Appendix C Brownfield Solutions Limited Remediation ...

Plots H3 and H5

The Airfields

Deeside

4671 Praxis Real Estate Management Ltd

Appendix C Brownfield Solutions Limited

Remediation Validation Report

Plots H3 and H5 at The Airfields, Deeside

Brownfield Solutions Limited i D Morgan Plots H3 and H5 at The Airfields, Deeside

D MORGAN Plots H3 and H5 at The Airfields, Deeside

Remediation Validation Report SM/C4543/10175 Rev A June 2021

www.brownfield-solutions.com

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A

Remediation Validation Report ii D Morgan Plots H3 and H5 at The Airfields, Deeside

PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL DATA SHEET

Written by: Checked by:

Approved by:

S Murray J M Jacob J M Jacob MGeol (Hons) FGS BSc (Hons) CGeol FGS BSc (Hons) CGeol FGS Project Engineer Director Director

Site Name: Plots H3 and H5 at The Airfields, Deeside

Document Name: Remediation Validation Report

Reference: SM/C4543/10175 Rev A

Status:

- 14/06/2021 Final.

Rev A 24/06/2021 Revision after comment from JPG.

Issued By: Client: Engineer:

Brownfield Solutions Ltd William Smith House 173 – 183 Witton Street Northwich Cheshire CW9 5LP

Tel: 01606 334 844 brownfield-solutions.com

D Morgan New Hey Chester Road Great Sutton Ellesmere Port CH66 2LS

Contact:

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A

Remediation Validation Report iii D Morgan Plots H3 and H5 at The Airfields, Deeside

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 PREVIOUS REPORTS ................................................................................................................. 1 1.4 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF SITE PRE-ENABLING WORKS ............................................................................... 2

3.0 SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENTS ....................................................................................... 3

3.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 HUMAN HEALTH RISKS ............................................................................................................. 3

4.0 SITE REMEDIATION REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 5

4.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 ENABLING PHASE .................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 REDEVELOPMENT PHASE .......................................................................................................... 6 4.4 DETAILED QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT (DQRA) FOR CONTROLLED WATERS ............................... 6

5.0 ENABLING WORKS: SITE REMEDIATION AND VALIDATION ................................................... 8

5.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................... 8 5.2 PLOT H3 - METAL HOTSPOTS: VISUAL INSPECTION, SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING ................... 8 5.3 PLOT H3 – HYDROCARBON HOTSPOT: VISUAL INSPECTIONS, SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING ....... 9 5.4 PLOT H3 - ASBESTOS: VISUAL INSPECTIONS, SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING OF SOILS .............. 12 5.5 PLOT H5 - ASBESTOS: VISUAL INSPECTIONS, SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING OF SOILS .............. 13 5.6 H5 NOISE BUND: VISUAL INSPECTIONS, SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING OF COVER SYSTEM SOILS13 5.7 H5 NOISE BUND DEPTH VALIDATION ........................................................................................ 15 5.8 WATCHING BRIEF .................................................................................................................. 16

6.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 17

6.1 ENABLING PHASE .................................................................................................................. 17 6.2 FURTHER REMEDIAL WORKS ................................................................................................... 18

DRAWINGS

Drawing Number Rev Title

C4543/01 - Site Location Plan C4543/02 Conceptual Site Model- H3 and H5 C4543/05 A H7 Stockpile Sampling Plan C4543/06 - Remediation Plan C4543/10 - H3 Hydrocarbon Excavation and Borehole Location Plan C4543/14 - Plot H5 Noise Bund Validation plan C4543/15 - Metal Hotspots Sample Location Plan DM-AP2-AB-29 - Plot H3 Sample Location Plan (western area) DM-AP2-AB-31 Plot H5 Asbestos Testing DM-AP2-AB-37 H5 Bund Testing Locations 4671-JPG-SW-XX-DR-G-1106 P02 Remedial Groundworks 4671-2-EW3 H Typical Section Through Proposed Bund

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A

Remediation Validation Report iv D Morgan Plots H3 and H5 at The Airfields, Deeside

APPENDICIES

Appendix Title

APPENDIX A Human Health Remedial Targets APPENDIX B Chemical Testing Results APPENDIX C Photographic Record: H5 Noise Bund Depth Validation APPENDIX D Certificate of Provenance for Quarried Imported Material APPENDIX E Import Site Geo-Environmental Assessment Reports APPENDIX F Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA) for Controlled Waters

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A

Remediation Validation Report 1 D Morgan Plots H3 and H5 at The Airfields, Deeside

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context

This Remediation Validation Report has been produced by Brownfield Solutions Limited (BSL) on behalf of D Morgan for specific areas of the site known as The Airfields, Deeside. The areas covered by this Validation Report includes plots H3 and H5.

1.2 Objectives

The objective of this validation report is to provide evidence demonstrating the implementation of appropriate remediation measures. The remedial works were broadly carried out in two phases; the enabling works in H3 and H5, followed by the construction of the noise bund in the north of H5. The overall objectives of both phases were to make the site suitable for the proposed end use, which will comprise residential plots with associated soft landscaping areas (adopting a residential with plant root uptake scenario with respect to land quality assessment).

1.3 Previous Reports

A number of reports have been produced for this site. The following list details those which are relevant to this Verification Report and should be read in conjunction with this document:

Geo-environmental Desk Study Report by JPG, reference MT/DS/4671.v1, dated July 2014. Geo-environmental Ground Investigation Report Plots H3 and H5 by JPG, reference 4671-JPG-XX-XX-

RP-G-0603-S2-P02, dated April 2020. Hydrocarbon Impacted Area in H3, reference JM/C4543/9724, dated November 2020. Former Incinerator Area on Plot H3, reference JMC/C4543/9722, dated November 2020. H3 and H5 Remedial Strategy Report by BSL, reference JMC/C4543/9495 Rev B, dated December

2020. Asbestos Impacted Area in Plot H3, reference SM/C4334/10025, dated March 2021.

1.4 Limitations

This report has been carried out based on information obtained from a number of areas, BSL have assumed that this information is correct.

There may be other conditions prevailing on the site which are outside the scope of work and have not been highlighted by this report and therefore not been taken into account by this report. Responsibility cannot be accepted for such site conditions not revealed by the assessment.

This report has been prepared for the sole use and reliance of the Client, D Morgan. No other third parties may rely upon or reproduce the contents of this report without the written permission of Brownfield Solutions Ltd (BSL). If any unauthorised third party comes into possession of this report, they rely on it at their own risk and BSL do not owe them any Duty of Care.

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


2.0 OVERVIEW

2.1 Description of Site Pre-Enabling Works

The site is located off Welsh Road (A548) as part of the wider ‘The Airfields’ development in Deeside. It is situated approximately 6km north-west of Chester City Centre, centred on National Grid Reference 332600, 3699551 as shown on the Site Location Plan, Drawing No C4543/01.

The site descriptions below are taken from the time of the ground investigations undertaken by JPG in February 2019:

The site forms Plots H3 and H5 of ‘The Airfields’ development, a wider scheme incorporating a former military base and occupying a total area of over 56 ha. Plots H3 and Plot H5 are located within the central south of the development.

Plot H3 is currently unoccupied and comprises of a grassed field in the west and a thin surface layer of made ground in the centre and east. Two stockpiles of made ground (comprising mostly brick and concrete) are located in the centre and the east of the site. There is a mounded area in the southern part of the plots, which extends slightly to the north into Plot H5.

The northern boundary comprises a swale with a newly constructed section of highway in the northeast corner. The southern boundary comprises of Sealand Avenue and several small industrial units. The plot was previously occupied by a sewage works.

Access to Plot H3 is either via the same access to Plot H5, i.e. over the swale or via the newly constructed section of highway in the north east.

Plot H5 is currently unoccupied and mostly comprises stockpiles of made ground and topsoil. A large shallow pit is located to the southwest of the plot.

The northern boundary comprises mainly grassland and a large shallow pit, along with a newly constructed section of highway. A roundabout is located beyond the northeast corner of the site. Both the eastern and western boundaries comprise borrow pits. The southern boundary comprises a newly constructed swale, beyond which is undeveloped open ground. Beyond the open ground is Sealand Avenue which comprises several small industrial units.

Access to Plot H5 is via the roundabout from the northeast.

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


3.0 SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENTS

3.1 General

The previous ground investigation report completed by JPG, (reference 4671-JPG-XX-XX-RP-G-0603-S2-P02) and supplementary investigations carried by BSL, (reference JMC/C4543/9722) have confirmed the following for Plot H3 and H5:

Plot H3

Localised elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead and mercury associated with the made ground in the eastern part of Plot H3 (TP123, TP124) and TP204 which was in the former incinerator.

Visual and olfactory signs of hydrocarbon contamination in the eastern half of H3. Slightly elevated concentrations of potentially leachable PAH species (TP117). Potentially airborne asbestos fibres associated with the made ground in the mound (Plot H3, TP116 and TP117). Visible ACMs present in the made ground in plot H3. Elevated concentrations of hazardous ground gases (Plot H3). The site is located in an area affected by radon. Medium risk of UXO in unworked post war ground.

Plot H5

Slightly elevated concentrations of potentially leachable PAH species (TP111). Potentially airborne asbestos fibres associated with the made ground in the mound (Plot H5 TP113). Visible ACMs present in the made ground in plot H5. Elevated concentrations of hazardous ground gases (Plot H5). The site is located in an area affected by radon. Medium risk of UXO in unworked post war ground.

3.2 Human Health Risks

The majority of H3 and H5 is underlain by topsoil and/or made ground underlain by Tidal Flat Deposits comprising occasionally loose, typically medium dense, becoming dense with depth, light brown silty sand with occasional shells.

Localised areas of contamination have been identified in the eastern section of Plot H3 (TP123, TP124 and TP204), where elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead and mercury associated with the made ground were recorded.

Potentially airborne asbestos fibres were identified associated with the made ground in the mound (Plot H3, TP116 and TP117 and Plot H5 TP113).

Plots H3 and H5 also lies in a radon affected area and all structures will therefore require basic radon protection. Elevated ground gases have also been recorded in plots H3 and H5 and have been classified as CS2. Therefore, ground gas protection measures will be required.

Slightly elevated potentially leachable PAHs were encountered in plot H3 (TP117) and plot H5 (TP111).

In addition, visible ACM’s was noted in plots H3 and H5.

Noise Bunds

The core of the noise bund to the north of H5 has been constructed from site-won made ground sourced from other areas of the site which was permitted to be re-used within the noise bund core under a Materials Management Plan (MMP). The made ground used within the bund core is variable in composition and includes material excavated from heavy metal ‘hotpots’ and soils containing potentially airborne asbestos fibres and visible asbestos containing materials (ACMs).

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


The presence of contaminants within plots H3 and H5, ground gases including radon, in addition to known contamination within the core of the noise bunds, presents a potential risk to human health without the implementation of appropriate remedial measures.

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


4.0 SITE REMEDIATION REQUIREMENTS

4.1 General

An appraisal of available remediation options was undertaken from BSLs Remedial Strategy report for plots H3 and H5 (ref. JMC/C4543/9495 Rev B). Full details of the options appraisals are available in the respective reports.

4.2 Enabling Phase

The remedial measures to be implemented during the enabling phase to create a suitable development environment are summarised in the following table.

Source Contaminants of

Concern

Remediation

Method Further Details / Remedial Requirements

General Made Ground Heavy Metals Source Removal

The three localised hotspots identified in H3 (TP204, TP123 and TP124) will be delineated, removed and infilled with chemically clean quarried material. The removed material will be placed in the core of the noise bunds.

Hydrocarbon Contamination

Petroleum Hydrocarbons Source Removal

During a Ground Investigation conducted by BSL hydrocarbon contamination was identified in the eastern section of plot H3, see the Remediation Plan, drawing no. C4543/06. All the hydrocarbon impacted material should be removed as far as reasonably practicable and replaced with chemically ‘clean’ material. The contaminated material removed from the excavation should be tested to confirm its suitability for reuse or be removed and disposed of off-site at a suitably licensed landfill.

Plots H5 Noise Bunds

Asbestos, heavy metals, PAHs and

petroleum hydrocarbons

Installation of Clean Cover System –

including chemical validation and depth

validation

Above the noise bund, a cover system comprising “clean” validated topsoil/subsoil should be installed and be at least 750mm thick. A warning geo-membrane should also be installed at the base of the clean cover system. In areas where trees and large shrubs are present, a tree pit with deeper soils should be placed to a depth sufficient to support growth and infilled with “clean” validated soil. A warning barrier/membrane should be incorporated into the tree pit, unless the pit created is greater than 1000mm. JPG drawing reference 4671-2-EW3 Rev H shows a typical section through the proposed bund. The soil used in the clean cover system will need to be chemically validated and tested at the frequency stated in the BSL remedial strategy report for H3 and H5 reference JMC/C4543/9495 Rev B. The noise bunds will also require depth validation tests to be completed at intervals of at least 1 per 50m lateral bund length.

Imported material Asbestos, heavy Metals and PAHs Used to raise levels

Quarried material has been imported from Altami, Tavin, Acre lane and Ledsham Road, along with reused material from Mae Gwern,

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A



Concern

Remediation


as stated in the Materials Management Plan (ref. JMC/C4543/9543 Rev D). The imported soil will be tested at the frequency stated in BSL remedial strategy report for H3 and H5 (reference JMC/C4543/9495 Rev B).

4.3 Redevelopment Phase

The remedial measures to be implemented during the redevelopment phase are summarised in the following table.


Concern

Remediation


General Made Ground – Plot H3

Ground Gases (CO2,CH4)

CS2 Gas Protection Measures

Based on the risk assessments undertaken in Plots H3 and H5, gas protection measures should be implemented based on the requirements of ‘Characteristic Situation 2 (CS2)’ in accordance with BS8485, with a minimum point score of 3.5 to be achieved. The adopted gas protection system will consist of an excellent performance passive subfloor dispersal layer with minimum 150mm void (2.0 point score) and a gas resistant membrane suitably impervious to carbon dioxide and methane to be verified in accordance with CIRIA C735 (2.0 point score). Hydrocarbon vapour gas proof membranes are also recommended in properties above the remediated hydrocarbon hotspot in H3.

Natural Geology – Plots H3 and H5 Radon gas Basic Radon

Protection Measures

Basic radon protection measures include a well installed membrane resistant to radon present across the entire floor area of the proposed buildings. Provided the membrane selected is resistant to radon, in addition to carbon dioxide and methane, the requirements for basic radon protection will be met within the CS2 classification for general ground gases, as detailed above. All installations will require verification in accordance with CIRIA C735.

In addition to the specific remedial requirements listed in the tables above which are intended to mitigate the risks from known sources, it was recommended that a watching brief be maintained during the groundworks and construction for any evidence of contamination and BSL consulted for advice.

With reference to the remedial requirements, “clean” soils are defined by the site-specific Human Health Remediation Targets which are derived from C4SLs/S4ULs for a residential with plant uptake end use.

The Human Health Remediation Targets are enclosed in Appendix A.

4.4 Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA) for Controlled Waters

A DQRA for controlled waters was carried out by BSL on April 2021 (Ref. JMJ/C1818/10095), where it was confidently deduced that the residual soil and groundwater contamination is not only very limited in extent but does not pose an unacceptable risk to the wider controlled waters environment including the

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


recently constructed surface water swale. Therefore, no further remedial actions are considered necessary.

The DQRA report for controlled waters is presented in Appendix F.

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


5.0 ENABLING WORKS: SITE REMEDIATION AND VALIDATION

5.1 General

The remediation process undertaken during the enabling works was undertaken over several stages and the site visits were undertaken between the dates of 8th March and 11th May 2021.

A summary of the site works undertaken in accordance with BSLs remedial strategy report for plot H3 and H5 (ref. SM/C4543/9495 Rev B) is detailed below.

5.2 Plot H3 - Metal Hotspots: Visual Inspection, Sampling and Laboratory Testing

Between the dates of 8th September 2020 and 25th March 2021 BSL excavated and tested three localised metal hotspots within plot H3. See drawing C4543/15 for the Metal Hotspots Sample Location Plan. TP123 and TP124 Hotspot removal - 8th to 18th September 2020 (Sample References HOT1-S1 to HOT1-

S7, HOT2-S1 to HOT2-S6 and HOT3-S1 to HOT3-S4) - Element Test Results 20/12079 and 20/12711

JGP identified significant heavy metal contamination in the shallow made ground at TP123 (Hotspot 2) and TP124 (Hotspot 1) during their site investigation, as shown on JPGs Remedial Groundworks drawing (no. 4671-JPG-SW-XX-DR-G-1106). As per the remedial strategy an excavation 10m x 10m x 0.80m was excavated and removed from TP123 and 12m x 8.3m x 0.8m was removed from TP124. The soils that remained in-situ and were tested at a frequency of 1 per 20m3 on each linear side and 1 per 50m3 at the base, as per the remedial strategy. The results show no elevated metals were present in the faces of the excavation above residential screening values (samples HOT1-S1 to HOT1-S7, HOT2-S1 to HOT2-S6). The material removed from the hotspots was placed in the core of the noise bunds and the excavations were backfilled with clean quarried material from Altami. During the excavation of hotspot 1 (TP124) visible ACMs were encountered in the southern faces of the excavation. BSL visited the site on the 18th September 2020 to extend the excavation 5m south in order to remove the ACMs. The resulting faces and the base of the excavation were tested for asbestos between 0.4m and 0.8m depth. Sample HOT3-S1 (0.60m bgl) contained trace amounts (<0.001% wt) of chrysotile and amosite asbestos in the western face. Ultimately, all the made ground material in this area of H3 was later removed and placed below the bunds, with the base of the excavation being tested for asbestos, see Section 5.4 for further information. Lead Hotspot removal (TP204) – 21st September 2020 to 25th March 2021 – Element Test Results

20/12907, 20/14871 and 20/15251

BSL attended site on 21st September 2020 and excavated 6 No. trial pits (TP204-to TP209) to depths of between 0.50m bgl and 1.85m bgl. Report (reference JMC/C4543/9722 November 2020) Six environmental samples were taken at regular intervals to assist in the identification of the soils and to allow subsequent laboratory testing. In two of the trial holes (TP204 and TP206) lead and cadmium contamination was identified at between 0.05 and 0.10m bgl.

Exploratory Hole Depth

(m) Metal

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Adopted Screening

Value

(mg/kg)

TP204 0.10 Cadmium 22.20 11

Lead initial test 23600 210 Lead re-test 16660 210

TP206 0.05 Lead initial test 395 210

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


Due to significantly high levels of lead and cadmium encountered in TP204, further investigation was required to delineate the contamination. BSL excavated five additional trial pits surrounding the hotspot on 28th October 2020 (named N, E, S, W and C to a maximum depth of 1.50m bgl). Chemical testing for lead and cadmium was scheduled on 2 samples per trial pit. All the samples were below relevant screening levels for cadmium. Elevated lead was identified in one sample (E2), which was further delineated with another two samples north and east of the excavation. Both samples came back below the relevant screening values. The made ground containing the lead and cadmium in the areas of TP204 and TP206 was subsequently removed completely and placed within the core of the noise bunds adjacent to Plots 6 and 7. On 25th March 2021 BSL attended site to excavate and remove the lead hotspot in Plot H3 (TP204). The excavation was 7.5m x 8.2m x 1.2m and a total of seven samples were collected at the frequencies of 1 per 20m3 on each linear side and 1 per 50m3 at the base, as per the remedial strategy. The samples were collected from the source of the contamination (L-C, 0.40m bgl) to check it was suitable to be placed in the noise bund and the remainder of the samples were collected between 0.20m and 1.20m bgl from the visible clean faces of the excavation (L-N, L-S, L-W, L-E, L-B). No lead was identified above residential screening values with plant up take in the samples collected from the faces and base of the excavation. The concentration of lead identified in L-C was below public open space screening values and was therefore considered suitable for reuse in the core of the noise bunds.

5.3 Plot H3 – Hydrocarbon hotspot: Visual Inspections, Sampling and Laboratory Testing

In early October 2020 preliminary trial pitting was undertaken in the eastern areas of Plot H3. Visual and olfactory evidence of hydrocarbon contamination was identified during this investigation in three trial pits (TPH3/13, TPH3/14 and TPH3/15) to depths of between 1.00m and 2.00m bgl. See drawing C4543/10 H3 Hydrocarbon Excavation and Borehole Location Plan with the laboratory test results presented within Appendix C. Plot H3 Hydrocarbon Hotspot Initial investigation – 28th October 2020 – Element Test Results 20-14872

b1

BSL attended site on the 28th October 2020 and excavated a trench across the suspected hydrocarbon identified area. The trial trench was approximately 25m in length and was excavated parallel with the boundary fence line. The trench was excavated until only natural strata was present, with no visual or olfactory evidence of hydrocarbon contamination remaining to the north and south of the trench. When attempting to trace the extent of the hydrocarbon contamination in the east and west directions, a large concrete slab was encountered on both sides of the trench and extended beyond the site boundary to the south west, therefore the trial trenching was terminated.

Nine representative soil samples (H01 to H09) were taken from the sides and base of the trial trench at regular 2m intervals, including one sample from the natural strata at the southern end of the trench. Samples were tested for hydrocarbon contamination. The testing results from the trial trench material were screened against the residential with homegrown produce end-use use criteria. They were also screened against public open space (POS) and commercial end use for potential re-use purposes onsite. Exceedances were detected in two samples for six contaminants against the residential end-use criteria as detailed below.

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


Location Depth m bgl Range/Fraction Concentration

(mg/kg)

Screening Criteria

(mg/kg)

H03 1.00

Aliphatic EC8-EC10 149.6 27 Aliphatic EC10-EC12 1886.7 130 Aliphatic EC12-EC16 2255 1100 Aromatic EC10-EC12 806 74 Aromatic EC12-EC16 1047 140 Aromatic EC16-EC21 618 260

H08 1.50

Aliphatic EC8-EC10 91.7 27 Aliphatic EC10-EC12 804.4 130 Aliphatic EC12-EC16 1666 1100 Aromatic EC10-EC12 258.3 74 Aromatic EC12-EC16 660 140 Aromatic EC16-EC21 670 260

No petroleum hydrocarbons, BTEX or MTBE compounds have been identified above either POS or commercial screening criteria. Plot H3 Hydrocarbon Hotspot delineation and removal – 18th to 22nd February 2021 – i2 Analytical Test

Results 21-58073 and 21-58581 (HC-N, HC-W1, HC-W2, HC-E1, HC-E2, HC-S, HC-C, HC-B1, HC-B2)

BSL attended site on the 17th February 2021 to delineate and remove the hydrocarbon impacted material from the hydrocarbon hotspot identified in October 2020. The hydrocarbon impacted sands were excavated and temporary stored on Plot H5 on sealed hardstanding to aerate. The excavation was carried out as far as reasonably practicable given the granular nature of the soils, the high-water table and the immediate proximity of the adjacent site boundary. A total of nine samples were collected from the faces and base of the excavation to check if it was suitable for reuse on-site (sample HC-C). See drawing C4543/10 H3 Hydrocarbon Excavation and Borehole Location Plan for the sampling locations. Three of the samples taken from the sides and base of the excavation contained elevated hydrocarbons (HC-W1, HC-B1 and HC-B2). In this case the LQM/CIEH S4ULs and DEFRA C4SLs for a residential end use with homegrown produce end use have been adopted as Tier 1 generic screening values. A summary of the exceedance is present in the table below.


(mg/kg)

Screening Criteria

(mg/kg)

HC-W1 1.50

Aliphatic EC8-EC10 29 27 Aliphatic EC10-EC12 130 130 Aliphatic EC12-EC16 4500 1100 Aromatic EC10-EC12 93 74 Aromatic EC12-EC16 3000 140 Aromatic EC16-EC21 4800 260 Aromatic EC21-EC35 1200 1100

HC-B1 2.50 Aromatic EC10-EC12 710 74 Aromatic EC12-EC16 730 140

HC-B2 2.50 Aromatic EC10-EC12 250 74 Aromatic EC12-EC16 370 140

Samples HC-W1 along the western face had the highest levels of hydrocarbons and was located adjacent to the site boundary. Based on the above result comparison it could be inferred that the original source

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


of the hydrocarbon could have been offside beyond the western site boundary, with the plume concentration reducing away from the source. BSL attended site on the 22nd February 2021 to collect a groundwater sample within the hydrocarbon excavation. No visual iridescent sheens, free product or odours were evident on the groundwater. There are no EQS values for hydrocarbons. There are no Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) or Drinking water standards (DWS) values for hydrocarbons. The Water Supply Regulations 1989 and the Private Water Supply Regulations 1991 contained a concentration of 10 µg/l for dissolved or emulsified hydrocarbons. This was removed when the regulations were updated. However, 10 µg/l is used in this report as an initial screening assessment as it is typically the preferred approach of the Environment Agency.

A summary of exceedances of this criterion is given in the table below.

Location Depth m bgl Range/Fraction Concentration (µg/l)

HC-GW 1.185

Aliphatic EC12-EC16 400 Aliphatic EC16-EC21 360 Aromatic EC12-EC16 160 Aromatic EC16-EC21 170

The groundwater sample taken from the hydrocarbon excavation show elevations above 10µg/l in hydrocarbon chains EC12-EC21. BSL completed a further ground investigation between the dates of 6th April to 8th April in H3 to address the hydrocarbon contamination identified in the groundwater. Full details can be found in the Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA) for Controlled Waters (ref. JMJ/C1818/10095, April 2021), see Appendix F. Plot H3 Hydrocarbon impacted material – 18th February to 4th June 2021 – Element Test Results 20-

14872 b1

As mentioned above there was one sample collected from the contaminated material removed from the hydrocarbon excavation on the 18th February 2021 (HC-C, 2.00m bgl). This was tested for TPHCWG, SVOCs and VOC. The results show the material was suitable for reuse in the residential Public Open Space areas. The material was stockpiled in H5 on top of hardstanding to aerate. Between the dates of 18th February and 4th June the stockpile was turned over twice in order to aerate further. A further 3 samples were collected on 4th June 2021 and tested for TPHCWG. The result shows the material is suitable for reuse in the residential Public Open Space areas. The testing results from the hydrocarbon stockpile were screened against the residential with homegrown produce end-use use criteria. They were also screened against public open space (POS residential) and commercial end use for the potential re-use purposes onsite. Exceedances were detected in three samples for six contaminants against the residential end-use criteria as detailed below.


(mg/kg)

Screening

Criteria (mg/kg)

HYS - 1 0.10

Aliphatic EC10-EC12 334.1 130 Aromatic EC10-EC12 74.2 74 Aromatic EC12-EC16 317 140 Aromatic EC16-EC21 340 260

Ethyl benzene 47 51 m-& p-Xylene 115 139

HYS – 2 0.10 Aliphatic EC10-EC12 151.40 130

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A



(mg/kg)

Screening

Criteria (mg/kg)

Aromatic EC12-EC16 140 142

HYS – 3 0.10 Aromatic EC10-EC12 130 198.3

Ethyl benzene 47 81 m-& p-Xylene 115 131

No petroleum hydrocarbons, BTEX or MTBE compounds have been identified above either POS or commercial screening criteria.

5.4 Plot H3 - Asbestos: Visual Inspections, Sampling and Laboratory Testing of Soils

Between the dates of 9th September and 6th November 2020, D Morgan proceeded to extract the visible ACMs from the made ground soil in the H3 mound area which is designated for residential development by Manually Hand Picking the individual ACM fragments, see Conceptual site model, drawing No. C4543/02. Due to the high volume of ACMs present in the soil it was considered impractical and to pose an unacceptable risk to site operatives to continue with hand picking of the ACM materials. The remedial methodology was adjusted and BSL was instructed to supervise the bulk excavation and removal of all the made ground material in H3 to at least 1.00m below finished levels between the dates of 18th January and 11th February 2021.

Plot H3 (western area)– 12th to 9th March 2021 – i2 Analytical Test Results 21-57030 and 20-59098

Following the removal of the made ground material in the housing development area in the west of H3, validation soils samples were collected on a 25m grid from the sub-surface and the side walls of the reduced level excavation. The locations and coordinates for each sample can be seen on the H3 Sampling Location Plan provided by D Morgan, drawing No. DK-AP2-AB-29. BSL attended site on 12th February 2021 to sample the base and side walls of the H3 area, following the removal of all the visible signs of ACMs and made ground from the base of H3. The results show that seven out of the twenty-five samples identified asbestos. The table below summaries the samples containing asbestos.

Location Depth

(m) Asbestos ID

Concentration by

Weight (%)

B2 0.05 Chrysotile and Amosite Loose Fibrous Debris and Loose Fibres 0.003

C2 0.05 Amosite Loose Fibres < 0.001 D2 0.05 Chrysotile Loose Fibres < 0.001

A3 0.05 Chrysotile and Amosite Loose Fibrous Debris and Loose Fibres 0.009

E3 0.05 Chrysotile Loose Fibres < 0.001

A4 0.05 Chrysotile and Amosite Loose Fibrous Debris and Hard/Cement Type Material 0.918

A5 0.05 Chrysotile Hard/Cement Type Material 0.266

The results show asbestos was identified in seven out of the twenty-five samples collected initially in H3. Three of these samples were collected from the base of the housing development area (C2, B2 and E3) and all contained trace levels of asbestos (< 0.001%). Following the removal of a further 100mm of soil in these location on the 24th February, three samples were collected (C2-b, D2-b and E3-b). No asbestos

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


was identified in all three samples demonstrating that all asbestos containing made ground has been effectively removed from the base. The remaining four samples containing asbestos were collected from the western face of H3 in the Public open space (POS) area adjacent to the swale (B2, A3, A4 and A5), which at the time of sampling still contained visible ACMs and asbestos fibres between 0.009% to 0.918% in the soil. As there was still ACM present between 100mm to 300mm bgl in the POS area, BSL advised that all the remaining asbestos containing material was to be removed to at least 1.00m below finished level. BSL supervised the removal of the made ground in the H3 POS swale area into the core of bund between the dates of 5th and 9th March 2021. After the removal BSL carried out a visual inspection of the western area of H3 and identified no visual signs of ACMs. All the asbestos containing material from the plot was place below the noise bunds on-site. Plot H3 (eastern area)– 17th February to 9th March 2021 – i2 Analytical Test Results 21-58073 and 21-

60277

During BSL hotspot removal on 8th to 18th September 2020 asbestos was identified within trial pit TP204 and at the surface in sections of plot H3. BSL attended site on 17th February 2021 to supervise the removal of all asbestos containing material (ACMs) from the eastern section of H3. Approximately 0.80m to 1.20m of material was removed from this area of Plot H3. Once all the visible ACMs were removed, samples were collected on a 25m grid from the sub-surface of the reduced level excavation and tested for asbestos. A total of six samples were collected (B3, B4, C2, C3, C4, D4), one out of the six samples contained 0.002% Amosite (C4). A further 100mm was removed from the C4 grid, followed by the sub-surface being retested for asbestos (samples C4-B). No asbestos was identified in this sample, demonstrating that all asbestos containing made ground has been effectively removed from the base.

5.5 Plot H5 - Asbestos: Visual inspections, Sampling and Laboratory Testing of Soils

Between the of 3rd March and 8th April 2021 BSL supervised the bulk excavation and removal of all the made ground material in the H5 to at least 1.00m below finished levels. The excavated material was placed in the core of the noise bund and samples were collected from the reduced level excavation on a 25m grid. Plot H5 – 30th March to 8th April 2021 – Element Test Results 21-4928 b1 and 21-5251 b1

BSL attended site on the 30th March 2021 to collect ten samples from Plot H5 on a 25m grid pattern. Four out of the ten samples identified asbestos (A2, A3, B2 and C3) between 0.002%-0.007% wt. Following the removal of at least 200mm of soil in these locations, a further four samples were collected from the base of the excavations (A2-B, A3-B, B2-B and C3-B). No asbestos was identified in the additional four samples, demonstrating that all asbestos containing made ground has been effectively removed from the base. See drawing C4543/14 and DM-AP2-AB-31 for the samples locations across plot H5.

5.6 H5 Noise Bund: Visual Inspections, Sampling and Laboratory Testing of Cover System Soils

BSL attended the site between the 25th May and 4th June 2021 to obtain samples of the “clean” cover layer to chemically validate and test at the frequency stated in the BSL remedial strategy report for H3 and H5 reference SM/C4543/9495 Rev B.

A total of 10 samples have been collected across the H5 noise bund and tested for the presence of asbestos, heavy metal, PAHs and petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). BSL visually inspected the clean cover system between 4th May and 4th June 2021. No ACMs were identified during these inspections, which

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


were conducted by a BSL engineer holding valid Asbestos Awareness and Non-Licenced Work (NLW) training.

A photographic record of the works is presented in Appendix D.

Noise Bund H5 - 25th May to 4th June 2021 (Sample References H5-1 to H5-10) - Element Test Results

21/8155 and 21/8456 b1

BSL attended site on 25th May and 4th June 2021 to sample the topsoil which comprises the cover system of the H5 noise bund. Samples were scheduled for metals, PAHs, TPH-CWG and the presence of asbestos, as per the approved Remedial Strategy. See drawing C4543/14 Plot H5 Noise Bund Validation plan for the sample locations in the bunds.

The results indicate there are no forms of contamination present in respect to Public Open Space (residential) screening values in any samples from the H5 bund. On the basis of the testing undertaken, the soils across the clean cover system within the H5 bund are considered suitable for the proposed end use.

H7/H5 Stockpile Quality Check - Element Test Results 21-3207 and 21-4928 b1 BSL attended site on 4th April 2021 to undertake sampling of the large stockpile of site-won topsoil in H7 that was proposed for use in the cover system across the H5 bund. A total of twenty-one samples were collected from the stockpile during this visit and sampling locations are shown on the H7 Stockpile Sampling Plan, drawing reference C4543/05. All samples were scheduled for metals, PAHs, TPH-CWG and the presence of asbestos, as per the approved Remedial Strategy.

Four out of the twenty-one samples collected contained amosite and chrysotile asbestos fibre bundles and insulation debris between 0.001% and 0.0015% w/w (TS-2, TS-6, TS-10 and TS-18). In addition, visible fragments of ACMs (asbestos cement) were also noted along the southern and north-eastern flanks of the stockpile. The soils within these areas were visibly different to the remainder of the stockpile, with a notable proportion of construction materials such as brick, concrete and plastic. The concentrations of metals, PAHs and banded petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-CWG) were all below the adopted screening values for a residential end use with plant uptake.

Due to the presence of visible ACMs within two flanks of the stockpile and four isolated occurrences of asbestos fibres/debris detected within soils elsewhere within the stockpile, these areas were treated as ‘hotspots’ and excavation of these areas was required.

On 30th April 2021, further validation work was completed on the stockpile. This involved the removal of visibly impacted soils from the southern and north-eastern flanks, in addition to localised removal of soils from the testing locations where asbestos was identified by laboratory testing. The soils excavated as part of this validation work were subsequently placed within the core of the H5 noise bund, with a geotextile membrane and ‘clean’ cover system to be installed at a later date. See drawing C4543/05, H7 Stockpile Sampling Plan.

Following the removal of all the soil containing potential asbestos fibres and ACMs from the H7 stockpile, a further nine samples were collected on the 30th of April (TS-10B TS-06B, TS-18B, TS-02B, TS-04B, TS-04C, TS-23, TS-24, TS-25, TS-26 and TS-27) with each sample scheduled for asbestos screening. No asbestos was identified in any samples; therefore, the remaining material within the H7 stockpile is considered suitable for re-use on-site within a residential with plant uptake end-use.

This soil within the H7 stockpile has already been partially used for the construction of the noise bund in H7 (as reported under separate cover) and will be used in the construction of the ‘clean’ cover system in

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


other bunds on-site, yet to be constructed. It has also been used to infill the excavations on the H8 noise bund, following the removal of the soils containing asbestos (H8-2, H8-3 and H8-7).

Additional testing of the stockpile (H5-1 to H5-10)- Element Test Results 21-7011

BSL attended site on 11th May 2021 to collect a further 10 samples from the stockpile in H5, which was originally in H7 as discussed above.

The testing has confirmed that no contamination is present above residential with plant uptake screening values. Therefore, the soil tested in the cover systems of the two bunds and the stockpile is considered suitable for re-use.

5.7 H5 Noise Bund Depth Validation

Verification Requirements

As detailed in the Remediation Strategy (report reference JMC/C4543/9495 Rev B), the clean cover system within the noise bunds areas must comprise a minimum of 750mm “clean” validated topsoil underlain by a geotextile warning membrane. The JPG drawing reference 4671-2-EW3 Rev H shows a typical section through the proposed bund and is presented in Appendix A.

Chemical testing of topsoil within the clean cover system has been completed both in situ, i.e. following placement within each section of the bund, and testing has been completed on the H7/H5 stockpile of site won topsoil which was used to construct the cover system above the warning membrane. The testing results have been discussed in section 5.6 of this report and unless otherwise stated within this report, soils are considered suitable for use within the noise bund cover systems.

BSL confirm that a suitable quantity of testing has been carried out in accordance with the Quality Control Methodology outlined within Appendix A.

Depth Validation

Between to dates of 4th May and 4th June 2021, BSL visited site to validate the depth of the cover system within the H5 noise bunds. At this time, the ‘clean’ cover had been placed along the entire length of the bunds, which had a total length of approximately 300m. Therefore, a total of 9 No. excavations were completed at a frequency of 1 per 35m of linear bund length. The material forming the ‘clean’ cover system was fairly consistent and was described as topsoil consisting of dark brown slightly gravelly clayey sand with rootlets and occasional pockets of sandy clay. The gravel constituents included mudstone and sandstone with occasional brick, concrete, wood and rare clinker. No visible ACMs were observed during any of the depth validation excavations. The locations of the excavations and the extents of the noise bunds requiring validation within the scope of this report are shown on the Noise Bund Cover System Validation Plan (drawing ref. C4543/14). A summary of the ground conditions encountered within each excavation is presented in the following table:

Location ID Depth/ Strata Pass / Fail

BUND H5 – 1 0 - 1.55m Topsoil 1.55m – Geotextile Membrane Pass


BUND H5– 3 0 - 1.50m Topsoil 1.50m – Geotextile Membrane Pass


SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


Location ID Depth/ Strata Pass / Fail


BUND H5 - 9 0 - 1.25m Topsoil 1.25m – Geotextile Membrane Pass


BUND H5 – 11 0 - 1.25m Topsoil 1.25m – Geotextile Membrane

Pass

BUND H5 – 12 0 - 1.35m Topsoil 1.35m – Geotextile Membrane

Pass

A photographic record of the depth validations is presented in Appendix D.

Based on the site visit undertaken by BSL, we confirm that the thickness of cover layers overlying the geotextile within the H5 noise bund is acceptable and exceeds the remedial requirements of the site.

5.8 Watching Brief

A watching brief for unknown or unexpected sources of contamination was maintained throughout the remediation of the H3 and H5 area of the site. Unless otherwise addressed within this or previous reports, to the best of BSL’s knowledge, no additional sources of contamination were identified, and the ground conditions encountered during the redevelopment phase were understood to be consistent with those encountered during the earlier ground investigations.

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Enabling Phase

The enabling phase works have been carried out between 20th August 2020 and 4th June 2021 under the partial supervision of an experienced BSL geo-environmental engineer.

Removal of Metals Hotspots

JGP identified significant heavy metal contamination in the shallow made ground at TP123 (Hotspot 2) and TP124 (Hotspot 1) during their site investigation, as shown on JPGs Remedial Groundworks drawing (no. 4671-JPG-SW-XX-DR-G-1106). Following this, two large excavations were undertaken, with the spoil removed and placed in the core of noise bunds and the excavations were backfilled with quarried material from Altami. The remaining soils was tested and no elevated metals were present in the faces of the excavation above residential screening values.

Regarding the other metal hotspot, BSL excavated 6 No. trial pits (TP204-to TP209) to allow subsequent laboratory testing. In two of the trial holes (TP204 and TP206) lead and cadmium contamination was identified. Due to significantly high levels of lead and cadmium encountered in TP204, further investigations were required to delineate the contamination. On 25th March 2021 BSL attended site to excavate and removed the lead hotspot in Plot H3 (TP204) and further samples were collected from:

The source of the contamination (L-C, 0.40m bgl), where the concentration of lead identified was below public open space screening values and was therefore considered suitable for reuse in the core of the noise bunds.

The visible clean faces of the excavation (L-N, L-S, L-W, L-E, L-B), where no lead was identified above residential screening values with plant uptake.

Removal of Hydrocarbon Hotspot

BSL attended site of 17th February 2021 to delineate and remove the hydrocarbon impacted material from the hydrocarbon hotspot identified in October 2020. In H3, the hydrocarbon impacted sands were excavated and temporary stored in Plot H5 on sealed hardstanding to aerate. Between the dates of 18th February and 4th June the stockpile was turned over twice in order to aerate further.

3 No. samples were collected on 4th June 2021 and tested for TPHCWG. The testing results were screened against residential with homegrown produce end-use use criteria, public open space (POS residential) and commercial end use for the potential re-use purposes onsite. Exceedances were detected in three samples for six contaminants against the residential end-use criteria as detailed above. No petroleum hydrocarbons, BTEX or MTBE compounds have been identified above either POS or commercial screening criteria.

Suitability of Clean Cover Soils

Following testing and visual inspection , the soils contained within the cover layer of the H5 noise bund are considered to be suitable for their proposed end use.

H5 Noise Bund Depth Validation

BSL attended site between 4th May and 4th June 2021 to undertake depth validations of the noise bund within plot H5. A total of 9 No. pits were excavated at a frequency of 1 per 35m of linear bund length, exceeding the requirements of the Remedial Strategy (1 per 60m of linear bund length).

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


The thickness of the cover system above the warning geotextile exceeded the minimum requirements of the Remedial Strategy in every location along the noise bund and therefore BSL consider the physical build up of the cover system to meet the requirements of the Remedial Strategy.

6.2 Further Remedial Works

The following remedial works are to be completed at a later date and reporting on these will be issued under separate validation reports by others.

Completion of Ground Gas Protection Measures Verification Plan.

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A

Remediation Validation Report D Morgan Plots H3 and H5 at The Airfields, Deeside

DRAWINGS

D MORGAN

SITE LOCATION PLAN

THE AIRFIELDS H3 & H5

CLIENT

PROJECT TITLE

DRAWING TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY CKD

DRAWING No. REVISION SCALE DATE

C4543/01 - NTS 14/08/20

JMC

SITE LOCATION

GRP

NEAREST POSTCODE: CH5 2HW

DER

MAL C

ON

TACT,

ING

ESTIO

N,

INH

ALATION

GL

SOFT LAN

DSC

APING

SWALE

H3 AR

EAH

5 AREA

HEAVY M

ETALS END

-USER

S

PRO

POSED

STRU

CTU

RES

END

-USER

S

PRO

POSED

STRU

CTU

RES

ACC

UM

ULATIO

N O

F G

RO

UN

D G

ASES (C

ARBO

N D

IOXID

E AN

D M

ETHAN

E)

ACC

UM

ULATIO

N O

F G

RO

UN

D G

ASES (R

ADO

N)

ACC

UM

ULATIO

N O

F G

RO

UN

D G

ASES (R

ADO

N)

PATHW

AY BLO

CKED

BY SW

ALE ASBESTOS

DER

MAL C

ON

TACT,

ING

ESTIO

N, IN

HALATIO

ND

ERM

AL CO

NTAC

T, IN

GES

TION

, INH

ALATION

ASBESTOS

Potential Sources

Potential Pathways

Potential Receptors

KEY

PROJECT TITLE

D MO

RGAN

CLIENT

DRAWIN

G TITLE

THE AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

CON

CEPTUAL SITE M

ODEL- H3

and H5

REVDATE

DESCRIPTION

BYCKD

REVISION

CHECKED BY

JMJ DATE

29/04/20DRAW

ING

No.

SCALE

DRAWN

BY

SM

C4543/02N

TS-

D MORGAN

DESCRIPTION CKDBYDATE

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

H7 STOCKPILE SAMPLING PLAN

CLIENT

PROJECT TITLE

DRAWING TITLE

DATESCALEREVISIONDRAWING No.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BYSM

REV

C4543/05

JMJ

- NTS 29/04/21

TS-XX

KEY

SAMPLE LOCATION

APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF VISIBLE ACM FRAGMENTS

TS-10

TS-11

TS-12

TS-13

TS-14

TS-09 TS-07

TS-06

TS-05

TS-03

TS-20

TS-19

TS-15

TS-21

TS-18

TS-16

TS-22

TS-17

TS-04

TS-02

TS-01

ASBESTOS IDENTIFIED IN LABORATORY ANALYSISTS-10B

TS-18B

TS-06B

TS-02B`

TS-04

TS-04B

TS-04B

TS-23TS-24

TS-25

TS-26

TS-27

APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF SOIL REMOVAL FROM THE STOCKPILE

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.05.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.05

.0

5.0

5.05.

0

5.0

5.0 7

.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.5

7.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.5

7.5

7.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.5

7.5

10.0

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.5

7.5

7.5

5.05

.0

5.0

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

Type : Topsoil Stock

Cut volume : -4672m³

Fill volume : 0m³

Net volume : -4672m³

Type : TL15


Fill volume : 0m³


Type : TL10


Fill volume : 0m³


Type : TL40


Fill volume : 0m³


Type : TL35


Fill volume : 0m³


Type : Area 1


Fill volume : 0m³


Type : Area 1


Fill volume : 0m³


Type : Area 1


Fill volume : 0m³


Type : Area 1

Cut volume : 0m³

Fill volume : 0m³

Net volume : 0m³

*** Identical surveys 143.188 m²

Type : Area 1

Cut volume : -89m³

Fill volume : 0m³

Net volume : -89m³



Fill volume : 0m³




Fill volume : 0m³




Fill volume : 871m³

Net volume : 419m³


Cut volume : 0m³

Fill volume : 1068m³

Net volume : 1068m³

H8 N

oise bund

H6/7 N

oise bund

TP301

TP306

Elevated lead contamination

in H6 soils

Elevated Fluoranthene in localised soils in H

6

Elevated Metal in

localised soils in H3

Hydrocarbon contam

inated soils and groundw

ater

Approximate location of the

proposed H4/5 noise bund

H3

H5

H4

H6

H7

H8

H7 Site w

on topsoil stockpile (Approx. 11,000m

3)

Approximate location of hycarbon

soil stockpile from H

3 hotspot

Noise Bunds

Trial Pit

TPXX

JPG G

round Investigation, August 2019

Localised Lead, PAH and

Hycrocarbon contam

ination

JPG G

round Investigation, August 2017

TPXX

CPTXX

Trial Pit

Dynam

ic Cone Penetrom

ter Testing

Former underground Fuel

Tank

KEY

Approximate extent of

asbestos contamination

PROJECT TITLE

D MO

RGAN

CLIENT

DRAWIN

G TITLE AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

REMEDIATIO

N PLAN

REVDATE

DESCRIPTION

BYCKD

REVISION

CHECKED BY

JMJ DATE

28/04/21DRAW

ING

No.

SCALE

DRAWN

BY

SM

C4543/06N

TS-

H-04

5.05.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

SITE BOUNDARY

HC-W1

HC-N

HC-B1

HC-C

HC-B2

HC-S

HC-E2

HC-E1

BH3B

BH2

BH1

SWALE

SWALE

SWALE

BH3A

EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION, OCTOBER 2020

REMEDIAL EXCAVATION, FEBRUARY 2021

H-01

H-03

H-05

H-06

H-08

H-09

H-02

H-07HC-W2

CABLE PERCUSSIVE BOREHOLE (APRIL 2021)BHXX

KEY

VALIDATION SAMPLE (FEBRUARY 2021)

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY

HC-XX

BOREHOLE INSTALLATION

H-XXSAMPLING LOCATION (OCTOBER 2020)

HYDROCARBON HOTSPOT BOUNDARY

H-04HC-W1

HC-N

HC-B1

HC-C

HC-B2

HC-S

HC-E2

HC-E1


H-01

H-03

H-05

H-06

H-08

H-09

H-02

H-07HC-W2 PROJECT TITLE

D MORGANCLIENT

DRAWING TITLE

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE - H3 AREA

H3 HYDROCARBON EXCAVATION & BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN


NOTES

1. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BEFORE COMMENCING WORKS. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT & ENGINEER FOR VERIFICATION. FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE TAKEN FROM THIS DRAWING.

2. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT ENGINEERS REPORTS. THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHT OF BSL.

3. DRAWING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

REVISION

CHECKED BY

JMJ

DATE

14/06/21DRAWING No. SCALE

DRAWN BY

RS

C4543/10 NTS-

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.5

7.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.05.0

H5-9

H5-2

H5-1

H5-4

H5-5

H5-1

H5-8 H5-2

H5-7H5-3

H5-6 H5-4

H5-5 H5-9

H5-10

H5-12

H5-11

H5-10H5-3

Noise Bunds

HX-X

KEY

Depth Validation Locations

Sample LocationsHX-X

PROJECT TITLE

D MORGANCLIENT

DRAWING TITLE

AIRFIELD, DEESIDE

H5 - NOISE BUND VALIDATION PLAN


NOTES




REVISION

CHECKED BY

JMJ

DATE


DRAWN BY

RS

C4543/14 NTS-

5.05.0

5.05.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

TP306

TP204 - TP206 Elevated Lead inlocalised soils in H3

H3

TP123 METALS HOTSPOT EXCAVATION "HOT 2"10.0m X 10.0m X 0.75m HOT2S6

HOT2S3HOT2S4

HOT2S5

TP124 METALS HOTSPOT EXCAVATION "HOT 1"12.0m X 8.3m X 0.75m

HOT2S2

HOT2S1

HOT1S6

HOT1S3HOT1S5

HOT1S1

HOT1S2 HOT1S4

E1,2N1,2

N3E3

E4C1,2S1,2

W1,2

Sample LocationsXX-X

Trial PitTPXX

JPG Ground Investigation, August 2019

Localised Metal Contamination

KEY

PROJECT TITLE

D MORGANCLIENT

DRAWING TITLE

AIRFIELD, DEESIDE

H3 - METAL HOTSPOT SAMPLES LOCATION PLAN


NOTES




REVISION

CHECKED BY

JMJ

DATE


DRAWN BY

RS

C4543/15 NTS-

H5-10-S

H5-10-EX TP8

H5-12-EX

H5-11-EX

H5-09-S

TP7

TP9

H5-5 BUN

TP6

H5-9-EX

H5-4 BUN

TP1

H5-6 BUN

TP5

H5-3 BUN

TP2

H5-7 BUN

H5-2 BUN

TP4

H5-1 BUN

TP3

H5-8 BUN

H5 Plot

H6 Plot

332300E332300E

332400E332400E

332500E332500E

332600E332600E

369600N 369600N

369700N369700N

D Morgan PLCNew Hey

Chester RoadGreat Sutton

Ellesmere Port,CH66 2LSTel. 0151 339 8113Fax. 0151 347 1254 Scale 1:1000

The Airfields - Phase 204/06/21 H5 Bund Testing Locations

J GreevesDM-AP2-AB-37

85

Allotment Gardens

El Sub Sta4

57

13 14

16

2019

911

Garden CityIndustrial Estate

32

Garden CityIndustrial Estate

1012

1322

27

31

BH101

BH102

TP117TP118

BH108

BH109

BH111

BH104BH110

TP103

TP106

TP107

TP110

TP119

TP120

TP121TP123

TP124

TP109

TP122

TP115

TP116BH107

TP112

TP113

TP111

BH106

TP104

TP102

TP101

TP108

BH103

TP126

TP125

BH112BH105

CPT103

CPT104

CPT105

CPT106

A

A'B'

B

C

C'

D

D'

E E'

F

F'

194.677

284.738

Level at Apexof Hangar 16.57

194.677

284.738

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

5.5

5.5

5.5

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.0

6.0

7.0

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5 4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

7.0

7.0

28A4.516

WA15.026

WA24.498

194.677

TC34.709

P19

P16

P18

4.65

4.48

4.81

Unable tolocate BH3

508

550

600

65070075

0

800

850

900

937

EXCAVATE 10m x 10m x 0.75mAND REMOVE. EXCAVATED SOIL MATERIAL TOBE PLACED UNDER LANDSCAPING BUND.

EXCAVATE 12m x 8.3m x 0.75mAND REMOVE. EXCAVATED SOIL MATERIALTO BE PLACED UNDER LANDSCAPING BUND.

OVER EXCAVATE 1m IN ADDITION TO THE FINISHEDLEVELS DETAILED SEPARATELY. EXCAVATED SOILMATERIAL TO BE PLACED UNDER LANDSCAPINGBUND. PLACE AND COMPACT 150mm HARDCORENO DIG LAYER. RE-FILL FURTHER 850mm BACK TOFINISHED LEVEL. MATERIAL AND COMPACTION ASDETAILED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATION.

KEY

TRIAL PIT

CABLE PERCUSSIVE BOREHOLEBH101

TP101

CPT102CONE PENETRATION TEST

SITE BOUNDARY

P01 FIRST ISSUE. 28.04.20 RMR

P02 CONTAMINATED FILL ANNOTATIONNOTE UPDATEDREVISION CLOUDED

29.04.20 RMR

REV DESCRIPTION DATE BY

Project

Architect

Checked

DO NOT SCALEN O T E S

©

Date Drawn

Drawing Title

JPG Project Ref

S2

THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF JPG (LEEDS) LIMITEDREGISTERED IN ENGLAND No 4274608. COPYRIGHT RESERVED

I N F O R M A T I O N I S S U E

w w w . j p g . g r o u pLeeds 0113 263 1155BirminghamLondon

Scale at A0

PLOT H3 & H5THE AIRFIELDSDEESIDE

REMEDIAL GROUNDWORKS

4671 1:500 28.04.20 RMR RMR

P024671 - JPG - SW - XX - DR - G - 1106

NOTESURVEY OF BURIED SERVICES CARRIED OUT BYAVOIN MAA SURVEYS (FEB 2020)

STOCKPILE

THIS DRAWING IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSESONLY. ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP TOCOMPLY WITH THE LATEST RELEVANT STANDARDSAND BEST PRACTICE. CLIENT AND CONTRACTORTO OBTAIN ALL LICENSES AND APPROVALS FROMRELEVANT AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO ANYCONSTRUCTION WORKS ON SITE

NOTE SHOULD TREES BE LOCATED ON THEPROPOSED BUND CLIENT TO DISCUSS ANDAGREE ALL DETAILS WITH TERRACONSULT,GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND RELEVANTAUTHORITIES

WIDTH VARIES. REFER TO ARCHITECTS LAYOUT

EXTG. GL (VARIES. REFER TOTOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY)

PROP. TOP OF BUND GL (VARIES. REFERTO PROPOSED LEVELS DRAWING)

1:2.51:2.5

150mm MIN. TOPSOIL

PROPOSED TREE PIT. FOR DETAILS REFERTO BARNES WALKER DRAWINGS.LARGEST TREE PIT TO BE 1000x1000x700DEEP AS INDICATED BELOW.

750mm OF CLEAN COVER MATERIAL TO BEPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SITESPECIFIC PROJECT SPECIFICATION


PROPOSED TREE PIT. ALL DETAILS TBC BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. DIMENSIONSASSUMED ON THIS DRAWING

150mm MIN. TOPSOIL

NO TREES WILL BE PLANTED ON THIS SIDEOF THE PROPOSED BUND

FILL MATERIAL WITH UNDEFINED ASBESTOSCONTENT WITHIN SOIL MATRIX TO BELOCATED UNDER THE PROPOSED BUND. ALLDETAILS OF BUILD UP METHODOLOGY ANDENCAPSULATION TO BE CONFIRMED BYTERRACONSULT

0.75 MIN

.

0.75 MIN.

SEPARATION MEMBRANE TO SPECIALISTREQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATION.ALL DETAILS TBC BY TERRACONSULT


TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH PROPOSED BUND - H5SCALE 1:25NOTE SHOULD TREES BE LOCATED ON THE

PROPOSED BUND CLIENT TO DISCUSS ANDAGREE ALL DETAILS WITH TERRACONSULT,GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND RELEVANTAUTHORITIES

0.15 MIN

. 0.15

MIN

.

PROP. GL 6.081

VA

RIES

2.6

APP

ROX.

0.75

MIN

.

0.50

NOISEWALL ACOUSTIC FENCEPANNELS TO BE 1.4m HIGH 2mON TOP OF BUND

FENCE SET 300mm WIDE 75mm DEEP BASEOF 20mm (NO FINES GRAVEL), SETBETWEEN 25mm WIDE TIMBER BOARDS

GRAVEL RAIL

1.00

0.50

0.15

0.50

0.15

0.50

500x500 DP. FREE DRAINING20-50 AGGREGATEWRAPPED IN TERRAM 1000.

500x150 DP. PEA GRAVEL.


500x150 DP. PEA GRAVEL.LIMIT OF FUTURE PUBLIC

HIGHWAY CSR 3.

MOUND INFILL TO BE BENCHED INTOCLASS 1. FILL BENCHING NOT TOEXCEED 600 x 300 DP. INTO 1:2 FACE.

1:2.0 1:1.0

SITE STRIP LEVEL.

CLASS 1 GRANULAR FILL.

NOTE - LENGTH OF MOUNDFOR ASSESSMENT OF CHANGEORDER REQUEST IS 260m

WIDTH VARIES. REFER TO ARCHITECTS LAYOUT

EXTG. GL (VARIES. REFER TOTOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY)

PROP. TOP OF BUND GL (VARIES. REFERTO PROPOSED LEVELS DRAWING)

1:2.51:2.5

150mm MIN. TOPSOIL

PROPOSED TREE PIT. FOR DETAILS REFERTO BARNES WALKER DRAWINGS.LARGEST TREE PIT TO BE 1000x1000x700DEEP AS INDICATED BELOW.




150mm MIN. TOPSOIL

NO TREES WILL BE PLANTED ON THIS SIDEOF THE PROPOSED BUND

FILL MATERIAL WITH UNDEFINED ASBESTOSCONTENT WITHIN SOIL MATRIX TO BELOCATED UNDER THE PROPOSED BUND. ALLDETAILS OF BUILD UP METHODOLOGY ANDENCAPSULATION TO BE CONFIRMED BYTERRACONSULT

0.75 MIN

.

0.75 MIN.

SEPARATION MEMBRANE TO SPECIALISTREQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATION.ALL DETAILS TBC BY TERRACONSULT


TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH PROPOSED BUND - H6, H7 & H8SCALE 1:25

0.15 MIN

. 0.15

MIN

.

PROP. GL 6.081

VA

RIES

2.6

APP

ROX.

0.75

MIN

.

0.50

NOISEWALL ACOUSTIC FENCEPANNELS TO BE 1.4m HIGH 2mON TOP OF BUND

FENCE SET 300mm WIDE 75mm DEEP BASEOF 20mm (NO FINES GRAVEL), SETBETWEEN 25mm WIDE TIMBER BOARDS

GRAVEL RAIL

0.50

0.15

0.50

0.15

0.50





0.75 MIN.

REV DESCRIPTION DATE BY

Project

Architect

Checked

DO NOT SCALEN O T E S

©

Date Drawn

Drawing Title

JPG Project Ref

THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF JPG (LEEDS) LIMITEDREGISTERED IN ENGLAND No 4274608. COPYRIGHT RESERVED

S4

w w w . j p g . g r o u pLeeds 0113 263 1155BirminghamLondon

Scale at A1

THE AIRFIELDS

TYPICAL SECTION THROUGHPROPOSED BUND

4671 1:25 AUG 19 GB IB

H4671-2-EW3

GENERAL NOTES

1. ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP IS TO COMPLY WITH JPGCONSULTANTS STANDARD SPECIFICATION & ALL RELEVANTBRITISH & EUROPEAN STANDARDS.

2. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALLRELEVANT ARCHITECTS, M & E CONSULTANTS AND JPGCONSULTANTS DRAWINGS.

3. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEERIMMEDIATELY SO THAT CLARIFICATION CAN BE SOUGHT PRIORTO COMMENCEMENT OF WORKS.

A FIRST ISSUE 05.09.19 IB

B ACOUSTIC FENCE AND RISING MAINADDED TO BUND CROSS SECTION.

20.11.19 WJB

C SERIES 600 SPECIFICATION NOTE &RISING MAIN REMOVED FROMDRAWING

15.01.20 WJB

D STATUS AMENDED TO CONTRACT 25.08.20 LSG

E FILTER DRAIN REVISIED AND CLASS 1FILL ADDED.

03.09.20 JAC

F NOTE ADDED. 10/09/20 JAC

G TREE PIT DETAILS UPDATED. 16/09/20 JAC

H ANNOTATIONS UPDATED 04.11.20 RMR

SM/C4543/10175

Remediation Validation Report D Morgan

Plots H3 and H5 at The Airfields, Deeside

APPENDIX A Human Health Remedial Targets

�

�

��

��

�� !�"!�#$�%�"&�!"�"'(&�)� ��*%(+�)�),�(%�"�-*��"�"'(&�)� ��( !��#�)��!�!'��"(&%.��#)�!�"!�)�*%�(%�!(��!'�%��-*(%!�!�(#�!(�!'��"& /�.!�"�!��(%�%�0&"��(#�"�!��(1�(%�$�#��"��%�2��"�*(""� ��3��

4'��1%�5&�#.2��#)�".(*��(1�!�"!�#$�6��+�%2�)�*�#)�#$�(#�!'��"(&%.�,�!'��%�5&�%�)�!�"!�#$�1(%�*(""� ��"(&%.�"��"�*%(+�)�)� ��(63�4'�"��%�!�"��%�� "�)�(#�*%(1�""�(#��/&)$�-�#!��#)��..�*!�#.��(1�"�-��%�.%�!�%��&"�)�(#�"�-��%�"�!�"�!(�!'��"�!�"1�.!�(#�(1�!'��(.��%�$&��!(%2��&!'(%�!23��"&�!"�"'(&�)� ��.(-*�%�)�!(�!'��..�*!�#.��.%�!�%��"(�6�!'�!'�"��**�#)�73��

��8�� 9��:��;��<�=��>��

?� @� A� B� C� D�

9��

E%��#1��)�F(&%.��#.�&)�#$�F�!��G(#��H4(*�IJJ--K�

L�*�%�LJJJ-M�N� � � � � � �

O%(6#1��)P��.2.��)�F(&%.��#.�&)�#$�F�!��G(#�H4(*�IJJ--KNN�

L�*�%�QJJ-M�NN� � � � � � �

��R��

E%��#1��)�F(&%.��H4(*�IJJ--KN�

L�*�%�LJJJ-M�N��

O%(6#1��)P��.2.��)�F(&%.��H4(*�IJJ--KNN�

L�*�%�QJJ-MNN��

F�!��G(#��H4(*�IJJ--KNN�

L�*�%�QJJ-MNN��

S�%"!�E�#�%�!�(#��H�3�3�5&�%%��)�"�#)K�

T(�!�"!�#$�%�5&�%�)3�U�%!�1�.�!��(1�-�!�%��*%(+�#�#.��"�%�5&�%�)3�

��<��V��W�X��

S�%"!�E�#�%�!�(#��H�3�3�5&�%%��)�"!(#�K�

T(�!�"!�#$�%�5&�%�)3�U�%!�1�.�!��(1�-�!�%��*%(+�#�#.��"�%�5&�%�)3�

F�!��E�#�%�!�)�P�Y-*(%!�)�ISZ� L�*�%�QJJ-MNN��

[��:��==�

F�!��E�#�%�!�)�P�Y-*(%!�)�ISZ� L�*�%�LJJJ-MNN��

F�!��G(#�\�)��E%(&#)� L�*�%�LJJJ-MNN��

F�!��G(#�T�!&%��]%�"�#$"�(#�O%(6#1��)�F�!��

L�*�%�LQJJ-MNN��

F�!��G�#�T�!&%��]%�"�#$"�(#�E%��#1��)�F�!��

L�*�%�ZJJJ-MN��

��

\�!��"�_(!"*(!��)�!�(#�

L�"�-*��*�%�ZJ-�(1��#��%��7.�+�!�(#�!(�"�)�6��#)�QJ-Z� �"�3�H-�#�-&-�(1�Q�"�-*��"�*�%��7.�+�!�(#K�

� � � � � �

]" �"!("�F.%��#�1(%�"(��"�!(� ��*��.�)� �#��!'�#(�"�� &#)�

L�!�"!�*�%�QJJ-M�(1�-�!�%��

��

�

�

�� !�"!��#�$!�"!�%&$&�'�� #�()��$**��+��,�'��-��"�.��/�� 0��1�'��"!��*��&� �*$'.�.�'��#. �$��2$��%3�4�56)��&$&�'�*#��$'��7��.�� 8�&��$'"2'��"'*#�&��%9:5�;(&��&)��$�'�$�<��!�&&�� *4=�>��?@A @�B@�C��D�EF�G��E��H��BE��F � H� FIJ�K��LMN�?E��O@�@��1*��&� �P$&�'�3�&�$'�"!�4. �$��2$��%P34��QR)��'" ��<�SP;T�� -PS;=�U��VWX�?E��O@�@��Y$'�&�'��Z�<��$!*$"� ��%YZ��)�2.�R�[-1�%�(�P\�)=�]��VWX�?E��O@�@��1�!�[Y$'�&�'��Z�<��$!*$"� ��%1YZ��)�2.�R�[-1�%�(�P\�)=��V�@��CE@_ H��BE��BE�@�� @Ha E�Eb��Ba�VWX��@�Eb�H��Aa�� F�MC�J�c��d�E�e�e�B��K�@�e_� @�_ a�@B�aH J�cc�LB�A ��@ F��F _�f@�ghhe�Ab��Ba�A �Bi�A��F�Ebjf�aF@��EF�EbJ�

Lf �� @��Eb�@fB��F�A ��EF a��k E��lm?��HHa F�� F��ABa��BaO��EF�A �dXnoL��HHa F�� F��EF��a @��@�@fB��F�A �A �Bi� p�@��Eb�a @�F E��b��F ��E �q�� @�if�Hf��a �_a @ E� F��E�?__ EF�p�?J��

r�s��tuvwxy��tu�

Lf ��ABq �@_ H��H��BE��@��B�F � ae�E ��e�� a��@�Hf e�H��O�H� �Ez��Ba�@��A��O��@��baBi�Eb�e F��e�a � a EH �@fB��F�A �e�F ��B�K{{>|>h�]�_ H��H��BE��Ba�LB_@B��EF��{h�|>h�K�_ H��H��BE��Ba��A@B��EF�o }��a e E�@��Ba�l@ J��CE��FF��BE��B��f ��ABq �@�e_��Eb��a }� EH� @��EF�� @��Ebz��e_Ba� F��B_@B��j@�A@B��@fB��F��@B�HBE��ae��B��f ��B��Bi�Eb�Ha�� a��|�

~�N�q ��e�p�e�e�@�BE �@�� B��]eeJ�

~� �H� �E��EF��a �B��Ba �bE�F Aa�@��EH��F�Eb�A��F�Eb�i�@� �e�� a��@�Ba�HBE��e�E�E�@� JbJ�Aa�Hkz�b��@@z��@A @�B@��EF�_��@� aAB�aFz� �HJ��

�Ba��e_Ba� F�@B��@z��__aBq��@fB��F�A �BA��E F��aBe��f ��BH��?��fBa��O�_a�Ba��B��e_Ba��Eb��B�@�� J�

wt��x��v��x��y�u��yxtu�t��v��t��u��

CE��FF��BE��B��f ��ABq �@�e_��Eb��a }� EH� @��EF�� @��Eb��Ba�a ��@ �B��f�aFHBa jHBEHa � �D�a�F �I�BE��f �@�� B��Ba�b�Ez��_aB_B@ @��f ��B��Bi�Eb��E@_ H��BE�Ha�� a��|�

~��B�q�@��HBE��e�E��BE�DB��@��E�Eb� �HIJ�

~��e�� F�F � � a�B�@�e�� a��DBab�E�H@z�iBBFz� �HIJ�

~��e�� F�e ��J�

~��B�q�@�A� ��@A @�B@�HBE��E�Eb�e�� a��D?XdIJ�

~�G��E��A� �?@A @�B@��Ba��hJhh��iji�J��

MaBF�H��BE�B��a�F ��e�� a��@�@fB��F�A �FBE ��EF a��o?M�}��O�_aB�BHB�@�Ba�@�e��aJ��CE@_ H��BE@��EF�@�e_��Eb�iB��F�E F��B�A �H�aa� F�B��AO��}�� F�b B� Eq�aBEe E�� Eb�E aJ��Ba�b B� HfE�H��_ a�Bae�EH z�a � a EH �@fB��F�A �e�F ��B� a� @�hh�n�a�fiBak@��F�EH J�

C��f ��ABq �Ha�� a��Ba��@A @�B@��@� pH F Fz��f E��a�f a�HBE@�F a��BE��EF��@@ @@e E��i��A �a }��a FJ��Bak@�iB��F�E F��B�A ��EF a��k E��E�HBe_��EH �i��f��f �XBE�aB��B��?@A @�B@�o b��BE@�DX?oI�>h�>��EF��E�?@A @�B@�M��E�B��Bak@�e�O�A �a }��a FJ�

�

�

��

�� !��"��#��$��$�� "��%��&��$��$��'��&��$��#��'��"��'��#��'��(��#��%��

)*�+��+�),�-�.��/,��

01234#��'��(��#��%56��%�7��'��8��$��9:;<=��$��>��!��$��?@A3B4CDE3B4 ��%��'��%��$��$��!�� '��%��!��$��"��'��(��#��%5&��%��'��'��#��'��'��%��(��#��%56��%�7��'��

FF

��

�� !

"��#� $�� %��

�&'�()� *��+ ,-./- 01 (2 13 412 5(2 412

�&'�()� 67,��, ,-./- 44 89 4:2 90: 432 90:�&'�()� 6;��,��,<===> ,-./- 342 342 4922 00222 8522 00222�&'�()� 6;��,��,<?=> ,-./- 5 5 1@1 ::2 00 ::2�&'�()� 6�AA�� ,-./- :(22 1422 4:222 ((222 58222 ((2226(�� 7 ,-./- :42 002 152 4(22 :022 4(22�&'�()� '��+��BCD��,�� 7� ,-./- 4@: 4@: 45 02 98 02�&'�()� E�+/�� ,-./- 402 482 :02 822 382 822�&'�()� ��, ,-./- :92 (02 4422 4822 4:222 4822�&'�()� F��+ ,-./- 0122 (2222 84222 412222 102222 412222�&'�()� G;��< � 7�> ,-./- :82 192 152 152 152 152�&'�()� *+��7A; ;�� ,-./- :42 0222 49222 :3222 8(222 :3222�&'�()� *+��7A; ;B�� ,-./- 412 :322 49222 :3222 80222 :3222�&'�()� *� ;�7+�� ,-./- :(22 04222 1(222 492222 9:2222 492222�&'�()� ��H<7>7� ;�7+�� ,-./- 1@: 44 :3 (3 412 (3�&'�()�.IDJK*6(�� H�<7>AB�� ,-./- :@: 0@: 9@1 44 09 44�&'�()� ��H�<L>��7� ;�� ,-./- :@5 0@3 1@4 40 (( 40�&'�()� ��H�<-;�>A��B�� ,-./- 0:2 052 5(2 4(22 0322 4(22�&'�()� ��H�</>��7� ;�� ,-./- 11 442 432 012 4:22 012�&'�()� 6;�B�� ,-./- 49 02 91 30 092 30�&'�()� I�L��H<7C;>7� ;�7+�� ,-./- 2@:( 2@04 2@91 4@4 0@9 4@4�&'�()� J��7� ;�� ,-./- :82 4922 0422 5022 :0222 5022�&'�()� J�� ,-./- 412 :822 3322 :2222 50222 :2222�&'�()� =��<4C:C0C+>AB�� ,-./- :1 (9 8: 492 922 492�&'�()� E7A; ;7�� ,-./- :@0 :@0 (322 4:22 432 4:22�&'�()� G;��7� ;�� ,-./- 39 4022 0422 5:22 ::222 5:22�&'�()� GB�� ,-./- 5:2 0122 1(22 49222 9(222 49222�&'�()� MGN*��A;7 �+D69O5P ,-./- (: (: 912222 39222 0:22 39222�&'�()� MGN*��A;7 �+D65O8P ,-./- 422 422 522222 492222 1822 492222�&'�()� MGN*��A;7 �+D68O42P ,-./- :1 :1 40222 4(222 :222 4(222�&'�()� MGN*��A;7 �+D642O4:P ,-./- 402 402 40222 :4222 3122 :4222�&'�()� MGN*��A;7 �+D64:O45P ,-./- 4422 4422 40222 :9222 93222 :9222�&'�()� MGN*��A;7 �+D645O09P ,-./- 59222 59222 :92222 (92222 4522222 (92222�&'�()� MGN*��A;7 �+D609O((P ,-./- 59222 59222 :92222 (92222 4522222 (92222�&'�()� MGN*��,7 �+D69O1P ,-./- 12 012 95222 15222 :5222 15222�&'�()� MGN*��,7 �+D61O8P ,-./- 402 852 95222 81222 95222 81222�&'�()� MGN*��,7 �+D68O42P ,-./- 0( (1 9222 1:22 0922 1:22�&'�()� MGN*��,7 �+D642O4:P ,-./- 1( :92 9222 3:22 45222 3:22�&'�()� MGN*��,7 �+D64:O45P ,-./- 4(2 4822 9422 42222 05222 42222�&'�()� MGN*��,7 �+D645O:4P ,-./- :52 4322 0822 1522 :8222 1522�&'�()� MGN*��,7 �+D6:4O09P ,-./- 4422 4322 0822 1822 :8222 1822�&'�()� MGN*��,7 �+D609O((P ,-./- 4422 4322 0822 1822 :8:22 1822�&'�()� ��H�� ,-./- 2@281 2@08 1: 32 :1 32�&'�()� M�� ,-./- 402 882 95222 81222 95222 81222�&'�()� D ;B��H�� ,-./- (1 80 :(222 41222 9122 41222�&'�()� QB��O� ,-./- 52 88 (4222 41222 5522 41222�&'�()� QB��O, ,-./- 93 8: (4222 41222 5:22 41222�&'�()� QB��OA ,-./- 95 13 (4222 41222 9322 412226�R*=KD:242 'M�D<,� ;B� �� OL� B�� ;��> ,-./- (3 (3 (3 (3 1322 (3E* *�L�� <E�S��7�*6'> T�.� E��I� �+ � U2@224T E��I� �+ � V2@224 E��I� �+ � �� AN ��088: AN)�� 9O8@: E* 9O8@: E* 9O8@: E*

�&'.6=DN�()��+�AB��-; �7�&�7�� B'7�7�-,�� ,� ��A��+�� ;A��,��WG�L��+7 ��E�,L��()�0:01@*��-; ��S�@

��&'.6=DN�()��N�,7�N�7� ;K��/*��,�� +�,�� -7��-��S7 ��@

��X�!��$��Y�!��

��Z[\\\��

]"��_��!��Y��X�

]"��a�b[c"de

��X�!��$��Y�!��

��X$��#��

b[c"de

*��7��-6(9(0.2(K�S*G�� I�S��A,�� *�L�� 6�'@

*�� L�� 7/��LB7)f*��7L��7 ��B;��-7++��7 �� ;��S7� �� @

*��,A�� ,7 ��7� �;7S�+;�,�+7�+��+�� 7 �� ;7� ;�7L�S��S�� ;�� C�� ; ;��g+�A ��AN�;�+;��7�7�-�@

h� ��X�!��i��

j��!�kl\\��m�$��Y�!��

��X��!��

_�� _��#��

b[c"de

h� ��X�!��i��

j��!�Zl\\��m�n�!��

��_��

�� _��#��

b[c�"de

h� ��X�!��]"��!m�

$��Y�!��X�

]"��!��b[c"de

6�� 7��G*N7�MGN7��,��7��o'��4T@

h� ��X�!��$��

Y�!��X�

]"��a�b[c"de

P��,7 ��g�;��+�� 7��A��+ @

M�� L�A��S�� ;��-��A�� A�7+��-��C�;��7AA��A��7 �@

K�S��o+ �L��:241

SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


APPENDIX B Chemical Testing Results

Element Materials Technology P: +44 (0) 1244 833780

Unit 3 Deeside Point F: +44 (0) 1244 833781

Zone 3

Deeside Industrial Park W: www.element.com

Deeside

CH5 2UA

Brownfield Solutions Limited

Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :

Date samples received :

Status :

Issue :

Senior Project Manager

1

Thirteen samples were received for analysis on 9th September, 2020 of which thirteen were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied. ẇAll analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.

Authorised By:

Phil Sommerton BSc

Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced

173-183 Witton StreetẇNorthwichẇCheshireẇCW9 5LP

Tim Mayall

10th September, 2020

C4543

Test Report 20/12079 Batch 1

The Airfields Deeside

9th September, 2020

Final report

Element Materials Technology Environmental UK LimitedRegistered in England and WalesRegistered Office: 10 Lower Grosvenor Place, London, SW1W 0ENCompany Registration No: 11371415 1 of 12

Client Name: Report : Solid

Reference:

Location: Solids: V=60g VOC jar, J=250g glass jar, T=plastic tubContact:

EMT Job No: 20/12079

EMT Sample No. 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30

Sample ID HOT1S1 HOT1S2 HOT1S3 HOT1S4 HOT1S5 HOT1S6 HOT1S7 HOT2S1 HOT2S2 HOT2S3

Depth 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.80 0.30 0.50

COC No / misc

Containers V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Sample Date 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020

Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020

Arsenic # 5.7 8.1 6.5 5.2 6.3 5.2 - 4.6 5.8 4.9 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Cadmium # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.9 7.3 - <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Chromium # 54.7 54.0 57.8 65.8 58.5 56.9 - 59.6 59.7 66.1 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Copper # 5 10 7 8 13 12 - 5 9 7 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Lead # 13 49 22 35 58 196 - 13 31 19 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Mercury # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Nickel # 7.7 12.7 9.8 10.0 12.2 10.1 - 8.6 11.0 10.3 <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Selenium # <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Zinc # 30 57 31 139 158 1052 - 23 54 38 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Arsenic - - - - - - 16.3 - - - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Cadmium - - - - - - 1.5 - - - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Chromium - - - - - - 46.7 - - - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Copper - - - - - - 109 - - - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Lead - - - - - - 214 - - - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Mercury - - - - - - <0.1 - - - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Nickel - - - - - - 44.0 - - - <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Selenium - - - - - - <1 - - - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Zinc - - - - - - 349 - - - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

PAH MS

Naphthalene # - - - - - - <0.40AA - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthylene - - - - - - <0.30AA - - - <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthene # - - - - - - <0.50AA - - - <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluorene # - - - - - - <0.40AA - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Phenanthrene # - - - - - - 7.11AA - - - <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Anthracene # - - - - - - 1.66AA - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluoranthene # - - - - - - 25.74AA - - - <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Pyrene # - - - - - - 21.99AA - - - <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)anthracene # - - - - - - 12.20AA - - - <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Chrysene # - - - - - - 14.40AA - - - <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene # - - - - - - 28.33AA - - - <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)pyrene # - - - - - - 14.97AA - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Indeno(123cd)pyrene - - - - - - 11.38AA - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # - - - - - - 1.59AA - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(ghi)perylene # - - - - - - 9.17AA - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 16 Total - - - - - - 148.5AA - - - <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene - - - - - - 20.40AA - - - <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(k)fluoranthene - - - - - - 7.93AA - - - <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH Surrogate % Recovery - - - - - - 98AA - - - <0 % TM4/PM8

Total Phenols HPLC - - - - - - <0.15 - - - <0.15 mg/kg TM26/PM21

Natural Moisture Content 13.6 15.1 11.3 15.5 15.3 13.5 12.3 16.3 13.9 22.4 <0.1 % PM4/PM0

The Airfields DeesideTim Mayall

Please see attached notes for all abbreviations and acronyms

LOD/LOR Units MethodNo.

Element Materials Technology

Brownfield Solutions LimitedC4543

QF-PM 3.1.2 v11Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced

All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 2 of 12


Reference:



EMT Sample No. 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30

Sample ID HOT1S1 HOT1S2 HOT1S3 HOT1S4 HOT1S5 HOT1S6 HOT1S7 HOT2S1 HOT2S2 HOT2S3

Depth 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.80 0.30 0.50

COC No / misc

Containers V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T V J T

Sample Date 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020


Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020

Hexavalent Chromium # <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 mg/kg TM38/PM20

Chromium III - - - - - - 46.7 - - - <0.5 mg/kg NONE/NONE

Free Cyanide - - - - - - <0.5 - - - <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Total Cyanide # - - - - - - 1.3 - - - <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Organic Matter - - - - - - NDP - - - <0.2 % TM21/PM24

pH # 8.55 8.50 8.47 8.71 8.95 9.12 8.13 8.70 9.11 8.20 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11



Brownfield Solutions LimitedC4543The Airfields DeesideTim Mayall





Reference:



EMT Sample No. 31-33 34-36 37-39

Sample ID HOT2S4 HOT2S5 HOT2S6

Depth 0.80 0.30 0.40

COC No / misc

Containers V J T V J T V J T

Sample Date 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020

Sample Type Soil Soil Soil

Batch Number 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020

Arsenic # 4.6 14.0 7.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Cadmium # <0.1 0.5 0.6 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Chromium # 65.8 64.5 56.4 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Copper # 5 17 11 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Lead # 8 112 57 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Mercury # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Nickel # 8.0 18.9 14.4 <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Selenium # <1 <1 1 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Zinc # 20 201 99 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Arsenic - - - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Cadmium - - - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Chromium - - - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Copper - - - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Lead - - - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Mercury - - - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Nickel - - - <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Selenium - - - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Zinc - - - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

PAH MS

Naphthalene # - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthylene - - - <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthene # - - - <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluorene # - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Phenanthrene # - - - <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Anthracene # - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluoranthene # - - - <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Pyrene # - - - <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)anthracene # - - - <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Chrysene # - - - <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene # - - - <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)pyrene # - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Indeno(123cd)pyrene - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(ghi)perylene # - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 16 Total - - - <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene - - - <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(k)fluoranthene - - - <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH Surrogate % Recovery - - - <0 % TM4/PM8

Total Phenols HPLC - - - <0.15 mg/kg TM26/PM21

Natural Moisture Content 16.7 35.3 14.7 <0.1 % PM4/PM0

The Airfields DeesideTim Mayall








Reference:



EMT Sample No. 31-33 34-36 37-39

Sample ID HOT2S4 HOT2S5 HOT2S6

Depth 0.80 0.30 0.40

COC No / misc

Containers V J T V J T V J T

Sample Date 08/09/2020 08/09/2020 08/09/2020


Batch Number 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 09/09/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020

Hexavalent Chromium # <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 mg/kg TM38/PM20

Chromium III - - - <0.5 mg/kg NONE/NONE

Free Cyanide - - - <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Total Cyanide # - - - <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Organic Matter - - - <0.2 % TM21/PM24

pH # 8.73 7.25 8.40 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11







Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

EMTJob No.

Batch DepthEMT

Sample No.

Date Of Analysis Analysis Result

20/12079 1 0.40 21 09/09/2020 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil/stones

09/09/2020 Asbestos Fibres Fibre Bundles

09/09/2020 Asbestos Fibres (2) Fibre Bundles


09/09/2020 Asbestos ACM Asbestos Cement

09/09/2020 Asbestos ACM (2) ACM Debris


09/09/2020 Asbestos Type Chrysotile

09/09/2020 Asbestos Type (2) Amosite

09/09/2020 Asbestos Type (3) Chrysotile

09/09/2020 Asbestos Level Screen Asbestos level cannot be determined from Screen. Quantification required.

10/09/2020 Total ACM Gravimetric Quantification (% Asb) 7.761 (mass %)

10/09/2020 Total Detailed Gravimetric Quantification (% Asb) 0.005 (mass %)

10/09/2020 Total Gravimetric Quantification (ACM + Detailed) (% Asb) 7.766 (mass %)

Sample ID

HOT1S7

Asbestos Screen analysis is carried out in accordance with our documented in-house methods PM042 and TM065 and HSG 248 by Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy using Dispersion Staining Techniques and is covered by our UKAS accreditation. Detailed Gravimetric Quantification and PCOM Fibre Analysis is carried out in accordance with our documented in-house methods PM042 and TM131 and HSG 248 using Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy and Phase Contrast Optical Microscopy (PCOM). Samples are retained for not less than 6 months from the date of analysis unless specifically requested.

Opinions, including ACM type and Asbestos level less than 0.1%, lie outside the scope of our UKAS accreditation.

Where the sample is not taken by a Element Materials Technology consultant, Element Materials Technology cannot be responsible for inaccurate or unrepresentative sampling.

Element Materials Technology Asbestos Analysis


QF-PM 3.1.15 v10 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 6 of 12

NDP Reason Report

Matrix : Solid

EMTJob No.

Batch DepthEMT

Sample No.

Method No. NDP Reason

20/12079 1 0.40 19-21 TM21/PM24 Asbestos detected in sample

Location: The Airfields DeesideContact: Tim Mayall

Sample ID

HOT1S7


Client Name: Brownfield Solutions LimitedReference: C4543


Notification of Deviating Samples

EMTJob No.

Batch DepthEMT

Sample No.

Analysis Reason

Please note that only samples that are deviating are mentioned in this report. If no samples are listed it is because none were deviating.

Only analyses which are accredited are recorded as deviating if set criteria are not met.


C4543The Airfields DeesideTim MayallContact:

Sample ID

Client Name: Brownfield Solutions LimitedReference:

Location:

No deviating sample report results for job 20/12079


EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE

NOTES TO ACCOMPANY ALL SCHEDULES AND REPORTS

20/12079

Please note we are only MCERTS accredited (UK soils only) for sand, loam and clay and any other matrix is outside our scope of accreditation.

Where an MCERTS report has been requested, you will be notified within 48 hours of any samples that have been identified as being outside ourMCERTS scope. As validation has been performed on clay, sand and loam, only samples that are predominantly these matrices, or combinationsof them will be within our MCERTS scope. If samples are not one of a combination of the above matrices they will not be marked as MCERTSaccredited.It is assumed that you have taken representative samples on site and require analysis on a representative subsample. Stones will generally beincluded unless we are requested to remove them.

All samples will be discarded one month after the date of reporting, unless we are instructed to the contrary.

If you have not already done so, please send us a purchase order if this is required by your company.

Where appropriate please make sure that our detection limits are suitable for your needs, if they are not, please notify us immediately.

All analysis is reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Limits of detection for analyses carried out on as received samples are notmoisture content corrected. Results are not surrogate corrected. Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C unless otherwise stated. Moisture content forCEN Leachate tests are dried at 105°C ±5°C.

Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.

Where a CEN 10:1 ZERO Headspace VOC test has been carried out, a 10:1 ratio of water to wet (as received) soil has been used.

% Asbestos in Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) is determined by reference to HSG 264 The Survey Guide - Appendix 2 : ACMs in buildings listed in order of ease of fibre release.

Sufficient amount of sample must be received to carry out the testing specified. Where an insufficient amount of sample has been received the testing may not meet the requirements of our accredited methods, as such accreditation may be removed.

Negative Neutralization Potential (NP) values are obtained when the volume of NaOH (0.1N) titrated (pH 8.3) is greater than the volume of HCl (1N) to reduce the pH of the sample to 2.0 - 2.5. Any negative NP values are corrected to 0.

The calculation of Pyrite content assumes that all oxidisable sulphides present in the sample are pyrite. This may not be the case. The calculation may be an overesitimate when other sulphides such as Barite (Barium Sulphate) are present.

WATERS

Please note we are not a UK Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) Approved Laboratory .ISO17025 accreditation applies to surface water and groundwater and usually one other matrix which is analysis specific, any other liquids areoutside our scope of accreditation.As surface waters require different sample preparation to groundwaters the laboratory must be informed of the water type when submitting samples.


All samples should be submitted to the laboratory in suitable containers with sufficient ice packs to sustain an appropriate temperature for therequested analysis. The temperature of sample receipt is recorded on the confirmation schedules in order that the client can make an informeddecision as to whether testing should still be undertaken.

Surrogate compounds are added during the preparation process to monitor recovery of analytes. However low recovery in soils is often due to peat,clay or other organic rich matrices. For waters this can be due to oxidants, surfactants, organic rich sediments or remediation fluids. Acceptablelimits for most organic methods are 70 - 130% and for VOCs are 50 - 150%. When surrogate recoveries are outside the performance criteria butthe associated AQC passes this is assumed to be due to matrix effect. Results are not surrogate corrected.

A dilution suffix indicates a dilution has been performed and the reported result takes this into account. No further calculation is required.

Where analytes have been found in the blank, the sample will be treated in accordance with our laboratory procedure for dealing with contaminatedblanks.

Data is only reported if the laboratory is confident that the data is a true reflection of the samples analysed. Data is only reported as accredited whenall the requirements of our Quality System have been met. In certain circumstances where all the requirements of the Quality System have not beenmet, for instance if the associated AQC has failed, the reason is fully investigated and documented. The sample data is then evaluated alongsidethe other quality control checks performed during analysis to determine its suitability. Following this evaluation, provided the sample results have not been effected, the data is reported but accreditation is removed. It is a UKAS requirement for data not reported as accredited to be consideredindicative only, but this does not mean the data is not valid. Where possible, and if requested, samples will be re-extracted and a revised report issued with accredited results. Please do not hesitate to contactthe laboratory if further details are required of the circumstances which have led to the removal of accreditation.



EMT Job No.:

Measurement Uncertainty

#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

AA x10 Dilution

20/12079

REPORTS FROM THE SOUTH AFRICA LABORATORY

Any method number not prefixed with SA has been undertaken in our UK laboratory unless reported as subcontracted.

Measurement uncertainty defines the range of values that could reasonably be attributed to the measured quantity. This range of values has not been included within the reported results. Uncertainty expressed as a percentage can be provided upon request.

ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS USED

ISO17025 (UKAS Ref No. 4225) accredited - UK.

ISO17025 (SANAS Ref No.T0729) accredited - South Africa

Indicates analyte found in associated method blank.

Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable

No Asbestos Detected.

None Detected (usually refers to VOC and/SVOC TICs).

No Determination Possible

Calibrated against a single substance

Surrogate recovery outside performance criteria. This may be due to a matrix effect.

Results expressed on as received basis.

AQC failure, accreditation has been removed from this result, if appropriate, see 'Note' on previous page.

Results above calibration range, the result should be considered the minimum value. The actual result could be significantly higher, this result is not accredited.

Analysis subcontracted to an Element Materials Technology approved laboratory.

Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C

Suspected carry over

Limit of Detection (Limit of Reporting) in line with ISO 17025 and MCERTS

Outside Calibration Range

Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample




Test Method No. DescriptionPrep Method

No. (if appropriate)

Description

ISO17025

(UKAS/SANAS)

MCERTS (UK soils

only)

Analysis done on As Received (AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on dry weight

basis

PM4 Gravimetric measurement of Natural Moisture Content and % Moisture Content at either 35°C or 105°C. Calculation based on ISO 11465:1993(E) and BS1377-2:1990. PM0 No preparation is required. AR

TM4 Modified USEPA 8270D v5:2014 method for the solvent extraction and determination of PAHs by GC-MS. PM8 End over end extraction of solid samples for organic analysis. The solvent mix varies

depending on analysis required. AR Yes

TM4 Modified USEPA 8270D v5:2014 method for the solvent extraction and determination of PAHs by GC-MS. PM8 End over end extraction of solid samples for organic analysis. The solvent mix varies

depending on analysis required. Yes AR Yes

TM21

Modified BS 7755-3:1995, ISO10694:1995 Determination of Total Organic Carbon or Total Carbon by combustion in an Eltra TOC furnace/analyser in the presence of oxygen. The CO2 generated is quantified using infra-red detection. Organic Matter (SOM) calculated as per EA MCERTS Chemical Testing of Soil, March 2012 v4.

PM24 Dried and ground solid samples are washed with hydrochloric acid, then rinsed with deionised water to remove the mineral carbon before TOC analysis. AD Yes

TM26 Determination of phenols by Reversed Phased High Performance Liquid Chromatography and Electro-Chemical Detection. PM21 As received solid samples are extracted in Methanol: Sodium Hydroxide (0.1M NaOH)

(60:40) by orbital shaker. AR Yes

TM30

Determination of Trace Metals by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectrometry): WATERS by Modified USEPA Method 200.7, Rev. 4.4, 1994; Modified EPA Method 6010B, Rev.2, Dec 1996; Modified BS EN ISO 11885:2009: SOILS by Modified USEP

PM15 Acid digestion of dried and ground solid samples using Aqua Regia refluxed at 112.5 °C. Samples containing asbestos are not dried and ground. Yes AD Yes

TM30


PM62 Acid digestion of as received solid samples using Aqua Regia refluxed at 112.5 °C. AR Yes

TM38

Soluble Ion analysis using Discrete Analyser. Modified US EPA methods: Chloride 325.2 (1978), Sulphate 375.4 (Rev.2 1993), o-Phosphate 365.2 (Rev.2 1993), TON 353.1 (Rev.2 1993), Nitrite 354.1 (1971), Hex Cr 7196A (1992), NH4+ 350.1 (Rev.2 1993 (comparabl

PM20

Extraction of dried and ground or as received samples with deionised water in a 2:1 water to solid ratio using a reciprocal shaker for all analytes except hexavalent chromium. Extraction of as received sample using 10:1 ratio of 0.2M sodium hydroxide to soil for hexavalent chromium using a reciprocal shaker.

Yes AR Yes

TM65 Asbestos Bulk Identification method based on HSG 248 First edition (2006) PM42Modified SCA Blue Book V.12 draft 2017 and WM3 1st Edition v1.1:2018. Solid samples undergo a thorough visual inspection for asbestos fibres prior to asbestos identification using TM065.

Yes AR

TM73 Modified US EPA methods 150.1 (1982) and 9045D Rev. 4 - 2004) and BS1377-3:1990. Determination of pH by Metrohm automated probe analyser. PM11 Extraction of as received solid samples using one part solid to 2.5 parts deionised water. Yes AR No

Element Materials Technology Method Code Appendix





Description

ISO17025

(UKAS/SANAS)

MCERTS (UK soils

only)


(AD)


basis

TM89Modified USEPA method OIA-1667 (1999). Determination of cyanide by Flow Injection Analyser. Where WAD cyanides are required a Ligand displacement step is carried out before analysis.

PM45 As received solid samples are extracted with 1M NaOH by orbital shaker for Cyanide, Sulphide and Thiocyanate analysis. AR Yes

TM89Modified USEPA method OIA-1667 (1999). Determination of cyanide by Flow Injection Analyser. Where WAD cyanides are required a Ligand displacement step is carried out before analysis.

PM45 As received solid samples are extracted with 1M NaOH by orbital shaker for Cyanide, Sulphide and Thiocyanate analysis. Yes AR Yes

TM131Quantification of Asbestos Fibres and ACM based on HSG248 First edition:2006, HSG 264 Second edition:2012, HSE Contract Research Report No.83/1996, MDHS 87:1998, WM3 1st Edition v1.1:2018

PM42Modified SCA Blue Book V.12 draft 2017 and WM3 1st Edition v1.1:2018. Solid samples undergo a thorough visual inspection for asbestos fibres prior to asbestos identification using TM065.

Yes AR Yes

NONE No Method Code NONE No Method Code AR Yes





Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :


1

Five samples were received for analysis on 18th September, 2020 of which five were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied. ẇAll analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.

Authorised By:

Phil Sommerton BSc



Tim Mayall

22nd September, 2020

C4543



18th September, 2020

Final report


Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

EMTJob No.

Batch DepthEMT

Sample No.

Date Of Analysis Analysis Result

20/12711 1 1 21/09/2020 General Description (Bulk Analysis) Soil/Stone

21/09/2020 Asbestos Fibres NAD

21/09/2020 Asbestos ACM NAD

21/09/2020 Asbestos Type NAD

21/09/2020 Asbestos Level Screen NAD










21/09/2020 Asbestos ACM (2) NAD



21/09/2020 Asbestos Level Screen less than 0.1%

22/09/2020 Total ACM Gravimetric Quantification (% Asb) <0.001 (mass %)

22/09/2020 Total Detailed Gravimetric Quantification (% Asb) <0.001 (mass %)

22/09/2020 Total Gravimetric Quantification (ACM + Detailed) (% Asb) <0.001 (mass %)











HOT3S4

HOT3S2

HOT3S1

HOT3S3

Sample ID

TP124HOT3

Asbestos Screen analysis is carried out in accordance with our documented in-house methods PM042 and TM065 and HSG 248 by Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy using Dispersion Staining Techniques and is covered by our UKAS accreditation. Detailed Gravimetric Quantification and PCOM Fibre Analysis is carried out in accordance with our documented in-house methods PM042 and TM131 and HSG 248 using Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy and Phase Contrast Optical Microscopy (PCOM). Samples are retained for not less than 6 months from the date of analysis unless specifically requested.







EMTJob No.

Batch DepthEMT

Sample No.

Analysis Reason





Sample ID


Location:



EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE


20/12711













WATERS










EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

20/12711








Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable














Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample






Description

ISO17025

(UKAS/SANAS)

MCERTS (UK soils

only)


(AD)


basis

TM65 Asbestos Bulk Identification method based on HSG 248 First edition (2006) PM42Modified SCA Blue Book V.12 draft 2017 and WM3 1st Edition v1.1:2018. Solid samples undergo a thorough visual inspection for asbestos fibres prior to asbestos identification using TM065.

Yes AR

TM131Quantification of Asbestos Fibres and ACM based on HSG248 First edition:2006, HSG 264 Second edition:2012, HSE Contract Research Report No.83/1996, MDHS 87:1998, WM3 1st Edition v1.1:2018

PM42Modified SCA Blue Book V.12 draft 2017 and WM3 1st Edition v1.1:2018. Solid samples undergo a thorough visual inspection for asbestos fibres prior to asbestos identification using TM065.

Yes AR Yes





Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :


1

Six samples were received for analysis on 22nd September, 2020 of which five were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied. ẇAll analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.

Authorised By:

Phil Sommerton BSc



Tim Mayall

20th November, 2020

C4543



22nd September, 2020

Final report


Client Name: Report : Solid (Duplicate results)

Reference:



EMT Sample No. 11-13

Sample ID TP207

Depth 0.20

COC No / misc

Containers V J T

Sample Date 21/09/2020

Sample Type Soil

Batch Number 1

Date of Receipt 22/09/2020

Lead 126 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62








EMTJob No.

Batch DepthEMT

Sample No.

Analysis Reason





Sample ID


Location:



EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE


20/12907













WATERS










EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

AA x10 Dilution

20/12907








Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable














Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample






Description

ISO17025

(UKAS/SANAS)

MCERTS (UK soils

only)


(AD)


basis

TM30







Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :

Project Manager

2

Ten samples were received for analysis on 28th October, 2020 of which ten were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which

should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the scope of

any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.

All analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.

Authorised By:

Bruce Leslie


173-183 Witton Street

Northwich

Cheshire

CW9 5LP

Jack Mather

25th November, 2020

C4543



28th October, 2020

Final report

Element Materials Technology Environmental UK Limited

Registered in England and Wales

Registered Office: 10 Lower Grosvenor Place, London, SW1W 0EN

Company Registration No: 11371415 1 of 6


Reference:

Location: Solids: V=60g VOC jar, J=250g glass jar, T=plastic tub

Contact:


EMT Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sample ID N1 N2 E1 E2 S1 S2 W1 W2 C1 C2

Depth 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00

COC No / misc

Containers T T T T T T T T T T

Sample Date 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020


Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020

Cadmium # 0.1 2.3 <0.1 7.1 0.3 1.2 <0.1 0.2 6.9 4.3 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Lead # 23 219 11 1103 43 30 19 16 162 186 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15


Jack Mather

Please see attached notes for all

abbreviations and acronyms

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543




EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Analysis Reason




C4543


Jack MatherContact:

Sample ID

Client Name: Brownfield Solutions Limited

Reference:

Location:



EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE


20/14871


Where an MCERTS report has been requested, you will be notified within 48 hours of any samples that have been identified as being outside our

MCERTS scope. As validation has been performed on clay, sand and loam, only samples that are predominantly these matrices, or combinations

of them will be within our MCERTS scope. If samples are not one of a combination of the above matrices they will not be marked as MCERTS

accredited.

It is assumed that you have taken representative samples on site and require analysis on a representative subsample. Stones will generally be

included unless we are requested to remove them.




All analysis is reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Limits of detection for analyses carried out on as received samples are not

moisture content corrected. Results are not surrogate corrected. Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C unless otherwise stated. Moisture content for

CEN Leachate tests are dried at 105°C ±5°C.



% Asbestos in Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) is determined by reference to HSG 264 The Survey Guide - Appendix 2 : ACMs in buildings

listed in order of ease of fibre release.

Sufficient amount of sample must be received to carry out the testing specified. Where an insufficient amount of sample has been received the

testing may not meet the requirements of our accredited methods, as such accreditation may be removed.

Negative Neutralization Potential (NP) values are obtained when the volume of NaOH (0.1N) titrated (pH 8.3) is greater than the volume of HCl (1N)

to reduce the pH of the sample to 2.0 - 2.5. Any negative NP values are corrected to 0.

The calculation of Pyrite content assumes that all oxidisable sulphides present in the sample are pyrite. This may not be the case. The calculation

may be an overesitimate when other sulphides such as Barite (Barium Sulphate) are present.

WATERS

Please note we are not a UK Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) Approved Laboratory .

ISO17025 accreditation applies to surface water and groundwater and usually one other matrix which is analysis specific, any other liquids are

outside our scope of accreditation.

As surface waters require different sample preparation to groundwaters the laboratory must be informed of the water type when submitting samples.


All samples should be submitted to the laboratory in suitable containers with sufficient ice packs to sustain an appropriate temperature for the

requested analysis. The temperature of sample receipt is recorded on the confirmation schedules in order that the client can make an informed

decision as to whether testing should still be undertaken.

Surrogate compounds are added during the preparation process to monitor recovery of analytes. However low recovery in soils is often due to peat,

clay or other organic rich matrices. For waters this can be due to oxidants, surfactants, organic rich sediments or remediation fluids. Acceptable

limits for most organic methods are 70 - 130% and for VOCs are 50 - 150%. When surrogate recoveries are outside the performance criteria but

the associated AQC passes this is assumed to be due to matrix effect. Results are not surrogate corrected.


Where analytes have been found in the blank, the sample will be treated in accordance with our laboratory procedure for dealing with contaminated

blanks.

Data is only reported if the laboratory is confident that the data is a true reflection of the samples analysed. Data is only reported as accredited when

all the requirements of our Quality System have been met. In certain circumstances where all the requirements of the Quality System have not been

met, for instance if the associated AQC has failed, the reason is fully investigated and documented. The sample data is then evaluated alongside

the other quality control checks performed during analysis to determine its suitability. Following this evaluation, provided the sample results have not

been effected, the data is reported but accreditation is removed. It is a UKAS requirement for data not reported as accredited to be considered

indicative only, but this does not mean the data is not valid.

Where possible, and if requested, samples will be re-extracted and a revised report issued with accredited results. Please do not hesitate to contact

the laboratory if further details are required of the circumstances which have led to the removal of accreditation.



EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

20/14871



Measurement uncertainty defines the range of values that could reasonably be attributed to the measured quantity. This range of values has not

been included within the reported results. Uncertainty expressed as a percentage can be provided upon request.





Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable








Results above calibration range, the result should be considered the minimum value. The actual result could be significantly

higher, this result is not accredited.






Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample




Test Method No. Description

Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM30

Determination of Trace Metals by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectrometry): WATERS by Modified USEPA Method 200.7, Rev. 4.4, 1994;

Modified EPA Method 6010B, Rev.2, Dec 1996; Modified BS EN ISO 11885:2009:

SOILS by Modified USEP

PM15Acid digestion of dried and ground solid samples using Aqua Regia refluxed at 112.5 °C.

Samples containing asbestos are not dried and ground.Yes AD Yes





Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :


1

Three samples were received for analysis on 4th November, 2020 of which three were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied. ẇAll analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.

Authorised By:

Phil Sommerton BSc



Jack Mather

6th November, 2020

C4543



4th November, 2020

Final report



Reference:



EMT Sample No. 1 2 3

Sample ID N3 E3 E4

Depth 0.50 1.00 0.50

COC No / misc

Containers T T T

Sample Date 04/11/2020 04/11/2020 04/11/2020


Batch Number 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 04/11/2020 04/11/2020 04/11/2020

Lead # 66 19 29 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

The Airfields DeesideJack Mather








EMTJob No.

Batch DepthEMT

Sample No.

Analysis Reason




C4543The Airfields DeesideJack MatherContact:

Sample ID


Location:



EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE


20/15251


Where an MCERTS report has been requested, you will be notified within 48 hours of any samples that have been identified as being outside ourMCERTS scope. As validation has been performed on clay, sand and loam, only samples that are predominantly these matrices, or combinationsof them will be within our MCERTS scope. If samples are not one of a combination of the above matrices they will not be marked as MCERTSaccredited.It is assumed that you have taken representative samples on site and require analysis on a representative subsample. Stones will generally beincluded unless we are requested to remove them. All samples will be discarded one month after the date of reporting, unless we are instructed to the contrary.










WATERS

Please note we are not a UK Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) Approved Laboratory .ISO17025 accreditation applies to surface water and groundwater and usually one other matrix which is analysis specific, any other liquids areoutside our scope of accreditation.As surface waters require different sample preparation to groundwaters the laboratory must be informed of the water type when submittingsamples.Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.


Surrogate compounds are added during the preparation process to monitor recovery of analytes. However low recovery in soils is often due topeat, clay or other organic rich matrices. For waters this can be due to oxidants, surfactants, organic rich sediments or remediation fluids.Acceptable limits for most organic methods are 70 - 130% and for VOCs are 50 - 150%. When surrogate recoveries are outside the performancecriteria but the associated AQC passes this is assumed to be due to matrix effect. Results are not surrogate corrected.





Data is only reported if the laboratory is confident that the data is a true reflection of the samples analysed. Data is only reported as accreditedwhen all the requirements of our Quality System have been met. In certain circumstances where all the requirements of the Quality System havenot been met, for instance if the associated AQC has failed, the reason is fully investigated and documented. The sample data is then evaluatedalongside the other quality control checks performed during analysis to determine its suitability. Following this evaluation, provided the sampleresults have not been effected, the data is reported but accreditation is removed. It is a UKAS requirement for data not reported as accredited tobe considered indicative only, but this does not mean the data is not valid. Where possible, and if requested, samples will be re-extracted and a revised report issued with accredited results. Please do not hesitate tocontact the laboratory if further details are required of the circumstances which have led to the removal of accreditation.



EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

20/15251








Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable














Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample






Description

ISO17025

(UKAS/SANAS)

MCERTS (UK soils

only)

Analysis done on As Received

(AR) or Dried (AD)


basis

TM30


PM15 Acid digestion of dried and ground solid samples using Aqua Regia refluxed at 112.5 °C. Samples containing asbestos are not dried and ground. Yes AD Yes





Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :

Project Manager

1

Five samples were received for analysis on 28th October, 2020 of which five were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied. ẇAll analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.

Authorised By:

Bruce Leslie



Jack Mather

2nd November, 2020

C4543



28th October, 2020

Final report



Reference:



EMT Sample No. 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10

Sample ID H01 H03 H05 H08 H09

Depth 0.50 1.00 0.70 1.50 1.00

COC No / misc

Containers V J V J V J V J V J

Sample Date 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020

Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020

TPH CWG

Aliphatics

>C5-C6 # <0.1 >><0.1 <0.1 <0.1SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C6-C8 # <0.1 >>7.2 <0.1 4.8SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C8-C10 <0.1 >>149.6 2.8 91.7SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C10-C12 # <0.2 1886.7 111.6 804.4 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C12-C16 # <4 2255 292 1666 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C16-C21 # <7 1070 283 1177 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C21-C35 # 25 341 202 286 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

Total aliphatics C5-35 25 5710 891 4030 <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Aromatics

>C5-EC7 # <0.1 >><0.1 <0.1 <0.1SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC7-EC8 # <0.1 >><0.1 <0.1 <0.1SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC8-EC10 # <0.1 >>16.2 0.1 7.0SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC10-EC12 # <0.2 806.0 36.5 258.3 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC12-EC16 # <4 1047 108 660 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC16-EC21 # 12 618 163 674 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC21-EC35 # 101 301 259 323 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

Total aromatics C5-35 # 113 2788 567 1922 <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) 138 8498 1458 5952 <38 <38 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

MTBE # <5 <5SV <5 <5SV <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Benzene # <5 <5SV <5 <5SV <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Toluene # <5 <5SV <5 <5SV <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Ethylbenzene # <5 3175SV 27 1604SV <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

m/p-Xylene # <5 10900SV 83 3717SV <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

o-Xylene # <5 2102SV 33 1715SV <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Natural Moisture Content 20.0 9.3 17.6 27.0 24.3 <0.1 % PM4/PM0









EMTJob No.

Batch DepthEMT

Sample No.

Analysis Reason





Sample ID


Location:



EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE


20/14872













WATERS










EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

20/14872








Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable














Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample






Description

ISO17025

(UKAS/SANAS)

MCERTS (UK soils

only)


(AD)


basis


TM5Modified 8015B v2:1996 method for the determination of solvent Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) within the range C8-C40 by GCFID. For waters the solvent extracts dissolved phase plus a sheen if present.

PM8/PM16End over end extraction of solid samples for organic analysis. The solvent mix varies depending on analysis required/Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a Rapid Trace SPE.

Yes AR Yes

TM5/TM36 please refer to TM5 and TM36 for method details PM8/PM12/PM16 please refer to PM8/PM16 and PM12 for method details AR Yes

TM5/TM36 please refer to TM5 and TM36 for method details PM8/PM12/PM16 please refer to PM8/PM16 and PM12 for method details Yes AR Yes

TM36

Modified US EPA method 8015B v2:1996. Determination of Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) in the carbon chain range of C4-12 by headspace GC-FID. MTBE by GCFID co-elutes with 3-methylpentane if present and therefore can give a false positive. Positive MTBE results will be re-run using GC-MS to double check, when requested.

PM12 Modified US EPA method 5021A v2:2014. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC headspace analysis. AR Yes

TM36


PM12 Modified US EPA method 5021A v2:2014. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC headspace analysis. Yes AR Yes



Samantha Murray

t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404

e: [email protected] e:

Project / Site name: Samples received on: 19/02/2021

Your job number: C4543 Samples instructed on/ 19/02/2021Analysis started on:

Your order number: C4543 1764 SM Analysis completed by: 24/02/2021

Report Issue Number: 1 Report issued on: 24/02/2021

Samples Analysed:

Signed:

Technical Reviewer (Reporting Team)For & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.

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

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

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

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

Brownfield Solutions LtdWilliam Smith House173 - 183 Witton StreetNorthwichCheshireCW9 5LP

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

[email protected]

Analytical Report Number : 21-58073

Any assessments of compliance with specifications are based on actual analytical results with no contribution from uncertainty of measurement.Application of uncertainty of measurement would provide a range within which the true result lies. An estimate of measurement uncertainty can be provided on request.

Airfields

15 soil samples

Joanna Wawrzeczko

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. The results included within the report are representative of the samples submitted for analysis.

Iss No 21-58073-1 Airfields C4543.XLSMPage 1 of 8

Analytical Report Number: 21-58073

Project / Site name: Airfields

Your Order No: C4543 1764 SM

Lab Sample Number 1777408 1777409 1777410 1777411 1777412

Sample Reference B3 B4 C2 C3 C4

Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Depth (m) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Date Sampled 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021

Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Analytical Parameter

(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE - - - - -

Moisture Content % 0.01 NONE - - - - -

Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE - - - - -

Asbestos in Soil Screen / Identification Name Type N/A ISO 17025 - - - - Amosite

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

Asbestos Quantification (Stage 2) % 0.001 ISO 17025 - - - - 0.002

Asbestos Quantification Total % 0.001 ISO 17025 - - - - 0.002

Monoaromatics & Oxygenates

Benzene mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - - - - -

Toluene mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - - - - -

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - - - - -

p & m-xylene mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - - - - -

o-xylene mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - - - - -

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - - - - -

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - - - - -



TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS - - - - -





TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS - - - - -

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - - - - -



TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS - - - - -




TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS - - - - -

U/S = Unsuitable Sample I/S = Insufficient Sample

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

The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing.





Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE

Moisture Content % 0.01 NONE

Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE

Asbestos in Soil Screen / Identification Name Type N/A ISO 17025

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025

Asbestos Quantification (Stage 2) % 0.001 ISO 17025

Asbestos Quantification Total % 0.001 ISO 17025


Benzene mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS

Toluene mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS

p & m-xylene mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS

o-xylene mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS


TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS



TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS





TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS



TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS




TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS


1777413 1777414 1777415 1777416 1777417

D4 HC-N HC-W1 HC-W2 HC-E1

None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

0.05 1.20 1.50 1.50 1.50

18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021


- < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

- 16 18 20 19

- 1 0.9 0.9 1

- - - - -

Not-detected - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - -

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 1.2 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 4.4 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 1.1 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 29 < 0.001 < 0.001

- 4.8 130 < 1.0 < 1.0

- 23 4500 < 2.0 < 2.0

- < 8.0 5800 < 8.0 < 8.0

- < 8.0 1100 < 8.0 < 8.0

- < 10 6900 < 10 < 10

- 32 12000 < 10 < 10

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 21 0.03 < 0.001

- < 1.0 93 < 1.0 < 1.0

- 9.3 3000 < 2.0 < 2.0

- 18 4800 < 10 < 10

- 11 1200 < 10 < 10

- 39 9200 < 10 < 10







Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus


































1777418 1777419 1777420 1777421 1777422

HC-E2 HC-S HC-C HC-B1 HC-B2


1.50 1.40 2.00 2.50 2.50

18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021


< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

17 16 18 18 21

0.8 0.9 0.8 1 1

- - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - -

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.41

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.52

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 0.17 0.34 9.2

< 1.0 < 1.0 4.5 88 17

< 2.0 < 2.0 300 780 400

< 8.0 < 8.0 460 870 520

< 8.0 < 8.0 120 180 160

< 10 < 10 590 1100 670

< 10 < 10 890 1900 1100

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 0.34 0.35 6.6

< 1.0 < 1.0 4.3 32 11

< 2.0 < 2.0 170 710 250

< 10 12 280 730 370

< 10 17 97 250 120

< 10 29 560 1700 760




21-58073

Airfields

C4543 1764 SM

Methods:

Qualitative Analysis

Sample

NumberSample ID

Sample

Depth

(m)

Sample

Weight

(g)

Asbestos Containing

Material Types

Detected (ACM)

PLM Results

Asbestos by hand

picking/weighing

(%)

Total %

Asbestos in

Sample

1777412 C4 0.05 154 Loose Fibrous Debris

Amosite 0.002 0.002

The analysis was carried out using our documented in-house method A006-PL based on HSE Contract Research Report No: 83/1996: Development and Validation of an analytical method to determine the amount of asbestos in soils and loose aggregates (Davies et al, 1996) and HSG 248. Our method includes initial examination of the entire representative sample, then fractionation and detailed analysis of each fraction, with quantification by hand picking and weighing.

The limit of detection (reporting limit) of this method is 0.001 %.

The method has been validated using samples of at least 100 g, results for samples smaller than this should be interpreted with caution.

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

Analytical Report Number:

Project / Site name:

Your Order No:

Certificate of Analysis - Asbestos Quantification

The samples were analysed qualitatively for asbestos by polarising light and dispersion staining as described by the Health and Safety Executive in HSG 248.

Quantitative Analysis

Both Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses are UKAS accredited.


Iss No 21-58073-1 Airfields C4543.XLSM

Page 5 of 8



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample

NumberDepth (m) Sample Description *

1777414 HC-N None Supplied 1.2 Brown sand.

1777415 HC-W1 None Supplied 1.5 Brown sand.


1777417 HC-E1 None Supplied 1.5 Brown sand.


1777419 HC-S None Supplied 1.4 Brown sand with vegetation.

1777420 HC-C None Supplied 2 Brown sand.

1777421 HC-B1 None Supplied 2.5 Brown sand.


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

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




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

Analytical Test Name Analytical Method Description Analytical Method ReferenceMethod

number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

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

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

Moisture Content Moisture content, determined gravimetrically. (30 oC) In house method. L019-UK/PL W NONE

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

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

L019-UK/PL D NONE

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

In-house method with silica gel split/clean up. L088/76-PL W MCERTS

Asbestos Quantification - Gravimetric Asbestos quantification by gravimetric method - in house method based on references.

HSE Report No: 83/1996, HSG 248, HSG 264 & SCA Blue Book (draft).

A006-PL D ISO 17025

D.O. for Gravimetric Quant if Screen/ID positive

Dependent option for Gravimetric Quant if Screen/ID positive scheduled.

In house asbestos methods A001 & A006. A006-PL D NONE

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

TPH in (Soil) Determination of TPH bands by HS-GC-MS/GC-FID In-house method, TPH with carbon banding and silica gel split/cleanup.

L076-PL D MCERTS

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

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

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

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


Sample Deviation Report



Sample ID Other IDSample

Type

Lab Sample

Number

Sample

DeviationTest Name Test Ref

Test

Deviation

HC-B1 None Supplied S 1777421 b BTEX and MTBE in soil (Monoaromatics) L073B-PL b


HC-B1 None Supplied S 1777421 b TPH in (Soil) L076-PL b

HC-B1 None Supplied S 1777421 b TPHCWG (Soil) L088/76-PL b





HC-C None Supplied S 1777420 b BTEX and MTBE in soil (Monoaromatics) L073B-PL b


HC-C None Supplied S 1777420 b TPH in (Soil) L076-PL b

HC-C None Supplied S 1777420 b TPHCWG (Soil) L088/76-PL b

HC-E1 None Supplied S 1777417 b BTEX and MTBE in soil (Monoaromatics) L073B-PL b


HC-E1 None Supplied S 1777417 b TPH in (Soil) L076-PL b

HC-E1 None Supplied S 1777417 b TPHCWG (Soil) L088/76-PL b





HC-N None Supplied S 1777414 b BTEX and MTBE in soil (Monoaromatics) L073B-PL b


HC-N None Supplied S 1777414 b TPH in (Soil) L076-PL b

HC-N None Supplied S 1777414 b TPHCWG (Soil) L088/76-PL b

HC-S None Supplied S 1777419 b BTEX and MTBE in soil (Monoaromatics) L073B-PL b


HC-S None Supplied S 1777419 b TPH in (Soil) L076-PL b

HC-S None Supplied S 1777419 b TPHCWG (Soil) L088/76-PL b

HC-W1 None Supplied S 1777415 b BTEX and MTBE in soil (Monoaromatics) L073B-PL b


HC-W1 None Supplied S 1777415 b TPH in (Soil) L076-PL b

HC-W1 None Supplied S 1777415 b TPHCWG (Soil) L088/76-PL b





Key: a - No sampling date b - Incorrect containerc - Holding time d - Headspace e - Temperature


Samantha Murray

t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404






Samples Analysed:

Signed:







Airfields

1 water sample

Agnieszka Czerwińska



[email protected]



Iss No 21-58581-1 Airfields C4543Page 1 of 3




Lab Sample Number 1780497

Sample Reference HC-GW

Sample Number None Supplied

Depth (m) 0.05

Date Sampled 18/02/2021

Time Taken None Supplied


(Water Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus


Benzene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0

Toluene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0

Ethylbenzene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0

p & m-xylene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0

o-xylene µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0


TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C5 - C6 µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0



TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C10 - C12 µg/l 10 NONE < 10

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >C12 - C16 µg/l 10 NONE 400



TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (C5 - C35) µg/l 10 NONE 760

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C5 - C7 µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0



TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C10 - C12 µg/l 10 NONE < 10

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >C12 - C16 µg/l 10 NONE 160



TPH-CWG - Aromatic (C5 - C35) µg/l 10 NONE 330









number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

TPHCWG (Waters) Determination of dichloromethane extractable hydrocarbons in water by GC-MS, speciation by interpretation.

In-house method L070-PL W NONE

BTEX and MTBE in water (Monoaromatics)

Determination of BTEX and MTBE in water by headspace GC-MS. Accredited matrices: SW PW GW

In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073B-PL W ISO 17025








Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :

Project Manager

1


Authorised By:

Bruce Leslie



Jack Mather

2nd November, 2020

C4543



28th October, 2020

Final report



Reference:



EMT Sample No. 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10


Depth 0.50 1.00 0.70 1.50 1.00

COC No / misc


Sample Date 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020



Date of Receipt 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020 28/10/2020

TPH CWG

Aliphatics

>C5-C6 # <0.1 >><0.1 <0.1 <0.1SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C6-C8 # <0.1 >>7.2 <0.1 4.8SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C8-C10 <0.1 >>149.6 2.8 91.7SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C10-C12 # <0.2 1886.7 111.6 804.4 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C12-C16 # <4 2255 292 1666 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C16-C21 # <7 1070 283 1177 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C21-C35 # 25 341 202 286 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16


Aromatics

>C5-EC7 # <0.1 >><0.1 <0.1 <0.1SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC7-EC8 # <0.1 >><0.1 <0.1 <0.1SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC8-EC10 # <0.1 >>16.2 0.1 7.0SV <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC10-EC12 # <0.2 806.0 36.5 258.3 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC12-EC16 # <4 1047 108 660 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC16-EC21 # 12 618 163 674 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC21-EC35 # 101 301 259 323 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16


















EMTJob No.

Batch DepthEMT

Sample No.

Analysis Reason





Sample ID


Location:



EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE


20/14872













WATERS










EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

20/14872








Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable














Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample






Description

ISO17025

(UKAS/SANAS)

MCERTS (UK soils

only)


(AD)


basis




Yes AR Yes



TM36



TM36






Iss No 21-57030-1 Airfield C4543Page 1 of 8


Project / Site name: Airfield

Your Order No: SM-1742-C4543


Sample Reference C1 D1 B2 C2 D2


Depth (m) None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Date Sampled 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021



(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

Asbestos in Soil Screen / Identification Name Type N/A ISO 17025- -

Chrysotile &

AmositeAmosite Chrysotile

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

Asbestos Quantification (Stage 2) % 0.001 ISO 17025 - - 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001

Asbestos Quantification Total % 0.001 ISO 17025 - - 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001








Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus






1771469 1771470 1771471 1771472 1771473

E2 A3 B3 C3 D3



12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021


-Amosite &

Crocidolite- - -

Not-detected Detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected

- 0.009 - - -

- 0.009 - - -







Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus






1771474 1771475 1771476 1771477 1771478

E3 F3 A4 B4 C4



12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021


Chrysotile - Chrysotile - -

Detected Not-detected Detected Not-detected Not-detected

< 0.001 - 0.918 - -

< 0.001 - 0.918 - -







Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus






1771479 1771480 1771481 1771482 1771483

D4 E4 F4 G4 A5



12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021


- - - - Chrysotile

Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Detected

- - - - 0.266

- - - - 0.266







Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus






1771484 1771485 1771486 1771487 1771488

B5 C5 D5 E5 F5



12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021 12/02/2021


- - - - -

Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected

- - - - -

- - - - -




21-57030

Airfield

SM-1742-C4543

Methods:


Sample

NumberSample ID

Sample

Depth

(m)

Sample

Weight

(g)

Asbestos Containing

Material Types

Detected (ACM)

PLM Results

Asbestos by hand

picking/weighing

(%)

Total %

Asbestos in

Sample

1771466 B2 125Loose Fibrous Debris &

Loose Fibres

Chrysotile &

Amosite0.003 0.003

1771467 C2 132 Loose Fibres Amosite < 0.001 < 0.001

1771468 D2 133 Loose Fibres Chrysotile < 0.001 < 0.001

1771470 A3 114Loose Fibrous Debris &

Loose Fibres

Amosite &

Crocidolite0.009 0.009

1771474 E3 153 Loose Fibres Chrysotile < 0.001 < 0.001

1771476 A4 147

Loose Fibrous Debris &

Hard/Cement Type

Material

Chrysotile 0.918 0.918

1771483 A5 176Hard/Cement Type

MaterialChrysotile 0.266 0.266

The analysis was carried out using our documented in-house method A006-PL based on HSE Contract Research Report No: 83/1996:

Development and Validation of an analytical method to determine the amount of asbestos in soils and loose aggregates (Davies et al, 1996)

and HSG 248. Our method includes initial examination of the entire representative sample, then fractionation and detailed analysis of each

fraction, with quantification by hand picking and weighing.







Your Order No:


The samples were analysed qualitatively for asbestos by polarising light and dispersion staining as described by the Health and Safety

Executive in HSG 248.



Iss No 21-57030-1 Airfield C4543

Page 7 of 8





number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Asbestos identification in soil Asbestos Identification with the use of polarised light

microscopy in conjunction with disperion staining

techniques.


Asbestos Quantification - Gravimetric Asbestos quantification by gravimetric method - in house

method based on references.

HSE Report No: 83/1996, HSG 248, HSG 264 &

SCA Blue Book (draft).

A006-PL D ISO 17025

D.O. for Gravimetric Quant if Screen/ID

positive

Dependent option for Gravimetric Quant if Screen/ID

positive scheduled.







Simon Murphy

t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404






Samples Analysed:

Signed:








[email protected]



Airfields

3 soil samples







Lab Sample Number 1783699 1783700 1783701

Sample Reference C2-b D2-b E3-b

Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Depth (m) None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Date Sampled 24/02/2021 24/02/2021 24/02/2021

Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

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









number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status











Samantha Murray

t: 01923 225404f: 01923 237404






Samples Analysed:

Signed:








[email protected]



Airfields

15 soil samples

Joanna Wawrzeczko









Depth (m) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Date Sampled 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021



(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus








































Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus


































1777413 1777414 1777415 1777416 1777417



0.05 1.20 1.50 1.50 1.50

18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021


- < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

- 16 18 20 19

- 1 0.9 0.9 1

- - - - -


- - - - -

- - - - -

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 1.2 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 4.4 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 1.1 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 29 < 0.001 < 0.001

- 4.8 130 < 1.0 < 1.0

- 23 4500 < 2.0 < 2.0

- < 8.0 5800 < 8.0 < 8.0

- < 8.0 1100 < 8.0 < 8.0

- < 10 6900 < 10 < 10

- 32 12000 < 10 < 10

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

- < 0.001 21 0.03 < 0.001

- < 1.0 93 < 1.0 < 1.0

- 9.3 3000 < 2.0 < 2.0

- 18 4800 < 10 < 10

- 11 1200 < 10 < 10

- 39 9200 < 10 < 10







Lab Sample Number

Sample Reference

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Date Sampled

Time Taken


(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus


































1777418 1777419 1777420 1777421 1777422



1.50 1.40 2.00 2.50 2.50

18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021 18/02/2021


< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

17 16 18 18 21

0.8 0.9 0.8 1 1

- - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - -

- - - - -

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.41

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.52

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 0.17 0.34 9.2

< 1.0 < 1.0 4.5 88 17

< 2.0 < 2.0 300 780 400

< 8.0 < 8.0 460 870 520

< 8.0 < 8.0 120 180 160

< 10 < 10 590 1100 670

< 10 < 10 890 1900 1100

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

< 0.001 < 0.001 0.34 0.35 6.6

< 1.0 < 1.0 4.3 32 11

< 2.0 < 2.0 170 710 250

< 10 12 280 730 370

< 10 17 97 250 120

< 10 29 560 1700 760




21-58073

Airfields

C4543 1764 SM

Methods:


Sample

NumberSample ID

Sample

Depth

(m)

Sample

Weight

(g)

Asbestos Containing

Material Types

Detected (ACM)

PLM Results

Asbestos by hand

picking/weighing

(%)

Total %

Asbestos in

Sample


Amosite 0.002 0.002







Your Order No:







Page 5 of 8



Lab Sample

Number

Sample

Reference

Sample


















number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status






L019-UK/PL D NONE





A006-PL D ISO 17025






L076-PL D MCERTS










Type

Lab Sample

Number

Sample


Test

Deviation










































Sample Reference C4-B


Depth (m) 0.05




(Soil Analysis)

Un

its

Lim

it of d

ete

ctio

n

Accre

dita

tion

Sta

tus

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









number

Wet / Dry

Analysis

Accreditation

Status

Asbestos identification in soil Asbestos Identification with the use of polarised light

microscopy in conjunction with disperion staining

techniques.


D.O. for Gravimetric Quant if Screen/ID

positive

Dependent option for Gravimetric Quant if Screen/ID

positive scheduled.






Unless otherwise indicated, site information, order number, project number, sampling date, time, sample reference and depth are provided by

the client. The instructed on date indicates the date on which this information was provided to the laboratory.




Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :



Northwich

Cheshire

CW9 5LP

Samantha Murray

12th April, 2021

C4543


Airfields

2nd April, 2021

Final report

Project Manager

1

Twenty one samples were received for analysis on 2nd April, 2021 of which twenty one were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test

Report which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside

the scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.


Authorised By:

Bruce Leslie





Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of

AnalysisAnalysis Result






21/4928 1 0.05 2 07/04/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil.stones










07/04/2021 Asbestos Type Amosite






12/04/2021 Asbestos PCOM Quantification (Fibres) 0.004 (mass %)

12/04/2021 Asbestos Gravimetric & PCOM Total 0.004 (mass %)






21/4928 1 0.05 5 08/04/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) Soil/Stones





H5 - D2

H5 - C2

H5 - B2

H5 - D1

Sample ID

H5 - C1

Asbestos Screen analysis is carried out in accordance with our documented in-house methods PM042 and TM065 and HSG 248 by Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy using

Dispersion Staining Techniques and is covered by our UKAS accreditation. Detailed Gravimetric Quantification and PCOM Fibre Analysis is carried out in accordance with our

documented in-house methods PM042 and TM131 and HSG 248 using Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy and Phase Contrast Optical Microscopy (PCOM). Samples are

retained for not less than 6 months from the date of analysis unless specifically requested.





C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray


Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of




































07/04/2021 Asbestos ACM ACM Debris















H5 - C4

H5 - C3

H5 - B3

H5 - A3

C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray

Sample ID

H5 - A2




Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of

















21/4928 1 0.15 14 08/04/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) SoilStones






























TS - 25

TS - 24

TS - 23

TS - 04C

TS - 04B

TS - 02B

TS - 18B

TS - 06B

Airfields

Samantha Murray

Sample ID

TS - 10B



C4543


Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of












TS - 27

Samantha Murray

Sample ID

TS - 26



C4543

Airfields



EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Analysis Reason



Contact:

Sample ID


Reference:

Location:



C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray


EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE




















blanks.







WATERS














21/4928





accredited.






EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC Outside Calibration Range

Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample

















Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable

21/4928








HS

EH

CU

1D

Total

AL

AR

2D

#1

#2

_

+

MS

HWOL ACRONYMS AND OPERATORS USED

Headspace Analysis.

Extractable Hydrocarbons - i.e. everything extracted by the solvent.

Clean-up - e.g. by florisil, silica gel.

GC - Single coil gas chromatography.

Aliphatics & Aromatics.

Operator to indicate cumulative e.g. EH+HS_Total or EH_CU+HS_Total

Mass Spectrometry.

Aliphatics only.

Aromatics only.

GC-GC - Double coil gas chromatography.

EH_Total but with humics mathematically subtracted

EU_Total but with fatty acids mathematically subtracted

Operator - underscore to separate acronyms (exception for +).



EMT Job No: 21/4928


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM65 Asbestos Bulk Identification method based on HSG 248 First edition (2006) PM42

Modified SCA Blue Book V.12 draft 2017 and WM3 1st Edition v1.1:2018. Solid samples

undergo a thorough visual inspection for asbestos fibres prior to asbestos identification

using TM065.

Yes AR

TM131

Quantification of Asbestos Fibres and ACM based on HSG248 First edition:2006, HSG

264 Second edition:2012, HSE Contract Research Report No.83/1996, MDHS 87:1998,

WM3 1st Edition v1.1:2018

PM42



using TM065.

Yes AR Yes





Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :



Northwich

Cheshire

CW9 5LP

Samantha Murray

12th April, 2021

C4543

Test Report 21/5251 Batch 1 Schedule A

Airfields

10th April, 2021

Final report


1

Seven samples were received for analysis on 10th April, 2021 of which four were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which




Authorised By:

Phil Sommerton BSc





Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of


21/5251 1 0.05 8 12/04/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) Sand




















C3-B

B2-B

A3-B

Sample ID

A2-B









C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray



EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Analysis Reason



Contact:

Sample ID


Reference:

Location:



C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray


EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE




















blanks.







WATERS














21/5251





accredited.






EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB


Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample

















Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable

21/5251








HS

EH

CU

1D

Total

AL

AR

2D

#1

#2

_

+

MS


Headspace Analysis.






Mass Spectrometry.

Aliphatics only.

Aromatics only.







EMT Job No: 21/5251


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis




using TM065.

Yes AR





Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :

Project Manager

1

Eleven samples were received for analysis on 28th May, 2021 of which eleven were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report

which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the

scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.


Authorised By:

Hayley Prowse



Northwich

Cheshire

CW9 5LP

Samantha Murray

7th June, 2021

C4543


Airfields

28th May, 2021

Final report






Reference:


Contact:

EMT Job No: 21/8155

EMT Sample No. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Sample ID H5-1 BUND H5-2 BUND H5-3 BUND H5-4 BUND H5-5 BUND H5-6 BUND H5-7 BUND H5-8 BUND

Depth 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

COC No / misc

Containers J J J J J J J J

Sample Date 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021

Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021

Arsenic # 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.8 4.3 3.6 3.7 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Cadmium # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Chromium # 45.8 44.9 46.5 46.0 44.3 47.3 43.4 47.3 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Copper # 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Lead # 8 8 9 6 10 11 25 11 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Mercury # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Nickel # 9.5 10.5 10.9 8.6 8.5 9.2 11.4 10.0 <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Selenium # <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Zinc # 21 22 24 19 32 31 39 31 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

PAH MS

Naphthalene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthylene <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthene # <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluorene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Phenanthrene # <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Anthracene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluoranthene # <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Pyrene # <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)anthracene # <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Chrysene # <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene # <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)pyrene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Indeno(123cd)pyrene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(ghi)perylene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 16 Total <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(k)fluoranthene <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH Surrogate % Recovery 103 103 103 102 105 105 100 101 <0 % TM4/PM8

TPH CWG

Aliphatics

>C5-C6 (HS_1D_AL) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C6-C8 (HS_1D_AL) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C8-C10 (HS_1D_AL) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C10-C12 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C12-C16 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16



Total aliphatics C5-35 (EH+HS_CU_1D_AL) <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Airfields

Samantha Murray



LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543




Reference:


Contact:

EMT Job No: 21/8155

EMT Sample No. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Sample ID H5-1 BUND H5-2 BUND H5-3 BUND H5-4 BUND H5-5 BUND H5-6 BUND H5-7 BUND H5-8 BUND

Depth 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

COC No / misc

Containers J J J J J J J J

Sample Date 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021

Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021 28/05/2021

TPH CWG

Aromatics

>C5-EC7 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC7-EC8 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC8-EC10 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC10-EC12 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC12-EC16 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16



Total aromatics C5-35 (EH+HS_CU_1D_AR) # <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) (EH+HS_CU_1D_Total) <38 <38 <38 <38 <38 <38 <38 <38 <38 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

MTBE # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Benzene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Toluene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Ethylbenzene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

m/p-Xylene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

o-Xylene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Total Phenols HPLC <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 mg/kg TM26/PM21B

Natural Moisture Content 16.1 18.1 17.8 11.8 18.4 19.3 16.5 18.8 <0.1 % PM4/PM0

Hexavalent Chromium # <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 mg/kg TM38/PM20

Chromium III 45.8 44.9 46.5 46.0 44.3 47.3 43.4 47.3 <0.5 mg/kg NONE/NONE

Free Cyanide <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Total Cyanide # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Organic Matter <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 % TM21/PM24

pH # 8.89 8.89 8.83 8.98 8.96 8.94 8.90 8.89 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray





Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of







21/8155 1 0.05 2 01/06/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil




























H5-4 BUND

H5-3 BUND

H5-2 BUND

H5-1 BUND

H4-116

H4-115

Sample ID

H4-106-2









C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray


Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of


21/8155 1 0.20 7 01/06/2021 Asbestos Type NAD






















H5-8 BUND

H5-7 BUND

H5-6 BUND

H5-5 BUND

C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray

Sample ID

H5-4 BUND





EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Analysis Reason




C4543

Airfields

Samantha MurrayContact:

Sample ID


Reference:

Location:



EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS


21/8155





accredited.



















WATERS









Surrogate compounds are added during the preparation process to monitor recovery of analytes. However low recovery in soils is often due to

peat, clay or other organic rich matrices. For waters this can be due to oxidants, surfactants, organic rich sediments or remediation fluids.

Acceptable limits for most organic methods are 70 - 130% and for VOCs are 50 - 150%. When surrogate recoveries are outside the performance

criteria but the associated AQC passes this is assumed to be due to matrix effect. Results are not surrogate corrected.



blanks.



NOTE

Data is only reported if the laboratory is confident that the data is a true reflection of the samples analysed. Data is only reported as accredited

when all the requirements of our Quality System have been met. In certain circumstances where all the requirements of the Quality System have

not been met, for instance if the associated AQC has failed, the reason is fully investigated and documented. The sample data is then evaluated

alongside the other quality control checks performed during analysis to determine its suitability. Following this evaluation, provided the sample

results have not been effected, the data is reported but accreditation is removed. It is a UKAS requirement for data not reported as accredited to be

considered indicative only, but this does not mean the data is not valid.





EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

21/8155









Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable














Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample



OC

HS

EH

CU

1D

Total

AL

AR

2D

#1

#2

_

+

MS


Mass Spectrometry.

Aliphatics only.

Aromatics only.






Headspace Analysis.








EMT Job No: 21/8155


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done on

As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

PM4Gravimetric measurement of Natural Moisture Content and % Moisture Content at either

35°C or 105°C. Calculation based on ISO 11465:1993(E) and BS1377-2:1990.PM0 No preparation is required. AR

TM4Modified USEPA 8270D v5:2014 method for the solvent extraction and determination of

PAHs by GC-MS. PM8

End over end extraction of solid samples for organic analysis. The solvent mix varies

depending on analysis required.AR Yes


PAHs by GC-MS. PM8


depending on analysis required.Yes AR Yes

TM5

Modified 8015B v2:1996 method for the determination of solvent Extractable Petroleum

Hydrocarbons (EPH) within the range C8-C40 by GCFID. For waters the solvent extracts

dissolved phase plus a sheen if present.

PM8/PM16


depending on analysis required/Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a

Rapid Trace SPE.

Yes AR Yes



TM21

Modified BS 7755-3:1995, ISO10694:1995 Determination of Total Organic Carbon or

Total Carbon by combustion in an Eltra TOC furnace/analyser in the presence of oxygen.

The CO2 generated is quantified using infra-red detection. Organic Matter (SOM)

calculated as per EA MCERTS Chemical Testing of Soil, March 2012 v4.

PM24Dried and ground solid samples are washed with hydrochloric acid, then rinsed with

deionised water to remove the mineral carbon before TOC analysis.AD Yes

TM26Determination of phenols by Reversed Phased High Performance Liquid

Chromatography and Electro-Chemical Detection.PM21B As Received samples are extracted in Methanol: Water (60:40) by reciprocal shaker. AR Yes

TM30



SOILS by Modified USEP 6010B, Rev.2, Dec.1996; Modified EPA Method 3050B, Rev.2,

Dec.1996



TM36

Modified US EPA method 8015B v2:1996. Determination of Gasoline Range Organics

(GRO) in the carbon chain range of C4-12 by headspace GC-FID. MTBE by GCFID co-

elutes with 3-methylpentane if present and therefore can give a false positive. Positive

MTBE results will be re-run using GC-MS to double check, when requested.

PM12Modified US EPA method 5021A v2:2014. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC

headspace analysis.AR Yes



EMT Job No: 21/8155


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done on

As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM36






headspace analysis.Yes AR Yes

TM38

Soluble Ion analysis using Discrete Analyser. Modified US EPA methods: Chloride 325.2

(1978), Sulphate 375.4 (Rev.2 1993), o-Phosphate 365.2 (Rev.2 1993), TON 353.1

(Rev.2 1993), Nitrite 354.1 (1971), Hex Cr 7196A (1992), NH4+ 350.1 (Rev.2 1993) – All anions comparable to BS ISO 15923-1: 2013l

PM20

Extraction of dried and ground or as received samples with deionised water in a 2:1

water to solid ratio using a reciprocal shaker for all analytes except hexavalent chromium.

Extraction of as received sample using 10:1 ratio of 0.2M sodium hydroxide to soil for

hexavalent chromium using a reciprocal shaker.

Yes AR Yes




using TM065.

Yes AR

TM73Modified US EPA methods 150.1 (1982) and 9045D Rev. 4 - 2004) and BS1377-

3:1990. Determination of pH by Metrohm automated probe analyser.PM11 Extraction of as received solid samples using one part solid to 2.5 parts deionised water. Yes AR No

TM89

Modified USEPA method OIA-1667 (1999). Determination of cyanide by Flow Injection

Analyser. Where WAD cyanides are required a Ligand displacement step is carried out

before analysis.

PM45As received solid samples are extracted with 1M NaOH by orbital shaker for Cyanide,

Sulphide and Thiocyanate analysis.AR Yes

TM89



before analysis.


Sulphide and Thiocyanate analysis.Yes AR Yes

NONE No Method Code NONE No Method Code AD Yes





Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :

Project Manager

1

Two samples were received for analysis on 4th June, 2021 of which two were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which




Authorised By:

Bruce Leslie



Northwich

Cheshire

CW9 5LP

Rosario Sottile

9th June, 2021

C4543


The Airfields, Deeside

4th June, 2021

Final report






Reference:


Contact:

EMT Job No: 21/8456

EMT Sample No. 1-3 4-6

Sample ID H5-9 H5-10

Depth 0.10 0.10

COC No / misc

Containers V J T V J T

Sample Date 04/06/2021 04/06/2021

Sample Type Soil Soil

Batch Number 1 1

Date of Receipt 04/06/2021 04/06/2021

Arsenic # 10.9 11.1 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Cadmium # 0.5 0.6 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Chromium # 52.2 55.9 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Copper # 16 17 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Lead # 104 86 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Mercury # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Nickel # 15.5 16.2 <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Selenium # 1 <1 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Zinc # 160 179 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

PAH MS

Naphthalene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthylene 0.05 0.06 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthene # <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluorene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Phenanthrene # 0.31 0.33 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Anthracene # 0.10 0.11 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluoranthene # 0.77 0.83 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Pyrene # 0.64 0.68 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)anthracene # 0.43 0.43 <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Chrysene # 0.49 0.49 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene # 0.91 0.86 <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)pyrene # 0.46 0.39 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Indeno(123cd)pyrene # 0.28 0.26 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # 0.07 0.07 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(ghi)perylene # 0.27 0.27 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 16 Total 4.8 4.8 <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.66 0.62 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.25 0.24 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH Surrogate % Recovery 96 103 <0 % TM4/PM8

TPH CWG

Aliphatics

>C5-C6 (HS_1D_AL) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C6-C8 (HS_1D_AL) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C8-C10 (HS_1D_AL) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C10-C12 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C12-C16 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # <4 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C16-C21 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # <7 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C21-C35 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # 16 23 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

Total aliphatics C5-35 (EH+HS_CU_1D_AL) <19 23 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16


Rosario Sottile



LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543




Reference:


Contact:

EMT Job No: 21/8456

EMT Sample No. 1-3 4-6

Sample ID H5-9 H5-10

Depth 0.10 0.10

COC No / misc

Containers V J T V J T

Sample Date 04/06/2021 04/06/2021

Sample Type Soil Soil

Batch Number 1 1

Date of Receipt 04/06/2021 04/06/2021

TPH CWG

Aromatics

>C5-EC7 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC7-EC8 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC8-EC10 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC10-EC12 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC12-EC16 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <4 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC16-EC21 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # 16 12 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC21-EC35 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # 68 92 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

Total aromatics C5-35 (EH+HS_CU_1D_AR) # 84 104 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) (EH+HS_CU_1D_Total) 84 127 <38 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

MTBE # <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Benzene # <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Toluene # 34 28 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Ethylbenzene # <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

m/p-Xylene # <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

o-Xylene # <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Total Phenols HPLC <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 mg/kg TM26/PM21B

Natural Moisture Content 20.7 22.2 <0.1 % PM4/PM0

Hexavalent Chromium # <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 mg/kg TM38/PM20

Chromium III 52.2 55.9 <0.5 mg/kg NONE/NONE

Free Cyanide <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Total Cyanide # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Organic Matter 3.2 3.0 <0.2 % TM21/PM24

pH # 7.67 7.77 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543


Rosario Sottile





Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of












H5-10

Sample ID

H5-9









C4543


Rosario Sottile



EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Analysis Reason




C4543


Rosario SottileContact:

Sample ID


Reference:

Location:



EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE


21/8456





accredited.



















WATERS















blanks.











EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

21/8456









Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable















Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample



HS

EH

CU

1D

Total

AL

AR

2D

#1

#2

_

+

MS


Mass Spectrometry.

Aliphatics only.

Aromatics only.






Headspace Analysis.







EMT Job No: 21/8456


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis




PAHs by GC-MS. PM8




PAHs by GC-MS. PM8



TM5




PM8/PM16



Rapid Trace SPE.

Yes AR Yes



TM21









TM30



SOILS by Modified USEP 6010B, Rev.2, Dec.1996; Modified EPA Method 3050B, Rev.2,

Dec.1996



TM36









EMT Job No: 21/8456


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM36







TM38




PM20


water to solid ratio using a reciprocal shaker for all analytes except hexavalent

chromium. Extraction of as received sample using 10:1 ratio of 0.2M sodium hydroxide to

soil for hexavalent chromium using a reciprocal shaker.

Yes AR Yes




using TM065.

Yes AR



TM89



before analysis.



TM89



before analysis.








Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :

Project Manager

1

Twenty three samples were received for analysis on 5th March, 2021 of which twenty one were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test




Authorised By:

Hayley Prowse



Northwich

Cheshire

CW9 5LP

Tim Mayall

17th March, 2021

C4543


Airfield

5th March, 2021

Final report






Reference:


Contact:

EMT Job No: 21/3207

EMT Sample No. 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20

Sample ID TS-1 TS-2 TS-3 TS-4 TS-5 TS-6 TS-7 TS-8 TS-9 TS-10

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers V J V J V J V J V J V J V J V J V J V J

Sample Date 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021


Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021

Arsenic # 6.3 - 7.8 8.9 9.1 - 9.9 11.6 8.8 - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Cadmium # 0.2 - 0.5 0.5 0.4 - 0.3 0.3 0.4 - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Chromium # 120.6 - 77.7 92.3 93.3 - 82.5 70.6 82.4 - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Copper # 13 - 13 17 17 - 11 13 15 - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Lead # 38 - 63 71 86 - 66 90 69 - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Mercury # <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Nickel # 13.0 - 12.7 15.4 14.4 - 15.2 17.7 14.3 - <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Selenium # <1 - <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Zinc # 64 - 127 141 124 - 95 116 127 - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Arsenic - 8.2 - - - 8.2 - - - 9.4 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Cadmium - 0.4 - - - 0.5 - - - 0.5 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Chromium - 15.5 - - - 19.2 - - - 17.2 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Copper - 12 - - - 13 - - - 15 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Lead - 71 - - - 145 - - - 78 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Mercury - <0.1 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Nickel - 13.7 - - - 12.3 - - - 13.8 <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Selenium - <1 - - - <1 - - - <1 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Zinc - 127 - - - 156 - - - 147 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

PAH MS

Naphthalene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthylene <0.03 <0.03 0.05 0.05 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthene # <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluorene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Phenanthrene # 0.19 0.31 0.41 0.36 0.37 0.25 0.04 0.39 0.19 0.21 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Anthracene # 0.06 0.05 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 <0.04 0.11 0.05 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluoranthene # 0.63 0.68 1.24 0.75 1.04 0.58 0.08 0.63 0.51 0.53 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Pyrene # 0.54 0.54 1.11 0.63 0.84 0.49 0.08 0.49 0.43 0.42 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)anthracene # 0.44 0.41 0.74 0.39 0.54 0.29 <0.06 0.26 0.27 0.26 <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Chrysene # 0.39 0.38 0.79 0.37 0.56 0.34 0.06 0.27 0.29 0.30 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene # 0.68 0.63 1.62 0.62 0.77 0.55 0.09 0.39 0.46 0.51 <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)pyrene # 0.35 0.29 0.89 0.31 0.35 0.25 <0.04 0.19 0.20 0.22 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Indeno(123cd)pyrene # 0.25 0.22 0.58 0.24 0.26 0.20 <0.04 0.12 0.15 0.17 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # <0.04 <0.04 0.13 <0.04 0.05 0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(ghi)perylene # 0.23 0.20 0.53 0.22 0.27 0.23 <0.04 0.12 0.17 0.20 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 16 Total 3.8 3.7 8.2 4.1 5.1 3.3 <0.6 3.0 2.7 2.8 <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.49 0.45 1.17 0.45 0.55 0.40 0.06 0.28 0.33 0.37 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.19 0.18 0.45 0.17 0.22 0.15 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.14 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH Surrogate % Recovery 94 95 96 97 95 96 98 96 97 95 <0 % TM4/PM8

Airfield

Tim Mayall



LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543




Reference:


Contact:

EMT Job No: 21/3207

EMT Sample No. 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20


Depth

COC No / misc


Sample Date 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021


Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021

TPH CWG

Aliphatics

>C5-C6 (HS_1D_AL) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12


>C8-C10 (HS_1D_AL) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C10-C12 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C12-C16 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16



Total aliphatics C5-35 (EH+HS_CU_1D_AL) <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Aromatics

>C5-EC7 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC7-EC8 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12


>EC10-EC12 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC12-EC16 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC16-EC21 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 10 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC21-EC35 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 79 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

Total aromatics C5-35 (EH+HS_CU_1D_AR) # <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 89 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) (EH+HS_CU_1D_Total) <38 <38 <38 <38 <38 89 <38 <38 <38 <38 <38 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

MTBE # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Benzene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Toluene # <5 <5 20 <5 <5 19 8 20 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Ethylbenzene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

m/p-Xylene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

o-Xylene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Total Phenols HPLC <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 mg/kg TM26/PM21B



Chromium III 120.6 - 77.7 92.3 93.3 - 82.5 70.6 82.4 - <0.5 mg/kg NONE/NONE

Chromium III - 15.5 - - - 19.2 - - - 17.2 <0.5 mg/kg NONE/NONE

Free Cyanide <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Total Cyanide # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Organic Matter 2.8 NDP 2.8 3.2 3.0 NDP 1.8 2.4 3.1 NDP <0.2 % TM21/PM24

pH # 8.22 8.15 7.99 7.89 8.14 7.84 8.16 8.15 7.84 7.98 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543

Airfield

Tim Mayall






Reference:


Contact:

EMT Job No: 21/3207

EMT Sample No. 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 29-30 31-32 33-34 35-36 37-38 39-40


Depth

COC No / misc


Sample Date 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021


Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021

Arsenic # 10.1 9.0 12.2 9.4 9.3 12.9 9.1 - 11.5 12.2 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Cadmium # 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 - 0.2 0.4 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Chromium # 81.1 79.5 82.8 95.5 96.8 85.9 83.8 - 76.0 78.8 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Copper # 11 16 13 13 17 14 9 - 16 14 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Lead # 67 156 95 77 77 104 60 - 47 98 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Mercury # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Nickel # 15.7 14.1 18.2 15.4 15.9 20.2 15.1 - 30.5 18.4 <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Selenium # <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - 1 <1 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Zinc # 101 131 112 132 160 127 87 - 104 133 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Arsenic - - - - - - - 9.8 - - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Cadmium - - - - - - - 0.4 - - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Chromium - - - - - - - 17.9 - - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Copper - - - - - - - 14 - - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Lead - - - - - - - 84 - - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Mercury - - - - - - - <0.1 - - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Nickel - - - - - - - 14.6 - - <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Selenium - - - - - - - <1 - - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Zinc - - - - - - - 156 - - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

PAH MS

Naphthalene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthylene <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.04 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthene # <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluorene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Phenanthrene # 0.04 0.18 0.05 0.25 0.13 0.06 <0.03 0.46 0.23 0.09 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Anthracene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.06 0.06 <0.04 <0.04 0.11 0.08 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluoranthene # 0.08 0.41 0.12 0.60 0.47 0.13 0.07 1.13 0.91 0.20 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Pyrene # 0.07 0.35 0.09 0.51 0.42 0.11 0.06 0.96 0.78 0.16 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)anthracene # <0.06 0.21 0.11 0.34 0.31 0.10 <0.06 0.57 0.48 0.12 <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Chrysene # 0.06 0.25 0.07 0.35 0.30 0.07 0.05 0.58 0.56 0.11 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene # 0.08 0.45 0.13 0.63 0.55 0.14 <0.07 1.00 1.05 0.20 <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)pyrene # <0.04 0.21 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.07 <0.04 0.49 0.53 0.07 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Indeno(123cd)pyrene # <0.04 0.17 <0.04 0.21 0.20 0.05 <0.04 0.38 0.38 0.06 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.05 0.08 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(ghi)perylene # <0.04 0.19 <0.04 0.21 0.20 0.05 <0.04 0.34 0.40 0.06 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 16 Total <0.6 2.4 0.6 3.5 2.9 0.8 <0.6 6.1 5.5 1.1 <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.06 0.32 0.09 0.45 0.40 0.10 <0.05 0.72 0.76 0.14 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.18 0.15 0.04 <0.02 0.28 0.29 0.06 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH Surrogate % Recovery 96 96 97 97 97 95 96 94 95 97 <0 % TM4/PM8

Airfield

Tim Mayall



LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543




Reference:


Contact:

EMT Job No: 21/3207

EMT Sample No. 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 29-30 31-32 33-34 35-36 37-38 39-40


Depth

COC No / misc


Sample Date 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021


Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021 05/03/2021

TPH CWG

Aliphatics



>C8-C10 (HS_1D_AL) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C10-C12 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16




Total aliphatics C5-35 (EH+HS_CU_1D_AL) <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Aromatics

>C5-EC7 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12



>EC10-EC12 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16



>EC21-EC35 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <7 <7 <7 60 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

Total aromatics C5-35 (EH+HS_CU_1D_AR) # <19 <19 <19 60 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) (EH+HS_CU_1D_Total) <38 <38 <38 60 <38 <38 <38 <38 <38 <38 <38 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

MTBE # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Benzene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Toluene # <5 17 <5 <5 7 10 <5 8 8 7 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Ethylbenzene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

m/p-Xylene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

o-Xylene # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Total Phenols HPLC <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 mg/kg TM26/PM21B



Chromium III 81.1 79.5 82.8 95.5 96.8 85.9 83.8 - 76.0 78.8 <0.5 mg/kg NONE/NONE

Chromium III - - - - - - - 17.9 - - <0.5 mg/kg NONE/NONE

Free Cyanide <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Total Cyanide # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Organic Matter 1.9 4.2 2.2 2.5 3.1 2.3 1.4 NDP 3.4 2.6 <0.2 % TM21/PM24

pH # 8.16 8.05 8.23 8.22 8.03 8.28 8.25 8.12 8.09 8.23 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543

Airfield

Tim Mayall






Reference:


Contact:

EMT Job No: 21/3207


Sample ID TS-21

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers V J


Sample Type Soil

Batch Number 1


Arsenic # 11.4 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Cadmium # 0.5 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Chromium # 90.9 <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Copper # 23 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Lead # 183 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Mercury # <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Nickel # 16.4 <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Selenium # <1 <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Zinc # 147 <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15

Arsenic - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Cadmium - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Chromium - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Copper - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Lead - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Mercury - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Nickel - <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Selenium - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62

Zinc - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62

PAH MS

Naphthalene # <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthylene <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Acenaphthene # <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluorene # <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Phenanthrene # 0.28 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Anthracene # 0.07 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Fluoranthene # 0.67 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Pyrene # 0.52 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)anthracene # 0.48 <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Chrysene # 0.40 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(bk)fluoranthene # 0.71 <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(a)pyrene # 0.29 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Indeno(123cd)pyrene # 0.23 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # 0.05 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(ghi)perylene # 0.23 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH 16 Total 3.9 <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.51 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.20 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8

PAH Surrogate % Recovery 97 <0 % TM4/PM8

Airfield

Tim Mayall



LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543




Reference:


Contact:

EMT Job No: 21/3207


Sample ID TS-21

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers V J


Sample Type Soil

Batch Number 1


TPH CWG

Aliphatics

>C5-C6 (HS_1D_AL) # <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C6-C8 (HS_1D_AL) # <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C8-C10 (HS_1D_AL) <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>C10-C12 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>C12-C16 (EH_CU_1D_AL) # <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16



Total aliphatics C5-35 (EH+HS_CU_1D_AL) <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Aromatics

>C5-EC7 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC7-EC8 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC8-EC10 (HS_1D_AR) # <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

>EC10-EC12 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC12-EC16 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC16-EC21 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # 9 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

>EC21-EC35 (EH_CU_1D_AR) # 77 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

Total aromatics C5-35 (EH+HS_CU_1D_AR) # 86 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) (EH+HS_CU_1D_Total) 86 <38 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16

MTBE # <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Benzene # <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Toluene # <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Ethylbenzene # <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

m/p-Xylene # <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

o-Xylene # <5 <5 ug/kg TM36/PM12

Total Phenols HPLC <0.15 <0.15 mg/kg TM26/PM21B

Natural Moisture Content 22.0 <0.1 % PM4/PM0

Hexavalent Chromium # <0.3 <0.3 mg/kg TM38/PM20

Chromium III 90.9 <0.5 mg/kg NONE/NONE

Chromium III - <0.5 mg/kg NONE/NONE

Free Cyanide <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Total Cyanide # <0.5 <0.5 mg/kg TM89/PM45

Organic Matter 3.2 <0.2 % TM21/PM24

pH # 8.09 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.



C4543

Airfield

Tim Mayall





Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of


21/3207 1 2 10/03/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil.stones





21/3207 1 4 10/03/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) Soil/Stones



10/03/2021 Asbestos ACM Insulation Debris








17/03/2021 Asbestos PCOM Quantification (Fibres) <0.001 (mass %)

















TS-5

TS-4

TS-3

TS-2

Sample ID

TS-1









C4543

Airfield

Tim Mayall


Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of




10/03/2021 Asbestos ACM Insulation Debris
































17/03/2021 Asbestos Gravimetric & PCOM Total <0.001 (mass %)

21/3207 1 22 10/03/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil/stones










TS-12

TS-11

TS-10

TS-9

TS-8

TS-7

C4543

Airfield

Tim Mayall

Sample ID

TS-6




Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of

















21/3207 1 32 10/03/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil/stones



















17/03/2021 Asbestos Gravimetric & PCOM Total <0.001 (mass %)











TS-20

TS-19

TS-18

TS-17

TS-16

TS-15

TS-14

Airfield

Tim Mayall

Sample ID

TS-13



C4543


Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of







Tim Mayall

Sample ID

TS-21



C4543

Airfield


NDP Reason Report

Matrix : Solid

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Method No. NDP Reason

21/3207 1 3-4 TM21/PM24 Asbestos detected in sample




TS-6

TS-10

TS-18

Location: Airfield

Contact: Tim Mayall

Sample ID

TS-2



Reference: C4543



EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Analysis Reason




C4543

Airfield

Tim MayallContact:

Sample ID


Reference:

Location:



EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS


21/3207





accredited.



















WATERS















blanks.



NOTE











EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

21/3207









Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable















Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample



HS

EH

CU

1D

Total

AL

AR

2D

#1

#2

_

+

MS


Mass Spectrometry.

Aliphatics only.

Aromatics only.


EH_Total but with humics extracted.

EU_Total but with fatty acids extracted.



Headspace Analysis.







EMT Job No: 21/3207


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done on

As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis




PAHs by GC-MS. PM8




PAHs by GC-MS. PM8



TM5




PM8/PM16



Rapid Trace SPE.

Yes AR Yes



TM21









TM30






TM30







EMT Job No: 21/3207


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done on

As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM36







TM36







TM38




PM20


water to solid ratio using a reciprocal shaker for all analytes except hexavalent chromium.

Extraction of as received sample using 10:1 ratio of 0.2M sodium hydroxide to soil for

hexavalent chromium using a reciprocal shaker.

Yes AR Yes




using TM065.

Yes AR



TM89



before analysis.



TM89



before analysis.



TM131




PM42



using TM065.

Yes AR Yes


NONE No Method Code NONE No Method Code AR Yes





Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :



Northwich

Cheshire

CW9 5LP

Samantha Murray

12th April, 2021

C4543


Airfields

2nd April, 2021

Final report

Project Manager

1

Twenty one samples were received for analysis on 2nd April, 2021 of which twenty one were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test




Authorised By:

Bruce Leslie





Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of



































H5 - D2

H5 - C2

H5 - B2

H5 - D1

Sample ID

H5 - C1









C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray


Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of




































07/04/2021 Asbestos ACM ACM Debris















H5 - C4

H5 - C3

H5 - B3

H5 - A3

C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray

Sample ID

H5 - A2




Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of

















21/4928 1 0.15 14 08/04/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) SoilStones






























TS - 25

TS - 24

TS - 23

TS - 04C

TS - 04B

TS - 02B

TS - 18B

TS - 06B

Airfields

Samantha Murray

Sample ID

TS - 10B



C4543


Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of












TS - 27

Samantha Murray

Sample ID

TS - 26



C4543

Airfields



EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Analysis Reason



Contact:

Sample ID


Reference:

Location:



C4543

Airfields

Samantha Murray


EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS

NOTE




















blanks.







WATERS














21/4928





accredited.






EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB


Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample

















Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable

21/4928








HS

EH

CU

1D

Total

AL

AR

2D

#1

#2

_

+

MS


Headspace Analysis.






Mass Spectrometry.

Aliphatics only.

Aromatics only.







EMT Job No: 21/4928


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis




using TM065.

Yes AR

TM131




PM42



using TM065.

Yes AR Yes





Zone 3


Deeside

CH5 2UA


Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :


Status :

Issue :

Project Manager

1

Thirty samples were received for analysis on 11th May, 2021 of which thirty were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which




Authorised By:

Hayley Prowse



Northwich

Cheshire

CW9 5LP

Samantha Murray

17th May, 2021

C4543


Airfields Deeside

11th May, 2021

Final report





Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

Note:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of


21/7011 1 0.50 1 12/05/2021 General Description (Bulk Analysis) Soil/Stone

































H5-7

H5-6

H5-5

H5-4

H5-3

H5-2

Sample ID

H5-1









C4543

Airfields Deeside

Samantha Murray


Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of


21/7011 1 0.50 7 12/05/2021 Asbestos Type NAD












































H8-16

H8-15

H8-14

H8-13

H8-12

H8-11

H5-10

H5-9

H5-8

C4543

Airfields Deeside

Samantha Murray

Sample ID

H5-7




Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of


21/7011 1 0.50 16 12/05/2021 Asbestos ACM NAD











































H6/7-14

H6/7-13

H6/7-12

H6/7-11

H8-20

H8-19

H8-18

H8-17

Airfields Deeside

Samantha Murray

Sample ID

H8-16



C4543


Asbestos Analysis

Client Name:

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Date Of
































H6/7-20

H6/7-19

H6/7-18

H6/7-17

H6/7-16

Samantha Murray

Sample ID

H6/7-15



C4543

Airfields Deeside



EMT

Job

No.

Batch Depth

EMT

Sample

No.

Analysis Reason




C4543

Airfields Deeside


Sample ID


Reference:

Location:



EMT Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

BLANKS


21/7011





accredited.



















WATERS















blanks.



NOTE











EMT Job No.:


#

SA

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

>>

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

21/7011









Dilution required.

MCERTS accredited.

Not applicable














Matrix Effect

No Fibres Detected

AQC Sample

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample



OC

HS

EH

CU

1D

Total

AL

AR

2D

#1

#2

_

+

MS


Mass Spectrometry.

Aliphatics only.

Aromatics only.






Headspace Analysis.








EMT Job No: 21/7011


Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS/S

ANAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done on

As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis




using TM065.

Yes AR



SM/C4543/10175 Rev A


APPENDIX C Photographic Record: H5 Noise Bund Depth Validation

PHOTO 1 PHOTO 2

PHOTO 3 PHOTO 4

D MORGAN



H5 VALIDATION RECORDS

CLIENT

PROJECT TITLE

TITLE

PAGEAssociated Document Ref No.

COMPLIED BY CHECKED BYRS

REV

SM/C4543/10175

JMJ

1 of 5

H5 Noise Bund Depth

Validation Records

PHOTO NO. DETAILS

1

Location: H5 – 1Showing 1.55m of clean cover, overlying orange geotextile at

base

2Location: H5 – 1

Showing 1.55m of “clean” topsoil cover

3


base

4


base

PHOTO 5 PHOTO 6

PHOTO 7 PHOTO 8

D MORGAN




CLIENT

PROJECT TITLE

TITLE



REV

SM/C4543/10093

JMJ

2 of 5

PHOTO NO. DETAILS

5

Location: H5 – 4Showing 1.85 of clean cover,

overlying orange geotextile at base

6Location: H5 – 4


7


base

8Location: H5 – 5


H5 Noise Bund Depth

Validation Records

PHOTO 9 PHOTO 10

PHOTO 11 PHOTO 12

D MORGAN




CLIENT

PROJECT TITLE

TITLE



REV

SM/C4543/10093

JMJ

3 of 5

PHOTO NO. DETAILS

9


base

10Location: H5 – 9


11

Location: H5– 10Showing 1.90m of clean cover, overlying orange geotextile at

base



H5 Noise Bund Depth

Validation Records

PHOTO 13 PHOTO 14

PHOTO 15 PHOTO 16

D MORGAN




CLIENT

PROJECT TITLE

TITLE



REV

SM/C4543/10093

JMJ

4 of 5

PHOTO NO. DETAILS

13


base



15

Location: H5– 12Showing 1.35m of clean cover, overlying orange geotextile at

base



H5 Noise Bund Depth

Validation Records

PHOTO 17 PHOTO 18

PHOTO 19 PHOTO 20

D MORGAN



CLIENT

PROJECT TITLE

TITLE



REV

SM/C4543/10093

JMJ

5 of 5

Photo Descriptions

PHOTO NO. DETAILS

17

Location: H5 BundConstruction of cover system,

including orange geotextile membrane

18

Location: H5 BundConstruction of cover system,

including orange geotextile membrane


Brownfield Solutions Limited i D Morgan Plot H3 The Airfields, Deeside

D MORGAN Plot H3 The Airfields, Deeside

Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (DQRA) for Controlled Waters JMJ/C4543/10095 April 2021


JMJ/C4543/10095

Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment for Controlled Waters ii D Morgan Plot H3 The Airfields, Deeside

PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL DATA SHEET

Written by: Checked by: Approved by:

J M Jacob BSc(Hons) CGeol FGS Director

Nicola Swallow BSc (Hons) MSc MIEnvSc Senior Project Engineer

Nicola Swallow BSc (Hons) MSc MIEnvSc Senior Project Engineer

Site Name: Plot H3 The Airfields, Deeside

Document Name: Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment for Controlled Waters

Reference: JMJ/C4543/10095

Status:

- 29/04/2021 Original.

Issued By: Client: Engineer:

Brownfield Solutions Ltd William Smith House 173 – 183 Witton Street Northwich Cheshire CW9 5LP

Tel: 01606 334 844 brownfield-solutions.com

D Morgan New Hey Chester Road Great Sutton Ellesmere Port CH66 2LS

Contact: Mr D Smith Contact:

JMJ/C4543/10095

Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment for Controlled Waters iii D Morgan Plot H3 The Airfields, Deeside

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 1 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 1 1.4 AVAILABLE INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.5 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 GROUND MODEL SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF SITE ............................................................................................................... 3 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................ 3 2.3 GROUND CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 4

3.0 INITIAL INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................ 5

3.1 OCTOBER 2020 SITE INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................... 5

4.0 QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 7

4.1 HUMAN HEALTH ..................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 CONTROLLED WATERS ............................................................................................................. 7

5.0 DELINEATION AND EXCAVATION .......................................................................................... 8

5.1 REMEDIAL EXCAVATION ............................................................................................................ 8 5.2 VALIDATION ........................................................................................................................... 8 5.3 ASSESSMENT OF INITIAL REMEDIATION WORKS ............................................................................. 9

6.0 DETAILED QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 10

6.1 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 10 6.2 COMPLIANCE POINTS AND SITE SPECIFIC DATA ............................................................................. 10 6.3 DQRA PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................. 11 6.4 RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE MODEL .......................................................................................... 12 6.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 13

7.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 14

8.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 16

DRAWINGS

Drawing Number Rev Title

C4543/01 - Site Location Plan C4543/10 H3 Hydrocarbon excavation and Borehole Location Plan

APPENDICIES

Appendix Title

Appendix A Borehole Logs Appendix B On Site Permeability Test Results Appendix C Laboratory Chemical Test Results Appendix D P20 Risk Assessment Model Sheets

JMJ/C4543/10095

Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment for Controlled Waters 1 D Morgan Plot H3 The Airfields, Deeside

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context

This Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment Report has been produced by Brownfield Solutions Limited (BSL) for D Morgan as part of the proposed development at Plot H3 of The Airfields, Deeside, and has been completed in general accordance with the following guidance:

Environment Agency guidance - Land Contamination: Risk Management (LCRM). CLR11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination. BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites. Water Framework Directive. Environmental Quality Standards. UK Drinking Water Standards: Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1147) and

Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations Environment Agency. R&D Publication 20. Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for

Soil and Groundwater to Protect Water Resources. 1999.

1.2 Introduction and Objectives

Plot H3 is part of the wider Airfields site which had a military use between 1916 and 2006. D Morgan have remediated Plot H3 as part of the wider redevelopment of the Airfields site.

During the course of carrying out further investigation in the poplar’s areas of Plot H3, Hydrocarbon contamination was identified in the soils.

This report covers the investigation, remediation and validation works carried out to mitigate the risk from this hydrocarbon hotspot within Plot H3.

It also provides a DQRA for the potential risk associated with residual contamination remaining at the site to sensitive receptors following the remediation.

1.3 Proposed Development

It is proposed to redevelop the area for residential end use, with the development comprising residential housing with private gardens and access roads.

1.4 Available Information

The following previous reports are available for the site and should be read in conjunction with this Remedial Strategy:

BSL Remedial Strategy Report for Plots H3 and H5, Report Ref. JMC/C4543/9495 Rev B, issued December 2020.

JPG Geoenvironmental Desk Study, The Airfields Deeside, Report Ref: MT/DS/4671.v1, issued July 2014.

JPG Geoenvironmental Ground Investigation, Plots H3 and H5, Report Ref: 4671-JPG-XX-XX-RP-G-0603-S2-P01, issued April 2020.

JPG Remedial Strategy Report, plots H3 and H5, Report Ref: 4671-JPG-XX-XX-RP-G-0604-S2-P01.

JMJ/C4543/10095


1.5 Limitations

This report has been prepared for the sole use and reliance of the Client, D Morgan. This report shall not be relied upon or transferred to any other parties without the express written authorisation of BSL. If an unauthorised third party comes into possession of this report they rely on it at their risk and the authors owe them no duty of care or skill.

Current UK guidance and legislation has been used in the environmental assessment of the site, BSL is not liable for any subsequent changes in the guidance and legislation.

BSL have used reasonable skill, care and diligence in the production of this report. The findings and opinions conveyed via this report are based on information obtained from a number of sources as detailed within this report, BSL have assumed this information is correct and reliable. Nevertheless, BSL cannot and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the information it has relied upon.

The recommendations within this report are based upon the proposed site end use provided to BSL at the time of writing. If the end use or development layout changes from the proposal, then the recommendations may change or become invalid.

The site plans enclosed in this report should not be scaled off. Any site boundary line depicted on plans does not imply legal ownership of land.

Any recommendations made in this report should be confirmed with the Regulatory Authorities prior to implementation to ensure compliance.

JMJ/C4543/10095


2.0 GROUND MODEL SUMMARY

2.1 Description of Site

The site is located off Welsh Road (A548) as part of the wider ‘The Airfields’ development in Deeside. It is situated approximately 6km north-west of Chester City Centre, centred on National Grid Reference 332600, 3699551 as shown on the Site Location Plan, Drawing No C4543/01.

The site descriptions below are taken from the time of the investigation undertaken by JPG in February 2020.

Plot H3

Plot H3 is currently unoccupied and comprises a grassed field in the west and a thin surface layer of made ground (mostly brick and concrete) in the centre and east. Two stockpiles of brick and concrete are located towards the centre and the east of the site. There is a mounded area in the southern part of the plot which extends towards the north into Plot H5.

The northern boundary is formed by a swale and a new section of highway in the north-eastern corner. The southern boundary comprises Sealand Avenue and several small industrial units.

2.2 Environmental Setting

Site History

The previous uses of the wider Airfields site from a review of the JPG Geoenvironmental Desk Study (Ref: MT/DS/4671.v1) were predominantly military between 1916 and 2006, including an airfield (Formerly RAF Sealand) and flying school. The site was used as a military camp during World War I and as a maintenance unit and airfield during World War II. Other notable historical features include a former railway line, sewage works and numerous commercial buildings and attenuation ponds towards the north.

Published Geology

From the JPG Geoenvironmental Desk Study and published geology, it was anticipated that ground conditions would comprise the following sequence of strata (top down):

Made Ground; over Tidal Flat Deposits; over Lower and Middle Coal Measures Formations beneath the majority of the site, Kinnerton Sandstone

Formation beneath the north-eastern area and Etruria Formation in the southern area.

Hydrogeology

The Tidal Flat Deposits beneath the site are classified as a Secondary A Aquifer. The Lower and Middle Coal Measures Formations and Etruria Formations are also classified as Secondary A Aquifers, whereas the Kinnerton Sandstone Formation beneath the north-eastern area is classified as a Principal Aquifer.

The site does not lie within 500m of a Source Protection Zone.

Groundwater in the Dee estuary is largely considered to be brackish in nature, as the majority of the land has been reclaimed from the tidal flat deposits over the past several hundred years.

There is one recorded groundwater abstraction within 1km of the site. This is located 526m north and is a borehole for general farming and domestic water supply. There are no potable water abstraction licences within 2km of the site.

JMJ/C4543/10095


Hydrology

Surface water features are recorded at the site as an unnamed and undefined primary river and several undefined secondary rivers, identified as drains.

The nearest surface water feature is a recently constructed swale/drain which is present 40m north of the hydrocarbon hotspot. It is understood that this is connected to a slightly larger drain present 140m south west of the hydrocarbon hotspot which is present just south of Sealand Avenue.

The nearest major surface water feature is the River Dee which is located approximately 600m to the south.

The on-site swales are tidal and the water within them are considered to be saline or brackish in nature.

There is one recorded surface water abstraction license within 1km of the site. This is located 369m south east for spray irrigation, assumed to be for agricultural use.

2.3 Ground Conditions

Observed Geology

From the ground investigations carried out to date, topsoil and / or made ground was encountered within exploratory holes across the area.

A thin veneer of slightly silty sandy clay topsoil was observed in places across the site. This was underlain by made ground which has now been removed as part of the remediation of the wider Plot H3 area.

Underlying the topsoil / made ground was tidal flat deposits comprising silty sand with shells proven to a maximum depth of 9.95m bgl.

No bedrock was encountered during the investigation.

Groundwater

The following groundwater levels have been recorded on the site.

Borehole

Refercence

Easting Northing Level Of

Well Cover

mAOD

Ground Level

mAOD

Ground Water

Level mAOD

Adjacent Swale

Water Level m

AOD

BH1 332676.415 369569.511 6.088 5.586 3.418 3.00m +/-0.30m BH2 332742.874 369558.912 5.644 5.223 3.444 3.00m +/-0.30m BH3B 332802.848 369551.684 6.125 5.705 3.515 3.00m +/-0.30m

Surface water in the swale varies due to tidal influences.

Standing groundwater was recorded at 3.465 mAOD in the hydrocarbon hotspot excavation.

Observations

During the investigation of the area of the site in early October 2020 by means of trial trenches a strong to medium kerosene type hydrocarbon odour was noted.

JMJ/C4543/10095


3.0 INITIAL INVESTIGATION

3.1 October 2020 Site Investigation

In early October 2020 preliminary trial pitting was undertaken across the poplars area of Plot H3 plot. Visual and olfactory evidence of hydrocarbon contamination was identified during this investigation in the eastern area of Plot H3 (TPH3/13, TPH3/14 and TPH3/15) to depths of between 1.00m and 2.00m bgl. No laboratory testing was undertaken during this initial investigation.

It should be noted that there was no obvious sign of the source of this hydrocarbon contamination either currently on site in the form of an above ground or below ground fuel tank or on the historical mapping of the area, and it can be assumed that the contamination is historical resulting from a spill or leak from a tank or fuel pipe which has since been removed from site.

BSL attended site on the 28th October 2020 primarily for the ongoing asbestos remediation works.

During this works a trench was excavated across the suspected hydrocarbon identified area. A trial trench was excavated parallel with the boundary fence line, for approximately 25m. The trial pit was excavated until only natural strata was present, with no visual or olfactory evidence of hydrocarbon contamination remaining.

When attempting to trace the extent of the hydrocarbon contamination in the east-west orientation, a large concrete slab was encountered which extended beyond the site boundary to the south west, and the trial trenching was terminated.

The ground conditions encountered comprised a gravelly sand with a high brick cobble content and occasional visible asbestos cement.

Underlying the made ground was a light brown fine to coarse sand. The hydrocarbon contamination was predominantly located within this natural sand strata, the base of which was not proven.

Sampling Nine representative soil samples (H01 to H09) were taken from the sides and base of the trial trench at regular 2m intervals, including one sample from the natural strata at the southernmost point. The locations of the samples and the trial trench extremities were surveyed in by D Morgan’s onsite engineer, and are shown on Drawing C4543/10 H3 Hydrocarbon Excavation and Borehole Location Plan with the laboratory test results presented within Appendix C.

Results and Assessment Samples were tested for TPH-CWG contamination. The testing results from the trial trench material were screened against the residential with homegrown produce end-use use criteria. They were also screened against public open space (POS) and commercial end use for potential re-use purposes onsite.

Exceedances were detected in two samples for six contaminants against the residential end-use criteria as detailed below.


(mg/kg)

Screening Criteria

(mg/kg)

H03 1.00

Aliphatic EC8-EC10 149.6 27 Aliphatic EC10-EC12 1886.7 130 Aliphatic EC12-EC16 2255 1100 Aromatic EC10-EC12 806 74

JMJ/C4543/10095



(mg/kg)

Screening Criteria

(mg/kg)

Aromatic EC12-EC16 1047 140 Aromatic EC16-EC21 618 260

H08 1.50

Aliphatic EC8-EC10 91.7 27 Aliphatic EC10-EC12 804.4 130 Aliphatic EC12-EC16 1666 1100 Aromatic EC10-EC12 258.3 74 Aromatic EC12-EC16 660 140 Aromatic EC16-EC21 670 260

No petroleum hydrocarbons, BTEX or MTBE compounds have been identified above either POS or commercial screening criteria.

Having assessed the carbon fraction distribution within the test results obtained from samples H03 and H08 it would appear the most likely original fuel source type is kerosene. However, this is only a considered opinion as clearly some considerable time has elapsed since the original fuel spill/leak and degradation has taken place.

The assessment as kerosene would also correlate with the odours noticed when the hydrocarbons were first encountered and the former use of the site as an RAF base which would have regularly used kerosene i.e., Jet Fuel.

JMJ/C4543/10095


4.0 QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Human Health

The hydrocarbons exceeding the human health screening criteria for residential end use with home grown produce were assessed as posing an unacceptable risk to the human health of proposed site end users which are the future occupants of the residential development, and remedial measures were therefore recommended. The pathways to proposed site end users include dermal contact and ingestion with impacted soils and groundwaters and the migration to internal spaces by hydrocarbon vapours and inhalation by site end users.

The pathway via dermal contact can be broken by the excavation and removal off site of the highest concentrations of impacted soils and implementation of a clean cover layer. A cover of 1.00m thick is recommended. The risk posed by the residual hydrocarbons via migration and inhalation of hydrocarbon vapours can be mitigated by the implementation of volatile organic compound (VOC) resistant membrane in the proposed new residential properties.

4.2 Controlled Waters

The risk assessment methodology used in this instance is based on Source – Pathway – Receptor (SPR) philosophy. The source is the presence of contamination, or substance/event likely to cause harm. The receptor is the target that may be detrimentally affected by the source. The pathway is the means of the contamination to move from the source to the receptor. Where any of these three factors are removed there is deemed to be no risk.

The CSM for controlled waters is presented below:

Source Pathway Receptor Likelihood Severity Level of Risk


Migration through groundwater or granular

soils

Surface Water (adjacent Swale)

High Likelihood

Medium High


Migration through groundwater or granular

soils Secondary A Aquifer Likely Mild Low

The hydrocarbon contamination identified were considered to pose an unacceptable risk to controlled waters of The Tidal Flat Deposits beneath the site which are classified as a Secondary A Aquifer. However, there are no groundwater abstractions within 500m of the site and the site does not lie within 500m of a groundwater Source Protection Zone.

Groundwater in the Dee estuary is largely considered to be brackish in nature, as the majority of the land has been reclaimed from the tidal flat deposits over the past several hundred years. Groundwater near to surface water swales is also considered likely to be influenced by tidal rises and falls. Therefore, the immediate groundwater sensitivity of the site is considered to be low.

Surface waters are also present near to the site, the nearest being a recently constructed swale/drain which is present 40m north of the identified hydrocarbon hotspot. This is connected to a slightly larger drain present 140m south-west. These swales are considered sensitive environmental receptors from an ecological point of view. Based on this, the permeability of underlying tidal flat deposits and the proximity to the swale, the risk is considered to be high.

JMJ/C4543/10095


5.0 DELINEATION AND EXCAVATION

Given the development program and the levels of hydrocarbon soil contamination identified in the initial investigation, it was considered that the best approach was a combined delineation and excavation of the hydrocarbon hotspot to excavate and remove the obvious high impacted soil concentrations.

5.1 Remedial Excavation

The hotspot was excavated and delineated between the dates of the 17th February and the 21st February 2021. The work was carried out under the direction and supervision of a qualified and experienced geo-environmental engineer. The hydrocarbon impacted sands were excavated and placed directly into dump trucks for temporary storage on a sealed hardstanding and bunded area in Plot H5.

Nine validation soil samples were screened on site using visual and olfactory means and samples were obtained from the base and the side of the excavation and sent to an accredited laboratory for analytical testing. The locations of the samples are shown on Drawing C4543/10 H3 Hydrocarbon Excavation and Borehole Location Plan and the laboratory results presented in Appendix C.

Excavation of the hydrocarbon soil hotspot identified in Plot H3 was carried out as far as reasonably practicable given the granular nature of the soils and the high-water table and the immediate proximity of the adjacent site boundary with commercial buildings present just beyond.

5.2 Validation

The validation results demonstrated that the hydrocarbon remediation had been largely successful with the validation results from the southern, eastern and northern faces showing very low or background levels of hydrocarbons present in the samples tested.

However, residually elevated levels of hydrocarbons were still present along the western side of the excavation where it was not possible to excavate any further into the adjacent property and at the base of the excavation below the water table.

These highest residual hydrocarbons were found along the western face in samples HC W1 these results are summarised below:

Location Depth m bgl Range/Fraction Concentration (mg/kg)

HC W1 1.50

Aliphatic EC8-EC10 29 Aliphatic EC10-EC12 130 Aliphatic EC12-EC16 4500 Aliphatic EC16-EC21 5800 Aliphatic EC21-EC35 1100 Aromatic EC8-EC10 21

Aromatic EC10-EC12 93 Aromatic EC12-EC16 3000 Aromatic EC16-EC21 4800 Aromatic EC21- EC35 1200

Total aliphatic and aromatic EC08 -EC35 hydrocarbons present in HCW1 20,673mg/kg. Ethylbenzene and p & m-xylene were also found to be very slightly elevated in HC W1 with levels of 1.1mg/kg and 29mg/kg noted respectively but noted to be an order of magnitude below the relevant screening criteria.

JMJ/C4543/10095


Groundwater within the excavation was present at a depth of 2.00m bgl. No sheens or free product were evident on the groundwater within the excavation, a sample of the groundwater was obtained on the 18th February 2021 and tested at an accredited laboratory, the results are presented in Appendix C.

The results were compared in the first instance to Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) values. Where no EQS is given then UK drinking water standards (DWS) were used.

Dissolved hydrocarbons were elevated above laboratory detection limits for all samples tested. There are no EQS values for hydrocarbons. The Water Supply Regulations 1989 and the Private Water Supply Regulations 1991 contained a prescribed concentration of 10 µg/l for “dissolved or emulsified hydrocarbons. This was removed when the regulations were updated. However, 10 µg/l is used in this report as an initial screening assessment as it is frequently the preferred approach of the Environment Agency. A summary of exceedances of this criterion is given in the table below.

Location Depth m bgl Range/Fraction Concentration (µg/l)

HC GW 1.185

Aliphatic EC8-EC10 < 1.0 Aliphatic EC10-EC12 < 10 Aliphatic EC12-EC16 400 Aliphatic EC16-EC21 360 Aliphatic EC21-EC35 < 10 Aromatic EC8-EC10 < 1.0

Aromatic EC10-EC12 < 10 Aromatic EC12-EC16 160 Aromatic EC16-EC21 170 Aromatic EC21-EC35 < 10

Total aliphatic and aromatic EC08 -EC35 hydrocarbons present in HC GW 1,090 µg/l. No elevated BTEX compounds were identified in the groundwater.

5.3 Assessment of Initial Remediation Works

Further to the initial remedial excavation of the main areas of the hydrocarbon hotspot an assessment of the results can be summarised as follows.

The vast majority of the hydrocarbon impacted soils on the site have been successfully excavated and validated, however elevated levels are present on the western excavation face adjacent to the site boundary with lesser levels present at depth below the water table.

The levels of residual hydrocarbon contamination TPH CWG present on the western excavation face were 12,000mg/kg aliphatic EC5-EC35 and 9,200mg/kg aromatic EC5–EC35. These results are higher than the highest levels identified in the centre of the hotspot within the site boundary, sample H03 where 5,710mg/kg aliphatic EC5-EC35 and 2,788mg/kg aromatic EC5–EC35 were recorded.

Based on the above result comparison it could be inferred that the original source of the hydrocarbon could have been offside beyond the western site boundary, with the plume concentration reducing away from the source.

Based on the residual levels of hydrocarbon contamination identified, the likelihood that the original hydrocarbon source may have been off site beyond the site boundary and the impractical nature of carrying out further physical remediation of the remaining hydrocarbons, it was deduced that a further risk assessment for controlled waters be undertaken using Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment methodology.

JMJ/C4543/10095


6.0 DETAILED QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

6.1 Discussion

To further assess the findings of the Qualitative Risk Assessment that the contamination identified posed a significant risk to controlled waters. A Quantitative Risk Assessment was carried out using the Environment Agency’s Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Land Contamination Remedial Targets Worksheet, Release 3.1 (P20).

This model has been developed to help assessors derive site-specific remedial targets for contaminated soils and groundwater that are protective of the wider water environment through a series of tiered site specific stages.

The first Tier deals with direct soil water partitioning, while Tier Two models groundwater dilution within the transporting aquifer and Tier Three models natural contaminant attenuation and degradation through the aquifer to a compliance point.

The model does not consider the risks posed by contaminants to other receptors, such as humans, buildings, flora and fauna.

This model has been used in a conservative manner with the highest soil and groundwater concentrations applied in the soil plume.

6.2 Compliance points and site specific data

To delineate a possible groundwater hydrocarbon plume, three boreholes were drilled using cable percussive drilling methods (BH1, BH2 and BH3B) between the dates of the 6th of April and the 8th of April 2021. Groundwater monitoring standpipes were installed between the location of the hydrocarbon hotspot and the nearby surface water swale.

The boreholes are shown on Drawing C4543/10 H3 Hydrocarbon Excavation and Borehole Location Plan. They were positioned at distances of between 30m and 75m from the original hydrocarbon plume.

The boreholes were logged by an experienced geo-environmental engineer who supervised the drilling and obtained samples for chemical analysis. The borehole and monitoring wells were surveyed to mAOD and NGR on completion. The borehole logs are presented in Appendix A.

The boreholes all encountered made ground to between 1.10m and 1.50m bgl underlain by a brown fine to coarse sand which typically became grey brown and silty below 2-3.00m bgl and contained occasional fine shell fragments.

Groundwater was typically encountered at a depth of 2.00m bgl during the drilling of the boreholes.

No visual or olfactory signs of hydrocarbon contamination were noted in any of the three boreholes.

The monitoring wells were installed to 7.00m bgl and comprised a 50mm internal diameter slotted standpipe. With a response zone between 2.80m and 7.00m bgl so sampling of any dissolved hydrocarbons present within the vertical groundwater column could be undertaken.

Soil samples were obtained from the boreholes at depths of 3.00m bgl (BH1), 3.50m (BH2) and 2.50m (BH3B).

JMJ/C4543/10095


The soil samples were tested for a range of metals, speciated TPH CWG, VOCs and SVOCs to check for background levels. No elevated contaminants were identified above background levels. The soil samples were also tested for Total Organic Carbon.

Three falling head permeability tests were carried out in each of the monitoring wells on the 16th of April 2021.

A summary of the resulting permeabilities is presented in the table below with the Data Sheets presented in Appendix B.

Location Test No. Permeability m/s Permeability m/d

BH01 T1 9.25 E-5 7.99 T2 3.99 E-4 34.47 T3 8.08 E-4 69.81

BH02 T1 4.15 E-4 35.86 T2 7.02 E-4 60.65 T3 8.24 E-4 71.19

BH03B T1 7.21 E-4 62.29 T2 1.94 E-4 16.76 T3 5.88 E-4 50.80

The lowest permeability is 7.99 m/d. The highest is permeability is 71.19 m/d. The average permeability is 45.54 m/d.

The monitoring wells were purged and sampled using low flow techniques on the 16th of April, no sheens or free product were noted during the purging. The samples were scheduled for a range of speciated TPH CWG, VOCs and SVOCs. No elevated determinands were recorded in any of the samples obtained. The laboratory results are presented in Appendix C.

The monitoring wells in all three boreholes have been used as compliance points for the DQRA rather than the surface water swale itself which is classed as a receptor. The distances between the borehole compliance points and the original source of the hydrocarbon contamination is between 30m and 75m. This is in line with the Environment Agency stipulated compliance points located within the aquifers of 250m default for non-hazardous pollutants and 50m for hazardous substances (GP3, Environment Agency, 2013).

6.3 DQRA Parameters

As hydrocarbons are complex chemicals and the EA spreadsheet does not allow TPHCWG aliphatic and aromatic carbon banded speciation of TPH, a TPH value of 0.30mg/l was used based on the recommendations made within CL:AIRE, 2017; Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Groundwater: Guidance (CL:AIRE PHGG) on assessing petroleum hydrocarbons using existing hydrogeological risk assessment methodologies.

The following site contaminant parameters were used within the model with the source of the value of each parameter noted on the specific spreadsheet.

The groundwater testing indicated impaction with kerosene range hydrocarbons. Based on CL:AIRE PHGG guidance Kerosene is primarily comprised of Aromatic Hydrocarbons >EC10–EC12 and have a moderate solubility and moderate groundwater mobility.

JMJ/C4543/10095


Naphthalene (11.7) 2-methylnaphthalene (12.8) acenaphthylene (15.1) acenaphthene (15.5) can all be used as indicator compounds for this range of hydrocarbons.

Therefore, acenaphthylene has been selected as a marker compound for the Kerosene petroleum. The use of these marker compounds is in accordance with the Environment Agency guidance “Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Groundwater Supplementary Guidance for Hydrogeological Risk Assessment. “

Groundwater contaminants have been chosen for the assessment over theoretical leachate concentrations as these represent actual site conditions, leachate levels are likely to be significantly reduced following redevelopment which will include the placement of hardstanding areas and new site drainage network. Note: Soakaways are not recommended for this area of the site, thus groundwater infiltration and leachability will be greatly reduced.

Parameters used in the risk assessment are presented in the table below:

Parameter Value Notes on data source

Width of plume in aquifer source perpendicular to flow (Sz)

5m Conservative estimate based on field data

Plume thickness at source 2m Estimate based on field data Saturated Aquifer thickness (da) 8m Estimate based on field data Bulk density of aquifer materials 1.8g/cm3 Estimate based on field descriptions and tests and

published figures for silty sands Effective porosity of aquifer 0.25 Estimate based on field descriptions and tests and

published figures for typical silty sands Hydraulic gradient 0.001 Calculated based on relative groundwater levels between

onsite groundwater and that within the monitoring wells at the compliance point.

Hydraulic conductivity of aquifer 45.54m/day Permeability as calculated during on site field testing via falling head tests.

Distance to compliance point 30m Distance from the edge of known plume to the compliance point of the monitoring boreholes.

The highest TPH concentration was chosen from the groundwater sampling undertaken after the hotspot remedial removal exercise.

TPH-CWG – Total Aliphatic (C5 - C35) 0.760mg/l TPH-CWG – Total Aliphatic (C5 - C35) 0.330mg/l Total TPH CWG 1.090mg/l

6.4 Results of Quantitative Model

The remedial target concentrations for soil and groundwater based on the results of the P20 Level 3 soil assessment is presented below next to the highest most recent site specific concentrations that remain on the site.

Contaminant Soil Target Concentration

(mg/kg)

Highest Field

Concentration

(mg/kg)

Groundwater Target

Concentration

(mg/l)

Highest Field

Concentration

(mg/l)

Total TPH CWG 1.33 E+07 2.07 E+05 5.33E+03 1.09E+00

JMJ/C4543/10095


The remedial target concentration based on the results of the P20 Level 3 groundwater assessment is presented below next to the highest most recent site specific groundwater concentrations that remain on the site.

Contaminant Groundwater Target Concentration

(mg/l)

Highest Field Concentration

(mg/l)

Total TPH CWG 1.24E+00 1.09E+00

The remedial target concentrations for the level three soil and the level three groundwater target are all above the residual site specific levels recorded on site. Therefore, the model predicts there will be no impact at the compliance points.

6.5 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis was undertaken and presented below:

Parameter Discussion

Hydraulic Gradient Increasing the hydraulic gradient increases the remedial concentration for tier 3 soils. It is considered that the data represents a worst case scenario as flow directions on the site are likely representative of a relatively flat peizometric level. The gradient is considered to be conservative.

Hydraulic conductivity of aquifer Lowering the hydraulic conductivity to the lowest site figure rather than using the average raises the target concentrations slightly for tier 3 soils and groundwater. The permeability used is considered to be conservative.

Plume thickness at source Increasing the plume thickness lowers the target value. The thickness is assumed based on field data and 50% of the assumed saturated aquifer thickness. .

Saturated aquifer thickness The target value is not sensitive to the saturated aquifer thickness in this model. Bulk density of aquifer materials The target value is not sensitive to the bulk density in this model. Effective porosity of aquifer The target value is not sensitive to the effective aquifer porosity in this model Distance to compliance point Increasing the distance to the compliance point will increase the target value. The

distance chosen is the shortest distance to the nearest borehole compliance point. In reality the nearest surface water is another 15m beyond this compliance point, therefore the distance chosen is considered to be conservative.

Furthermore, degradation rates have not been applied in this model presently, if this were applied then the remedial target concentrations are likely to be significantly higher.

The P20 Model Sheets are presented in Appendix D.

JMJ/C4543/10095


7.0 CONCLUSIONS

It can be deduced that the initial excavation and removal of the identified kerosene TPH hotspot has been largely successful in removing a significant part of the original impacted soils from site. This will result in a further reduction in the dissolved TPH groundwater concentrations in the immediate area.

However, the original source of the hydrocarbons may have been off site and some residual impacted soils were left in situ primarily on the site boundary at depth.

The installation of three monitoring wells between the residual Kerosene TPH hotspot and the nearest surface water, a recently constructed swale has revealed that the plume is very small and has not extended to the monitoring wells as no impacted soils or groundwater were identified in any of the three monitoring wells.

The groundwater gradient is assessed as being nearly level which is congruent with the groundwater identified on the site as a whole. This is confirmed by the fact that the permeability of the soils based on site testing ranges between 8 and 71m/day. As the spill or leak of the kerosene was historic and assumed to have occurred several years ago when the site was an operational RAF base. It can be determined that more than sufficient time has elapsed for any hydrocarbon impacted groundwater to have migrated the 30m to the compliance monitoring wells or the swale.

However, if we adopt a conservative worst case scenario and assume a slight groundwater gradient and flow direction towards the monitoring wells and surface water swale and carry out a P20 Level 3 soil and groundwater risk assessment it can be seen that the derived remedial targets are still in excess of the actual residual soil and groundwater concentrations.

Therefore, it can be confidently deduced that the residual soil and groundwater contamination is not only very limited in extent but does not pose an unacceptable risk to the wider controlled waters environment including the recently constructed surface water swale.

No further remedial actions are considered necessary, it is however considered that the findings within this report are presented to the regulatory authorities for approval before any irrevocable actions are undertaken.

JMJ/C4543/10095


8.0 REFERENCES

Association of Ground Investigation Specialists. ‘Guidelines for Good Practice in Site Investigation’. Issue 2, March 2006.

BS 3882: ‘Specification for topsoil’. 2015.

BS 5930: ‘Code of Practice for Site Investigations’. 2015.

BS 6031: ‘Code of practice for earthworks’. 2009.

BS 8485+A1: ‘Code of practise for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings’. 2019.

BS 8576 ‘Guidance on investigations for ground gas – Permanent gases and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)’. 2013.

BS 10175:2011+A2 ‘Investigation of Potentially Contaminated sites - code of practice’. 2017.

BRE Report BR211, Scivyer, C. ‘Radon – Guidance on protective measures for new buildings’ 2015 Edition.

BRE Report 414. ‘Protective measures for housing on gas contaminated land. Building Research Establishment Report’. 2011.

BRE Report 465 ‘Cover Systems for Land Regeneration’. 2004.

CIRIA Special Publications 101-112, ‘Remedial Treatment for Contaminated Land’. 1998.

CIRIA Special Publication 124, ‘Barriers, liners and cover systems for containment and control of land contamination’. 1996.

CIRIA 149 ‘Protecting Development from Methane’. 1995.

CIRIA 150 ‘Methane Investigation Strategies’. 1995.

CIRIA 151 ‘Interpreting Measurements of Gas in the Ground’. 1995.

CIRIA 152 ‘Risk assessment for Methane and Other Gases from the Ground’. 1995.

CIRIA 552 ‘Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – A guide to good practice’. 2001.

CIRIA C659 ‘Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings.’ 2006.

CIRIA C665 ‘Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings’. 2007.

CIRIA C681 ‘Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) A guide for the construction industry’. 2009.

CIRIA C716 ‘Remediating and mitigating risks from volatile organic compound (VOC) vapours from land affected by contamination’. 2012.

CIRIA C733 ‘Asbestos In Soil And Made Ground: A Guide To Understanding And Managing Risks’. 2014.

CIRIA C735 ‘Good Practice on The Testing and Verification of Protection Systems for Buildings Against Hazardous Ground Gases’. 2014.

CIRIA C748 ‘Guidance on the Use of Plastic Membranes as VOC Vapour Barriers’. 2014.

CL:AIRE and CIEH. ‘Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration’. May 2008.

CL:AIRE ‘The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice’. Version 2. March 2011.

CL:AIRE RB17 ‘A Pragmatic Approach to Ground Gas Risk Assessment’. 2012.

JMJ/C4543/10095


CL:AIRE SP1010 ‘Development of Category 4 Screening Levels for Assessment of Land Affected by Contamination’. Rev 2 2014.

CL:AIRE ‘Interpretation for Managing and Working with Asbestos in Soil and Construction and Demolition Materials – CAR-SOILTM’. 2016.

CL:AIRE ‘Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Groundwater: Guidance on assessing petroleum hydrocarbons using existing hydrogeological risk assessment methodologies’ Version 1. March 2017.

DEFRA and the Environment Agency, CLR10 ‘Soil Guideline Value Reports for Individual Soil Contaminants’. 2002-2004.

DEFRA and the Environment Agency, CLR Report No 11 ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land’. 2004.

Department of the Environment, CLR Report No 1 ‘A framework for assessing the impact of contaminated land on groundwater and surface water’. 1994.

Department of the Environment, CLR Report No 2 ‘Guidance on Preliminary Site Inspection of Contaminated Land’. 1994.

Department of the Environment, CLR Report No 3 ‘Documentary research on Industrial Sites’. 1994.

Department of the Environment, CLR Report No 4 ‘Sampling Strategies for Contaminated Land’. 1994.

Department of the Environment Waste Management Paper No. 27. ‘Landfill Gas: A Technical Memorandum Providing Guidance on the Monitoring and Control of Landfill Gas’. 1992.

Department of the Environment. ‘Industry Profiles’ - 48 separate publications available from The Stationery Office, London. 1995.

DETR. Circular: Contaminated Land. 2006.

EC Regulation 1272/2008 ‘The Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP)’ 2008

Environment Agency ‘Using Soil Guideline Values’. 2009.

Environment Agency, ‘Updated Technical Background to the CLEA model’. 2009.

Environment Agency, ‘Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants in soil’. 2009.

Environment Agency Hazardous Waste: ‘Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste’ WM3 ver 1.1 May 2018.

Environment Agency. ‘Remedial Targets Methodology. Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Land Contamination’. 2006.

Environment Agency & NHBC. R&D Publication 66. ‘Guidance for the Safe Development of Housing on Land Affected by Contamination’. 2008.

Environment Agency. R&D Publication 20. ‘Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for Soil and Groundwater to Protect Water Resources’. 1999.

Environment Agency Technical Guidance Note 01. Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Landfills. [Withdrawn Feb 2016. Replaced with below].

Environment Agency and DEFRA ‘Landfill developments: groundwater risk assessment for leachate’. 2016.

Environment Agency Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Groundwater ‘Supplementary Guidance for Hydrogeological Risk Assessment’. 2009.

JMJ/C4543/10095


Environment Agency ‘Groundwater protection: Principles and practice (GP3)’. 2013. [Superseded 2017 by www.gov.uk online guidance].

Environmental Permitting Guidance: version 3.1 ‘The Landfill Directive for the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations’. 2010.

Environmental Quality Standards. 2008.

European Parliament Directive 2008/98/EC of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. 2008.

European Parliament. Directive 2014/955/EU: Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC.

Ground Engineering. Wilson & Card ‘Proposed method classifying gassing sites’ /1999.

Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations. 2005.

Health & Safety Executive (HSE). ‘Protection of Workers & the General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land’. 1991.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR). 2012.

Landfill Directive ‘Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfilling of waste’. 1999.

Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works, Specification for Highway Works: Volume 1, Amendment August 2014. [Withdrawn 30th May 2017].

Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works, Specification for Highways Works – Series 600 Earthworks November 2006. [Withdrawn 30th May 2017, Replacement unknown].

NHBC. Boyle and Witherington. ‘Guidance on evaluation of development proposals on sites where methane and carbon dioxide are present.’ Report No. 10627-R01(04). 2007.

UK Drinking Water Standards: Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1147) and Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/3184).

UKWIR Report 10/WM/03/21 2010 ‘Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be used in Brownfield Sites’ 2010.

JMJ/C4543/10095

Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment for Controlled Waters D Morgan Plot H3 The Airfields, Deeside

DRAWINGS

D MORGAN

SITE LOCATION PLAN

THE AIRFIELDS H3 & H5

CLIENT

PROJECT TITLE

DRAWING TITLE

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY


DRAWING No. REVISION SCALE DATE

C4543/01 - NTS 14/08/20

JMC

SITE LOCATION

GRP

NEAREST POSTCODE: CH5 2HW

H-04

5.05.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

SITE BOUNDARY

HC-W1

HC-N

HC-B1

HC-C

HC-B2

HC-S

HC-E2

HC-E1

BH3B

BH2

BH1

SWALE

SWALE

SWALE

BH3A

EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION, OCTOBER 2020


H-01

H-03

H-05

H-06

H-08

H-09

H-02

H-07HC-W2

CABLE PERCUSSIVE BOREHOLE (APRIL 2021)BHXX

KEY

VALIDATION SAMPLE (FEBRUARY 2021)

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY

HC-XX

BOREHOLE INSTALLATION

H-XXSAMPLING LOCATION (OCTOBER 2020)

H-04HC-W1

HC-N

HC-B1

HC-C

HC-B2

HC-S

HC-E2

HC-E1H-01

H-03

H-05

H-06

H-08

H-09

H-02

H-07HC-W2 PROJECT TITLE

D MORGANCLIENT

DRAWING TITLE

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE - H3 AREA

H3 HYDROCARBON EXCAVATION & BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN


REVISION

CHECKED BY

JMJ

DATE


DRAWN BY

TM

C4543/10 NTS-

JMJ/C4543/10095


APPENDIX A Borehole Logs

Well Water Strikes

Sample and In Situ Tes ngDepth (m) Type Results

Depth (m)

0.80

1.20

1.70

8.00

Level (m OD) Legend Stratum Descrip on

MADE GROUND: Purple brown slightly gravelly clay. Sand is ne to coarse. Gravel is angular ne to coarse of mudstone.

MADE GROUND: Brown sandy gravel. Sand is ne to coarse. Gravel is angular to sub-angular ne to coarse of brick, sandstone and mudstone. Brown ne to coarse SAND.

Grey brown silty ne to coarse SAND.

Slightly gravelly between 2.00m and 3.00m bgl.

End of Borehole at 8.00m

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0.20 D

0.50 ES

1.00 DES

1.50 ES

2.00 D

3.00 DES

4.00 D

5.00 D

6.00 D

7.00 D

8.00 D

Borehole LogBorehole No.

BH1Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NO: C4543 CO-ORDS: Hole TypeCP

PROJECT NAME: AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE LEVEL: Scale1:50

CLIENT: PRAXIS REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED DATES: 06/04/21Logged

SM

CheckedTM

Remarks 1. Hand dug inspec on pit to 1.20mbgl. 2. Groundwater encountered at 2.50m bgl. Rising to 2.00m bgl a er 6 minutes. 3. Installa on to 6.80m bgl: 2.80m plain, 4.00m slo ed.

ES = Environmental SampleD = Disturbed SampleB = Bulk SampleLB = Large Bulk SampleU = Undisturbed SampleUT = Undisturbed Thin Wall SampleSPT = Standard Penetra on TestPID = Photoioniza on Detector (ppm)PPM = Part Per MillionHSV = Hand Shear Vane

Well Water Strikes


Depth (m)

0.80

1.10

2.20

8.00



MADE GROUND: Brown sandy gravel. Sand is ne to coarse. Gravel is angular to sub-angular ne to coarse of brick, sandstone and mudstone. Brown ne to coarse SAND.



1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0.20 D

0.50 ES

1.00 DES

2.00 DES

3.00 D

3.50 ES

4.00 D

5.00 D

6.00 D

7.00 D

8.00 D


BH2Sheet 1 of 1




SM

CheckedTM



Well Water Strikes


Depth (m)

1.60

2.00



Grey brown slightly silty ne to coarse SAND.


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0.20 D

0.50 ES

1.00 D

2.00 D


BH3ASheet 1 of 1




SM

CheckedTM

Remarks 1. Hand dug inspec on pit to 1.20mbgl. 2. No groundwater encountered. 3. Terminated due to poten al UXO between 2.00m and 3.00m bgl. Borehole loca on moved 3.00m east to BH3B.4. Back lled with arisings upon comple on.


Well Water Strikes


Depth (m)

1.50

3.00

8.00



Brown ne to coarse SAND.



1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0.20 D

0.50 ES

1.00 DES

2.00 D

3.00 D

4.00 D

5.00 D

6.00 D

7.00 D

8.00 D


BH3BSheet 1 of 1




SM

CheckedTM



JMJ/C4543/10095


APPENDIX B On Site Permeability Test Results

6.14 mm

2.80 m2.67 m

m0.30 m150 mm0.00 m

Time (min)Depth to water (m)

Head of water (m)

Head Ratio H/H0

Time (min)Depth to water

(mm)Head of water

(m)Head Ratio

H/H0

0.00 0.00 2.67 1.00 20.00 2.59 0.08 0.030.50 1.60 1.07 0.40 30.00 2.61 0.06 0.021.00 1.60 1.07 0.40 45.00 2.65 0.02 0.011.50 1.73 0.94 0.35 85.00 2.67 0.00 0.002.00 1.97 0.70 0.26 100.00 2.67 0.00 0.002.50 2.09 0.58 0.223.00 2.18 0.49 0.183.50 2.21 0.46 0.174.00 2.23 0.44 0.164.50 2.24 0.43 0.165.00 2.27 0.40 0.155.50 2.29 0.38 0.146.00 2.34 0.33 0.126.50 2.37 0.30 0.117.00 2.40 0.27 0.107.50 2.42 0.25 0.098.00 2.43 0.24 0.098.50 2.43 0.24 0.099.00 2.44 0.23 0.099.50 2.46 0.21 0.08

10.00 2.47 0.20 0.07

(d) initial groundwater level or base of hole: Checked By:(e) centre of piezometer tip: JMJHeight of casing/standpipe above surfaceDiameter of casing/standpipeLength of filter (above GW table or base of hole)

Site Recorded Data

Data Analysis

(c) top of filter material: PG

BH01

Test 1

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543

Falling Head Permeability Test

Date of Test:(a) bottom of borehole: 16/04/2021(b) bottom of casing: Logged By:

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

H/H

0(L

og

Sca

le)

Time (Minutes)

Head Ratio Vs Time

BH01

Test 1

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543

X-sectional area of baseA = 0.017671459 m2

DiameterD = 0.15 m

LengthL = 0.00 m

F =

Head (m) Depth (m bgl) Time (s)2.003 0.668 30.00.668 2.003 150.0

1.600 t1 = 30.0 sec

2.67

1.070

1.730 t2 = 90.0 sec

Initial groundwater level = 2.67

0.9

k = 0.0177 ln 1.07024.75 0.940

k = 9.25E-05 m/s

Depth of Water (H2) =

75% effective level 25% effective level

At time (t1) Depth to water =

Initial groundwater level =



Calculation

Calculation of Intake Factor (F)

0.413

D

��

��

��

��

�

��

� � 2.75 !�� "�#$ℎ &�ℎ �� ' #'�"�� $��

6.14 mm

2.80 m2.67 m

m0.30 m150 mm0.00 m


Head of water (m)

Head Ratio H/H0


(mm)Head of water

(m)Head Ratio

H/H0

0.00 0.00 2.67 1.00 10.00 2.12 0.55 0.210.25 1.02 1.65 0.62 18.00 2.16 0.51 0.190.50 1.75 0.92 0.34 34.00 2.31 0.36 0.131.00 1.93 0.74 0.281.50 2.01 0.66 0.252.00 2.05 0.62 0.232.50 2.07 0.60 0.223.00 2.07 0.60 0.223.50 2.07 0.60 0.224.00 2.07 0.60 0.224.50 2.07 0.60 0.225.00 2.07 0.60 0.225.50 2.08 0.60 0.226.00 2.08 0.59 0.226.50 2.08 0.59 0.227.00 2.09 0.59 0.227.50 2.10 0.57 0.218.00 2.10 0.57 0.218.50 2.11 0.56 0.219.00 2.11 0.56 0.219.50 2.12 0.55 0.21

JMJ(d) initial groundwater level or base of hole:(e) centre of piezometer tip:


(a) bottom of borehole:(b) bottom of casing:(c) top of filter material:

Data Analysis

C4543

Date of Test:16/04/2021

Logged By:PG

Site Recorded Data

Checked By:

Height of casing/standpipe above surface

Length of filter (above GW table or base of hole)Diameter of casing/standpipe

BH01

Test 2

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

H/H

0(L

og

Sca

le)

Time (Minutes)

Head Ratio Vs Time

C4543

BH01

Test 2

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE


DiameterD = 0.15 m

LengthL = 0.00 m

F =


1.020 t1 = 15.0 sec

2.67

1.650

2.050 t2 = 120.0 sec


0.620

k = 0.0177 ln 1.65043.31 0.620

k = 3.99E-04 m/s


Calculation

75% effective level

0.413

25% effective level






D

��

��

��

��

�

��

� � 2.75 !�� "�#$ℎ &�ℎ �� ' #'�"�� $��

6.14 mm

2.80 m2.67 m

m0.30 m150 mm0.00 m


Head of water (m)

Head Ratio H/H0


(mm)Head of water

(m)Head Ratio

H/H0

0.00 0.00 2.67 1.00 9.00 2.33 0.34 0.130.25 1.28 1.39 0.52 9.50 2.35 0.32 0.120.50 2.01 0.66 0.25 10.00 2.37 0.30 0.111.00 2.18 0.49 0.18 17.00 2.58 0.09 0.031.25 2.24 0.43 0.16 24.00 2.67 0.00 0.001.50 2.28 0.39 0.151.75 2.31 0.36 0.132.00 2.31 0.36 0.132.50 2.31 0.36 0.133.00 2.31 0.36 0.133.50 2.31 0.36 0.134.00 2.31 0.36 0.134.50 2.31 0.36 0.135.00 2.31 0.36 0.135.50 2.31 0.36 0.136.00 2.32 0.35 0.136.50 2.32 0.35 0.137.00 2.32 0.35 0.137.50 2.32 0.35 0.138.00 2.32 0.35 0.138.50 2.33 0.34 0.13


Site Recorded Data

Data Analysis


BH01

Test 3

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543



0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

H/H

0(L

og

Sca

le)

Time (Minutes)

Head Ratio Vs Time

BH01

Test 3

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543


DiameterD = 0.15 m

LengthL = 0.00 m

F =


1.280 t1 = 15.0 sec

2.67

1.390

2.240 t2 = 75.0 sec


0.430

k = 0.0177 ln 1.39024.75 0.430

k = 8.38E-04 m/s







Calculation


0.413

D

��

��

��

��

�

��

� � 2.75 !�� "�#$ℎ &�ℎ �� ' #'�"�� $��

5.48 mm

3.00 m2.20 m

m0.30 m150 mm0.00 m


Head of water (m)

Head Ratio H/H0


(mm)Head of water

(m)Head Ratio

H/H0

0.00 0.00 2.20 1.00 15.00 2.10 0.10 0.050.50 1.10 1.10 0.50 20.00 2.15 0.05 0.021.00 1.32 0.88 0.40 25.00 2.17 0.03 0.011.50 1.60 0.60 0.27 40.00 2.20 0.00 0.002.00 1.74 0.46 0.212.50 1.85 0.35 0.163.00 1.93 0.27 0.123.50 1.98 0.22 0.104.00 2.00 0.20 0.094.50 2.05 0.15 0.075.00 2.06 0.14 0.065.50 2.07 0.13 0.066.00 2.09 0.11 0.056.50 2.09 0.11 0.057.00 2.09 0.11 0.057.50 2.09 0.11 0.058.00 2.09 0.11 0.058.50 2.09 0.11 0.059.00 2.09 0.11 0.059.50 2.10 0.10 0.05

10.00 2.10 0.10 0.05


Site Recorded Data

Data Analysis


BH02

Test 1

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543



0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

H/H

0(L

og

Sca

le)

Time (Minutes)

Head Ratio Vs Time

BH02

Test 1

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543


DiameterD = 0.15 m

LengthL = 0.00 m

F =


1.100 t1 = 30.0 sec

2.20

1.100

1.740 t2 = 120.0 sec


0.5

k = 0.0177 ln 1.10037.13 0.460

k = 4.15E-04 m/s







Calculation


0.413

D

��

��

��

��

�

��

� � 2.75 !�� "�#$ℎ &�ℎ �� ' #'�"�� $��

5.48 mm

3.00 m2.20 m

m0.30 m150 mm0.00 m


Head of water (m)

Head Ratio H/H0


(mm)Head of water

(m)Head Ratio

H/H0

0.00 0.00 2.20 1.00 9.00 2.16 0.04 0.020.25 1.28 0.92 0.42 9.50 2.16 0.04 0.020.50 1.60 0.60 0.27 10.00 2.16 0.04 0.021.00 1.76 0.44 0.20 15.00 2.18 0.02 0.011.25 1.80 0.40 0.18 20.00 2.20 0.00 0.0001.50 1.87 0.33 0.151.75 1.90 0.30 0.142.00 1.94 0.26 0.122.50 1.98 0.22 0.103.00 2.02 0.18 0.083.50 2.05 0.15 0.074.00 2.08 0.12 0.054.50 2.11 0.09 0.045.00 2.11 0.09 0.045.50 2.12 0.08 0.046.00 2.12 0.08 0.046.50 2.15 0.05 0.027.00 2.16 0.04 0.027.50 2.16 0.04 0.028.00 2.16 0.04 0.028.50 2.16 0.04 0.02




Data Analysis

C4543


Logged By:PG

Site Recorded Data

Checked By:



BH01

Test 2

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

H/H

0(L

og

Sca

le)

Time (Minutes)

Head Ratio Vs Time

C4543

BH01

Test 2

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE


DiameterD = 0.15 m

LengthL = 0.00 m

F =


1.280 t1 = 15.0 sec

2.20

0.920

1.760 t2 = 60.0 sec


0.440

k = 0.0177 ln 0.92018.56 0.440

k = 7.02E-04 m/s


Calculation

75% effective level

0.413

25% effective level






D

��

��

��

��

�

��

� � 2.75 !�� "�#$ℎ &�ℎ �� ' #'�"�� $��

5.48 mm

3.00 m2.20 m

m0.30 m150 mm0.00 m


Head of water (m)

Head Ratio H/H0


(mm)Head of water

(m)Head Ratio

H/H0

0.00 0.00 2.20 1.00 8.50 2.17 0.03 0.010.25 1.10 1.10 0.50 9.00 2.17 0.03 0.010.50 1.61 0.59 0.27 9.50 2.18 0.02 0.011.00 1.80 0.40 0.18 10.00 2.20 0.00 0.001.50 1.94 0.26 0.121.75 1.98 0.22 0.102.00 2.02 0.18 0.082.25 2.07 0.13 0.062.50 2.08 0.12 0.052.75 2.09 0.11 0.053.00 2.11 0.09 0.043.50 2.12 0.08 0.044.00 2.12 0.08 0.044.50 2.13 0.07 0.035.00 2.13 0.07 0.035.50 2.13 0.07 0.036.00 2.13 0.07 0.036.50 2.15 0.05 0.027.00 2.16 0.04 0.027.50 2.17 0.03 0.018.00 2.17 0.03 0.01


Site Recorded Data

Data Analysis


BH01

Test 3

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543



0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

H/H

0(L

og

Sca

le)

Time (Minutes)

Head Ratio Vs Time

BH01

Test 3

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543


DiameterD = 0.15 m

LengthL = 0.00 m

F =


1.100 t1 = 15.0 sec

2.20

1.100

1.940 t2 = 90.0 sec


0.260

k = 0.0177 ln 1.10030.94 0.260

k = 8.24E-04 m/s







Calculation


0.413

D

��

��

��

��

�

��

� � 2.75 !�� "�#$ℎ &�ℎ �� ' #'�"�� $��

6.07 mm

3.00 m2.61 m

m0.30 m150 mm0.00 m


Head of water (m)

Head Ratio H/H0


(mm)Head of water

(m)Head Ratio

H/H0

0.00 0.00 2.61 1.00 25.00 2.59 0.02 0.010.50 2.08 0.53 0.20 37.00 2.61 0.00 0.001.00 2.29 0.32 0.121.50 2.36 0.25 0.102.00 2.44 0.17 0.072.50 2.48 0.13 0.053.00 2.48 0.13 0.053.50 2.49 0.12 0.054.00 2.49 0.12 0.054.50 2.49 0.12 0.055.00 2.49 0.12 0.055.50 2.49 0.12 0.056.00 2.49 0.12 0.056.50 2.49 0.12 0.057.00 2.49 0.12 0.057.50 2.49 0.12 0.058.00 2.49 0.12 0.058.50 2.49 0.12 0.059.00 2.49 0.12 0.059.50 2.49 0.12 0.05

10.00 2.49 0.12 0.05


BH03B

Test 1

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543




Site Recorded Data

Data Analysis

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

H/H

0(L

og

Sca

le)

Time (Minutes)

Head Ratio Vs Time

BH03B

Test 1

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543


DiameterD = 0.15 m

LengthL = 0.00 m

F =


2.080 t1 = 30.0 sec

2.61

0.530

2.290 t2 = 60.0 sec


0.3

k = 0.0177 ln 0.53012.38 0.320

k = 7.21E-04 m/s

Calculation


0.413







D

��

��

��

��

�

��

� � 2.75 !�� "�#$ℎ &�ℎ �� ' #'�"�� $��

6.07 mm

3.00 m2.61 m

m0.30 m150 mm0.00 m


Head of water (m)

Head Ratio H/H0


(mm)Head of water

(m)Head Ratio

H/H0

0.00 0.00 2.61 1.00 14.00 2.43 0.18 0.070.50 1.43 1.18 0.45 20.00 2.53 0.08 0.031.00 1.46 1.15 0.44 28.00 2.61 0.00 0.001.50 1.50 1.11 0.432.00 1.82 0.79 0.302.50 1.96 0.65 0.253.00 2.05 0.56 0.213.50 2.10 0.51 0.204.00 2.13 0.48 0.184.50 2.14 0.47 0.185.00 2.17 0.44 0.175.50 2.19 0.42 0.166.00 2.22 0.39 0.156.50 2.22 0.39 0.157.00 2.23 0.38 0.157.50 2.27 0.34 0.138.00 2.28 0.33 0.138.50 2.31 0.30 0.119.00 2.36 0.25 0.109.50 2.36 0.25 0.10

10.00 2.38 0.23 0.09

Data Analysis

C4543


Logged By:PG

Site Recorded Data

Checked By:



BH03B

Test 2

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE




0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

H/H

0(L

og

Sca

le)

Time (Minutes)

Head Ratio Vs Time

C4543

BH03B

Test 2

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE


DiameterD = 0.15 m

LengthL = 0.00 m

F =


1.430 t1 = 30.0 sec

2.61

1.180

1.820 t2 = 120.0 sec


0.790

k = 0.0177 ln 1.18037.13 0.790

k = 1.91E-04 m/s



Calculation

75% effective level

0.413

25% effective level





D

��

��

��

��

�

��

� � 2.75 !�� "�#$ℎ &�ℎ �� ' #'�"�� $��

6.07 mm

3.00 m2.61 m

m0.30 m150 mm0.00 m


Head of water (m)

Head Ratio H/H0


(mm)Head of water

(m)Head Ratio

H/H0

0.00 0.00 2.61 1.00 25.00 2.17 0.44 0.170.50 1.10 1.51 0.58 52.00 2.17 0.44 0.171.00 1.61 1.00 0.381.50 1.80 0.81 0.312.00 1.94 0.67 0.262.50 1.98 0.63 0.243.00 2.02 0.59 0.233.50 2.07 0.54 0.214.00 2.08 0.53 0.204.50 2.09 0.52 0.205.00 2.11 0.50 0.195.50 2.12 0.49 0.196.00 2.12 0.49 0.196.50 2.13 0.48 0.187.00 2.13 0.48 0.187.50 2.13 0.48 0.188.00 2.13 0.48 0.188.50 2.15 0.46 0.189.00 2.16 0.45 0.179.50 2.17 0.44 0.17

10.00 2.17 0.44 0.17


BH03B

Test 3

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543




Site Recorded Data

Data Analysis

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

H/H

0(L

og

Sca

le)

Time (Minutes)

Head Ratio Vs Time

BH03B

Test 3

D MORGAN

AIRFIELDS, DEESIDE

C4543


DiameterD = 0.15 m

LengthL = 0.00 m

F =


1.100 t1 = 30.0 sec

2.61

1.510

1.610 t2 = 60.0 sec


1.000

k = 0.0177 ln 1.51012.38 1.000

k = 5.88E-04 m/s

Calculation


0.413







D

��

��

��

��

�

��

� � 2.75 !�� "�#$ℎ &�ℎ �� ' #'�"�� $��

JMJ/C4543/10095


APPENDIX C Laboratory Chemical Test Results