 1.78 117.99 4.00 AWS006 Natural 1.43 118.23 4.00 AWS007 Natural 1.11 118.64 4.00 AWS008 Natural 0.75 118.87 3.50 AWS009 Natural 0.70 123.27 3.90 AWS010 Natural 0.90 124.42 3.25

The water levels recorded during the monitoring round were consistent with the water levels recorded during the monitoring of the existing boreholes during Atkins’ Site Reconnaissance. Monitored water levels were above the screened section of the monitoring well in several locations and it is possible that LNAPL in these locations was not identified, but there was no visual or olfactory evidence of contamination in purged groundwater.

Groundwater was between 0.7 (AWS009) and 2.49mbgl (AWS004) and 111.94mAOD in AWS001 in the southeast and 124,42mAOD in AWS010 in the northwest, indicating a possible flow towards the southeast.

4.3.5. Ground Gas Ground gas monitoring was undertaken on the 16th January 2013. The results are summarised in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Summary of Ground Gas Monitoring

Location Methane (%)

Carbon Dioxide

(%) Oxygen

(%) Hydrogen Sulphide

(ppm)

Carbon Monoxide

(ppm) Flow (l/hr)

Barometric Pressure (millibars)

Relative Pressure (millibars)

AWS001 <0.1 1.0 16.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1000 -0.2 AWS002 <0.1 0.8 21.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 1002 0.18 AWS003* <0.1 3.1 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1003 58.13 AWS004 <0.1 2.0 16.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1003 -0.11 AWS005 9.8 8.2 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1002 -0.79 AWS006 <0.1 3.5 17.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1003 0.07 AWS007 <0.1 0.9 20.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1003 -0.37 AWS008 <0.1 0.9 19.9 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 1003 0.17 AWS009 0.1 2.3 18.9 <0.1 <0.1 -0.9 1003 -3.65 AWS010 <0.1 0.4 19.9 <0.1 <0.1 -0.1 1003 0.17

Carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulphide were below the instruments detection limit. Carbon dioxide ranged from 0.4 (AWS010) to 8.2% (AWS005). Methane was only recorded above the


18

instrument detection limit in AWS005 (9.8%). Low levels of oxygen (<0.1%) was also detected in ASW005.

The data collected from ASW003 was regarded as spurious because “pistoning” was thought to be occurring in the borehole leading to low levels of oxygen, high flows and high relative pressure being recorded. These data have been discounted.

4.3.6. Chemical Analysis The results of laboratory analysis carried out on samples of soil and water are presented in full in Appendix E and discussed in Chapter 5.


19

5. Assessment of Risks 5.1. Introduction

Based on information obtained by this Phase 2 LQA, the preliminary CSM and PCLs have been investigated further. PCLs relating to human health, controlled waters and property have been subject to the generic quantitative risk assessment (GQRA) described in this Chapter. This has comprised comparison of detected concentrations in soil and water with a set of generic assessment criteria (GAC).

5.2. Tier 2 Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment A Tier 2 GQRA of identified receptors has been carried out using information from this Phase 2 Site Investigation.

5.2.1. Human Receptors

5.2.1.1. Selection of Generic Assessment Criteria Detailed guidance on human health risk assessment is available in Science Report (SR) 213, SR314, SR415 and the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Model16. Atkins GQRA for current and future human receptors has compared soil concentration data with GAC to identify whether a potential risk is posed by the contaminant concentrations detected. The GAC considered include:

• Soil Guideline Values: The Environment Agency has an ongoing programme of publication of Soil Guideline Values (SGVs). SGVs are trigger values for screening out low risk areas of land contamination. They give an indication of representative average concentrations of chemicals in soil below which the long-term health risks are likely to be minimal. SGVs have been published for arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel, selenium, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), phenols and dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCB substances for residential, allotments and commercial land-uses. The SGVs have been developed for a sandy loam soil with 6% soil organic matter (SOM) content; and

• Atkins’ Soil Screening Values: Atkins has derived a set of Soil-Screening Values (SSVs) to supplement the SGVs following the CLEA Model. Atkins’-derived SSVs are available for the CLEA standard land-uses for a wider range of typical indicator contaminants. SSVs have also been derived for a sandy soil with 1% SOM and for parks, playing fields and open spaces; and

• Atkins’ Water Screening Values: Atkins has derived a set of Water Screening Values (WSV) using the RBCA Toolkit model. The values are based on groundwater at 1mbgl and a sand soil and are available for a commercial and a residential receptor.

SOM is defined as ‘the fraction of the soil composed of organic matter. It consists of plant and animal remains in varying stages of decomposition’. The presence of SOM is important in determining the fate and behaviour of a number of organic contaminants such as PAHs and chlorinated solvents. The mobility of these contaminants decreases with increasing SOM. Generally, the greater the SOM content the greater the sorptive capacity of the soil.

Based on soil results, the SOM for the Site has been calculated at 1.76% and the soil comprises clay, sand, gravel and cobbles. Therefore, Atkins’-derived SSVs for 1% SOM and a sandy soil have been used as GAC in the first instance, together with the SGVs which do not change with soil type and SOM.

13 Science Report SC050021/SR2, Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soil, Environment Agency, 2009 14 Science Report SC050021/SR3, Updated Technical Background to the CLEA Model, Environment Agency, 2009 15 Science Report SC050021/SR4, CLEA Model Software (Version) Handbook, Environment Agency, 2009 16 CLEA Software Version 1.04, Environment Agency, 2009


20

The Site is on care and maintenance with only occasional visits by Costain. The commercial/industrial land-use assumes a female receptor on-site for an 8-hour day, one hour of which will be spent outside. Therefore, the commercial/industrial land-use GAC are likely to be protective of current receptors and future receptors assuming commercial/industrial land-use resumes.

There are no GAC for off-site human receptors and as such, these cannot be assessed, although the GAC for the on-site human receptors may be protective of the off-site human receptors.

Construction/maintenance workers involved with Site development may have direct contact with soils, although this cannot be formally assessed through this GQRA because the mode and duration of exposure are different to the scenarios used in determining GAC.

5.2.1.2. Comparison of Soil Concentration Data with Generic Assessment Criteria No asbestos containing material (ACM) was identified in the soil samples analysed.

Contaminants in the soil samples analysed were either below the laboratory method detection limits (MDL) or the commercial/industrial land-use GAC. A summary of the soil chemical analysis data is included in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Soil Data Summary

Contaminant GAC (mg/kg)

Minimum (mg/kg)

Maximum (mg/kg)

Location of Maximum

Naphthalene 8180 < 0.05 3.4 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Acenaphthylene - < 0.20 < 0.20 All below the MDL

Acenaphthene 109000 < 0.10 0.34 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Fluorene 66800 < 0.20 < 0.20 All below the MDL

Phenanthrene - < 0.20 1.9 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Anthracene 536000 < 0.10 0.35 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Fluoranthene 72300 < 0.20 4.6 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Pyrene 54200 < 0.20 4 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Benzo(a)anthracene 131 < 0.20 3.4 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Chrysene 14000 < 0.05 3.1 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 142 < 0.10 2.3 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1430 < 0.20 1.5 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Benzo(a)pyrene 14.3 < 0.10 2.1 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 142 < 0.20 0.72 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 14.3 < 0.20 < 0.20 All below the MDL

Benzo(ghi)perylene 1440 < 0.05 1 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs - < 1.6 29 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Benzene 13.1 < 0.001 < 0.001 All below the MDL

Toluene 414000 < 0.001 < 0.001 All below the MDL

Ethylbenzene 180000 < 0.001 < 0.001 All below the MDL Xylenes (p) Xylenes (o) Xylenes (m)

279,000 296,000 276,000 <0.001 <0.001 All below the MDL

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) 3340 < 0.001 < 0.001 All below the MDL

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 1000000 < 0.1 < 0.1 All below the MDL





21

Contaminant GAC (mg/kg)

Minimum (mg/kg)

Maximum (mg/kg)

Location of Maximum


TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 ≤ 1 kg/kg < 8.0 < 8.0 All below the MDL

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 1000000 < 8.0 37 AWS008 0.50mbgl

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) - < 10 37 AWS008 0.50mbgl

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 13.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 All below the MDL

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC7 - EC8 414000 < 0.1 < 0.1 All below the MDL

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC8 - EC10 58600 < 0.1 0.1 AWS005 1.00mbgl

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 68300 < 1.0 3.5 AWS004 0.30mbgl

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 68400 < 2.0 < 2.0 All below the MDL

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 28400 < 10 11 AWS004 0.30mbgl

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 28400 < 10 20 AWS004 0.30mbgl

TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) - < 10 35 AWS004 0.30mbgl

Tetraethyl Lead - < 0.01 < 0.01 All below the MDL

Tetramethyl Lead - < 0.01 < 0.01 All below the MDL

Although slight hydrocarbon type odours were noted in AWS004 and AWS005 with a soil vapour reading of 64.4ppm from AWS005, the laboratory results do not indicate gross contamination and soil vapour headspace readings of other samples were low or below the instrument detection limit.

5.2.1.3. Comparison of Water Concentration Data with Generic Assessment Criteria Contaminants in the water samples analysed were reported below the laboratory MDL in all samples and thus did not exceed Atkins commercial (or residential) WSV.

Soil vapour headspace readings, potentially indicative of VOCs, were not recorded above the detection limit of the instrument during water sampling.

5.2.1.4. Ground Gas Ground gas results have been assessed using the Modified Wilson & Card17 Risk Classification Gas Screening Value (GSV) to derive a characteristic situation (CS). The Site CS for carbon dioxide and methane is CS1 which represents very low risk. However, CIRIA 665 recommends that consideration be given to increasing the CS if concentrations of methane are detected above 1% and carbon dioxide above 5%. This would raise the Site to CS2 (low risk) for methane and carbon dioxide, based on the reading of 9.8% methane and 8.2% carbon dioxide in AWS005.

A layer of black, ashy, gravels containing slag and clinker was observed in the area of the former rail sidings (AWS004-008) and hydrocarbon type odours noted within AWS004 and AWS005 may be the source of the ground gas detected.

This is based on one round of monitoring only and could change if further monitoring was to be carried out.

5.2.2. Controlled Waters Receptors Controlled waters GQRA has been carried out by:

• comparison of detected concentrations in groundwater with the UK/EU Drinking Water Quality Standards (DWS) to assess the potential risk posed to and existing quality of the groundwater receptor; and

17 Assessing Risks posed by Hazardous Ground Gases into Buildings, Wilson and Card, CIRIA 665, 2007


22

• comparison of detected concentrations in groundwater with Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for freshwater to assess the potential risk posed to the surface water receptors because migration in groundwater and discharge to surface water is a potential pathway.

5.2.2.1. Comparison of Groundwater Quality Data with Generic Assessment Criteria No LNAPL was detected. All contaminants were below the laboratory MDL and/or DWS/EQS in the groundwater samples analysed. This is based on one round of monitoring only and could change if further monitoring was to be carried out.

5.2.3. Property Receptors The Site CS is CS2 (low risk) for methane and carbon dioxide, based on the reading of 9.8% methane and 8.2% carbon dioxide in AWS005. This is based on one round of monitoring only and could change if further monitoring was to be carried out.

5.2.4. Asbestos in Buildings Atkins has not been provided with a copy of the Site asbestos register for review. It should be noted that for the purposes of this Phase 2 LQA, asbestos within Site structures and other contaminants in buildings is not considered to represent a land contamination issue and as such is beyond the scope of this report.

However, the potential for asbestos to be present in soil is considered to represent a land contamination issue and has been discussed earlier in this chapter.

5.3. Risk Assessment Summary

5.3.1. Summary A GQRA of the PCLs identified at the Site has been carried out based on collection of empirical data from the Site Investigation and information gained during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 LQA process.

No ACM was identified in the soil samples analysed. Contaminants in the soil samples analysed were either below the laboratory MDL or the commercial/industrial land-use GAC.

Contaminants in the water samples analysed did not exceed the laboratory MDL or Atkins commercial (or residential) WSV.

No LNAPL was detected and no contaminants were identified above the laboratory MDL and/or DWS/EQS in the groundwater samples analysed.

The Site CS for carbon dioxide and methane was CS2 based on the elevated readings of 9.8% methane and 8.2% carbon dioxide in AWS005.

5.3.2. Risk Assessment An environmental risk assessment has been carried out as described in Chapter 2 and presented in Appendix C. The Phase 2 environmental risk assessment for the Site is summarised in Table 5.2 and the updated CSM is presented in Figure 5 (Drawing 5106238-DWG-025).


23

Table 5.2: Land Quality Assessment Environmental Risk Assessment Summary Table

Source Potential Contaminant

Potential Receptor

Potential Pathway

Associated Hazard

Potential Consequence

Likelihood (Probability) Of

Contaminant Receptor Linkage Potential

Significance

Contaminants in soil/shallow groundwater across the Site

Range of organic/inorganic contaminants

Current/Future Construction/maintenance Workers

Dermal Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Health risk Medium

Likely On-site construction/maintenance workers may be in direct contact with contaminants because they may be required to excavate and handle soil. Unlikely Robust risk assessment is required to identify appropriate personnel protective equipment and suitable working methods to protect these receptors, in accordance with current guidance and recommended good working practices.

Moderate Risk

reduced to Low Risk

Historic On-site Activities/Operations 1. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from USTs and associated pipework. 2. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the ASTs, valves, manifolds, pumps and associated pipework. 3. Former rail and road loading areas (including potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the areas and associated pipework). 4. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons and foam from the drum storage areas. 5. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the interceptor/drains. 6. Potential historical leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from the former generator, substation and workshop. 7. Presence of contamination in the tetraethyl lead sludge pits.

Hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater

Humans On-site: Current/Future Facility Management Workers Future Site Workers/Visitors (if Site is reopened)


Health risk Mild

Low Only discrete olfactory evidence of contamination at the Site. No evidence of spill stains or odours at surface. No ACM was identified in the soil samples analysed. Contaminants in the soil samples analysed were either below the laboratory MDL or the commercial/industrial land-use GAC. Contaminants in the water samples analysed did not exceed Atkins commercial (or residential) WSV.

Low Risk

Humans Off-site Current/Future occupants of Stable Farm and farm workers


Health risk Mild

Low Only discrete olfactory evidence of contamination noted. No evidence of spill stains or odours at surface. No ACM was identified in the soil samples analysed. Contaminants in the soil samples analysed were either below the laboratory MDL or the commercial/industrial land-use GAC. Contaminants in the water samples analysed did not exceed Atkins commercial (or residential) WSV. In addition, Site surfaces are hardstanding or well vegetated, minimising windblown soil-derived dust. Surface water run-off will be intercepted by Site drains or soak into the ground.

Low Risk

Groundwater Leaching from soil Migration of LNAPL Migration of contaminants in groundwater

Pollution of Aquifer Mild

Low No LNAPL or visual/olfactory indications of contamination were detected. No contaminants were identified above the laboratory MDL in the groundwater samples analysed. However, this is based on one round of monitoring.

Low Risk

Surface Water River Ise

Discharge of LNAPL Discharge of contaminants in base flow

Pollution of sensitive watercourse Mild

Low No LNAPL or visual/olfactory indications of contamination were detected. No contaminants were identified above the laboratory MDL in the groundwater samples analysed. However, this is based on one round of monitoring.

Low Risk


Direct contact with hydrocarbons in soil/water Damage to materials Minor

Unlikely Although TPH was detected in the soil, hydrocarbons only tend to be an issue if concrete is being poured which is not the case at the Site. No LNAPL was detected. No contaminants were identified above the laboratory MDL in the groundwater samples analysed.

Negligible Risk


Direct contact with hydrocarbons in migrating groundwater Damage to materials Minor

Unlikely No LNAPL was detected. No contaminants were identified above the laboratory MDL in the groundwater samples analysed. Off-site property (buildings/infrastructure) receptors are most likely not down hydraulic gradient from the Site.

Negligible Risk

Ground Gas

Methane/Carbon Dioxide

Humans On-site: Current/Future Site Workers/Visitors Inhalation Health Risk Mild

Low The Site CS for methane and carbon dioxide are CS2 (low risk) because of readings from AWS005. However, this is based on one round of monitoring

Low Risk

Humans Off-site Current/Future occupants of/visitors to the house to the north-west, public using footpath to the north-east and workers to the south-east

Inhalation Health Risk Mild

Low The Site CS for methane and carbon dioxide are CS2 (low risk) because of readings from AWS005. However, this is based on one round of monitoring

Low Risk

Methane


Accumulation (methane only) Damage to buildings Mild

Low The Site CS for methane is CS2 (low risk) because of readings from AWS005. However, this is based on one round of monitoring

Low Risk


Accumulation (methane only) Damage to buildings Mild

Low The Site CS for methane is CS2 (low risk) because of readings from AWS005. However, this is based on one round of monitoring

Low Risk


24

6. Conclusions 6.1. Overall Land Quality

The Site was fields until development as a PSD in the 1940s. Operations included storage of aviation fuel in seven USTs, together with associated manifolds, valve compounds, loading gantries and workshops/support. An active pipeline still runs through the Site from the southeast.

Atkins Phase 1 LQA identified a number of historic, on-site potentially contaminative activities from past operations including potential leaks/spills of hydrocarbons from tanks, pipework, loading areas, drums storage, workshops, generators, substations, interceptors and in Made Ground itself, although there was no documentary information or physical evidence to confirm that contamination was present from these potential sources. In addition, it was practice in the past to bury sediment from tank cleaning in pits, often called ‘graves’ and four are reportedly present on the Site.

The Phase 2 Site Investigation carried out targeted these potential sources and has indicated that the Site is underlain by Superficial Deposits (sand), possibly in the northeast and weathered bedrock. Areas of Made Ground are present across the Site, especially associated with the former railway sidings in the centre to depths of 0.7 and 1.9mbgl.

Groundwater has been detected in the natural strata between 0.7 and 2.49mbgl with a slight gradient down to the southeast.

No ACM was identified in the soil samples analysed. Contaminants in the soil samples analysed were either below the laboratory MDL or the commercial/industrial land-use GAC. Contaminants in the water samples analysed did not exceed the laboratory MDL or Atkins commercial (or residential) WSV.

In addition, no LNAPL was detected and no contaminants were identified above the laboratory MDL and/or DWS/EQS in the groundwater samples analysed.

The Site CS for carbon dioxide and methane was CS2 based on the elevated readings of 9.8% methane and 8.2% carbon dioxide in AWS005.

6.2. Environmental Risks The environmental risk assessment is summarised below:

• a moderate risk has been identified to current/future construction/maintenance workers from contaminants in soil and groundwater even if they do not exceed the GAC because they may be in direct contact with contaminants when they are required to excavate and handle soil. However, this will be reduce to low risk if robust risk assessments are carried out to identify appropriate personnel protective equipment and suitable working methods to protect these receptors, in accordance with current guidance and recommended good working practices;

• a low risk has been identified to current/future on-site human receptors from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a low risk has been identified to current/future off-site human receptors from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a low risk has been identified to groundwater from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a low risk has been identified to surface water from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater;

• a low risk has been identified to current/future on-site human receptors from the methane/carbon dioxide detected;


25

• a low risk has been identified to current/future off-site human receptors from the methane/carbon dioxide detected;

• a negligible risk has been identified to on-site property from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater and a low risk from the methane detected; and

• a negligible risk has been identified to off-site property from the contamination detected in the soil/groundwater and a low risk from the methane detected.

It should be noted that the assessment of ground gas and groundwater risks has been based on one round of monitoring only and the ground gas CS could change if further monitoring was to be carried out. Identified risks to groundwater could increase or decrease based on further monitoring.

6.3. Suitability of Investigated Areas for Continued Use Based on the Combined Phase 1/2 LQA carried out, the Site is considered suitable for use as a PSD (i.e. commercial/industrial), although it should be noted that assessment of ground gas and groundwater associated risks are based on only one round of monitoring.

The investigation was carried out to assess land quality and the condition of the buildings or contamination within the buildings was not part of that assessment. The potential for release of contamination during building demolition including the removal of tanks has not been considered and appropriate management is required if the buildings/infrastructure are demolished.

In addition, given the inherent limitations of any ground investigation, localised hotspots of contamination may exist between boreholes.

FIGURES

A324.07.2013

KELMARSH PETROLEUM STORAGE DEPOT

DEFENCE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANISATION

5106238-DWG-021

FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION PLAN

1 25000 NORTH F

CENTRE MN/A

04/02/13 --/02/13 -

5106238-DWG-021 -

Report Issue- Centre M 08/13

Site

5106238-DWG-022

FIGURE 2 - SITE LAYOUT PLAN & POTENTIAL

SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION

1 1500 NORTH F

CENTRE MN/A

18/01/13 18/01/13 -

5106238-DWG-022 -

A3 12/08/13



Report Issue

- Centre M 08/13

5106238-DWG-023

FIGURE 3: PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE

MODEL FOR SITE INVESTIGATION

1 1500 NORTH F

CENTRE MN/A

18/01/13 18/01/13 -

5106238-DWG-023 -

A312/08/13



For Information - Centre M 08/13

5106238-DWG-024

FIGURE 4 - EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN

1 1500 NORTH F

CENTRE MN/A

18/01/13 18/01/13 -

5106238-DWG-024 -

A312/08/13



Key:

Borehole locations

Window sample locations

For Information - Centre M

5106238-DWG-025

FIGURE 5 - REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

Not to Scale NORTH F

CENTRE MN/A

18/01/13 18/01/13 -

5106238-DWG-025 -

A312/08/13



For Information - Centre M 08/13

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Order Number: 41006971_1_1 Date: 24-Aug-2012 rpr_ec_datasheet v47.0 A Landmark Information Group Service

Datasheet

Order Details:Order Number:

Customer Reference:

National Grid Reference:

Slice:

Site Area (Ha):

Search Buffer (m):

Site Details:

Client Details:

Prepared For:

41006971_1_1

5106238

474510, 280690

A

6.57

1000

KelmarshNN6 9NB

Mr I McBurnieAtkins LtdThe Axis10 Holliday StreetBirminghanB1 1TF

Defence Infrastructure OrganisationKingston RoadSutton ColdfieldWest MidlandsB75 7RL

Report:®Envirocheck


Summary

Agency & Hydrological

Waste

Hazardous Substances

Geological

Industrial Land Use

Sensitive Land Use

Data Currency

Data Suppliers

Useful Contacts

Introduction

Copyright Notice

Natural England Copyright Notice

Ove Arup Copyright Notice

Peter Brett Associates Copyright Notice

Radon Potential dataset Copyright Notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Section Page Number

Contents

Report Version v47.0

-

1

3

4

5

15

16

17

22

23


Summary

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


Waste

501 to 1000m

Contaminated Land Register Entries and Notices

Discharge Consents

Enforcement and Prohibition Notices

Integrated Pollution Controls

Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control

Local Authority Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control

Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Controls

Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control Enforcements

Nearest Surface Water Feature

Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters

Prosecutions Relating to Authorised Processes

Prosecutions Relating to Controlled Waters

Registered Radioactive Substances

River Quality

River Quality Biology Sampling Points

River Quality Chemistry Sampling Points

Substantiated Pollution Incident Register

Water Abstractions

Water Industry Act Referrals

Groundwater Vulnerability

Bedrock Aquifer Designations

Superficial Aquifer Designations

Source Protection Zones

Extreme Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences

Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences

Areas Benefiting from Flood Defences

Flood Water Storage Areas

Flood Defences

BGS Recorded Landfill Sites

Historical Landfill Sites

Integrated Pollution Control Registered Waste Sites

Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Landfill Boundaries)

Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Locations)

Local Authority Recorded Landfill Sites

Registered Landfill Sites

Registered Waste Transfer Sites

Registered Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

Yes

Yes

1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2

1

1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

(*up to 2000m)

pg 1

pg 1

pg 1

pg 2

pg 2

pg 2

pg 2

pg 2

pg 2


Summary



Geological

Industrial Land Use

501 to 1000m

Control of Major Accident Hazards Sites (COMAH)

Explosive Sites

Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances (NIHHS)

Planning Hazardous Substance Consents

Planning Hazardous Substance Enforcements

BGS 1:625,000 Solid Geology

BGS Estimated Soil Chemistry

BGS Recorded Mineral Sites

BGS Urban Soil Chemistry

BGS Urban Soil Chemistry Averages

Brine Compensation Area

Coal Mining Affected Areas

Mining Instability

Man-Made Mining Cavities

Natural Cavities

Non Coal Mining Areas of Great Britain

Potential for Collapsible Ground Stability Hazards

Potential for Compressible Ground Stability Hazards

Potential for Ground Dissolution Stability Hazards

Potential for Landslide Ground Stability Hazards

Potential for Running Sand Ground Stability Hazards

Potential for Shrinking or Swelling Clay Ground Stability Hazards

Radon Potential - Radon Affected Areas

Radon Potential - Radon Protection Measures

Contemporary Trade Directory Entries

Fuel Station Entries

1

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

n/a

Yes

1

n/a

n/a

n/a

Yes

Yes

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Yes

1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2

(*up to 2000m)

pg 4

pg 5

pg 5

pg 12

pg 13

pg 13

pg 13

pg 13

pg 14

pg 14

pg 14

pg 15


Summary


Sensitive Land Use

501 to 1000m

Areas of Adopted Green Belt

Areas of Unadopted Green Belt

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Forest Parks

Local Nature Reserves

Marine Nature Reserves

National Nature Reserves

National Parks

Nitrate Sensitive Areas

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

Ramsar Sites

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Special Areas of Conservation

Special Protection Areas

1

(*up to 2000m)

pg 16

Order Number: 41006971_1_1 Date: 24-Aug-2012 rpr_ec_datasheet v47.0 A Landmark Information Group Service Page 1 of 23


MapID Details

QuadrantReference (Compass Direction)

EstimatedDistanceFrom Site

Contact NGR

1

2

2

Discharge Consents

Discharge Consents

Discharge Consents


River Quality

A18SE(NE)

A19SE(NE)

A19SE(NE)

A13SW(SW)

A19SW(NE)

379

768

768

100

740

1

1

1

-

1

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

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

Positional Accuracy:

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

Positional Accuracy:

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

Horatio Herbert & Maurice Edward HandyNot SuppliedArthingworth Lodge, Arthingworth, Market Harborough, Le16 8juEnvironment Agency, Anglian RegionNot SuppliedPr5nf219011st July 19631st July 196316th May 1991UnknownNot Supplied

Not SuppliedPre National Rivers Authority Legislation where issue date < 01/09/1989Located by supplier to within 100m

Anglian Water Services LimitedSewerage Network - Pumping Station - Water CompanyArthingworth Pumping Station, Arthingworth, NorthamptonshireEnvironment Agency, Anglian RegionRiver Ise (Kettering)Awnnf13783125th August 20052nd September 2005Not SuppliedSewage Discharges - Stw Storm Overflow/Storm Tank - Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River

River IseNew Consent (Water Resources Act 1991, Section 88 & Schedule 10 as amended by Environment Act 1995)Located by supplier to within 10m

Anglian Water Services LimitedSewerage Network - Pumping Station - Water CompanyArthingworth Pumping Station, Arthingworth, NorthamptonshireEnvironment Agency, Anglian RegionRiver Ise (Kettering)Awnnf13783125th August 20052nd September 2005Not SuppliedSewage Discharges - Pumping Station - Water CompanyFreshwater Stream/River

River IseNew Consent (Water Resources Act 1991, Section 88 & Schedule 10 as amended by Environment Act 1995)Located by supplier to within 10m

IseRiver Quality BDesborough...Rushton4.5

Flow less than 0.31 cumecsRiver2000

474800281100

475270281150

475270281150

474395280555

475119281295



MapID Details



Contact NGR

3Water Abstractions



Drift Deposits







Flood Defences

A9SE(SE)

A13NW(N)

A13SE(SW)

A13SE(SW)

A13NE(N)

A13NW(NW)

A18SW(NW)

956

0

0

0

0

192

194

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

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

Soil Classification:

Map Sheet:Scale:

Soil Classification:Map Sheet:Scale:

Aquifer Desination:

Aquifer Designation:

Type:Flood Plain Type:Boundary Accuracy:

Type:Flood Plain Type:Boundary Accuracy:

C G Lancaster5/32/06/*g/045 Not SuppliedWell, ARTHINGWORTHEnvironment Agency, Anglian RegionAgriculture (General)Not SuppliedWell522730Miscellaneous Jurassic; Status: RevokedNot SuppliedNot SuppliedNot SuppliedNot SuppliedLocated by supplier to within 10m

Soils of Low Leaching Potential - Soils in which pollutants are unlikely to penetrate the soil layer because water movement is largely horizontal or they have large ability to attenuate diffuse pollutants. Lateral flow from these soils contribute to groundwater recharge elsewhere in the catchmentSheet 23 Leicestershire1:100,000

Not classifiedSheet 23 Leicestershire1:100,000

Unproductive Strata

Secondary Aquifer - A

Extent of Extreme Flooding from Rivers or Sea without DefencesFluvial ModelsAs Supplied

Extent of Flooding from Rivers or Sea without DefencesFluvial ModelsAs Supplied

None

None

None

None

475300279800

474480280772

474510280685

474510280685

474512280730

474240280960

474340281035


Waste

MapID Details



Contact NGR

Local Authority Landfill Coverage


0

0

6

7

Name:

Name:

Northamptonshire County Council - Has supplied landfill data

Daventry District Council - Landfill data has been supplied by another authority

474510280685

474510280685



MapID Details



Contact NGR

4Control of Major Accident Hazards Sites (COMAH)

A13SE(S)

0 3Name:Location:

Reference:Type:Status:Positional Accuracy:

Oil And Pipelines AgencyKelmarsh Psd, Church Farm Way, Market Harborough, Leicestershire, LE16 8LANot SuppliedLower TierActiveManually positioned to the address or location

474526280623


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR








A13SE(SW)

A13NE(N)

A13SE(SW)

A13NE(N)

A13NE(N)

A13NW(NW)

A18SW(N)

0

0

0

104

153

192

203

2

4

4

4

4

4

4

Description:

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






Upper Lias

British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information ServiceRural Soil25 - 35 mg/kg

<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

474510280685

474512280729

474510280685

474510281000

474587281000

474181280894

474364281067


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A12NE(NW)

A13NW(NW)

A12SE(W)

A12NE(W)

A12NE(W)

A12NE(W)

252

279

309

311

317

319

4

4

4

4

4

4








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg15 - 30 mg/kg

474108280904

474163281000

474000280685

474010280834

474000280819

474000280828


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A12SE(W)

A14SW(E)

A12NE(NW)

A14NW(E)

A12NE(NW)

A12NE(NW)

322

336

398

418

431

439

4

4

4

4

4

4








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg15 - 30 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

474000280661

475000280685

474000281000

475019280889

473938280969

473948281000


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A8NE(S)

A18SW(NW)

A19SW(NE)

A14NW(NE)

A8SE(S)

A8SE(S)

448

458

459

462

476

486

4

4

4

4

4

4








<1.8 mg/kg

120 - 180 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg60 - 80 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

60 - 90 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg15 - 30 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

120 - 180 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg60 - 80 mg/kg

474511280043

474243281291

474919281087

475000281000

474529280000

474510280000


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A19SW(NE)

A18NE(N)

A14NW(NE)

A19SW(NE)

A9SW(SE)

A17SE(NW)

495

496

514

574

607

613

4

4

4

4

4

4








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

475000281051

474537281388

475065281000

475077281082

475000280000

474000281294


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A14NE(NE)

A14NE(NE)

A8SW(S)

A7SE(SW)

A7SE(SW)

A19SE(NE)

656

661

775

780

799

812

4

4

4

4

4

4








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

120 - 180 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg60 - 80 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg15 - 30 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

475225281008

475235281000

474472279716

474000280000

473968280000

475245281252


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR







A19NW(NE)

A3NE(S)

A23SW(N)

A19NW(N)

A3NE(S)

A24SW(NE)

862

864

886

894

906

937

4

4

4

4

4

4








<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

120 - 180 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg60 - 80 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg

475000281580

474647279613

474228281747

474917281673

474798279587

474954281701


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR

5







A11SE(W)

A19NW(NE)

A22SE(NW)

A19NE(NE)

A4NW(SE)

A13SW(SW)

952

955

974

977

993

96

4

4

4

4

4

2






Site Name:Location:Source:Reference:Type:Status:Operator:Operator Location:Periodic Type:Geology:Commodity:Positional Accuracy:


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg15 - 30 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

90 - 120 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg30 - 45 mg/kg


<1.8 mg/kg

120 - 180 mg/kg

<150 mg/kg60 - 80 mg/kg

Langborough Wood Brick Field, Kelmarsh, Northampton, NorthamptonshireBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service139405OpencastCeasedUnknown OperatorUnknown OperatorJurassicWhitby Mudstone FormationCommon Clay and ShaleLocated by supplier to within 10m

473406280450

475080281641

474000281747

475320281416

475071279590

474365280580


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR

6BGS Recorded Mineral Sites

BGS Measured Urban Soil Chemistry

BGS Urban Soil Chemistry Averages

















A19SE(E)

A13SE(SW)

A13NW(NW)

A13SE(SW)

A13NW(NW)

A13SE(S)

A13NW(NW)

A13SE(SW)

A13SW(SW)

A13SW(SW)

A13SW(W)

A13SW(W)

A13SE(SW)

A13NE(N)

834

0

193

0

193

0

0

0

6

43

72

121

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Site Name:Location:Source:Reference:Type:Status:Operator:Operator Location:Periodic Type:Geology:Commodity:Positional Accuracy:

Hazard Potential:Source:













Arthingworth Gravel Pit, Arthingworth, Market Harborough, NorthamptonshireBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service139407OpencastCeasedUnknown OperatorUnknown OperatorQuaternaryGlaciofluvial Deposits, Mid PleistoceneSand and GravelLocated by supplier to within 10m

Very LowBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service

No HazardBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service


ModerateBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service


LowBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service



ModerateBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service





No data available

No data available

In an area that might not be affected by coal mining

No Hazard

No Hazard

475412281028

474510280685

474181280895

474510280685

474181280895

474510280661

474400280780

474510280685

474421280628

474390280627

474322280640

474277280613

474510280685

474512280730


Geological

MapID Details



Contact NGR









A13NW(NW)

A13NE(N)

A13SE(SW)

A13NE(NE)

A13SE(SW)

A13SE(S)

A13SE(SW)

A13SE(S)

193

0

0

207

0

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2





Protection Measure:

Source:

Protection Measure:

Source:

Affected Area:

Source:

Affected Area:

Source:





Basic radon protective measures are necessary in the construction of new dwellings or extensionsBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service

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

The property is in a radon affected area, as between 5 and 10% of homes are above the action levelBritish Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service

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

474181280895

474505280781

474510280685

474678280980

474510280685

474510280651

474510280685

474510280651


Industrial Land Use

MapID Details



Contact NGR

7

8



A19SE(NE)

A19NE(NE)

920

952

-

-

Name:Location:

Classification:Status:Positional Accuracy:

Name:Location:

Classification:Status:Positional Accuracy:

Brampton Valley Cycle Surgery4, Kelmarsh Road, Arthingworth, Market Harborough, Leicestershire, LE16 8JZMotor Cycle RepairsActiveAutomatically positioned to the address

Jet Pumps (Uk) Ltd4, Church Farm Way, Arthingworth, Market Harborough, Leicestershire, LE16 8NPMaterials Handling EquipmentActiveAutomatically positioned to the address

475385281252

475316281384


Sensitive Land Use

MapID Details



Contact NGR

9Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

A13SE(SW)

0 5Name:Description:Source:

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

474510280685


Data Currency

Agency & Hydrological Version Update CycleContaminated Land Register Entries and Notices

Discharge Consents

Enforcement and Prohibition Notices

Integrated Pollution Controls

Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control

Local Authority Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control

Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Controls

Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control Enforcements


Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters

Prosecutions Relating to Authorised Processes

Prosecutions Relating to Controlled Waters

Registered Radioactive Substances

River Quality

River Quality Biology Sampling Points

River Quality Chemistry Sampling Points

Substantiated Pollution Incident Register

August 2012November 2011September 2011

April 2012April 2012

June 2012June 2012

October 2008October 2008


April 2012June 2011

November 2011

April 2012June 2011

November 2011

April 2012August 2012

November 2011

December 2011

December 1999September 1999

June 2012June 2012

June 2012June 2012


November 2001

January 2011

January 2011

April 2012April 2012April 2012

Annual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling Update

QuarterlyQuarterly

QuarterlyQuarterly

Not ApplicableNot Applicable

QuarterlyQuarterly




Quarterly


MonthlyMonthly

MonthlyMonthly

QuarterlyQuarterly

Not Applicable

Annually

Annually

QuarterlyQuarterlyQuarterly

Daventry District Council - Environmental Health DepartmentHarborough District Council - Environmental Health DepartmentKettering Borough Council - Environmental Health Department

Environment Agency - Anglian RegionEnvironment Agency - Midlands Region




Kettering Borough Council - Environmental Health DepartmentHarborough District Council - Environmental Health DepartmentDaventry District Council - Environmental Health Department



Ordnance Survey

Environment Agency - Midlands RegionEnvironment Agency - Anglian Region




Environment Agency - Head Office



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


Data Currency

Agency & Hydrological Version Update CycleWater Abstractions

Water Industry Act Referrals


Drift Deposits








Flood Defences

July 2012July 2012


January 2011

January 1999

September 2011

September 2011

July 2012

July 2012

July 2012

July 2012

July 2012

July 2012

QuarterlyQuarterly

QuarterlyQuarterly

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Annually

Annually

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly





British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service









Data Currency

Waste Version Update CycleBGS Recorded Landfill Sites

Historical Landfill Sites

Integrated Pollution Control Registered Waste Sites

Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Landfill Boundaries)

Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Locations)


Local Authority Recorded Landfill Sites

Registered Landfill Sites

Registered Waste Transfer Sites

Registered Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites

June 1996

July 2012July 2012July 2012

October 2008October 2008

July 2012July 2012July 2012

April 2012April 2012April 2012

May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000

May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000May 2000

March 2003March 2003



Not Applicable





Not ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot Applicable

Not ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot ApplicableNot Applicable









Daventry District Council - Environmental Health DepartmentHarborough District Council - Environmental Health DepartmentKettering Borough Council - Environmental Health DepartmentLeicestershire County CouncilNorthamptonshire County Council

Daventry District Council - Environmental Health DepartmentHarborough District Council - Environmental Health DepartmentKettering Borough Council - Environmental Health DepartmentLeicestershire County CouncilNorthamptonshire County Council

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




Data Currency


Geological

Version

Version

Update Cycle

Update Cycle

Control of Major Accident Hazards Sites (COMAH)

Explosive Sites

Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances (NIHHS)

Planning Hazardous Substance Enforcements

Planning Hazardous Substance Consents




Brine Compensation Area


Mining Instability










May 2012

June 2012

November 2000

August 2012August 2012January 2012January 2012

November 2011

August 2012August 2012January 2012January 2012

November 2011

August 1996

January 2010

April 2012

August 2011

January 2012

October 2000

February 2011

February 2011

February 2011

February 2011

February 2011

February 2011

February 2011

July 2011

July 2011

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Not Applicable

Annual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling Update

Annual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling UpdateAnnual Rolling Update

Not Applicable

Variable

Bi-Annually

Not Applicable

As notified

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

As notified

As notified

Health and Safety Executive



Kettering Borough CouncilLeicestershire County CouncilDaventry District CouncilHarborough District CouncilNorthamptonshire County Council

Kettering Borough CouncilLeicestershire County CouncilDaventry District CouncilHarborough District CouncilNorthamptonshire County Council




Cheshire Brine Subsidence Compensation Board

The Coal Authority - Mining Report Service

Ove Arup & Partners











Data Currency

Industrial Land Use

Sensitive Land Use

Version

Version

Update Cycle

Update Cycle


Fuel Station Entries

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Forest Parks

Local Nature Reserves

Marine Nature Reserves

National Nature Reserves

National Parks

Nitrate Sensitive Areas

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

Ramsar Sites

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Special Areas of Conservation

Special Protection Areas

May 2012

May 2012

July 2012

February 2012

April 1997

February 2012

August 2012

February 2012

August 2012

February 2012

February 2012

August 2012

February 2012

August 2012

August 2012

Quarterly

Quarterly

Bi-Annually

Annually

Not Applicable

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Not Applicable

Annually

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Bi-Annually

Thomson Directories

Catalist Ltd - Experian

Natural England

Natural England

Forestry Commission

Natural England

Natural England

Natural England

Natural England

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


Natural England

Natural England

Natural England

Natural England


Data Suppliers

Ordnance Survey

Environment Agency

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

The Coal Authority

British Geological Survey

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

Countryside Council for Wales

Scottish Natural Heritage

Natural England

Health Protection Agency

Ove Arup

Peter Brett Associates

Data Supplier Data Supplier Logo

A selection of organisations who provide data within this report


Useful Contacts

Contact Name and Address Contact Details

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-

-

Environment Agency - National Customer Contact Centre (NCCC)

British Geological Survey - Enquiry Service


Landmark Information Group Limited


Northamptonshire County Council

Daventry District Council - Environmental Health Department

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

Landmark Information Group Limited

PO Box 544, Templeborough, Rotherham, S60 1BY

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

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

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

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

County Hall, Northampton, Northamptonshire, NN1 1DN

Lodge Road, Daventry, Northamptonshire, NN11 5AF

Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ

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

Telephone: 08708 506 506Email: [email protected]

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

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

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

Telephone: 0113 2613333Fax: 0113 230 0879

Telephone: 01604 236236Website: www.northamptonshire.gov.uk

Telephone: 01327 871100Fax: 01327 302540Website: www.daventrydc.gov.uk

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

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

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

Order Details

Site DetailsKelmarsh, NN6 9NB

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

41006971_1_15106238474510, 280690A6.571000

Tel:Fax:Web:

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

Page 1 of 3A Landmark Information Group Service v47.0 24-Aug-2012

Site Sensitivity Map - Slice A

Order Details



41006971_1_15106238474510, 280690A6.571000

Tel:Fax:Web:



Flood Map - Slice A

Order Details



41006971_1_15106238474510, 280690A6.571000

Tel:Fax:Web:



Borehole Map - Slice A

For Borehole information please refer to the Borehole .csv file which accompanied this slice.

A copy of the BGS Borehole Ordering Form is available to download from the Support section of www.envirocheck.co.uk.

Order Details



41006971_1_15106238474510, 280690A6.571000

Tel:Fax:Web:



Site Sensitivity Context Map - Slice A


Order Details



41006971_1_15106238474510, 280690A6.571000

Tel:Fax:Web:




Bedrock Aquifer Designation

Order Details



41006971_1_15106238474510, 280690A6.571000

Tel:Fax:Web:




Superficial Aquifer Designation

Order Details



41006971_1_15106238474510, 280690A6.571000

Tel:Fax:Web:





Order Details



41006971_1_15106238474510, 280690A6.571000

Tel:Fax:Web:




Sensitive Land Uses

APPENDIX B

Order Details



41006971_1_15106238474510, 280690A6.571000

Tel:Fax:Web:



Historical Map - Slice A

Ordnance Survey County Series 1:10,560 Ordnance Survey Plan 1:10,000 1:10,000 Raster Mapping

Historical Mapping Legends

Historical Mapping & Photography included:

NorthamptonshireNorthamptonshireNorthamptonshireNorthamptonshireNorthamptonshireNorthamptonshireOrdnance Survey PlanOrdnance Survey PlanOrdnance Survey PlanOrdnance Survey Plan10K Raster Mapping10K Raster Mapping

1:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,5601:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,0001:10,000

188519011901192719271952195819691970 - 1971198820062012

23456789

10111213

Mapping Type Scale Date Pg

Order Details



41006971_1_15106238474510, 280690A6.571000

Tel:Fax:Web:



NorthamptonshirePublished 1885Source map scale - 1:10,560The historical maps shown were reproduced from maps predominantly held at the scale adopted for England, Wales and Scotland in the 1840`s. In 1854 the 1:2,500 scale was adopted for mapping urban areas; these maps were used to update the 1:10,560 maps. The published date given therefore is often some years later than the surveyed date. Before 1938, all OS maps were based on the Cassini Projection, with independent surveys of a single county or group of counties, giving rise to significant inaccuracies in outlying areas. In the late 1940`s, a Provisional Edition was produced, which updated the 1:10,560 mapping from a number of sources. The maps appear unfinished - with all military camps and other strategic sites removed. These maps were initially overprinted with the National Grid. In 1970, the first 1:10,000 maps were produced using the Transverse Mercator Projection. Therevision process continued until recently, with new editions appearing every 10 years or so for urban areas.

Historical Map - Slice A

Map Name(s) and Date(s)

Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land Quality ...... · Figure 1 – Site Location Plan (Drawing...

Documents

Transcript of Defence Infrastructure Organisation Land Quality ...... · Figure 1 – Site Location Plan (Drawing...