a-08g-7 south line gd report final

TWAO Document Ref. A-08g-7Environmental Statement Volume IV

Supporting Document - South Line Geotechnical Design ReportMott MacDonald Internal Ref. 312694/RPT040

September 2013

312694 EST YHE RPT40 B

http://localhost:3579/UCdoc~EUNAPiMS/1541640933/312694 RPT40 South Line GDR FINAL FOR ISSUE TWAO.doc June 2013

South Line Geotechnical Design Report

312694/RPT40C

South Line Geotechnical Design Report

312694/RPT40

September 2013

Metro and Leeds City Council

Mott MacDonald, 2nd Floor, 2 Brewery Wharf, Kendell Street, Leeds LS10 1JR, United Kingdom

T +44 (0)113 394 6700 F +44 (0)113 394 6701 W www.mottmac.com

Wellington House 40 – 50 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2DE

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

312694/EST/YHE/RPT/040 September 2013 http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name

Chapter Title Page

1. Introduction 1

1.1 General ___________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Sources of Information _______________________________________________________________ 2 1.3 Report Structure ____________________________________________________________________ 2

2. General Description of the Site and Proposed Construction 3

2.1 Site Location & Description ___________________________________________________________ 3 2.2 Site History & Land Use ______________________________________________________________ 4 2.3 Geology __________________________________________________________________________ 4 2.4 Hydrogeology ______________________________________________________________________ 5 2.5 Hydrology _________________________________________________________________________ 5 2.6 Mining ____________________________________________________________________________ 5 2.7 Seismicity of the Area ________________________________________________________________ 6 2.8 Contaminated Land & Pollution Incidents _________________________________________________ 6 2.9 Other Relevant Information ___________________________________________________________ 6

3. General Offline Highway Works 8

3.1 Description ________________________________________________________________________ 8 3.2 Source Documents __________________________________________________________________ 8 3.3 Ground Conditions __________________________________________________________________ 8 3.4 Characteristic Parameters ___________________________________________________________ 11 3.5 Pavement Design __________________________________________________________________ 15 3.6 Concrete Classification ______________________________________________________________ 15 3.7 Contamination and Waste Implications _________________________________________________ 16 3.7.1 Contamination Testing ______________________________________________________________ 16 3.7.2 Waste Categorisation _______________________________________________________________ 17 3.8 Earthworks Assessment _____________________________________________________________ 18 3.8.1 Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane ______________________________________________________ 18 3.8.2 Chadwick Street ___________________________________________________________________ 18 3.8.3 Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road ____________________________________________ 19 3.8.4 Hunslet Road _____________________________________________________________________ 19 3.9 Gas Risk Assessment ______________________________________________________________ 19

4. General Online Highway Works 21

4.1 Description _______________________________________________________________________ 21 4.2 Source Documents _________________________________________________________________ 21 4.3 Ground Conditions _________________________________________________________________ 21 4.4 Pavement Design __________________________________________________________________ 21 4.5 Contamination and Waste Implications _________________________________________________ 21 4.6 Earthworks Assessment _____________________________________________________________ 22

5. Balm Road Bridge 23

5.1 Description _______________________________________________________________________ 23 5.2 Source Documents _________________________________________________________________ 23 5.3 Assumptions ______________________________________________________________________ 23 5.4 Ground Conditions _________________________________________________________________ 23

Contents



5.5 Characteristic Parameters ___________________________________________________________ 24 5.6 Approach Embankments ____________________________________________________________ 27 5.7 Approach Retaining Walls ___________________________________________________________ 27 5.8 Foundations ______________________________________________________________________ 28 5.9 Concrete Classification ______________________________________________________________ 28 5.10 Contamination and Waste Implications _________________________________________________ 29 5.10.1 Contamination Testing ______________________________________________________________ 29 5.10.2 Waste Categorisation _______________________________________________________________ 30 5.11 Earthworks Assessment _____________________________________________________________ 30 5.12 Gas Risk Assessment ______________________________________________________________ 31

6. Belle Isle Route 32

6.1 Description _______________________________________________________________________ 32 6.2 History __________________________________________________________________________ 33 6.3 Geology _________________________________________________________________________ 33 6.4 Coal Mining ______________________________________________________________________ 33 6.5 Proven Ground Conditions ___________________________________________________________ 34 6.6 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Assessment ________________________________________ 34 6.6.1 Foundations ______________________________________________________________________ 35 6.6.1.1 NGT Stops _______________________________________________________________________ 35 6.6.1.2 Belle Isle Circus ___________________________________________________________________ 35 6.6.2 Earthworks _______________________________________________________________________ 35 6.6.2.1 Access Embankment into the Stourton Park & Ride Site ____________________________________ 35 6.6.2.2 Off Street Parking and Bus Lay-bys ____________________________________________________ 36

7. Stourton Park and Ride 37

7.1 Description _______________________________________________________________________ 37 7.2 Ground Conditions _________________________________________________________________ 37 7.2.1 Topsoil __________________________________________________________________________ 37 7.2.2 Opencast Backfill __________________________________________________________________ 37 7.2.3 Weathered Coal Measures (Residual Soils) ______________________________________________ 37 7.2.4 Lower Coal Measures Bedrock _______________________________________________________ 37 7.2.5 Coal Seams ______________________________________________________________________ 38 7.3 Mining ___________________________________________________________________________ 38 7.4 Groundwater Conditions _____________________________________________________________ 38 7.5 Foundations ______________________________________________________________________ 39 7.5.1 Foundations on rock (Depot Building) __________________________________________________ 39 7.5.2 Foundations on opencast backfill ______________________________________________________ 40 7.5.2.1 Geotechnical data _________________________________________________________________ 40 7.5.2.2 Amenity Building ___________________________________________________________________ 40 7.6 Embankments ____________________________________________________________________ 40 7.7 Depot Cutting _____________________________________________________________________ 40 7.8 Depot Retaining Structure ___________________________________________________________ 40 7.9 Settlement _______________________________________________________________________ 41 7.10 Pavement Design __________________________________________________________________ 41 7.11 Concrete Classification ______________________________________________________________ 42 7.12 Drainage _________________________________________________________________________ 42 7.13 Contamination and Waste Implications _________________________________________________ 42 7.14 Earthworks Assessment _____________________________________________________________ 42 7.15 Gas Risk Assessment ______________________________________________________________ 43

8. Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Assessment 45

9. Recommendations for Further Work 51

10. References 52



Appendices 53

Appendix A. Contamination and Waste Assessment Methodology ______________________________________ 54 A.1. Scope of Testing __________________________________________________________________ 54 A.2. Assessment Criteria ________________________________________________________________ 56 A.2.1. Human Health ____________________________________________________________________ 56 A.2.2. Leachate and Groundwater __________________________________________________________ 58 A.2.3. Waste Categorisation _______________________________________________________________ 59 A.2.4. Summary of Contamination Testing ____________________________________________________ 61 A.2.5. CAT Waste Results ________________________________________________________________ 62 A.3. Gas Monitoring Methodology _________________________________________________________ 63 A.3.1. Site Characteristic hazardous gas flow rate ______________________________________________ 63 Appendix B. Calculation Methodology ____________________________________________________________ 65 B.1. Bearing Resistance Methodology ______________________________________________________ 65 B.2. Slope Stability Methodology __________________________________________________________ 66 Appendix C. Limitations _______________________________________________________________________ 68

Figures

Figure 2.1: Route Overview ____________________________________________________________________ 3 Figure 6.1: Proposed Belle Isle Route ___________________________________________________________ 32

Tables

Table 2.1: Description of the South Route _________________________________________________________ 4 Table 3.1: Reference Drawings and Boreholes for General Offline Sections ______________________________ 9 Table 3.2: General Ground Conditions for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane ______________________________ 9 Table 3.3: General Ground Conditions for Chadwick Street __________________________________________ 10 Table 3.4: General Ground Conditions for Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road ___________________ 10 Table 3.5: General Ground Conditions for Hunslet Road ____________________________________________ 11 Table 3.6: Characteristic Parameters for Soils Encountered __________________________________________ 12 Table 3.7: Characteristic Parameters for Lower Coal Measures _______________________________________ 14 Table 3.8: CBR Correlation with Plasticity Index ___________________________________________________ 15 Table 3.9: Sulphate and pH Values for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane _______________________________ 15 Table 3.10: Sulphate and pH Values for Chadwick Street _____________________________________________ 15 Table 3.11: Sulphate and pH Values for Carlisle Road to South Accomodation Road _______________________ 16 Table 3.12: Preliminary Concrete Class for Offline Sections ___________________________________________ 16 Table 3.13: Offline Sections Contamination Testing Summary _________________________________________ 16 Table 3.14: Offline Sections Waste Acceptance Criteria Summary ______________________________________ 17 Table 3.15: Preliminary Cut and Fill Volumes for Offline Sections- South Line _____________________________ 18 Table 3.16: Offline Sections - Characteristic Gas Situation ____________________________________________ 20 Table 4.1: Preliminary Cut and Fill Volumes for General Online Highways Works _________________________ 22 Table 5.1: Summary of Ground Conditions _______________________________________________________ 24 Table 5.2: Characteristic Parameters for River Terrace Deposits ______________________________________ 25 Table 5.3: Characteristic Parameters for Lower Coal Measures _______________________________________ 26 Table 5.4: Preliminary Slope Stability Analysis ____________________________________________________ 27 Table 5.5: Applied Loads for the Pad Foundaiton and Bearing Resistance for granular River Terrace Deposits __ 28 Table 5.6: Sulphate and pH Values for Balm Road Bridge ___________________________________________ 28 Table 5.7: Railway Sidings Contamination Testing _________________________________________________ 29 Table 5.8: Balm Road Bridge Waste Acceptance Criteria Summary ____________________________________ 30 Table 5.9: Balm Road Bridge - Characteristic Gas Situation __________________________________________ 31 Table 6.1: Route Description __________________________________________________________________ 32 Table 6.2: Anticipated ground conditions between Balm Road Bridge and Winrose Grove __________________ 34 Table 7.1: Groundwater Strikes Stourton Park & Ride ______________________________________________ 38 Table 7.2: Groundwater Monitoring Data - Stourton Park & Ride ______________________________________ 39 Table 7.3: Stourton Park & Ride - Characteristic Gas Situation _______________________________________ 43 Table 8.1: Risk Level Matrix __________________________________________________________________ 45 Table 8.2: Hazard Likelihood Index _____________________________________________________________ 45 Table 8.3: Hazard Impact Index _______________________________________________________________ 46



Table 8.4: Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Register _________________________________ 47 Table A.1: Soil Testing Suite __________________________________________________________________ 54 Table A.2: Leachate Extract from Soil testing suite _________________________________________________ 54 Table A.3: Groundwater Testing Suite ___________________________________________________________ 55 Table A.4: WAC Testing Suite _________________________________________________________________ 55 Table A.5: Human Health Risk Assessment Soil Guideline Values _____________________________________ 56 Table A.6: Leachate and Groundwater testing Assessment Guideline Values ____________________________ 58 Table A.7: Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria for Granular Wastes ____________________________________ 59 Table A.8: Characteristic Gas situation by site characteristic gas flow rate _______________________________ 63

Charts

Chart 3.1: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone from borehole DS51 ___________________________ 13 Chart 3.2: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Sandstone and Siltstone from borehole DS53A ______________ 14 Chart 5-1: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone and Siltstone ________________________________ 26

i


312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name

1



1.1 General

Leeds City Council (LCC) and the West Yorkshire Transport Executive (Metro) are jointly promoting a

trolleybus network for Leeds and this will be known as New Generation Transport (NGT). It comprises a

line from Holt Park in the north, through the city centre to Stourton in the south. The promoters

commissioned Mott MacDonald Ltd (MM) to produce a Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) for the southern

section of this line from the city centre to Stourton.

Mott MacDonald Limited (MM) prepared a desk study for the South Line (236834/RPT14B)[1]

issued in July

2009 and Belle Isle (312694/RPT048)28

issued May 2013. These desk studies highlighted the key

geotechnical and contamination risks based on historical ground investigation information and publicly

available information and provided broad recommendations for preliminary ground investigations for the

scheme.

Following on from completion of the Desk Study MM were asked to prepare Technical Note TN28 - Ground

Investigation Scoping Document[2]

detailing the ground investigation proposals for each section of the

moderate to high risk areas identified in the Desk Study. The purpose of the ground investigation was to

provide preliminary ground condition information to facilitate a preliminary assessment for the purposes of

the Transport and Works Act Application. The preliminary Ground Investigation targeted major hazards

identified as part of the desk study works or locations of proposed major structures rather than a line wide

ground investigation. It is highly likely that a detailed ground investigation will be required at detailed design

stage.

The preliminary ground investigation was procured by LCC under their framework agreement with Norwest

Holst Soil Engineering Limited (NHSE) using the MM Geotechnical Framework Agreement Specification.

MM acted as the Engineer’s Representative under the ground investigation contract. It was carried out

between December 2009 and February 2010 and reported in the Norwest Holst Factual Report F15694

March 2010[10]

.

MM was commissioned by Leeds City Council (LCC), to produce Geotechnical Investigation Report (GIR)

for the South Line under the terms of Job Initiation Pro-forma Number JIP146. This report was issued in

May 2010 as Report No. 236834/RPT52A[3]

and revised following Client comments and reissued in June

2013 as report 312694/RPT039A[4]

.

Also under the terms of JIP146 MM was commissioned to prepare this Geotechnical Design Report. In

order comply with Eurocode 7 the report shall include:

a description of the site and surroundings;

a description of the ground conditions;

a description of the proposed construction, including actions;

design values of soil and rock properties, including justification;

statement on the codes and standards applied;

statements on the suitability of the site with respect to the proposed construction and the level of

acceptable risks;

geotechnical design calculations and drawings;

foundation design recommendation; and

a note of items to be checked or requiring maintenance or monitoring.

1. Introduction

2



The GDR shall include a plan of supervision and monitoring, as appropriate. Items, which require checking

during construction or, which require maintenance after construction shall be clearly identified. When the

required checks have been carried out during construction, they shall be recorded in an addendum to the

Report.

1.2 Sources of Information

During the scoping of the ground investigation, targeted design elements were selected at Design Freeze

Two (DF2). Since then, a series of minor design developments have been made to the scheme and it is

anticipated that further changes will be made in the future. This report considers the preliminary design of

the scheme at Design Freeze 7 stage unless stated otherwise.

In addition the following high level feasibility structural reports have been produced for the major structures

which have been used to inform this report:

236834/ RPT32A6 - Balm Road Bridge Feasibility Report

The preliminary cut and fill volume calculations have been prepared based on DF7 drawings. The

calculations are based on the following assumptions:

any increase or reduction in footway less than 1m has not been considered;

retaining wall foundations have not been considered;

new highway construction without capping comprises 200mm sub-base and 250mm black top; and

new highway construction with capping comprises 600mm capping, 200mm sub-base and 350mm

black top.

Volume calculations at some locations have not been undertaken due to design developments being put on

hold. Later references of Earthworks Specifications have been made which have not been carried out at

this preliminary stage. It is recommended that an Earthworks Specification be carried out as the final

design is completed.

The Geotechnical Design Report for the South Line should be read in conjunction with the following

reports:

Mott MacDonald, South Line Ground Investigation Report, Report No. 312694 RPT039, June 2013.[4]

Norwest Holst - Report on a ground investigation at Stourton Park and Ride, Supertram, Report No.

F12433, 2002[8]

,

Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Hunslet Sidings, Report No.

F12800, November 2003[9]

,

Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Leeds New Generation

Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010[10]

;

1.3 Report Structure

For clarity, the assessment is presented in this report using the following structure:

Section 2 presents the general description of the site and the proposed construction;

Section 3 presents descriptions and locations of general offline highways works;

Section 4 presents descriptions and locations of general online highways works;

Section 5 presents descriptions and the location of Balm Road Bridge and includes characteristic

parameters and foundation recommendations;

Section 6 presents descriptions and the location for the Belle Isle Route and includes characteristic

parameters and foundation recommendations;

Section 7 presents descriptions and the location of Stourton Park and Ride at this Design Freeze

Stage;

Section 8 summarises the geotechnical and contaminated land risks associated with the site;

Section 9 summarises recommendations for further work; and

Section 10 summarises references used.

3



2.1 Site Location & Description

The South Line runs for approximately 5km between the north bank of the River Aire and a proposed Park

and Ride facility at Stourton, adjacent to junction 7 of the M621. Outbound it passes through major

redevelopment sites on the southern fringe of the city centre and Hunslet district centre, serving mainly

commercial, industrial and residential areas. It will continue along Balm Road, passing beneath the M621 at

junction 6, along Belle Isle Road, through Belle Isle Circus, along Winrose Grove, before terminating at a

large (expected to be between 1500 and 2300 spaces with phased delivery) Park and Ride site.

The route is summarised in Figure 2.1 below with a route description, associated scheme drawings and

current scheme proposals presented in Table 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Route Overview

2. General Description of the Site and Proposed Construction

4



Table 2.1: Description of the South Route

Drawing Reference Route Description Engineering Proposals

312694/TD/030

312694/TD/031

312694/TD/032

312694/TD/033

Start of the section from Briggate crossing Swinegate, along Bridge End to Hunslet Road, off-street section parallel to Waterloo Street and Bowman Lane. Off-street section parallel to Black Bull Street, traversing the corner of Chadwick Street and continuing along the remainder of Chadwick Street, traversing Carlisle Road and Sayner Lane. Section ends perpendicularly to South Accommodation Road

Widening of carriageway. Strengthening works or replacement of existing Leeds Bridge.

Land take required adjacent to Waterloo Road and Bowman Lane, Chadwick Street.

NGT Stops

NGT Substation and Compounds

312694/TD/034 The route goes off-street parallel to Hunslet Road and crosses Hunslet Road at the junction of Forster Street.

Off-street to the north of Hunslet Road.

312694/TD/035

312694/TD/036

312694/TD/037

The route section goes off-street parallel to Hunslet Road traversing Joseph Street, continuing along Whitfield Way, traversing Whitfield Avenue and continuing along Whitfield Square. The section continues along Church Street and Balm Road.

Removal of existing bund. Off-street section adjacent to Hunslet Road.

Earthworks with possibility of retaining structures at Balm Road.

NGT Stops


.

312694/TD/038

312694/TD/039

312694/TD/040

312694/TD/041

312694/TD/042

The route then runs along existing highway along Balm Road, beneath the M621 along Belle Isle Road before crossing Belle Isle Circus and turning east along Winrose Grove.

Runs along highways

Minor land take for bus laybys

Land take at Belle Isle Circus

NGT Stops


312694/TD/043B The route terminates at Stourton Park and Ride.

Retaining structures and earthworks.

Car park facility. Tram Depot.

2.2 Site History & Land Use

A brief summary of the site history and land use along the route is presented below, for a more detailed

description please refer to the South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No.

236834/RPT14B[1]

.

It is apparent that the south line has largely been a highway since at least the mid to late 19th century. The

South Line generally follows existing roads, except for a section alongside the railway, and from a review of

historical maps, it is apparent that the South Line has largely been a highway since at least the mid to late

19th

century. A number of different industries have lined the route in the past, including printing works,

timber yards, railway lines, iron works and foundries have been built and later removed and replaced by

warehouses.

2.3 Geology

A brief summary of the main geological units encountered along the route is presented below, for a more

detailed description please refer to Section 2.3 of the South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study

Report No. 236834/RPT14B[1]

.

The ground conditions underlying the South Line comprise alluvium which underlies much of the northern

half of the route as a whole and River Terrace Deposits which underlie much of the southern half of the

route. Beneath these drift deposits, the solid geology comprises sandstones, siltstones and mudstones of

the Lower Coal Measures. To the far south of the route the Thornhill Rock of the Middle Coal Measures

outcrops at the surface as a result of faulting from the Thwaite Farm Fault and the Middleton Grange Fault.

5



Belle Isle Circus is likely to be underlain by Made Ground and Emley Rock. Belle Isle Circus via Winrose

Grove to Stourton Park is underlain by varying levels and composition of Made Ground, and Lower Coal

Measures.

2.4 Hydrogeology

From 1st April 2010 the Environment Agency produced new aquifer designation maps which have replaced

the old system of classifying aquifers as Major, Minor and Non-Aquifer. This new system is in line with the

EA Groundwater Protection Policy (GP3)[11]

and the Water Framework Directive (WFD)[12]

and is based on

British Geological Survey mapping.

The superficial deposits and bedrock are regarded as Secondary A, which is a permeable layer capable of

supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important

source of base flow to rivers.

2.5 Hydrology

A brief summary of the hydrology along the route is presented below, for a more detailed description please

refer to Section 2.6 of the South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No.

236834/RPT14B[1]

.

The nearest water course is the River Aire and the Aire and Calder Navigation canal. The water quality of

the River Aire is classified as ‘C’, or fairly good quality and the Aire and Calder Navigation is classified as

‘E’, or poor quality. The area is mainly built up and rainfall is collected predominantly as surface run off to

numerous drainage systems.

2.6 Mining

A coal mining report was obtained for the south line in April 2009 during the preparation of the South Line

Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No. 236834/RPT14B[1]

. The Coal Authority indicated that

a number of coal seams outcrop beneath the route including the Black Bed Coal, Crow Coal, Blocking

Coal, Middleton Eleven Yard Coal seam and the Middleton Main. No signs of subsidence were identified in

the roads or buildings along the route during a site walkover. The Coal Authority identified parts of the route

to be in the zone of influence from up to 6 coal seams and state that any ground movements from these

coal workings should have now ceased.

In September 2010 the Coal Authority published a ‘Coal Mining Development Referral Areas’ plan for

Leeds[13]

. These are areas, based upon Coal Authority records, where the potential land stability and other

safety risks associated with former coal mining activities are likely to be greatest. They include, for

example, areas of known or suspected shallow coal mining, recorded mine entries and areas of former

surface mining.

The plan indicates the following sections of the South Line to fall within the ‘Coal Mining Development

Referral Areas’

Section of route between City Hub running across Leeds Bridge, along Bowman Lane and northern half

of Chadwick Street is classified as an area of probable shallow coal workings.

300m section of route between the Goodman Street /A61 junction to Joseph Street is classified as an

area of probable shallow coal workings

300m section of route along railway sidings from Balm Road bridge to half way across the recreation

ground to the south east is classified as an area of probable shallow coal workings

Balm Road Bridge to the M621.

6



Belle Isle Circus

Two mine entries with potential zone of influence are also recorded close to East Grange Drive

Stourton Park and Ride site – majority is classified as Surface Mining (Past and Current) and the area

close to the M621 outside the boundary of the opencast pit is classified as Probable Shallow Coal Mine

Workings. A mine entry with potential Zone of Influence is also noted in the north of this site.

For all new development proposals within Coal Mining Development Referral Areas that require planning

permission, the Coal Authority will expect a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to be prepared and submitted

with the planning application to the Local Planning Authority. This will need to be prepared at detailed

design stage once the final design of the site is confirmed.

2.7 Seismicity of the Area

The published geological maps indicate that there are a number of faults crossing the route, however as

most earthquakes are minor within the UK as a whole it is unlikely that these earthquakes will affect the

scheme.

2.8 Contaminated Land & Pollution Incidents

A brief summary of the contaminated land and pollution incidents encountered along the route together with

preliminary contamination risk assessment are presented below, for a more detailed description please

refer to the South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No. 236834/RPT14B[1]

Section 3

and 6, respectively.

Three pollution incidents have been recorded as Category 1 (Major Incidents) along the route; remaining

125 pollution incidents are recorded as either Category 2 (Significant Incidents) or Category 3 (Minor

Incidents).

A qualitative contamination risk assessment has been completed and the route has been assigned a LOW

Risk rating for the end user, primarily based upon the current development proposals for a hard standing

road surface.

Contamination related risks include the increased risk of exposure to contamination for construction

workers which has been classified as MODERATE Risk. Based on the historic land use it is probable that

some degree of contamination requiring either on site remediation or removal and disposal off site may be

required. This cannot currently be quantified but is a cost risk to be considered within the NGT project.

2.9 Other Relevant Information

A geotechnical risk assessment was also undertaken by MM which identified the requirements for further

investigation in order to fully understand the risks. The risks outlined below have been highlighted in the

geotechnical risk register as being moderate to high risk:

Much of the ground investigation information provided to MM by LCC is 5 years old or greater and is

adjacent to the route, not beneath it.

Unforeseen ground conditions including buried foundations / culverts beneath the proposed route due

historical land use which may delay construction in areas where neither historic or recent ground

investigation data is available.

Existing services beneath off-street sections e.g. gas, electricity, telecommunications.

Historic open cast mining activity at the site of Stourton Park and Ride (S4 Section), reported as the

former East View open cast coal site.

7



Variable made ground consisting of a variety of materials, some of which are unlikely to support an

increase in net loads, have been identified from previous site investigations along the proposed route

alignment.

Variable depth of superficial deposits comprising Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits may result in

differential settlements of the road formation.

Limited contamination testing and gas monitoring has been carried out in historical ground

investigations.

Generation of waste materials from the currently proposed re-surfacing works and excavation of off-

street sections.

The potential for the presence of contaminated material to be encountered which may require off-site

disposal or on site treatment.

8



3.1 Description

Offline highways works have been classified as those which are not on existing highway. Offline sections

include extensive widening of the existing carriageway requiring the construction of a standard road

formation and where a section departs from the existing alignment. The following sections identified from

DF7 Drawings:

Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane;

Chadwick Street;

Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road;

Hunslet Road;

3.2 Source Documents

The following documents should be referred to in conjunction with this section:

Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk

Study, Report No. 236834/RPT13B, July 2009;[1]

Mott MacDonald, Proposed Ground Investigation Scope, Technical Note No. 236834/TN28B, October

2009;[2]

Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Ground Investigation Report - South Line, Report

No. 312694/RPT039,February 2013;[4]


Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010;[10]

3.3 Ground Conditions

The recent preliminary and historical ground investigations generally encountered the following sequence

of Made Ground overlying Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits and Lower Coal Measures. Boreholes used to

produce general ground models and reference drawings are summarised in Table 3.1 below. The findings

of the recent preliminary investigation are presented in Norwest Holst Soil Engineering Factual Report No.

F15694 dated March 2010[10]

and discussed in Mott MacDonald Ground Investigation Report (GIR) Report

No. 312694/RPT039B[4]

. Geological cross section drawings are also presented in the GIR. General ground

profiles are summarised in Tables 3.2 to 3.5 below.

3. General Offline Highway Works

9



Table 3.1: Reference Drawings and Boreholes for General Offline Sections

Offline Section Reference Boreholes Geological Cross Section Drawings 6

Ground Condition Table

Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane; WSS38, WSS39, WSS40, LCC23, LCC67

236834-S-GEO-016 3.2

Chadwick Street; WSS41, TPS42, TPS43, TPS44, LCCFM03, LCC81_BH11

236834-S-GEO-017 3.3

Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road;

WSS45, WSS46, WSS47, WSS48, WSS49, LCC79, LCC80

236834-S-GEO-018 3.4

Hunslet Road; WSS40, DS51, DS53A, WSS54

236834-S-GEO-019 3.5

Table 3.2: General Ground Conditions for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane

Stratum Typical Description Depth to Top

(m bgl)

Depth to Base

(m bgl)

Top of Stratum

(m AOD)

Base of Stratum

(m AOD)

Made Ground TARMACADAM.

Dark brown fine to coarse sand of ash and subangular to subrounded fine to coarse gravel sized fragments of brick, sandstone, limestone and slag.

0.0 2.5 GL 23.5

Alluvium Yellow fine to medium SAND.

Soft to firm light brown slightly gravelly CLAY. Sand is fine to medium gravel is subangular to subrounded fine to medium of sandstone and coal.

Greyish brown fine to coarse SAND and subangular to subrounded fine to coarse gravel of sandstone.

2.5 5.5 23.5 20.5

Lower Coal Measures

Weak to moderately strong brownish grey fine grained thickly laminated slightly weathered silty fine SANDSTONE.

Weak to moderately weak light grey moderately weathered thinly laminated SILTSTONE.

5.5 Not Proven

20.5 Not Proven

Groundwater was struck at 4.5m bgl in Alluvium and rose to 4.0m bgl in WSS39, and struck at 3.8m bgl in Alluvium and rose to 3.75m bgl in WSS40.

10



Table 3.3: General Ground Conditions for Chadwick Street


(m bgl)

Depth to Base

(m bgl)

Top of Stratum

(m AOD)

Base of Stratum

(m AOD)

Made Ground Concrete.

Brown sandy grey angular to subangular fine to coarse gravel of brick, clinker, concrete, ash and rare iron with low cobble content.

0.0 2.0 GL 24.0

Alluvium Soft dark grey brown mottled sandy organic SILT.

Greyish brown stained orange slightly clayey fine to medium SAND.

2.0 3.0 24.0 23.0

River Terrace Deposits

Brown slightly silty, very sandy subangular to rounded fine to coarse GRAVEL of mixed lithologies.

3.0 5.0 23.0 21.0

Lower Coal Measures

Weak to moderately strong thinly laminated grey MUDSTONE.

5.0 Not Proven

21.0 Not Proven

Groundwater was encountered during historical ground investigations (LCC81) at 1.95m bgl and 5.2m bgl, rising to 1.7m bgl and 4.25m bgl respectively.

Table 3.4: General Ground Conditions for Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road


(m bgl)

Depth to Base

(m bgl)

Top of Stratum

(m AOD)

Base of Stratum

(m AOD)

Made Ground Concrete.

Black gravelly fine to coarse sand of ash with low cobble content. Gravel sized fragments are angular to subangular of clinker and brick.

0.0 1.5 GL 24.5

Alluvium Soft to firm brown slightly gravelly sandy silt CLAY. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is subangular to subrounded fine to coarse of sandstone.

1.5 3.0 24.5 23.0


Greyish brown and orange very sandy fine to coarse subangular to subrounded GRAVEL of sandstone. Sand is coarse.

3.0 9.0 23.0 17.0

Weathered Lower Coal Measures

Very stiff silty clay with MUDSTONE lithorelics. 9.0 Not Proven

17.0 Not Proven

Groundwater was struck at 1.2m bgl in Made Ground and rose to 1.15m bgl in WSS45. Groundwater was struck during historical ground investigations at 5.2m bgl and 7.0m bgl in River Terrace Deposits and rose to 3.8m bgl and 3.7m bgl (LCC80).

11



Table 3.5: General Ground Conditions for Hunslet Road


(m bgl)

Depth to Base

(m bgl)

Top of Stratum

(m AOD)

Base of Stratum

(m AOD)

Made Ground Dark brown sandy gravelly clay with low cobble content. Sand sized fragments are fine to medium. Gravel sized fragments are angular to subangular fine to coarse of sandstone, brick, roof tile, pottery and concrete. Cobble sized fragments are subangular of concrete and roof tile.

0.0 1.5 GL 25.5


Yellowish brown gravelly fine to medium gravelly SAND. Gravel is subangular to subrounded fine to coarse of sandstone.

1.5 5.5 25.5 21.5

Lower Coal Measures

Extremely weak to weak grey MUDSTONE.

Weak to medium strong thinly to thickly laminated light brownish grey fine to medium SANDSTONE with very closely to closely spaced thin laminations of weak dark grey siltstone.

Weak thinly laminated grey SILTSTONE with closely spaced thick laminations to thin laminations of very weak mudstone.

5.5 Not Proven

21.5 Not Proven

Coal Coal 6.7

9.5

9.0

12.0

-

-

-

-

No groundwater strikes were recorded during the drilling.

3.4 Characteristic Parameters

Preliminary characteristic values have been determined based on laboratory testing from both the recent

and historical ground investigations. Where limited or no test results are available, an assessment has

been made based on the description of the material compared to published data; values are presented in

Table 3.6.

The descriptions for River Terrace Deposit and Alluvium have been compared to unit weights provided in

BS8002:1994, Table 2 [14]

. The table provides unit weights for material in the absence of test data.

Plasticity Indices for Alluvium range between 14% and 25% and were compared to φ’crit values in

BS8002:1994[14]

to give a conservative friction angle. The estimated critical friction angle for River Terrace

Deposits has also been estimated from the description of the material and using BS8002:1994[14]

as

follows:

φcrit (˚) = A + B (Equation 5-1)

Where A = angularity of the particles and B = grading of the sand/gravel

12



Table 3.6: Characteristic Parameters for Soils Encountered

Material Unit Weight, γ (kN/m3)

Angle of Friction, φcrit (°)

Undrained Shear Strength, cu (kPa)

Drained Young’s Modulus, E’ (MPa)

Made Ground (Cohesive) 18 1 25 3 25 3 -

Made Ground (Granular) 19 1 28 2 0 -

Alluvium (Cohesive) 17 1 29 1 40 3 8 2

River Terrace Deposits (Granular) 21 1 32 2 0 19 2

Weathered Lower Coal Measures (Clay) 20 1 27 3 150 2/3 30 2

1. BS8002:1994. 2. SPT’N’ Correlation, CIRIA 143. 3. Conservative parameter based on engineering judgement and soil description.

The site wide characteristic soil parameters are suitable for conceptual design and considering options for

the form of particular structures. Once the form and geometry of new structures are confirmed detailed

geotechnical design will consider location specific geotechnical data and the appropriate parameters for

design.

Limited information is available for undrained shear strength of cohesive soils encountered. Values

presented are conservative parameters based on soil descriptions from boreholes.

Point load tests were carried out on the cores recovered from DS51 and DS53A for sandstone, siltstone

and mudstone. The point load Is(50) value has been converted to a compressive strength by using a

correlation value of K = 22 , as follows:

Co (MPa) = Is(50) x K (Equation 3-2)

13



Chart 3.1: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone from borehole DS51

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Compressive Strength (MN/m2)

Ele

vation (

m A

OD

)

Note 1: Extremely weak = <1MN/m

2

Source: NWH Rock Testing, F15694

Drift Deposits

Mudstone

Weak

Mediu

m

Str

on

g

Very

Weak

(see N

ote

1)

Str

on

g

Characteristic

Value

Upper and Lower

Bound Values

Value excluded as

deemed

unrepresentative

14



Chart 3.2: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Sandstone and Siltstone from borehole DS53A

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Compressive Strength (MN/m2)

Ele

vation (

m A

OD

)


2

Source: NWH Rock Testing, F15694

The compressive strengths presented for Lower Coal Measures are lower bound values determined from

point load tests and rock core descriptions; these represent rock up to 3m below the drift deposits which

may be encountered. Compressive strengths are shown to generally increase with depth for all strata.

Greater compressive strengths can be achieved within the sandstone and siltstone strata at greater depths.

The compressive strength characteristic values given are conservative and based on testing carried out

during the preliminary ground investigation. Characteristic values may be revised following further intrusive

investigations and rock testing if required. Preliminary characteristic values are presented below in Table

3.7 below.

Table 3.7: Characteristic Parameters for Lower Coal Measures

Material Unit Weight, γ (kN/m3) Compressive Strength, Co (MPa)

Young's Modulus, E (MPa)

Sandstone 25 1/2 5 1 600 2

Siltstone 23 1/2 3 1 400 2

Mudstone 22 1/2 1 1/2 150 2

1. Laboratory Results;

2. Conservative parameter based on engineering judgement and sample description;

Drift Deposits

Sandstone

Siltstone

Lower and Upper

Bound Values

Lower and Upper

Bound Values

Weak

Mediu

m

Str

on

g

Very

Weak

(See N

ote

1)

Str

on

g

Characteristic

Values

15



3.5 Pavement Design

The proposed offline sections of the South Line are likely to be constructed within subgrade material of

Made Ground, which is highly variable throughout the South Line. In some instances, Made Ground may

be excavated and the formation may then be laid within the underlying Alluvium or River Terrace Deposits.

With reference to the Highways Agency, Interim Advice Note 73/06, (2009)[15]

, the following preliminary

CBR values may be adopted and are presented below in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8: CBR Correlation with Plasticity Index

Material Characteristic Plasticity Index (%) Correlated CBR Value (%)

Ref. IAN73/06 30

Made Ground 14 2.5*

Alluvium 20 2

River Terrace Deposits (Granular) n/a 15

Source: NWH Factual Report, F15694. MM GIR Report No.312694/RPT039

* To take into account material variability and generally cohesive nature of the ground.

It is recommended that the formation be inspected by a suitably experienced engineer to identify any soft,

loose or other unacceptable materials. If unacceptable material is encountered, remedial ground treatment

measures may be required. Such measures could include excavation and replacement of low stiffness /

strength materials with well compacted engineered fill. It may prove beneficial to incorporate a geogrid into

the pavement design to reduce differential movement, and to reduce the quantity of imported base material

required.

Should any coal seams be encountered at formation level, they should be excavated and replaced with

mass concrete, or if agreed with the structural designer, suitable granular fill. Should coal be exposed

elsewhere within the area, it should be sealed with mass concrete to limit the penetration of air and reduce

risk of combustion in accordance with guidance and a licensing agreement with The Coal Authority.

3.6 Concrete Classification

Chemical results have been assessed in order to determine the risk of sulphate attack on any concrete

used within foundations for NGT stops along the offline sections.

Table 3.9: Sulphate and pH Values for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane

Hole ID Depth (m bgl) SO4 (mg/l) pH

WSS38 0.5 540 11.4

WSS38 1.0 930 11.3

WSS39 1.2 200 9.0

WSS40 1.0 170 9.5

Source: NWH Factual Report, F15694

Table 3.10: Sulphate and pH Values for Chadwick Street


WSS41 0.5 130 9.2

TPS42 0.5 200 10.1

TPS43 1.4 470 9.3

TPS44 1.0 120 9.2

16




Table 3.11: Sulphate and pH Values for Carlisle Road to South Accomodation Road


WSS47 1.0 200 9.5

WSS48 1.0 90 9.0

WSS49 1.0 85 8.7


The buried concrete design has been evaluated using the BRE Special Digest 1 (2005)[16]

. BRE guidance

recommends using the highest measured sulphate concentration for the Design Sulphate Class. No tests

were carried out along Hunslet Road, therefore a conservative concrete class is proposed at this

preliminary stage. Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification has been used for

brownfield sites and assumes mobile groundwater.

Based on the forgoing, buried concrete within each offline section should be designed to sulphate classes

in Table 3.12. Consideration should be given as to whether the sulphate class should be increased to DS-2

to allow for winter salting.

Table 3.12: Preliminary Concrete Class for Offline Sections

Section Concrete Class

(BRE SD1)

Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane DS-2, AC-2

Chadwick Street DS-1, AC-1

Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road DS-1, AC-1

Hunslet Road DS-2, AC-2

3.7 Contamination and Waste Implications

3.7.1 Contamination Testing

Contamination testing has been carried out in areas of proposed offline highway works. The contamination

testing methodology is discussed in Appendix B Section B.1. For the purpose of this scheme the

commercial / industrial land use scenario has been utilised, further discussion of the assessment criteria is

presented in Appendix B.2, Table B.5.

Leachate extract from soil and groundwater results have been compared to the Environmental Quality

Standards (EQS) where available and by UK Drinking water Quality Standards (UK DWS). These guideline

values are summarised in Appendix B2, Table B.6. Table 3.14 presents a summary of the findings of the

contamination testing.

Table 3.13: Offline Sections Contamination Testing Summary

Route Section Exploratory Holes

Soil Leachate Extract from Soil

Groundwater Testing

Former Tetley’s Brewery Car Park

WSS38

WSS39

WSS40

No exceedences of SGVs or GACs for metals or inorganic compounds

Elevated levels of TPH exceeding 1000 mg/kg however. Speciated

All concentrations of contaminants fell below EQS and UK DWS values.

Slightly elevated levels of pH between 9.8 and 11 exceeding the EQS of 9.

No Testing

17




Soil Leachate Extract from Soil

Groundwater Testing

testing did not exceed GACs

Chadwick Street WS41

TPS42

TPS43

TPS44

No exceedences of SGVs or GACs for any contaminant

No Testing No Testing

Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road

WSS45

WSS46

WSS47

WSS48

WSS49

Elevated levels of TPH and PAH exceeding 1000mg/kg in WSS48 only. Speciated testing indicated elevated levels of Dibenzo (ah) anthracene, Benzo-a- pyrene. Elevated levels of Arsenic exceeding SGVs or GACs.

Concentrations of majority of contaminants fell below EGS and UK DWS values.

Slightly elevated levels of pH between 9.9 exceeding the EQS of 9.

Elevated level of copper at 140 µg/l in WSS47 exceeding EQS

No Testing

Hunslet Road WSS50

DS51

DS53A

WSS54

No testing No Testing Concentrations of majority contaminants fell below EQS and UK DWS values

Elevated level of selenium at 20 µg/l in DS53A exceeding EQS of 10 µg/l

3.7.2 Waste Categorisation

This section provides a preliminary assessment of whether the Made Ground material encountered is

potentially non-hazardous or hazardous waste by using Waste Acceptance Criteria testing or CAT-

WASTESOIL

; both of these methodologies are described in Appendix B Section B2.3. It should be noted

however; that this categorisation is indicative only for costing and planning purposes and final

categorisation of any excavated material is the responsibility of the producer or holder of the waste.

Additionally, liaison with the intended landfill operator will be required to confirm the receipt of the waste.

Table 3.14 presents a summary of WAC testing.

Table 3.14: Offline Sections Waste Acceptance Criteria Summary


CAT Waste Assessment WAC Testing

Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane

WSS38

WSS39

WSS40

WSS38 – Hazardous Waste (Heavy Fuel Oil)

WSS38 - Hazardous Waste (Total TPH, pH)

WSS39 – Hazardous Waste

(pH)

Chadwick Street WS41

TPS42

TPS43

TPS44

Non-hazardous Waste TPS42 – Total Organic Carbon content too high for an inert landfill

TPS43 – Hazardous Waste (Total PAH,)

TPS44 – Inert Waste


WSS45

WSS46

WSS47

WSS48

WSS49

WSS45 & WSS49 – Non-hazardous

WSS48 –Hazardous Waste (Benzo-a- pyrene and heavy fuel oil)

WSS46 – Total Organic Carbon content too high for inert landfill

WSS47 – Hazardous Waste (Total TPH, Total PAH)

WSS49 - Hazardous Waste (Total PAH,)

Hunslet Road WSS50

DS51

DS53A

WSS54

- WSS50 – Hazardous Waste (Total PAH)

WSS54 –Total Organic Carbon content too high for inert landfill

18



3.8 Earthworks Assessment

Table 3.15 shows preliminary cut and fill volumes for each of the offline sections and the material to be

excavated based on the ground models provided in Section 3.4. The cut and fill volumes have been based

on the alignment at DF7.

Table 3.15: Preliminary Cut and Fill Volumes for Offline Sections- South Line

Offline Section Drawing Reference Fill Volume m3 (With Capping)

Cut Volume, m3

Likely Material and Description

Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane

312694/TD/031 360 1217 Made Ground: Tarmac; Dark brown fine to coarse sand sized fragments of ash and subangular to subrounded fine to coarse gravel sized fragments of brick, sandstone, limestone and slag.

Chadwick Street 312694/TD/032 1878 4404 Made Ground: Concrete; Brown sandy grey angular to subangular fine to coarse gravel sized fragments of brick, clinker, concrete, ash and rare iron with low cobble content.


312694/TD/033 3501 6347 Made Ground: Black gravelly fine to coarse sand sized fragments of ash with low cobble content. Gravel sized fragments are angular to subangular of clinker and brick.

Hunslet Road 312694/TD/034 2010 4019 Made Ground: Dark brown sandy gravelly clay with low cobble content. Sand sized fragments are fine to medium. Gravel sized fragments are angular to subangular fine to coarse of sandstone, brick, roof tile, pottery and concrete. Cobble sized fragments are subangular of concrete and roof tile.

3.8.1 Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane

With regards to the risks to human health and groundwater from the soils beneath this section of the route

the risk is likely to be low based on current development proposals. Although there remains a risk to

construction workers, working practices should be planned to reduce direct contact with Made Ground

materials and they should be provided with appropriate PPE and facilities.

The Made Ground which may be excavated at this location during highway construction is likely to be

unacceptable for placement in landscaping areas. The material is likely to classify as hazardous waste due

to its hydrocarbon content and would require disposal at a suitably licensed facility.

3.8.2 Chadwick Street

With regards to the risks to human health and groundwater from the soils beneath this section of the route

the risk is likely to be low based on current development proposals and no exceedences detected of the

commercial / industrial SGVs/GACs. Although there remains a risk to construction workers, working

practices should be planned to reduce direct contact with Made Ground materials and they should be

provided with appropriate PPE and facilities.

Should the Made Ground at this location be excavated during highway construction it is likely to be

unacceptable for placement in landscaping areas but may be suitable for placement beneath the highway

so long as it complies with the acceptance criteria for both contamination and geotechnical properties

which will be outlined in the Earthworks Specification.

19



Should a surplus of material be anticipated, the material is likely to classify as non - hazardous waste due

to its contaminant characteristics and would require disposal at a suitably licensed facility.

3.8.3 Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road

Elevated levels of total TPH, Total PAH (including Dibenzo (ah) anthracene, Benzo-a-pyrene) and arsenic

exceeded the commercial / industrial guideline values, however based on the current development

proposals there is likely to be a low risk to human health as there will be no plausible pathway between site

users and soils beneath this section of the route. Although there remains a risk to construction workers,

working practices should be planned to reduce direct contact with Made Ground materials and they should

be provided with appropriate PPE and facilities.





Should a surplus of material be anticipated the material is likely to classify as hazardous waste due to its

contaminant characteristics and would require disposal at a suitably licensed facility.

3.8.4 Hunslet Road





Elevated levels of PAH were encountered, however based on the current development proposals there is

likely to be a low risk to human health as there will be no plausible pathway between site users and soils

beneath this section of the route. Although there remains a risk to construction workers, working practices

should be planned to reduce direct contact with Made Ground materials and they should be provided with

appropriate PPE and facilities.

Should a surplus of material be anticipated the material is likely classified as hazardous waste due to its

Total PAH content and would require disposal at a suitably licensed facility.

3.9 Gas Risk Assessment

A review of the current proposals indicates there are no enclosed spaces along general offline sections nor

are there deep excavations. However, gas monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the

guidance presented in Appendix B.3 and the results are presented in Table 3.16.

20



Table 3.16: Offline Sections - Characteristic Gas Situation


Gas Concentration

(% v/v)

Gas Flow Rate

(l/hr)

Site hazardous gas flow (l/hr)

Characteristic Situation

(CIRIA C665 [17], BS8485 [18])

Former Tetley’s Brewery Car Park

WSS38

Carbon Dioxide 0.1

Methane <0.1

0.1 0.0001

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk

WSS40 Carbon Dioxide 0.1

Methane <0.1

0.1 0.0001

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk

Chadwick Street WS41 Carbon Dioxide 0.1

Methane <0.1

0.1 0.0001

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk


WSS45

Carbon Dioxide 0.2

Methane <0.1

0.1 0.0002

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk

WSS47 Carbon Dioxide 0.2

Methane <0.1

0.1 0.0002

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk

Hunslet Road WSS50

Carbon Dioxide 0.2

Methane <0.1

0.1 0.0002

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk

DS53A

Carbon Dioxide 0.2

Methane <0.1

-0.1 -0.0002

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk

Based on monitoring carried out to date the risk to offline sections from gas is Very Low, and no special

precautions will be required during construction. Further gas monitoring will be carried out across the next 9

months following which the above calculation and risk rating will need reviewing.

In addition a PID meter was used during the gas monitoring to determine whether any volatile compounds

are present within the ground, at each location the meter read 0.0ppm.

21



4.1 Description

Online highways works are defined as those which follow the line of the existing highway and involve

limited land take. It has been assumed that online works require limited geotechnical input as the works are

likely to involve the resurfacing of existing road and possible junction improvements and limited land take.

The online section from Whitfield Avenue to Church Street includes a section on existing paved area and is

counted as an online section requiring capping. These areas are outlined in MM Report 236834/RPT21[19]

.

The South Line follows existing highway for a small portion of its length, with some areas of land take

where carriageway widening is required.

The online sections of the South Line have been identified by street name and are as follows;

Lower Briggate, Drawing No 236834-OPT5-001;

Bridge End, Drawing No 236834-OPT5-001;

Chadwick Street, Drawing No. 236834-S-OPT1-003;

Church Street, Drawing No. 236834-S-BASE-007; and

Balm Road, Drawing No. 236834-S-BASE-008.


The following documents should be referred to in conjunction with this section;

Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk

Study, Report No. 236834/RPT14B, July 2009. 1

Mott MacDonald, NGT, Design Freeze Seven, South Line Drawings, June 2013, P229

;


Ground conditions are not likely to have a significant impact on these works and design implications are not

discussed in this section of the report. A general summary of the ground conditions for the online sections

of the South Line is presented in the Desk Study Report 1. However, additional ground investigation and

geotechnical design may be required at detailed design stage should design development progress.

4.4 Pavement Design

Limited geotechnical design input is anticipated where the route follows the existing highway, and as such

these sections were not targeted by the preliminary ground investigation. It is considered that the online

sections of the scheme are comparable with Geotechnical Category 1, as defined in BS EN 1997-1:2004[20]

as limited black top resurfacing works are anticipated with minor areas of carriage widening and junction

realignment.


In agreement with LCC it was considered unnecessary to carry out contamination testing beneath the

existing highway at this preliminary stage of the scheme. Any contamination beneath the existing highway

is unlikely to be disturbed during construction works, and there are limited pathways for users of the NGT

scheme to come into contact with any contaminated soil.

4. General Online Highway Works

22



With regards to resurfacing works, the excavated blacktop and aggregate should be suitable for recycling

and re-use either for this scheme or other LCC highways schemes. However, parts of the route are likely to

be underlain by older coal tar based black top and older aggregates could contain ash, clinker and slag

which may not be suitable for re-use. Further assessment would be required on the excavated material to

determine its composition and suitability for re-use.


It is likely that Made Ground associated with the existing road construction may be excavated for the

general online works. Ground conditions along this section are to be confirmed during the construction

works.

Table 4.1: Preliminary Cut and Fill Volumes for General Online Highways Works

Offline Section Drawing Reference Fill Volume m3 (With Capping)

Cut Volume, m3

Likely Material and Description

Bridge End to Hunslet Road

236834-S-BASE-001 0 332 Made Ground: Tarmacadam, existing road formation materials.

Whitfield Avenue to Church Street

236834-S-BASE-006, 236834-S-BASE-007

1110 2250 Made Ground: Tarmacadam, existing road formation materials.

Church Road to Balm Road

236834-S-BASE-007 On Hold* Made Ground: Tarmacadam, existing road formation materials.

*The design along this section is currently on hold and as such no cut and fill volumes have been calculated for this section.

23



5.1 Description

The proposed South Line runs through the built up area of Hunslet to the south of the City Centre and

crosses the Hallam & Pontefract railway adjacent to the existing Balm Road Bridge. The existing Balm

Road Bridge was built in 1902 comprising five spans across the railway sidings, with existing headroom of

4.3m, which is below current Network Rail standards. The existing bridge was inspected in 2002 and found

that there was severe corrosion of steel elements. Options to refurbish and replace Balm Road Bridge are

discussed in Mott MacDonald Report No. 236834/RPT32[6]

.

The Clients preferred design option is to keep the existing Balm Road Bridge with the possibility of

widening and increasing the height of the bridge deck; however an alternative option is to construct a new

bridge to the east of existing which would accommodate two trolleybus lanes, two evacuation strips and

incorporating the required Network Rail headroom of 5.8m. In this scenario the existing Balm Road Bridge

would continue to carry general traffic. The foundations for a possible offline structure are discussed in a

separate Design Note. The design note does not cover the approach embankments to the proposed bridge

which will be discussed below.

It should be noted that no decision has been made about whether a new bridge will be constructed to the

east of existing; therefore this report considers all options.


The following documents should be referred to in conjunction with this section:

Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Ground Investigation Report - South Line, Report

No. 312694/RPT039, February 2013[4];

Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Hunslet Sidings, Report No.

F12800, November 2003 [9]

;


Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010 [10]

;

Mott MacDonald, NGT Route Development, Balm Road Bridge High Level Feasibility Report, Report

No. 236834/RPT32, November 2009, Rev A[6]

;

5.3 Assumptions

The following assumptions have been made in the discussion of Balm Road Bridge:

the ground investigation information is representative of conditions beneath the site;

imported cohesive or granular fill has been assumed to form the embankment slopes;

calculations have assumed a preliminary dead load of 7000kN and a preliminary live load of 3500kN;


The ground investigation indicated that the ground consists of Made Ground and River Terrace Deposits

overlying interbedded solid strata of siltstones and mudstones of the Lower Coal Measures. The findings of

this investigation are presented in Norwest Holst Soil Engineering Factual Report No’s F12800[9]

and

F15694[10]

and discussed in Mott MacDonald Ground Investigation Report (GIR)[4]

. Geological cross section

5. Balm Road Bridge

24



drawings are also presented in GIR No. 312694/RPT039[4]

. General ground profiles beneath to the north

and south of the new bridge are summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Summary of Ground Conditions


(m bgl)

Depth to Base

(m bgl)

Top of Stratum

(m AOD)

Base of Stratum

(m AOD)

Made Ground Black slightly clayey gravelly fine to coarse sand sized fragments of ash. Gravel sized fragments are angular to subangular fine to coarse of wood, rope, granite, sandstone and occasional clinker.

0.0 ~3.2 ~30.0 ~26.8


Soft to firm slightly sandy slightly gravelly CLAY. Sand is fine to medium. Gravel is fine to medium of sandstone.

~3.2 ~ 4.4 ~26.8 ~25.6

Medium dense fine to medium SAND and fine to coarse GRAVEL of sandstone.

~ 4.4 9.4 ~25.6 ~21.0

Lower Coal Measures

Siltstone

Mudstone

Weak to medium strong SILTSTONE. Discontinuities are very closely to closely spaced undulating rough locally clay smeared.

0.8m deep assumed zone of core loss at 16.6m AOD to 15.8m AOD (12.6m bgl to 13.4m bgl).

Extremely weak to very weak thickly laminated MUDSTONE. Discontinuities are extremely closely to closely spaced undulating smooth clay filled.

~9.0

Not Proven

~21.0

Not Proven

Possible Mine Workings

No loss of flush was recorded. 16.4 19.0 12.8 10.2

Coal Very weak black vitreous COAL. Recovered as non-intact core (angular tabular fine to coarse gravel sized fragments with low cobble content).

12.8 13.0 16.0 15.8

Groundwater was struck at 2.5m bgl within the Made Ground; no rise in level was recorded in DS59. Groundwater was struck at 10m bgl within siltstone; no rise in water level was recorded in DS64.Groundwater has been monitored between 1.8m bgl and 1.96m bgl in DS64 and between 2.24m bgl and 2.36m bgl in DS59.

A coal seam was encountered between 12.8m bgl and 13.0m bgl and a possible void was recorded

between 16.4m bgl and 19.0m bgl. There is a potential for possible mine workings to be present beneath

the site due to core loss being recorded during the ground investigation. The site is in an area of possible

former coal mining at less than 30m bgl as indicated in BGS Technical Report WA/92/1[21]

and the MM

Desk Study Report[1]

.

Further Ground Investigation is required to confirm the extent of shallow mine workings. Grouting of any

shallow mine workings will be required beneath new embankments and structures.

5.5 Characteristic Parameters

Preliminary characteristic parameters for material present beneath the site were derived from laboratory

test results (NHSE Ltd Report No. F15694[10]

and F12800[9]

). Where limited or no test results are available,

an assessment has been made based on the material description compared to published data as detailed

in the South Line GIR and summarised in Tables 5.2 and Table 5.3.

Limited site specific data was available for Plasticity Indices for the cohesive River Terrace Deposits due to

lack of material recovery during drilling, however, data from boreholes in the vicinity (CRS60, CRS61 and

DS65) were available from which a characteristic effective angle of friction has been derived. Plasticity

Indices ranging between 12% and 28% were compared to φ’crit values in BS8002:1994[14]

to give a

moderately conservative friction angle (Table 5.2).

25



No testing data was available to give site specific unit weights of the material; therefore, based on the soil

description, a unit weight of 18kN/m3 has been used to represent typical firm clay for the cohesive River

Terrace Deposits with the corresponding undrained shear strength (cu) of 40kPa.

The description for granular River Terrace Deposit has been compared to unit weights provided in

BS8002:1994, Table 2[4]

. The table provides unit weights for material in the absence of test data. The

estimated critical friction angle has also been estimated from the description of the material and using

BS8002:1994 as follows:

φcrit (˚) = A + B (Equation 5-1)

Where A = angularity of the particles, and B = grading of the sand/gravel

The granular River Terrace Deposits were described as medium dense sand and gravel with SPT’N’ values

ranging between 12 and 28 with one N value of 45 recorded. Correlating SPT’N’ values with friction angles

after Barnes gave friction angles between 31˚ and 36˚.

However, in comparison to the SPT’N’ correlation, the more conservative lower 5th percentile value for the

friction angle of granular River Terrace Deposits has been adopted which is equivalent to the critical friction

angle.

Characteristic values may be revised following further intrusive investigations and soil/rock testing.

Preliminary characteristic values are presented below.

Table 5.2: Characteristic Parameters for River Terrace Deposits

Material Unit Weight, γ (kN/m3)

Angle of Friction, φ’ crit (°)

Undrained Shear Strength, cu (kPa)

Drained Young’s Modulus, E’ (MPa)

River Terrace Deposits (Cohesive) 18 2 27 1/2 40 1 9 3

River Terrace Deposits (Granular) 20 2 31 1/2 - 19 3

1. Laboratory test results 2. BS8002:1994

Point load tests were carried out on the cores recovered from boreholes DS65, DS64 and HSBH07 from

both ground investigations for siltstone and mudstone. The point load Is(50) value has been converted to a

compressive strength by using a correlation value of K=22, as follows:

Co (MPa) = Is(50) x K (Equation 5-2)

Correlations of compressive strength with depth were made for siltstone and mudstone recovered from

boreholes DS65, DS64 and HSBH07.

26



Chart 5-1: Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone and Siltstone

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0 10 20 30 40 50

Compressive Strength, MN/m2

Ele

vati

on

(m

AO

D)


2

Source: NWH F15694

The compressive strengths presented in Table 5.3 for Lower Coal Measures are lower bound values

determined from point load tests and rock core descriptions; these represent rock up to 3m below the drift

deposits which may be encountered. Results generally indicate an increase in compressive strengths with

depth for the siltstone.

Compressive strengths for the mudstone are much lower than for siltstone, as the mudstone was recovered

as largely non-intact. The compressive strength characteristic values given are moderately conservative

and based on testing carried out during the preliminary ground investigation. Rock Quality Designation was

generally very poor (RQD <25%), therefore a Mass factor j of 0.2 should also be used in geotechnical

design.

Table 5.3: Characteristic Parameters for Lower Coal Measures

Material Unit Weight, γ (kN/m3) Compressive Strength, Co (MPa)

Young's Modulus, E (MPa)

Siltstone 23 2 3 1/2 400 2

Mudstone 22 2 1 1/2 150 2

1. Laboratory Results

2. Conservative parameter based on engineering judgement and soil description.


Siltstone

Mudstone

Siltstone

Lower and Upper

Bound Values

River Terrace Deposits (Cohesive)

Made Ground

Lower and Upper

Bound Values

Very

Weak

(see N

ote

1)

Weak

Mediu

m

Str

on

g

27



5.6 Approach Embankments

The approach embankments to the replacement bridge will be constructed using assuming either granular

or cohesive fill to achieve a ‘safe’ slope angles in accordance with BS EN1997-1[20]

and the UK National

Annex.

Cohesive fill used for the embankment slopes must have an angle of friction of 27˚ with drained cohesion

(c’) of 0kPa and an undrained cohesion of at least 50kPa. Imported granular fill will have an angle of friction

of at least 36˚.

For the off line bridge option, the stability of the proposed slope, at maximum height, was determined in

accordance with EC7 using partial factors to ensure an adequacy factor greater than unity. The calculation

methodology is presented in Appendix C.

Table 5.4: Preliminary Slope Stability Analysis

Granular Imported Fill Cohesive Imported Fill

Slope Angle Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 1 Combination 2

1 in 2.5 1.81 1.38 1.27 0.99

1 in 2 1.45 1.11 1.02 0.79

Slope assessments for imported fill in Table 5.4 above indicate that a preliminary slope angle of 1 in 2 is

likely to be acceptable for granular fill and 1 in 2.5 for cohesive imported fill. If steeper slopes are required

due to restrictions on land-take strengthen earthworks with layers of geogrid or low height retaining walls

will be required.

As noted in Section 4.4 the ground conditions beneath the proposed embankments comprise Made Ground

overlying soft to firm cohesive River Terrace Deposits and granular River Terrace Deposits.

The soft to firm cohesive River Terrace Deposits may undergo some long term settlement relative to the

bridge structure, particularly for the option of new bridge to the east where new embankment loading will be

significant. The Made Ground and cohesive River Terrace Deposit properties could be modified by ground

improvement techniques such as vibro stone columns or excavate and replaced with granular fill using

SHW Class 6A fill if placing material under water.

The bearing resistance of the granular River Terrace Deposits should be sufficient for the preliminary

loadings anticipated. It is likely that some settlement may occur whilst constructing the approach

embankments which will be dependent on the method of construction chosen. This settlement is likely to be

less than 25mm if the embankment is placed on the medium dense granular underlying River Terrace

Deposits or these deposits are improved.

5.7 Approach Retaining Walls

For the off-line bridge option, significant lengths of reinforced concrete retaining walls are proposed to

retain embankment material for the north and south approaches to the new bridge adjacent to Balm Road.

The north approach embankment retaining wall will retain soil up to 4.5m in height for a length of

approximately 80m and the south approach embankment retaining wall will retain soil up to 6.9m in height

for a length of approximately 55m.

The reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls should be founded within medium dense granular River

Terrace Deposits in order to minimise settlement. Alternatively, it may be more economical to found the

28



walls on piles installed from existing ground level. An alternative solution for approach retaining walls using

reinforced soil may provide economies for the off-line bridge option.

5.8 Foundations

The span of the proposed new bridge is 62m and it will be designed as a bowstring arch with foundations

independent of the existing Balm Road Bridge.

Made Ground is considered unsuitable as a bearing stratum due to its variability in strength and

composition and likeliness to cause excessive and differential settlement. The cohesive River Terrace

Deposits are assumed not to be of a sufficient strength to provide an adequate bearing capacity for the

bridge abutments. It is recommended, therefore, that the foundations be placed in the medium dense to

dense granular River Terrace Deposits.

A shallow foundation option considered is a 14m by 7m pad foundation, which support the bridge

superstructure over the sidings. Pad foundations are likely to provide sufficient support based on

preliminary loadings of 7000kN dead load and 3500kN live load with preliminary dimensions of 14m length

and 7m wide.

A bearing resistance for medium dense to dense granular River Terrace Deposits has been calculated to

be 1049kPa (Combination 1) and 709kPa (Combination 2), for a 14m by 7m footing on Gravel with ’=310.

It is estimated that the total settlement of a pad footing founded on Terrace Gravel will not exceed 25mm.

Table 5.5: Applied Loads for the Pad Foundaiton and Bearing Resistance for granular River Terrace Deposits

Combination 1 Combination 2

Bearing Resistance (kN/m2)

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Pressure (kN/m2)

Bearing Resistance (kN/m2)

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Pressure (kN/m2)

Abutment 1049 14700 150 709 10500 107

Groundwater was monitored in standpipes between 1.8m and 2.36m bgl. It is possible that groundwater

will be encountered at formation levels and some sump pumping at pad excavations may be required.

Alternatively, it may be more practical and economic to construct piled foundations. An appropriate pile

layout may comprise 8Nr 600mm diameter piles (in two rows) per abutment with an average Safe Working

Load 1312kN. Piled foundations should extend beyond the base of any mine workings with the mine

workings stabilised. The detailed pile design will have to consider horizontal loads and overturning

moments from the retained embankments and it is possible that the maximum bending moment in piles will

result in the need for additional 600mm diameter piles or increase to 750mm diameter.


Chemical results have been assessed on order to determine the risk of sulphate attack on any concrete

used within the retaining walls and foundations. Results are presented in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Sulphate and pH Values for Balm Road Bridge


CRS60 1.2 1500 8.5

CRS60 4.0 710 8.3

CRS60 5.8 99 8.7

CRS60 9.7 250 8.7

29




CRS61 2.0 650 8.6

CRS61 5.8 46 8.7

WSS63 0.8 63 8.7

WSS63 3.4 380 8.3

WSS63 4.2 160 8.4

WSS63 4.7 180 8.3


The buried concrete design has been evaluated using the BRE Special Digest 1 (2005)[16]

. As there are ten

test results in the data set, BRE guidance recommends using the mean of the highest 20% of sulphate

results is for the Design Sulphate Class and the mean of the lowest 20% of pH results.

Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification has been used for brownfield sites

and assumes mobile groundwater. Based on the forgoing, buried concrete within the site should be

designed to sulphate class DS-2, AC-2.


5.10.1 Contamination Testing

Contamination testing has been carried out in areas of proposed offline highway works. The contamination

testing methodology is discussed in Appendix B Section B.1. For the purpose of this scheme the

commercial / industrial land use scenario has been utilised. Further discussion of the assessment criteria is

presented in Appendix B.2, Table B.5. It should be noted that the assessment in the vicinity of Balm Road

Bridge has also utilised the contamination testing carried out during the ground investigation carried out

along Hunslet Sidings in 2003.

Leachate extracts from soil and groundwater results have been compared to the Environmental Quality

Standards where available or to UK Drinking water Quality Standards. These guideline values are

summarised in Appendix B2, Table B.6. Table 5.7 presents a summary of the findings of the contamination

testing.

Table 5.7: Railway Sidings Contamination Testing


Soil Leachate Extract from Soil Groundwater Testing

Balm Road Bridge to Wakefield Road Bridge

CRS60

WSS55A

WSS63

DS59

DS64

DS66

HSBH3

HSBH6

HSBH7

HSBH8

HSBH10

HSBH12

HSTP1

HSTP3

HSTP5

No exceedences of SGVs or GACs for metals or inorganic compounds

Elevated levels of Total TPH exceeding 1000 mg/kg in CRS60 and WSS55A at 1300 mg/kg and 21,000 mg/kg respectively. Speciated testing did not exceed GACs.

Elevated levels of Total PAH at 3600 mg/kg in WSS55A, speciated testing indicates elevated Benzo-a-pyrene.

All concentrations of contaminants fell below EQS and UK DWS values

All concentrations of contaminants fell below EQS and UK DWS values

30




Soil Leachate Extract from Soil Groundwater Testing

HSTP7

HSTP9

5.10.2 Waste Categorisation

This assessment provides a preliminary assessment of whether the Made Ground material encountered is

potentially non-hazardous or hazardous waste by using Waste Acceptance Criteria testing or CAT-

WASTESOIL

; both of these methodologies are described in Appendix B Section B2.3. It should be noted

however; that this categorisation is indicative only for costing and planning purposes and final

categorisation of any excavated material is the responsibility of the producer or holder of the waste.

Additionally, liaison with the intended landfill operator may be required to confirm the receipt of the waste.

Table 5.8 presents a summary of WAC testing.

Table 5.8: Balm Road Bridge Waste Acceptance Criteria Summary

Route Section Exploratory Holes CAT Waste Assessment WAC Testing

Balm Road Bridge to Wakefield Road Bridge

CRS60

WSS55A

WSS63

DS59

DS64

DS66

HSBH3

HSBH6

HSBH7

HSBH8

HSBH10

HSBH12

HSTP1

HSTP3

HSTP5

HSTP7

HSTP9

CRS60 – Hazardous Waste (heavy fuel oil)

WSS55A - Hazardous Waste (Benzo-a-pyrene and heavy fuel oil)

WSS 63 - Hazardous Waste (heavy fuel oil)

Hunslet Sidings exploratory holes - Non Hazardous Waste

WSS56 - Hazardous Waste (Total TPH, Total PAH, TOC, Loss on Ignition)


Preliminary cut and fill volumes have not been undertaken for this section of the route as the design

development is currently on hold. It is assumed that a large amount of fill will be imported to site or if

suitable re-used from another area of the scheme to form the north and south approach embankments for

Balm Road Bridge. The volume of cut material is not known at present, but is likely to be Made Ground as

described in Table 5.1.

During site works, material from excavations should be assessed for geotechnical and contamination

acceptability for re-use which will be outlined in an Earthworks Specification for the works. If the material is

deemed unacceptable it will require disposal at an appropriate licensed waste facility.

Testing carried out along Balm Road adjacent to the carriageway indicated elevated levels of hydrocarbons

above commercial / industrial SGV and GAC values, which is possibly residual contamination from the site

of the former car dealership which has been remediated within their site boundary and re-developed as

Gala Bingo.

Testing carried out in exploratory holes at Hunslet Sidings track level indicates no exceedences of the

commercial / industrial SGVs or GACs.

In order to prevent harm from exposure to contaminants appropriate working practices should be planned

to reduce direct contact with Made Ground materials and appropriate PPE and facilities should be

specified.

31



The Made Ground in the vicinity of the approach embankments for the new NGT dedicated bridge adjacent

to Balm Road Bridge is likely to require excavation as it will be unacceptable to support the embankment.

The material has been classified as hazardous waste due to its TPH, PAH (including Benzo(a)-pyrene) and

will require offsite disposal.

The near surface natural material tested during the 2003 investigation at track level adjacent to Hunslet

Sidings would likely be classified as non-hazardous waste and is likely to be suitable for reuse elsewhere

on the scheme provided it meets the acceptability criteria set out in the earthworks specification for the

scheme. For contamination and waste guidance on this section of the scheme please refer to Section 4.


Gas monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the guidance presented in Appendix B.3 the

results are presented in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9: Balm Road Bridge - Characteristic Gas Situation

Exploratory Holes

Gas Concentration

(% v/v)

Gas Flow Rate

(l/hr)



(CIRIA C665 [17], BS8485 [18])

WSS55A

Carbon Dioxide 0.4

Methane <0.1

-0.1 0.0004

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk

DS59 Carbon Dioxide 1.9

Methane <0.1

0.1 0.0019

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk


Methane <0.1

0.1 0.0001

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk


Methane <0.1

0.1 0.0002

0.0001

1 – Very Low Risk

Based on monitoring carried out to date the risk at Balm Road Bridge from gas is Very Low, and no special

precautions will be required during construction. Further gas monitoring will be carried out in the coming

months following which the above calculation and risk rating will need reviewing.


are present within the ground. At each location the meter read 0.0ppm.

32



6.1 Description

The original proposal for the South Line route included running the route along the Hunslet railway sidings

between Balm Road Bridge, Pepper Road Bridge and through an underpass at Westbury Place before

entering the proposed Stourton Park and Ride site on its northern boundary. However, a more detailed

investigation highlighted engineering difficulties along this route. An alternative route has therefore been

proposed at Design Freeze 7 which takes the South Line route from Balm Road Bridge southwards along

Belle Isle Road, crossing Belle Isle Circus taking the route eastwards along Winrose Grove and into the

Stourton Park and Ride at its south western corner.

A drawing showing the route overview is presented as Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1: Proposed Belle Isle Route

Source: Drawing No. 312694/S/SK/D/001

The route description and engineering proposals for the Belle Isle section of the South Line Route are

described in Table 6.1. The drawings listed in the table are presented as Appendix A

Table 6.1: Route Description


312694/TD/037

312694/TD/038

The route starts at Balm Road Bridge following Balm Road south with Moor Road NGT Stop located between Telford Gardens and

Existing on street parking relocated into a new extended lay-by.

Moor Road NGT Stops

6. Belle Isle Route

33




Woodhouse Hill Road. Some widening of the highway at Telford Gardens

NGT substation and compound

312694/TD/039 The Belle Isle Route continues south from the Woodhouse Hill Road junction, under the M621 underpass to Belle Isle Road.

Existing bus stops relocated to new lay-bys via localised widening of the highway.

1.5m Inbound and outbound cycle lanes.

NGT substation and compound (set into embankment requiring retaining wall on M621 side)

312694/TD/040 The route continues south along Belle Isle Road Existing gap in central reserve closed and East Grange Road exit made left-turn only.

Some localised highway widening in the vicinity of West Grange Church

Junction alteration and designated NGT route at the crossroads of West / East Grange Drive and Belle Isle Road

312694/TD/041 The route continues down Belle Isle Road through the Belle Isle Circus roundabout and turns east onto Winrose Grove. The Belle Isle Circus NGT stop is located north of the Belle Isle Circus roundabout.

Existing bus stop relocated to new layby leading to localised widening of highway

Belle Isle Circus NGT Stop

312694/TD/042

312694/TD/043

The route continues east along Winrose Grove from the Belle Isle Circus and ends at the Middleton NGT stop before entering the Stourton Park and Ride site.

Parking for residential buildings to be located off highway on property forecourts.

Middleton Road NGT Stop – located on high level plaza level

Embankments taking the route from existing road level into Stourton Park and Ride

A desk study Report 312694/RPT048A[28]

was prepared in June 2013, however, no ground investigation

has been carried out to date the following sections summarise the findings of this report.

6.2 History

A review of historical maps indicated that the route has been a roadway for a number of years surrounded

by industrial developments including a tannery, brush works, chemical works, coal pits, steel works and the

Leeds historical tramline. The route is currently predominantly surrounded by residential buildings and

industrial units.

6.3 Geology

The ground conditions underlying the northern section of this route comprises variable depths and

compositions of Made Ground, River Terrace Deposits and Pennine Lower Coal Measures. Belle Isle Road

to Belle Isle Circus is underlain Made Ground and Thornhill Rock. Belle Isle Circus is likely to be underlain

by Made Ground and Emley Rock. Belle Isle Circus via Winrose Grove to Stourton Park is underlain by

varying levels and composition of Made Ground, and Lower Coal Measures. The route crosses two fault

lines, the Farm Fault with a south east downthrow and the Middleton Grange fault with a north west

downthrow.

6.4 Coal Mining

A review of The Coal Authority information, along with mining reports supplied by Leeds City Council and

geological mapping, indicates that there is a significant possibility of shallow mine workings in the northern

34



half of the route and in the vicinity of Belle Isle Circus. Leeds City Council have also received anecdotal

information indicating there could be buried air raid shelters and mine shafts within the Belle Isle Circus

roundabout.

6.5 Proven Ground Conditions

Table 6.2 has been prepared using published geological information and historical ground investigation

information obtained from LCC and is indicative only. The ground conditions will require confirmation by a

preliminary ground investigation.

Table 6.2: Anticipated ground conditions between Balm Road Bridge and Winrose Grove

Scheme Drawing No.

Hazard Plan Drawing No.

Stratum

Typical Depth to Top (m)

Typical Depth to Base (m)

Typical description

Balm Road to M621

TD/037 to

TD/039 GEO/046

Made Ground 0 2.5 Ash, brick, timber and clay

River Terrace Deposits 2.5 3.5 Firm silty and sandy becoming stiffer with depth

3.5 5.5 Sand and Gravel

Weathered

Mudstone

5.5 unproven weak to very weak, moderately weathered

M621 to Belle Isle Circus

TD/039 to

TD/041

GEO/046 to

/GEO/047

Made Ground 0.0 0.5 Firm stony clay, with presence of Ash

Weathered Thornhill Rock

0.5 2 Firm, brown, stony and sandy.

Thornhill Rock 2 4 Weathered grey/brown

Siltstone 2 25.25 Completely weathered, highly fractured, sandy with bands of mudstone

Shaley Coal R2 only) 22.35 22.45 Shaley coal

Belle Isle Circus

TD/041 GEO/047

Made Ground 0.0 1.0 Unknown – possibility of air raid shelter beneath the route

Emley Rock 1.0 10> Flaggy sandstone likely to be highly weathered in upper parts

Winrose Grove

TD/042 GEO/047

Made Ground 0.0 1.1 Firm silty clay with gravel and coal fragments

Clay 1.1 2.5 Stiff mottled silty stony with sandstone and mudstone fragments.

Sandstone 1.1 2.1 Completely weathered becoming highly weathered with depth.

Mudstone 2.5 5.00 Completely weathered becoming highly weathered with depth, with bands of Coal

6.6 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Assessment

A preliminary engineering assessment for the proposed works of the Belle Isle route of the South Line is

presented in the following section. Indicative foundations, earthworks and retaining wall requirements have

been identified using drawings supplied to date but it should be noted that the engineering assessment for

35



the proposed works has been carried out using only the information obtained in historical ground

investigations and desk study information. The assessment should therefore be reviewed and updated as

the design of the scheme progresses.

6.6.1 Foundations

6.6.1.1 NGT Stops

The NGT Stops are generally light weight structures, however, their foundations will be required to resist

wind forces, allow for localised loading and facilitate services. The following NGT Stops are currently

proposed along the Belle Isle route:

Moor Road NGT Stop - Preliminary information indicates that Moor Road NGT Stop is likely to be

founded within Made Ground comprising brick rubble and loose brown sandy gravelly clay underlain by

weathered MUDSTONE. However, excavation and replacement of soft, compressible or loose material

is likely to be required, with proof rolling of made ground where it is the founding material.

Belle Isle Circus NGT Stop - There is currently no available historical ground investigation information

regarding the ground conditions along the route between Grange Grove junction (NGR 431060,

430363) and the end of Winrose Grove (NGR 4314797, 430011). However, the geological maps and

historical maps indicate that at the near surface, Belle Isle Circus Stop is likely to comprise either made

ground or weathered coal measures strata.

Middleton NGT Stop -The Middleton NGT Stop is expected to be founded within either Made Ground,

firm stony, silty, sandy CLAY or moderately weak SANDSTONE. Simple spread footings are likely to

be able to carry the loadings without excessive settlements. . However, excavation and replacement of

soft, compressible or loose material is likely to be required, with proof rolling of made ground where it is

the founding material.

6.6.1.2 Belle Isle Circus

The proposed route currently cuts through Belle Isle Circus roundabout. While there is currently no

available information regarding the ground conditions along the southern section of the Belle Isle route,

anecdotal evidence provided by Metro via some stakeholder liaison has indicated the possibility of air raid

shelters or mine shafts being present, in addition LCC have provided a plan indicating the approximate

location of an air raid shelter beneath Belle Isle Circus which is presented in Appendix E. However, no

specific reference to mine entries or shallow mine workings has been noted from Coal Authority mining

information.

Therefore, it would be prudent to assume voids could be present beneath this section of the route until

proven otherwise and also the possibility of hidden structures remaining from the historical tramway that

passed through the centre of Belle Isle Circus in the 1950s.

6.6.2 Earthworks

6.6.2.1 Access Embankment into the Stourton Park & Ride Site

The site walk over highlighted a significant level difference between the Middleton Ring Road level and the

adjacent field that is to be developed as the Stourton Park and Ride site. Access will therefore require the

construction of an embankment from the Middleton Ring Road declining into the Stourton Park and Ride

site.

Ground conditions inferred by LH727 and LH768 at Middleton Ring Road level include Made Ground

consisting of firm silty stony clay with coal fragments and ash to a depth of approximately 1m bgl with

36



underlying firm to stiff CLAY with sandstone and mudstone fragments to a depth of approximately 2.5m bgl.

The underlying geology consists of completely weathered to weathered, moderately weak to strong

MUDSTONE and SANDSTONE with the possibility of shallow coal recorded above 5m bgl. Ground water

was recorded at depths between 2.4 and 2.9m bgl.

A ground investigation was carried out for Supertram in 200213

and an additional ground investigation was

carried out for NGT in 201012

both by Norwest Holst at the proposed Stourton Park and Ride site. These

investigations indicated the ground conditions to be opencast backfill consisting of sandy gravelly CLAY

and soft to firm, locally stiff sandy CLAY with cobbles. The opencast backfill is likely to be underlain by

weathered Coal Measures consisting of slightly sandy gravelly CLAY, loose clayey gravelly fine SAND and

fine to medium grained SANDSTONE. Lower Coal Measures are expected below the weathered coal

measures described as MUDSTONE, SILTSTONE and SANDSTONE.

However, there is little or no ground investigation information between the former opencast pit or Middleton

Ring Road beneath the footprint of the proposed embankment and a preliminary ground investigation is

recommended to facilitate the design.

It is proposed that site-won material from the former opencast pit could be used to construct the access

embankment. Further ground investigation and geotechnical laboratory testing for earthworks is

recommended in order to assist in the classification of the material.

6.6.2.2 Off Street Parking and Bus Lay-bys

New extended lay-bys for parking and bus stops have been proposed along the Belle Isle route. There will

be requirements to excavate to a depth of 600mm to 700mm below ground level in order to construct the

off-street formation. Likely ground conditions recorded in reports supplied by LCC indicate that at this depth

the likely strata encountered will comprise Made Ground of sandy silty clay with gravel to cobble sized

fragments of brick and coal, with ash and timber.

Groundwater was encountered during previous investigations at variable depths from 2.0mbgl to 9mbgl and

thus significantly below the depth of likely construction. However, perched groundwater may be present

within the Made Ground at shallower depths, which may impact on construction.

Should Made Ground at the base of the excavation not be consistent and / or in a suitably strong and stiff

condition, it is recommended that a site inspection and assessment of the top 700mm to 1000mm of

ground be carried out by a suitably experienced geotechnical engineer to identify any remedial ground

treatment measures that may be required. Such measures could include excavation and replacement of

low stiffness / strength materials or materials with a high timber content, with well-compacted engineered

fill. Where excessive thicknesses of ‘soft’ or stiff made ground is encountered, a geogrid system solution

could be adopted in order to increase the bearing capacity.

Excess Made Ground material from excavations for roadway construction is likely to require off-site

disposal to landfill if it does not achieve pre-defined geotechnical and chemical assessment criteria for

earthworks or landscaping. Material will require Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing before disposal

to landfill.

Excavated material to be reused in other earthworks as general fill requires classification in accordance

with the Highways Agency Specification for Highways Works, Series 600.

37



7.1 Description

Design Freeze 7 indicates a Park and Ride facility at the former opencast mine at Stourton to the south of

Junction 7 of M621. The information presented below reflects Design Freeze 7 as detailed in Drawing

312694/TD/043B/P2-. Alignment levels at DF7 comprises:

Retaining wall between depot building and depot car parking up to 6m high;

Cut slopes to east and west sides of depot area up to 1m high;

At this time alignment information for DF7 is very limited and levels are approximate.


Due to the variable nature of the opencast pit a single ground model for the whole site is not possible and a

ground model should be prepared for each structural or engineering element. A summary of typical ground

conditions is presented.

7.2.1 Topsoil

Topsoil was recorded in 14No holes from ground level to depths of between 0.25 to 0.7m bgl with an

average of 0.3m.

7.2.2 Opencast Backfill

Opencast Backfill was recorded in all but 12No exploratory holes beneath topsoil or from ground level. The

base of the pit was recorded in 26 No exploratory holes with depths ranging between 1.8m bgl in SPRTP01

in the north of the site to maximum depths proven in the recent open hole drilling 9.55m (RO76), 10.9m

(RO77) and 11.4mbgl (RO78) towards the centre of the site. The opencast backfill was generally

described as firm and stiff sandy very gravelly clay with occasional cobbles. Cobbles and gravel sized

fragments are mudstone. The true extent of the opencast pit has not been determined, however, the north

and north western boundaries and possibly the southern boundary of the pit appears to have been

delineated. It should be noted that the western and eastern boundaries of the pit appear to extend beyond

the Stourton P&R site boundary.

7.2.3 Weathered Coal Measures (Residual Soils)

When encountered at the base of the pit or outside the pit area, the Weathered Coal Measures was

described mainly a slightly sandy gravelly CLAY with gravel of coal and mudstone but sometimes a loose

slightly clayey gravelly fine to medium SAND with gravel sized fragments of mudstone or fine to medium

grained sandstone recovered as slightly clayey coarse GRAVEL, depending on the original bedrock

composition.

7.2.4 Lower Coal Measures Bedrock

Where encountered the bedrock was described as interbedded mudstone and sandstone with very weak

thinly laminated siltstone.

7. Stourton Park and Ride

38



7.2.5 Coal Seams

Coal seams were encountered in 6 No. exploratory holes at varying depths and thicknesses mainly towards

peripheral areas of the pit which is to be expected as towards the centre of the site the coal will have been

extracted.

7.3 Mining

A coal mining report was obtained for the south line in April 2009 during the preparation of the South Line

Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No. 236834/RPT14B1 which confirms that the site is

located within the boundary of an opencast site from which coal has been removed by opencast methods.

In September 2010 the Coal Authority published a ‘Coal Mining Development Referral Areas’ plan13

for

Leeds. These are areas, based upon Coal Authority records, where the potential land stability and other

safety risks associated with former coal mining activities are likely to be greatest. They include, for

example, areas of known or suspected shallow coal mining, recorded mine entries and areas of former

surface mining.

The plan indicates the Stourton Park and Ride site falls within the ‘Coal Mining Development Referral

Areas’. The majority of the site is classified as “Surface Mining (Past and Current)” and the area close to

the M621 junction, outside the boundary of the opencast pit is classified as “Probable Shallow Coal Mine

Workings”. A mine entry with potential Zone of Influence is also noted in the north of this site.

For all new development proposals within Coal Mining Development Referral Areas that require planning

permission, the Coal Authority will expect a Coal Mining Risk Assessment to be prepared and submitted

with the planning application to the Local Planning Authority. This will need to be prepared at detailed

design stage once the final design of the site is confirmed.

7.4 Groundwater Conditions

The holes in which groundwater strikes are recorded during both phases of ground investigation are noted in the tables below:

Table 7.1: Groundwater Strikes Stourton Park & Ride

Hole ID Hole elevation (mAOD)

Stratum Depth of Water Strike (m)

Depth of Water Strike (m AOD)

SPRBH01 29.62 Mudstone 9 20.62

SPRBH01 29.62 Coal 13.5 16.12

SPRBH02 28.46 Weathered Mudstone

3.8 24.66

SPRTP21 57.55 3 54.55

SPRTP26 39.07 3.1 35.97

RO77 34.63 Interface between opencast pit/natural ground

10.9 33.73

RO78 39.26 11.4 27.86

SPRBH04 29.41 Opencast Backfill (Made Ground)

3.4 26.01

SPRBH06 30.50 3.4 27.10

SPRBH07 28.53 2.8 25.73

SPRBH08 49.14 1.9 47.24

SPRBH09 36.61 7.8 28.81

SPRTP04 34.25 2.5 31.75

39




Stratum Depth of Water Strike (m)

Depth of Water Strike (m AOD)

SPRTP07 2.5

SPRTP27 38.33 1.5 36.83

Groundwater levels within standpipes were recorded in both phases of ground investigation and presented in the table below

Table 7.2: Groundwater Monitoring Data - Stourton Park & Ride


Response Zone (m bgl)

Stratum Range of Depths of Monitored Water (m)

Depth of Monitored Water (m AOD)

SPRBH02 28.46 1.0 – 5.0 Weathered Mudstone 4.28* 24.18

SPRBH15 58.68 1.0 – 5.0 4.28* 54.40

SPRBH04 29.41 1.0 – 6.0 Opencast Backfill (Made Ground)

1.71* 27.70

SPRBH06 30.50 1.0 – 7.7 2.49* 28.01

SPRBH08 49.14 1.0 – 6.9 NR* -

RO76 34.63 1.0 – 9.5 0.4 -1.37** 34.23 - 33.26

*only 1 round of monitoring reported in Norwest Holst 2002 report

The groundwater strikes and monitoring indicate the groundwater flow is in a general south west to north

east direction, with a perched groundwater table recorded within the opencast backfill lying higher than in

the adjacent natural ground.

Groundwater was recorded at deeper depths at the interface between the pit and backfill material in RO77,

RO78 and coal / mudstone interface in SPRBH01 and BH08.

It is understood that water tends to pond in the north of the site during the winter and intense periods of

rainfall.

7.5 Foundations

7.5.1 Foundations on rock (Depot Building)

Design Freeze 7 drawing 312694/TD/043B/P2 indicates a depot building in the southern part of the site. It

is understood that this shall be a two storey steel frame building constructed from a formation level of

+43.5m. Foundations are likely to be strip or pad footings on weak siltstone and mudstone, with the need

for local shallow excavation to rock and backfill with mass concrete. SPT N values extrapolated to 300mm

penetration show rock to have N in the range 39 to 600. The Unconfined Compressive Strength of the

uppermost bedrock can be estimated from the relationship UCS (kPa) = 0.6154N1.67

proposed by Turner

and Grose (Tunnel Construction & Piling, 1999)25

. Using this relationship the SPT data indicates UCS in

the range 0.28 to 26.8MPa. The only rock strength data at proposed formation level near to the depot

building is an extrapolated SPT N value of 176 which indicates an UCS of 3.5MPa, therefore the EC7 term

‘Very Weak’ (UCS 1 to 5MPa) or BS5930 tem ‘Weak’ (UCS 1.25 to 5MPa) is appropriate.

Geotechnical data on rock jointing is very limited therefore a maximum presumed bearing pressure of

250kN/m2 is appropriate, after BS EN1997-1 Annex G. Additional Ground Investigation would be required

in order to consider a higher allowable bearing pressure.

40



7.5.2 Foundations on opencast backfill

7.5.2.1 Geotechnical data

Triaxial testing of the opencast backfill indicated undrained shear strength of 66kPa to 120kPa. In addition,

SPT tests carried out on the opencast backfill material between indicated N values ranged between 10 and

70 which indicated a slight improvement with depth, within 2m of the ground surface however, SPT N

Values generally range between 10 and 20.

At this stage a presumed bearing pressure of 50kPa should be assumed in view of the lower bound

geotechnical test results to date and with consideration of the variable thickness and engineering properties

of the colliery backfill. However it may be possible to carry out simple ground improvement measures such

as excavate and recompact to SHW Class 7A material requirements for a depth below formation equal to

the width of the foundation in order to increase the presumed bearing pressure to 100kPa.

7.5.2.2 Amenity Building

Design Freeze 7 drawing 312694/TD/043B/P2 shows a space available for retail or amenity facilities. No

details of these potential buildings are included in the scope of DF7.

7.6 Embankments

Design Freeze 7 drawings 312694/TD/043B/P2 indicates several embankments up to 3m in height with

slopes.

Geotechnical test data indicates open cast backfill to have a mean plasticity index of 19% and maximum

26%. Assuming a characteristic plasticity index of 24% and use of BS 8002 Table 2 the long term critical

angle of shearing resistance ’ parameters of 270 and c’=0 would be appropriate for long term slope

analysis. For a fully softened slope above groundwater level the safe long term gradient can be deduced

from tan (270)/1.25 after BS EN 1997-1. It is assumed that material shall be excavated and recompacted as

part of the car park ground works and therefore a maximum 1V:2.5H is appropriate for site won Class 2 fill,

i.e. a plan width of 7.5m for a 3m high slope.

7.7 Depot Cutting

Design Freeze 7 drawing 312694/TD/043/P2 indicates a small cutting up to 1m deep around the vehicle

stabling and depot building. The cutting shall be through open cast backfill where there is a risk of material

being variable. It is recommended that cutting slopes are slacker than embankment slopes due to the

greater degree of variability in non-engineered fill. There is adequate space to accommodate cutting slopes

of 1V:4H gradient and this shall ensure long term stability.

7.8 Depot Retaining Structure

Design Freeze 7 drawing 312694/TD/043B/P2 indicates a deep excavation and large retaining wall

between the depot building and depot car parking.

Alignment information for DF7 indicates a permanent retained height up to maximum 6m, with formation

level +43.5m at the depot building. A contiguous piled wall is recommended with instillation from a level

piling platform at approximately +49m and construction of a capping beam prior to bulk excavation in the

area of the depot building. A wall design has been carried out in accordance with Eurocode 7-1 with an

41



assumed rockhead level of +40m and indicates 15m long 900mm diameter cast in-situ piles at 1050mm

centres will be required.

Predicted deflection of the wall of a 6m high cantilever contiguous piled wall in stiff clay is 24mm, after Ciria

C580 Table 2.2, which is acceptable where there are no sensitive services or structures immediately

behind the wall. The most critical section in the wall design is the mid part of the southern wall where

maximum retained height exists without any support from corners. Where there are cuttings above the

crest of the wall, away from corner locations the retained height is reduced. Characteristic soil parameters

have not been provided for the depot wall and cutting due to insufficient information. Additional Ground

Investigation is recommended as follows:

Several Cable percussion boreholes are recommended along the line of the depot retaining wall to prove

the level of rockhead for detailed wall and design.

Additional Ground Investigation is recommended along the line of the proposed wall in order to confirm

depth to rock which will influence the wall design.

7.9 Settlement

Settlement of the opencast backfill is of concern as open cast backfill material is well documented to be

susceptible to inundation settlement resulting from wetting of the material.

In agreement with LCC magnetic extensometers were installed within boreholes RO77 and RO78 and

settlement monuments positioned following the intrusive works were complete.

The extensometers were monitored on 3 occasions prior to the project hiatus minimal settlement was

recorded between 0.001 and 0.004m. Further monitoring in January and May 2013 shows no trend of

settlement increasing with height in boreholes. It is therefore concluded that no settlement of the backfill

has been proven and that results up to 26mm displacement are due to inaccuracies when reading the

levels.

7.10 Pavement Design

The 2002 ground investigation indicates that in situ CBR tests were carried out on the opencast backfill

material, although only 2 laboratory results are presented in the report appendix. The main body of the text

indicates that the tests yielded mean CBR values in the range of 4% to 17% which was considered to

represent the generally firm and stiff nature of the clays that were tested.

Long term CBR values can also be estimated using the Highways Agency Interim Advice Note 73/06

Revision 1 “Design Guidance for Road Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25)26

, which assumes a high water

table and that foundations might be wetted by groundwater during their life which is likely given the ground

conditions at this site. Classification tests carried out on the opencast backfill indicated the plasticity index

to range between 12% and 26% with an average of 19% would yield an equilibrium subgrade of around 5%

assuming a thick layered construction of 1200mm and suitable drainage to ensure groundwater remains

below formation level.

Due to the nature of the opencast backfill material water softening at this site and the risk of water induced

settlement will also need to be considered to ensure the long term performance of the paving.

42



Excavation and compaction of a 1m thickness of the surface material would be prudent and possibly the

installation of geogrid beneath the paving to reduce the effect of any localised settlement.


Samples of the opencast backfill were taken during the 2002 ground investigation9, and therefore the

testing was carried out in accordance with BRE Concrete in Aggressive Ground Special Digest 1:2001. On

that basis some of the results have been adjusted to enable comparison with the current BRE SD1:200516

Concrete in Aggressive Ground 3rd

Edition.

Assuming a characteristic Total Potential Sulphate value of 0.34 % SO4 and characteristic value of pH of 5

the Design Sulphate Class should be DS-2 and ACEC class AC-3z. Consideration should be made as to

whether the Design Sulphate class should be increased to DS-3 to take account of winter salting.

7.12 Drainage

Soakaway testing was not carried out during either ground investigation due to the concern that the testing

could wash out the fines in the opencast backfill and induce settlement. On that basis it is also considered

that soakaway drainage for the park and ride site is not suitable.

This has been discussed further in Drainage Strategy MM Report No. 236834/RPT20/C – June 2010 which

indicates that the run off from the park and ride site shall be collected in attenuation ponds and discharged

into Stourton Beck.


Contamination testing carried out during the 2002 ground investigation was compared to current SGVs /

GACs, which indicate that the concentrations of contaminants fall below commercial / industrial generic

assessment criteria for human health and in the majority of cases concentrations of contaminants fall below

residential generic assessment criteria for human health.

A preliminary assessment of whether the opencast backfill material is hazardous or not was carried out by

using Waste Acceptance Criteria testing or CAT Waste SOIL

. It should be noted however, that this

categorisation is indicative only for costing and planning purpose and final categorisation of any excavated

material is the responsibility of the producer or the holder of the waste.

Analysis of the 2002 contamination testing data in CAT Waste SOIL

indicates that if any of the opencast

backfill material is proven not be suitable for re-use and require off-site disposal then it would not be

classified as hazardous waste. It should be noted, however, that the model cannot differentiate between

inert and non-hazardous waste for disposal purposes.

WAC testing undertaken during the 2010 ground investigation has indicated that the opencast backfill

material would be classified as inert material should it require off-site disposal.


Currently the surface of the former opencast pit undulates across the site and steepens sharply in the south

of the site, overall there is a 10m fall between the southern and northern portion of the site. DF6 information

indicates a cut up to 8m deep in the Depot staff parking at the southern end of the site, with depot building

formation level approximately +43.5m and crest of cut maximum +50m.

43



Cross Sections 236834/S/GEO/026 and 027 indicate that on the whole the excavated material will originate

from the opencast backfill, although a small quantity of rock will be encountered near the southern

boundary of the proposed DF7 works.

To determine the acceptability of materials for re-use a preliminary assessment of in-situ material

properties and earthworks relationships testing has been undertaken. The materials present were

compared with acceptability requirements for earthworks materials according to the Highways Agency

Specification for Highway Works Series 600.

PSD curves indicated the opencast backfill material would generally be classified as General Fill,

specifically 2A Wet Cohesive, 2B Dry Cohesive or 2C Stony Cohesive.

No specific gravity or compaction tests were carried out, therefore it is not possible to fully assess the

extent of processing required to change natural moisture to the acceptable range for compaction. It is

recommended that specific gravity and compaction MCV relationship tests are carried out prior to

commencement of earthworks and in-situ Sand Replacement tests during initial earthwork trials to confirm

the wet limit of acceptability at which >95% of the 2.5kg maximum dry density is achieved and the dry limit

of acceptability at which air void content is maximum 10%, after HA44/91 Cl.4.41. Previous experience and

published guidance (HA 44/91 Cl.4.14) indicates an MCV range of 8 to 14 is appropriate for initial

acceptability limits of cohesive colliery spoil, although heavy compaction plant may be able to achieve less

than 10% air voids at an MCV greater than 14.

Nine mc MCV relationship tests were carried out in 2010 and indicate and MCV range of 8-14 is equivalent

to a mc range of approximately 16-23%. Natural moisture content is generally in the acceptable range,

although locally material is too wet and will require some aeration or use as Class 4 landscaping fill.

During the site works, material from the excavations should be assessed for geotechnical and

contamination acceptability for re-use which will be detailed in the Earthworks Specification for the works.


Gas monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the guidance presented in Appendix B.3 the

results are presented in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3: Stourton Park & Ride - Characteristic Gas Situation

Exploratory Holes

Gas Concentration

(% v/v)

Gas Flow Rate

(l/hr)



(CIRIA C665 17, BS8485 18)

RO76

Carbon Dioxide 8.4

Methane <0.1

0.1 0.0084

0.0001

2 - Low Risk (≥0.07,<0.7)

Based on monitoring carried out to date the risk to offline sections from gas is considered to be Low due to

the carbon dioxide concentration being at 8.4% v/v.

Confined spaces will be created during the construction of the underpass in which carbon dioxide could

collect. At 3% v/v humans can be affected by headaches and shortness of breath, therefore the short term

Occupational Exposure limit is 1.5% v/v and the long term Occupational Exposure Limit is 0.5% v/v as

determined by the Health and Safety Executive.

It is recommended that working practices are adjusted to limit the need for construction workers to enter

the excavations and if it is necessary, alarms are used to mitigate this risk.

44



Further gas monitoring will be carried out following which the above calculation and risk rating will need

reviewing.


are present within the ground, at each location the meter read 0.0ppm.

45



This preliminary risk assessment has been updated from the risk assessment presented in the Desk Study

Report and summaries the significant residual risks based on review of the findings from the preliminary

ground investigation. The risks are described by design elements covered in Sections 3 to Section 8 of this

report.

The risk register has been based upon the methods defined in HD22/02[27]

. The criteria upon which risk is

assessed are defined in Table 8.1 to Table to 8.3 inclusive and the risk register itself is presented as Table

8.4.

Table 8.1: Risk Level Matrix

IMPACT

VL L M H VH

LIK

EL

IHO

OD

VL VL L L L M

L L L M M H

M L M M H VH

H L M H VH VH

VH M H VH VH VH

Table 8.2: Hazard Likelihood Index

LIKELIHOOD PROBABILITY

1 VL Negligible / Improbable <1%

2 L Unlikely / Remote >1%

3 M Likely / Possible >10%

4 H Probable >50%

5 VH Very likely / Almost certain >90%

8. Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Assessment

46 312694/EST/YHE/RPT40/D September 2013 ttp://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name


Table 8.3: Hazard Impact Index

Impact Cost Time Reputation Health and Safety

Environment

VL Very Low Negligible Negligible Negligible effect on programme

Negligible Negligible Negligible

L Low Significant 1% budget

5% effect on programme

Minor effect on local company image. .business relationship mildly affected

Minor injury Minor environmental incident

M Medium Serious 10%budget

12% effect on programme

Local media exposure / business relationship affected

Major injury Environmental incident requiring management input

H High Threat to future work and client relations

20% budget 25% effect on programme

Nationwide media exposure/ business relationship greatly affected

Fatality

Environmental incident leading to prosecution or protestor action

VH Very High

Threat to business survival and credibility

50% budget 50% effect on programme

Permanent nationwide effect on company image / significant impact on business relation ship

Multiple fatalities

Major environmental incident with irreversible effects and threat to public health or protected natural resource



Table 8.4: Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Register

Threat Consequence Impact

Lik

eli

ho

od

Risk Risk Control Measures / Actions to Mitigate

Co

st

Pro

gra

mm

e

Re

pu

tati

on

H&

S

En

vir

on

me

nt

Co

st

Pro

gra

mm

e

Re

pu

tati

on

H&

S

En

vir

on

me

nt

Offline Sections

Construction of offline sections within a sub-grade of Made Ground.

Made Ground may not be suitable sub-grade material. Subsequent rutting and pavement deterioration and maintenance costs.

L VL VL VL VL H M L L

L L The formation should be inspected by a suitably experienced engineer. Should soft or loose material be encountered, remedial ground treatment may be required as described in Section 3.5.

Excess material containing contaminants that exceed SVG’s and GAC’s for metals and inorganic contaminants and also elevated levels of contaminants.

Boreholes identified in Table 3.14 contain material classified as Hazardous Waste. Increase costs for disposal if material is geotechnically unsuitable.

M VL VL L L H H L L M M Limit the amount of material to be disposed of at a licensed waste facility by utilising ground improvement techniques or re-using materials as screening bunds etc.

Encountering coal seams whilst constructing the pavement foundation.

Unsuitable founding stratum. Coal will need to be excavated in accordance with Coal Authority licensing agreement. Could potentially incur extra costs. Risk of combustion if left untreated.

L L VL VL L M M M L L M Coal seams should be excavated and replaced with mass concrete to limit the penetrations of air and reduce risk of combustion.

Online Sections

Excess material including black top and aggregate from the resurfacing works. Material will require assessment to determine whether it can be re-used.

Increased cost of disposal if excess black top and aggregate from the resurfacing works is unsuitable for re-use in other schemes.

L VL VL VL L M M L L L M Wherever possible re-use materials. Assessment will be required to determine suitability.




Lik

eli

ho

od


Co

st

Pro

gra

mm

e

Re

pu

tati

on

H&

S

En

vir

on

me

nt

Co

st

Pro

gra

mm

e

Re

pu

tati

on

H&

S

En

vir

on

me

nt

Balm Road Bridge

Possible mine workings beneath the site encountered during both ground investigations carried out. Driller noted loss of core during drilling and coal seams present. No loss of flush was recorded.

Voids, if present, may migrate upwards as loads are applied during the construction phase. The voids may undermine the pad foundations and cause collapse.

M L VL VL L H H M L L M It is recommended a mining risk assessment of the area is carried out for the area and a further intrusive investigation to locate any possible voids.

If further voids are encountered, grouting is likely to be required in order to utilise the pad footing option or consideration is to be given to pile foundations.

Encountering coal seams whilst constructing the foundation for the retaining walls and approach embankments.


M VL VL VL L H H L L L M Coal seams should be excavated and replaced with mass concrete to limit the penetrations of air and reduce risk of combustion.

Encountering Made Ground and/or soft River Terrace Deposits at the formation level for the bridge, retaining walls and approach embankments, may not have sufficient bearing resistance for the construction of the bridge.

Insufficient bearing resistance beneath the foundation could lead to bearing resistance failure.

L L VL VL VL M M M L L L Formation level should be inspected by a suitably qualified engineer. The Made Ground and/or soft River Terrace Deposits could be modified by ground replacement or improvement techniques.

Excess material containing contaminants that exceed SVG’s and GAC’s for metals and inorganic contaminants and also elevated levels of contaminants beneath the location of the northern approach embankment.

Boreholes identified in Table 5.8 contain material classified as Hazardous Waste. Increase costs for disposal if material is geotechnically unsuitable.

M VL VL L L H H L L M M Limit the amount of material to be disposed of at a licensed waste facility by utilising ground improvement techniques where possible.




Lik

eli

ho

od


Co

st

Pro

gra

mm

e

Re

pu

tati

on

H&

S

En

vir

on

me

nt

Co

st

Pro

gra

mm

e

Re

pu

tati

on

H&

S

En

vir

on

me

nt

Health and Safety of workers during the construction of the foundations of the bridge due to the presence of contaminants.

Possible illness via contaminant transport pathways.

M VL VL L L H H L L M M Appropriate working practices should be employed in order to reduce direct contact with Made Ground. All employees to wear appropriate PPE.

Stourton Park and Ride

Aggressive ground conditions.

Aggressive ground conditions may be encountered. Sulphate attack on concrete may result in long term failure.

L VL VL VL VL H M L L L L Review of testing data from ground investigations is recommended. Assume worst case concrete class in accordance with BRE SD1.

Acceptability of material on site for earthworks has not been assessed.

Potential for material to have to be disposed offsite if excavated and deemed unsuitable for earthworks and unacceptable for landscaping.

M L L L M M M M M M M Review of existing ground investigation information.

Construction of slopes. Possibility of slope failure on site.

L L M M VL M M M M M L Review of existing ground investigation information. A slope stability assessment is recommended in order to design safe slope angles for the earthworks.

Contaminated material may be present on site.

If encountered on site, the material may require offsite disposal and may affect site workers.

M L L L M M M M M M M Review of contamination testing data from the site.

Settlement of open cast backfill during and on completion of construction of the bus depot and car parking area.

Differential settlement within the foundations of structures, cracking in the walls and pavement of the car park. Ongoing maintenance.

M L VL VL VL M M M L L L Continual monitoring of settlement monuments installed during the recent ground investigation. Consideration should be made to building design with movement joints to reduce effects of differential settlement on the structures.




Lik

eli

ho

od


Co

st

Pro

gra

mm

e

Re

pu

tati

on

H&

S

En

vir

on

me

nt

Co

st

Pro

gra

mm

e

Re

pu

tati

on

H&

S

En

vir

on

me

nt

Groundwater regime not fully defined within the site.

Excavations may encounter perched water within the open cast backfill.

L L VL VL L M M M L L M Review existing groundwater monitoring data. If there is insufficient monitoring data available, it may be prudent to install shallow groundwater monitoring standpipes within the site and carry out a period of monitoring.

Encountering coal seams during construction.


M VL VL VL L H H L L L M Coal seams should be excavated and replaced with mass concrete to limit the penetrations of air and reduce risk of combustion.

51



Based on the foregoing, it would be advisable to carry out a supplementary ground investigation for specific

structures along the South Line, as the design has progressed since the scoping of the preliminary ground

investigation. The supplementary ground investigation should aim to target the following areas:

the cutting slope between Balm Road Bridge and Wakefield Road Bridge;

potential for voids beneath the footings for Balm Road Bridge;

the footings for the approach embankments for Balm Road Bridge;

suitability of excavated materials for earthworks;

to carry out a mining assessment where the potential for underground mining exists;

to investigate iconic bus stops; and

geotechnical engineering assessment for structures, embankments, cuttings and earthworks at Stourton

Park and Ride;

continued groundwater monitoring along the route and settlement instrument monitoring at the Stourton

Park and Ride site. CBR testing at natural and optimum moisture content for areas of car parking and

from proposed cuttings where material may be re used as highway embankment fill.

9. Recommendations for Further Work

52



[1] Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk

Study, Report No. 236834/RPT14B, July 2009;

[2] Mott MacDonald, Proposed Ground Investigation Scope, Technical Note No. 236834/TN28B,

October 2009

[3] Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Ground Investigation Report - South Line,

Report No. 236834/RPT52A, May 2010;

[4] Mott MacDonald Leeds New Generation Transport, Ground Investigation Report – South Line

Report No. 312694/RPT039A, February 2013

[5] Mott MacDonald, NGT Route Development, Railway Retaining Walls High Level Feasibility Report,

Report No. 236834/RPT29A, Rev A, November 2009;

[6] Mott MacDonald, NGT Route Development, Balm Road Bridge High Level Feasibility Report,

Report No. 236834/RPT32, November 2009, Rev A;

[7] Mott Mac Donald, NGT Route Development, Westbury Place North Underpass High Level

Feasibility Report, Report No. 236834/RPT35, Rev A, November 2009;

[8] Norwest Holst Soil Engineering- Report on a ground investigation at Stourton Park and Ride,

Supertram, Report No. F12433, 2002

[9] Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Hunslet Sidings, Report No.

F12800, November 2003;

[10] Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Leeds New Generation

Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010;

[11] Environment Agency, Groundwater Protection Policy and Practice (GP3)

[12] Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD)

[13] The Coal Authority, Coal Mining Referral Area Plans, September 2010,

http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/cms/services/planning/strategy/Leeds/Leeds.aspx

[14] British Standard – BS8002 – Code of practise for Earth Retaining Structures.

[15] IAN 73/06 Rev1 (2009) Design Guidance For Road Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25)

[16] BRE Concrete Division – Special Digest 1:2005, Third Edition. Concrete in aggressive ground;

[17] CIRIA C665, Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings, 2007;

[18] British Standards, Code of practice for the characterization and remediation from ground gas in

affected developments, Ref. BS8485, 2007;

[19] Mott MacDonald, NGT Route Development, Construction Methodology Study, Report No.

236834/RPT21, dated November 2009;

[20] British Standards, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Par 1: General Rules, Ref. BS EN 1997-

1:2004, January 2010;

[21] BGS, Technical Report WA/92/1, Leeds: A geological background for planning and development

(1992)

[22] Highways Agency, Specification for Highways Works, Series 600, 2009

[23] Network Rail, Examination of Earthworks, Document No. NR/L3/CIV/065, December 2008

[24] British Geological Survey, 1:10,000 scale, Sheet SE33SW

[25] Turner and Grose, The performance of bored and CFA piling within the mudstones of Central

England, Tunnel Construction & Piling 1999. International Symposium & Exhibition, London 1999.

[26] IAN 73/06 Rev1 (2009) Design Guidance For Road Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25)

[27] Highways Agency Design Manual for roads and bridges Volume 4 Section 1 Part 2, Geotechnics

and Drainage. Earthworks, Managing geotechnical risk HD22/08, 2008

[28] Mott Macdonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Belle Isle Route Geo-environmental Desk

Study, Report 312694/RPT048A, May 2013

[29] Mott Macdonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Preferred Alignment Pack DF7, June 2013

10. References

http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/cms/services/planning/strategy/Leeds/Leeds.aspx

53



Appendix A. Contamination and Waste Assessment Methodology 54

Appendix B. Calculation Methodology 65

Appendix C. Limitations 68

Appendices

54



A.1. Scope of Testing

During the scoping of the preliminary ground investigation, it was agreed with LCC Contaminated Land

Officer that the overall risk to human health from the scheme was likely to be low and a large scale testing

of soils for human health risk across the entire route would be unadvisable at this preliminary stage of the

scheme. It was therefore agreed that soil testing and leachate testing of water extract would only be carried

out in areas where contamination was anticipated i.e. based on historical land use and / or visual or

olfactory evidence of contamination was noted during the ground investigation works.

The suite of contaminants tested for in soil included:

Table A.1: Soil Testing Suite

Metallic Elements Semi-metal / non- metal Elements

Organic Compounds Inorganic Compounds and Others

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Iron

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Vanadium

Zinc

Arsenic

Boron

Selenium

TPH CWG (aliphatic / aromatic split with CWG banding by GCMS)

PAH (Speciated by GCMS)

VOCs including BTEX

Phenols

pH

Asbestos Screen

Water Soluble Sulphate

Total Sulphur

The suite of contaminants tested for leachate extract from soil included:

Table A.2: Leachate Extract from Soil testing suite



Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Zinc

Arsenic

Selenium


pH

Sulphate

Appendix A. Contamination and Waste Assessment Methodology

55



The suite of contamination testing for groundwater included;

Table A.3: Groundwater Testing Suite



Beryllium

Barium

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Magnesium

Mercury

Nickel

Zinc

Vanadium

Arsenic

Selenium

Boron


pH

Sulphate

In addition it was considered appropriate to carry out Waste Acceptance Criteria tests to determine what

category of waste excavated materials would classified as if disposed to landfill. This was confined to areas

of Made Ground and significant proposed cut materials to allow cost estimates to be made.

Table A.4: WAC Testing Suite

Metallic Elements

( 10: 1 Leachate)

Semi-metal / non- metal Elements

( 10: 1 Leachate)

Organic Compounds

Inorganic and Other

( 10: 1 Leachate)

Solid Testing

Barium

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Magnesium

Mercury

Molybdenum

Nickel

Zinc

Vanadium

Antimony

Arsenic

Selenium

Boron

Phenol Index

pH

Sulphate

Chloride

Fluoride

Total Dissolved Solids

Dissolved Organic content

Total Organic Carbon

Loss on Ignition

BTEX

PCBs (7 congeners)

PAH Speciated (17)

pH

Acid Neutralisation Capacity

TPH Total WAC

56



A.2. Assessment Criteria

A.2.1. Human Health

Due to a change in statutory guidance, the Environment Agency (EA) has issued new software (CLEA

V1.06) for the analysis for site specific assessment criteria but has not issued all the supporting guidance

documents and data. Throughout 2009 the EA issued new version 2 CLEA soil guideline values (CLEA

SGVs) for Inorganic Arsenic, Nickel, Selenium, cadmium, Inorganic Mercury, BTEX, Phenol and PCBs.

Recognised industry bodies have determined other Generic Assessment Criteria which have been peer

reviewed and have gained support from a wide range of organisations. DEFRA has announced that a

revision to the Statutory Guidance will be made during 2010. In the meantime MM will use in order of

preference, the 2009 CLEA SGVs, the LQM/CIEH Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk

Assessment (2nd

Edition) 2009 and the CL:AIRE/AGS GACs where contaminant SGV reports have not

been published. The exception to this rule is Lead where the Version 1 CLEA SGV is retained for use.

For the purpose of this scheme soil testing results have been compared against the commercial / industrial

guideline values, although the residential guidelines are also presented below for completeness

Table A.5: Human Health Risk Assessment Soil Guideline Values

CLEA Guidelines

LQM CIEH

CL:AIRE

6% SOM 2.5% SOM 1% SOM

Contaminant Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Residential Commercial

Arsenic 32 640 - - - -

Barium 1300 22000

Beryllium 51 420 - - - -

Boron 291 192000 - - - -

Cadmium 10 230 - - - -

Chromium (III) 3000 30400 - - - -

Chromium (VI) 4.3 35 - - - -

Copper 2330 71700 - - - -

Elemental Mercury (Hg) 1 26 - - - -

Inorganic Mercury (Hg2+) 170 3600 - - - -

Methyl Mercury (Hg+) 11 410 - - - -

Nickel 130 1800 - - - -

Selenium 350 13000 - - - -

Vanadium 75 3160 - - - -

Zinc 3750 665000 - - - -

Lead 450 750

o-xylene 250 2600 - - - -

m-xylene 240 3500 - - - -

p-xylene 230 3200 - - - -

Ethylbenzene 350 2800 - - - -

Toluene 610 4400 - - - -

Benzene 0.33 95 - - - -

Aliphatic EC 5-6 110 13000 (1150) 55 6200 (558) 30 3400 (304)

Aliphatic EC >6-8 370 42000 (736) 160 18000 (322) 73 8300 (144)

Aliphatic EC >8-10 110 12000 (451) 46 5100 (190) 19 2100 (78)

Aliphatic EC >10-12 540 (283) 49000 (283) 230 (118) 24000 (118) 93 (48) 10000 (48)

Aliphatic EC >12-16 3000 (142) 91000 (142 1700 (59) 83000 (59) 740 (24) 61000 (24)

57



CLEA Guidelines

LQM CIEH

CL:AIRE



Aliphatic EC >16-35 76000 1800000 64000 (21) 1800000 45000 (8.48) 1600000

Aliphatic EC >35-44 76000 1800000 64000 (21) 1800000 45000 (8.48) 1600000

Aromatic EC 5-7 (benzene) 280 90000 (4710) 130

49000 (2260) 65

28000 (1220)

Aromatic EC >7-8 (toluene) 611 190000 (4360) 270

110000 (1920) 120 59000 (869)

Aromatic EC >8-10 151 18000 (3580) 65 8600 (1500) 27 3700 (613)

Aromatic EC >10-12 346 34500 (2150) 160 29000 (899) 69 17000 (364)

Aromatic EC >12-16 593 37800 310 37000 140 36000 (169)

Aromatic EC >16-21 770 28000 480 28000 250 28000

Aromatic EC >21-35 1230 28000 1100 28000 890 28000

Aromatic EC >35-44 1230 28000 1100 28000 890 28000 Aliphatic + Aromatic EC >44-70 1300 28000 1300 28000 1200 28000

Acenaphthene 1000 100000 480 98000 (141) 210 85000 (57)

Acenaphthylene 850 100000 400 97000 (212) 170 84000 (86)

Anthracene 9200 540000 4900 540000 2300 530000

Benz[a]anthracene 5.9 97 4.7 95 3.1 90

Benzo[a]pyrene 1 14 0.94 14 0.83 14

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 7 100 6.5 100 5.6 100

Benzo[ghi]perylene 47 660 46 660 44 650

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 10 140 9.6 140 8.5 140

Chrysene 9.3 140 8 140 6 140

Dibenz[ah]anthracene 0.9 13 0.86 13 0.76 13

Fluoranthene 670 23000 460 23000 260 23000

Fluorene 780 71000 380 69000 160 64000 (31)

Indeno[123-cd]pyrene 4.2 62 3.9 61 3.2 60

Naphthalene 8.7 1100 (432) 3.7 480 (183) 1.5 200 (76)

Phenanthrene 380 23000 200 22000 92 22000

Pyrene 1600 54000 1000 54000 560 54000

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.014 1.8 0.008 1 0.0054 0.71

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 28 3100 13 1400 6.2 700

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 6.3 1200 2.9 580 1.4 290

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.8 590 2.1 260 0.9 120

Tetrachloroethene 4.8 660 2.1 290 0.94 130

Tetrachloromethane (aka carbon tetrachloride) 0.089 15 0.039 6.6 0.018 3

Trichloroethene 0.49 55 0.22 25 0.11 12 Trichloromethane (aka chloroform) 2.7 370 1.3 190 0.75 110 Chloroethene (aka vinyl chloride) 0.00099 0.12 0.00064 0.081 0.00047 0.063

2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) 8 1100 3.7 1000 1.6 1000

RDX 16 6400 7.4 6400 3.5 6400

HMX 26 110000 13 110000 5.7 110000

Aldrin 2.1 54 2 54 1.7 54

Dieldrin 2.2 92 1.4 91 0.69 90

Atrazine 1.3 880 0.56 880 0.24 870

Dichlorvos 1.3 893 0.6 872 0.29 842

Alpha-Endosulfan 16 3390 7 2990 (0.007) 2.9 2310 (0.003)

58



CLEA Guidelines

LQM CIEH

CL:AIRE



Beta-Endosulfan 15 3480 6.6 3160 (0.0002) 2.8

2580 (0.00007)

Alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexanes (including Lindane) 100 14900 46 14600 19 14000 Beta-Hexachlorocyclohexanes (including Lindane) 8.5 1130 3.9 1130 1.7 1120 Gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexanes (including Lindane) 3 552 1.4 546 0.58 532

Chlorobenzene 1.7 310 0.73 130 0.33 59

1,2-dichlorobenzene 91 12000 (3240) 39 5100 (1370) 16 2100 (571)

1,3-dichlorobenzene 1.7 180 0.7 77 0.29 32

1,4-dichlorobenzene 167 22000 (1280) 72 10000 (540) 30 4500 (224)

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 6.1 620 2.6 270 1 110

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 11 1300 4.5 560 1.8 230

1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 1.3 140 0.57 57.8 0.23 24

1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 62 4500 (728) 29 3200 (304) 12 1800 (122)

1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 2.8 250 (235) 1.2 120 (98.1) 0.49 52 (39.4)

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1.4 97 0.68 73 (49.1) 0.3 44 (19.7)

Pentachlorobenzene 17 830 10 770 (107) 5.2 650 (43)

Hexachlorobenzene 1.4 55 1 (0.5) 53 0.59 (0.20) 48 (0.20)

Phenol 420 3200 - - - - Chlorophenols (except pentachlorophenol) 4.4 4200 2 4000 0.87 3500

Pentachlorophenol 2.96 1400 1.3 1300 0.55 1200

Carbon disulphide 0.44 50 0.2 23 0.1 12

Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 1.2 120 0.51 69 0.21 32

A.2.2. Leachate and Groundwater

The results of the leachate extract from soil and groundwater testing have been compared against the

Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for Freshwater and in the absence of EQS values by the UK

Drinking Water Quality Standards (DWQS). A summary of the guideline values are presented below in

Table A.6.

Table A.6: Leachate and Groundwater testing Assessment Guideline Values

Contaminant EQS Freshwater

UK DWQS

(µg/l) (µg/l)

pH 6-9 6.5 - 10.0

Sulphate as SO4 (mg/l) 400,000 -

Dissolved Boron - 2000

Dissolved Arsenic 50 -

Dissolved Cadmium 5 -

Dissolved Chromium 5 - 250 -

Dissolved Lead 4 - 250 -

59



Contaminant EQS Freshwater

UK DWQS

Dissolved Mercury 1 -

Dissolved Selenium - 10

Dissolved Copper 1 - 28 -

Dissolved Nickel 5 - 200 -

Dissolved Zinc 8 - 500 -

Dissolved Iron 1000 -

Vanadium 20 - 60

Phenols Monohydric - -

Acenaphthene - -

Acenaphthylene - -

Anthracene - -

Benz(a)anthracene - -

Benzo(a)pyrene - 0.01

Benzo(b)fluoranthene - -

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene - -

Benzo(k)fluoranthene - -

Chrysene - -

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene - -

fluoranthene - -

Fluorene - -

Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene - -

Naphthalene 10 -

Phenanthrene - -

Pyrene - -

Total PAH (sum of Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene & Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene)

- 0.1

A.2.3. Waste Categorisation

In order to determine the possible waste classification of the material, the WAC testing results have been

compared against the Landfill Waste Criteria for Granular summarised in Table A.7 below.

Table A.7: Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria for Granular Wastes

Contaminant Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria Limits

Inert Waste Landfill Stable Non-reactive hazardous waste in non-hazardous landfill

Hazardous waste Landfill

Solid Waste Analysis

Total Organic Carbon (%) 3 5 6*

Loss on Ignition (%) - - 10*

Sum of BTEX (mg/kg) 6 - -

Sum of 7 PCBs (mg/kg) 1 - -

Mineral Oil (mg/kg) 500 - -

PAH Sum of 17 (mg/kg)** 100 - -

pH - >6 -

Limit Values for Compliance leachate testing using BS EN124573 at L/S 101kg

Arsenic 0.5 2 25

Barium 20 100 300

60



Contaminant Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria Limits

Inert Waste Landfill Stable Non-reactive hazardous waste in non-hazardous landfill

Hazardous waste Landfill

Cadmium 0.04 1 5

Chromium 0.5 10 70

Copper 2 50 100

Mercury 0.01 0.2 2

Molybdenum 0.5 10 30

Nickel 0.4 10 40

Lead 0.5 10 50

Antimony 0.06 0.7 5

Selenium 0.1 0.5 7

Zinc 4 50 200

Chloride 800 15000 25000

Fluoride 10 150 500

Sulphate as SO4 1000# 20000 50000

Total Dissolved Solids 4000 60000 100000

Phenols 1 - -

Dissolved Organic Carbon@

500⊕ 800 1000

* Either TOC or LOI must be used for hazardous wastes

** UK PAH limit values are being consulted upon (Draft Landfill Amendment Regulations 2005)

# If an inert waste does not meet the SO4 L/S10 limit, alternative limit values of 1500 mg l-1 SO4 at C0 (initial eluate from

the percolation test (prCEN/TS 14405:2003)) AND 6000 mg kg-1 SO4 at L/S10 (either from the percolation test or batch

test BS EN 12457-3), can be used to demonstrate compliance with the acceptance criteria for inert wastes.

+ The values for TDS can be used instead of the values for Cl and SO4.

@ DOC at pH 7.5-8.0 and L/S10 can be determined on eluate derived from a modified version of the pH dependence

test, prCEN/TS 14429:2003, if the limit value at own pH (BS EN 12457 eluate) is not met.

⊕ In the case of soils, a higher TOC limit value may be permitted by the Environment Agency at an inert waste landfill,

provided the DOC value of 500mg/kg is achieved at L/S 10 l/kg, either at the soils own pH or at a pH value between 7.5

and 8.0.

From: Landfill Regulations 2002 as amended.

In addition to the above WAC testing MM have used Atkins and McArdle group, CAT-WASTESOIL

Waste

Soils Characterisation Assessment Tool. Following current regulations and guidance, this on-line tool

provides developers of brownfield and contaminated sites and their advisors with a quick, easy to use web-

based facility that allows rapid assessment of contaminated soils, and their classification as either

hazardous or non-hazardous waste. It does not account for physical properties such as organic content

and loss on ignition.

61



A.2.4. Summary of Contamination Testing

South Line Groundwater Test Results

EQS EQS EQS DWQS EQS DWQS EQS EQS

Project ID Zinc Vanadium Sulphate as SO4 Selenium Pyrene Phenanthrene pH Total PAH* Total (of 16) PAHs Nickel Naphthalene Magnesium

Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) Water Water Water Water Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water Water Water (Organic) Water Water (Organic) Water

Lower Limit 8 20 400 10 6 0.1 50 10

Upper Limit 50 60 400 10 9 0.1 200 10

Hole ID Depth UNITS µg/l µg/l mg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l

Wakefield Road CRS71 9.7 7.3 <1 120 1.8 <0.01 <0.01 7.1 0.04 <0.2 13 <0.01 27

Hunslet Rd DS53A 2.94 6.6 <1 90 20 <0.01 <0.01 7.3 0.04 <0.2 8.5 <0.01 150

DS59 2.23 25 <1 650 5.4 <0.01 <0.01 7.1 0.04 1.4 11 1.4 68

DS64 1.77 14 1.8 370 4.1 <0.01 <0.01 7.3 0.04 <0.2 5 <0.01 27

Hunslet Sidings DS66 1.82 27 1.3 200 5.7 <0.01 <0.01 6.5 0.04 <0.2 9.9 <0.01 42

Stourton P&R RO76 1.37 49 <1 190 2.1 <0.01 <0.01 6.1 0.04 <0.2 46 <0.01 25

* Sum of benzo (b) flouranthene, benzo(k)flouranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene and Indeno (123 cd)pyrene

Balm Road

Bridge


Project ID

Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT)

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Hole ID Depth UNITS

Wakefield Road CRS71 9.7

Hunslet Rd DS53A 2.94

DS59 2.23

DS64 1.77

Hunslet Sidings DS66 1.82

Stourton P&R RO76 1.37

Balm Road

Bridge

EQS EQS EQS

Lead Indeno (1,2,3 - cd) pyrene Fluoranthene Fluorene Dibenzo (ah) anthracene Copper Chrysene Chromium Cadmium Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzo (ghi) perylene Benzo (b) fluoranthene

Water Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water Water (Organic) Water Water Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water (Organic)

4 1 5 5

20 28 50 5

µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l

<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.1 <0.01 <1 <0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.8 <0.01 9.1 <0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.3 <0.01 8.6 <0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2 <0.01 7 <0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.4 <0.01 5.5 <0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <1 <0.01 <1 0.09 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01


Project ID

Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT)

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Hole ID Depth UNITS

Wakefield Road CRS71 9.7

Hunslet Rd DS53A 2.94

DS59 2.23

DS64 1.77

Hunslet Sidings DS66 1.82

Stourton P&R RO76 1.37

Balm Road

Bridge

DWQS EQS EQS

Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (a) anthracene Beryllium Barium Boron Arsenic Anthanthrene Acenaphthylene

Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water Water Water Water Water (Organic) Water (Organic)

0.01 1000 50

0.01 1000 50

µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l

<0.01 <0.01 <1 38 <20 <1 <0.01 <0.01

<0.01 <0.01 <1 65 320 4.3 <0.01 <0.01

<0.01 <0.01 <1 45 330 2.4 <0.01 <0.01

<0.01 <0.01 <1 58 180 2.4 <0.01 <0.01

<0.01 <0.01 <1 34 35 1.6 <0.01 <0.01

<0.01 <0.01 <1 25 45 <1 <0.01 <0.01

South Line Soil Test Results LQM

Project ID Zinc Vanadium

Total

petroleum

hydrocarbons Thiocyanate Selenium pH

Phenol

(Total) Lead Total PCB PAH total Nickel

Indeno (1,2,3 -

cd) pyrene Mercury

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (2:1

Soil/Water

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Residential 3750 75 1000 350 0 0 450 1000 130 4.2 170

Commercial 665000 3160 1000 13000 0 0 750 1000 18000 62 3600

Hole ID Depth

TPS42 3.5 120 25 <10 0.59 7.7 <0.3 30 <2 38 <0.1 <0.1

TPS43 2.5 54 12 <10 <0.2 8.1 <0.3 29 <2 18 <0.1 0.21

TPS44 1 62 48 <10 0.69 8.7 <0.3 130 <2 38 <0.1 0.4

TPS73 1.5 81 18 140 <0.2 8.4 <0.3 50 140 22 9 0.14

TPS74 0.3 110 47 81 0.58 8.5 <0.3 140 34 24 1.3 0.42

53

WSS38 0.5 63 78 2600 <0.2 10.9 <0.3 61 59 18 4.6 0.28

3800

WSS40 1 76 31 <10 0.29 8.9 <0.3 170 16 24 0.3 1.6

WSS45 1 79 34 <10 <0.2 8 <0.3 39 11 20 <0.1 <0.1

WSS48 0.5 330 80 1400 0.79 8 <0.3 270 1600 98 49 0.25

1100

WSS49 0.5 85 54 64 0.3 8.3 <0.3 330 200 60 5.8 0.44

520 8.3 1.8

WSS55A 3.05 27 26 21000 <0.2 7.8 <0.3 8.7 3600 14 14 <0.1

6500

WSS63 1 63 160 1000 0.29 8.3 <0.3 360 47 1.8

CRS60 1 67 23 1300 <0.2 9 <0.3 93 20 21 0.7 0.15

SPRTP01 1.6 9.4 14 <1.0 4.4 <1.0 16 <10 1.6 <1.0

SPRTP01 2.5 16.5 <10 <1.0 4.5 <1.0 2.8 <10 5.8 <1.0

SPRTP02 0.9 21.7 <10 <1.0 5.1 <1.0 <0.5 <10 13.8 <1.0

SPRTP02 1.9 14.2 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 5.3 <1.0

SPRTP02 2.5 19.4 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 2.7 <10 6.8 <1.0

SPRTP03 0.6 41.2 <10 <1.0 5.1 <1.0 8.1 <10 17.8 <1.0

SPRTP04 0.8 66.1 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 6.2 <10 28.6 <1.0

SPRTP04 1.7 46.5 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 11.3 <10 22.3 <1.0

SPRTP05 0.8 62.1 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 8.2 <10 25.1 <1.0

SPRTP05 1.8 56.8 <10 <1.0 5 <1.0 11.4 <10 28.1 <1.0

SPRTP06 0.9 67.4 <10 <1.0 5.4 <1.0 5.7 <10 28.2 <1.0

SPRTP06 1.8 89.8 <10 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 7.2 <10 35.2 <1.0

SPRTP07 0.6 76.2 <10 <1.0 6.8 <1.0 4.4 <10 26.2 <1.0

SPRTP07 1.8 82.4 <10 <1.0 6.5 <1.0 4.8 <10 34.9 <1.0

SPRTP08 0.8 76.6 11 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 10.3 <10 27.1 <1.0

SPRTP08 2.9 74.1 <10 <1.0 7.2 <1.0 7.2 <10 36.5 <1.0

SPRTP09 1.5 77.8 <10 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 6.2 <10 32.5 <1.0

SPRTP09 2.8 78.6 <10 <1.0 6.5 <1.0 6.1 <10 34.8 <1.0

SPRTP10 0.8 76.5 <10 <1.0 5.6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 41.5 <1.0

SPRTP10 2 67.2 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 38.8 <1.0

SPRTP11 0.7 87.2 <10 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 45.4 <1.0

SPRTP12 0.6 74.9 <10 <1.0 5.9 <1.0 3.4 <10 32.5 <1.0

SPRTP13 0.6 86.2 <10 <1.0 5.4 <1.0 1.7 <10 34.7 <1.0

SPRTP13 1.7 68.9 <10 <1.0 5.6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 32.2 <1.0



Total

petroleum


Phenol


Indeno (1,2,3 -

cd) pyrene Mercury

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (2:1

Soil/Water

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Residential 3750 75 1000 350 0 0 450 1000 130 4.2 170

Commercial 665000 3160 1000 13000 0 0 750 1000 18000 62 3600

SPRTP14 0.8 75.8 <10 <1.0 4.9 <1.0 9.6 <10 27.9 <1.0

SPRTP14 2.5 72 <10 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 3.9 <10 30.7 <1.0

SPRTP15 0.9 74.9 <10 <1.0 5.4 <1.0 5.3 <10 36 <1.0

SPRTP16 0.7 49.8 <10 <1.0 5.5 <1.0 5.1 <10 20.5 <1.0

SPRTP16 1.8 80.1 <10 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 2.1 <10 38.4 <1.0

SPRTP17 1 67.2 <10 <1.0 6.5 <1.0 6.2 <10 23.1 <1.0

SPRTP18 0.6 45.5 <10 <1.0 4.5 <1.0 <0.5 <10 21.1 <1.0

SPRTP18 1.6 68.4 <10 <1.0 5 <1.0 4.1 <10 33.3 <1.0

SPRTP19 0.9 89.7 <10 <1.0 6.7 <1.0 4.6 <10 40.9 <1.0

SPRTP19 3.2 78 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 6.5 <10 48.2 <1.0

SPRTP20 2 82.9 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 8.8 <10 40.9 <1.0

SPRTP21 0.7 59.2 <10 <1.0 5.9 <1.0 8.9 <10 21 <1.0

SPRTP22 0.7 84 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 31.5 <10 23.8 <1.0

SPRTP22 1.9 79.5 <10 <1.0 5.7 <1.0 13.7 <10 31.2 <1.0

SPRTP23 0.8 80.4 <10 <1.0 5.9 <1.0 1.9 <10 31.4 <1.0

SPRTP24 0.7 105.7 <10 <1.0 5.9 <1.0 <0.5 <10 31 <1.0

SPRTP25 0.8 61.1 <10 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 7.8 <10 17.7 <1.0

SPRTP25 1.9 81.7 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 12.4 <10 37.8 <1.0

SPRTP26 0.6 75.8 <10 <1.0 7 <1.0 4.7 <10 35.5 <1.0

SPRTP26 1.7 65.2 <10 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 8.2 <10 31.4 <1.0

SPRTP27 0.9 93.2 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 9.2 <10 51.3 <1.0

SPRTP27 2.1 57.9 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 5.6 <10 32.5 <1.0

SPRTP28 0.6 60.9 <10 <1.0 5.6 <1.0 2.7 <10 24.9 <1.0

SPRTP28 1.7 73.4 <10 <1.0 5.9 <1.0 0.9 <10 32.7 <1.0

SPRTP29 0.9 82.1 <10 <1.0 6.2 <1.0 3.1 <10 34.5 <1.0

SPRTP29 2.4 74.2 <10 <1.0 6.1 <1.0 <0.5 <10 34.5 <1.0

SPRTP30 0.5 73.8 <10 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 19 <1.0

SPRBH1 0.7 84.7 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 <0.5 <10 42.9 <1.0

SPRBH2 0.6 75.2 <10 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 1 <10 30.2 <1.0

SPRBH4 1 79 <10 <1.0 6.3 <1.0 14.5 <10 29.2 <1.0

SPRBH5 1 65.8 <10 <1.0 7.2 <1.0 1.1 <10 29.8 <1.0

SPRBH6 1 85.5 <10 <1.0 6.9 <1.0 4.1 <10 35.1 <1.0

SPRBH7 1 79.2 <10 <1.0 6.2 <1.0 2.3 <10 36.5 <1.0

SPRBH8 0.5 84.1 <10 <1.0 6.8 <1.0 2.5 <10 35.1 <1.0

SPRBH9 1 75.9 <10 <1.0 5 <1.0 2.1 <10 32.2 <1.0

SPRBH10 1.5 92.3 <10 <1.0 6.9 <1.0 14.4 <10 34.8 <1.0

SPRBH11 1 80.4 <10 <1.0 7.7 <1.0 0.9 <10 34.9 <1.0

SPRBH12 1.5 50.3 <10 <1.0 5.8 <1.0 3.7 <10 20.6 <1.0

SPRBH14 0.7 63.6 <10 <1.0 6 <1.0 1.1 <10 26.4 <1.0

SPRBH15 1 81.9 <10 <1.0 7.2 <1.0 8.4 <10 24.1 <1.0

SPRBH3 1 116.8 <10 <1.0 6.4 <1.0 65.8 <10 53.4 <1.0

SPRBH13 1 66.2 <10 <1.0 7.2 <1.0 16.3 <10 30.8 <1.0

HSBH3 1 17.8 7.5 14.1 <0.1 19 <1.0

HSBH3 3.25 47.5 6.5 8.8 <0.1 35.2 <1.0

HSBH6 1 73.8 8.1 67.2 <0.1 33.4 <1.0

HSBH7 1 45.6 6.6 56.9 <0.1 37.8 <1.0



Total

petroleum


Phenol


Indeno (1,2,3 -

cd) pyrene Mercury

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (2:1

Soil/Water

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Residential 3750 75 1000 350 0 0 450 1000 130 4.2 170

Commercial 665000 3160 1000 13000 0 0 750 1000 18000 62 3600

HSBH7 4 59 7.4 18.3 <0.1 38.3 <1.0

HSBH10 0.5 71.7 7.3 26.2 <0.1 12.3 <1.0

HSBH12 0.5 246.8 7.8 90 <0.1 21.9 <1.0

HSTP1 0.65 56 5.9 81.6 <0.1 17.2 <1.0

HSTP3 0.75 39.5 5.2 71.6 <0.1 18.1 <1.0

HSTP5 0.65 806.5 6.4 225.1 <0.1 76.7 <1.0

HSTP7 0.4 259 6.9 186.8 <0.1 87.8 <1.0

HSTP9 0.15 79.6 7.5 65.3 <0.1 20 <1.0

HSBH8 1 114.8 7.8 31.1 <0.1 32.1 <1.0

HSBH8 1.75 43.3 7.6 3.1 <0.1 41.3 <1.0

South Line Soil Test Results

Project ID

Residential

Commercial

Hole ID Depth

TPS42 3.5

TPS43 2.5

TPS44 1

TPS73 1.5

TPS74 0.3

WSS38 0.5

WSS40 1

WSS45 1

WSS48 0.5

WSS49 0.5

WSS55A 3.05

WSS63 1

CRS60 1

SPRTP01 1.6

SPRTP01 2.5

SPRTP02 0.9

SPRTP02 1.9

SPRTP02 2.5

SPRTP03 0.6

SPRTP04 0.8

SPRTP04 1.7

SPRTP05 0.8

SPRTP05 1.8

SPRTP06 0.9

SPRTP06 1.8

SPRTP07 0.6

SPRTP07 1.8

SPRTP08 0.8

SPRTP08 2.9

SPRTP09 1.5

SPRTP09 2.8

SPRTP10 0.8

SPRTP10 2

SPRTP11 0.7

SPRTP12 0.6

SPRTP13 0.6

SPRTP13 1.7

Fluoranthene Fluorene Iron

Dibenzo (ah)

anthracene Copper total Cyanide Free Cyanide

Complex

Cyanide Chrysene Chromium Chromium Cadmium

TPH aromatic

>C21-C35

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract) Hexavalent

Solid (Acid

extract)

670 780 0 0.9 1 9.3 3000 4.3 10 1230

23000 71000 0 13 71700 140 30400 35 230 28000

0.4 <0.1 17000 <0.1 19 <0.1 25 0.93

0.2 <0.1 17000 <0.1 21 <0.1 11 0.43

0.1 <0.1 20000 <0.1 66 <0.1 18 0.49

19 0.2 15000 3.1 37 11 15 0.13 210

6.1 0.2 19000 0.1 75 2.3 28 0.35 37

6.8 0.2 7600 0.7 18 4.4 73 0.91 400

3.1 <0.1 15000 <0.1 52 1.3 18 0.57

1.8 0.2 22000 <0.1 17 0.5 25 0.31

220 59 25000 22 390 110 43 0.3 500

29 5.5 20000 1.7 130 15 23 <0.1 290

27 6.2 5.4 14

480 330 15000 4.7 5.4 100 18 <0.1 530

26000 250 52 <0.1 250

1.5 0.1 13000 <0.1 36 1.8 21 0.35 200

9.8 <2 <2 <2 11.2 <1.0 <0.2

9.9 <2 <2 <2 14.8 <1.0 <0.2

18.9 <2 <2 <2 19.4 <1.0 <0.2

7 <2 <2 <2 15.6 <1.0 <0.2

13 <2 <2 <2 19.5 <1.0 <0.2

28.2 <2 <2 <2 8.9 <1.0 <0.2

15.8 <2 <2 <2 17 <1.0 <0.2

25 <2 <2 <2 5 <1.0 <0.2

23.1 <2 <2 <2 16.6 <1.0 <0.2

28.6 <2 <2 <2 15.6 <1.0 <0.2

27.4 <2 <2 <2 21.2 <1.0 <0.2

23.3 <2 <2 <2 18.5 <1.0 <0.2

20.9 <2 <2 <2 20.6 <1.0 <0.2

25.3 <2 <2 <2 18.1 <1.0 <0.2

28.6 <2 <2 <2 20.1 <1.0 <0.2

21.3 <2 <2 <2 17 <1.0 <0.2

24.7 <2 <2 <2 17.1 <1.0 <0.2

26.7 <2 <2 <2 16.9 <1.0 <0.2

27.8 <2 <2 <2 28.5 <1.0 <0.2

38.4 <2 <2 <2 32.6 <1.0 <0.2

31.9 <2 <2 <2 27.9 <1.0 <0.2

22 <2 <2 <2 23.4 <1.0 <0.2

28.5 <2 <2 <2 27 <1.0 <0.2

27.3 <2 <2 <2 23.7 <1.0 <0.2


Project ID

Residential

Commercial

SPRTP14 0.8

SPRTP14 2.5

SPRTP15 0.9

SPRTP16 0.7

SPRTP16 1.8

SPRTP17 1

SPRTP18 0.6

SPRTP18 1.6

SPRTP19 0.9

SPRTP19 3.2

SPRTP20 2

SPRTP21 0.7

SPRTP22 0.7

SPRTP22 1.9

SPRTP23 0.8

SPRTP24 0.7

SPRTP25 0.8

SPRTP25 1.9

SPRTP26 0.6

SPRTP26 1.7

SPRTP27 0.9

SPRTP27 2.1

SPRTP28 0.6

SPRTP28 1.7

SPRTP29 0.9

SPRTP29 2.4

SPRTP30 0.5

SPRBH1 0.7

SPRBH2 0.6

SPRBH4 1

SPRBH5 1

SPRBH6 1

SPRBH7 1

SPRBH8 0.5

SPRBH9 1

SPRBH10 1.5

SPRBH11 1

SPRBH12 1.5

SPRBH14 0.7

SPRBH15 1

SPRBH3 1

SPRBH13 1

HSBH3 1

HSBH3 3.25

HSBH6 1

HSBH7 1


Dibenzo (ah)


Complex


TPH aromatic

>C21-C35

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract) Hexavalent

Solid (Acid

extract)

670 780 0 0.9 1 9.3 3000 4.3 10 1230

23000 71000 0 13 71700 140 30400 35 230 28000

33.7 <2 <2 <2 20.5 <1.0 <0.2

23 <2 <2 <2 19 <1.0 <0.2

28 <2 <2 <2 21.5 <1.0 <0.2

24.6 <2 <2 <2 18.2 <1.0 <0.2

35.7 <2 <2 <2 25.4 <1.0 <0.2

25.7 <2 <2 <2 27.4 <1.0 <0.2

25.7 <2 <2 <2 27.4 <1.0 <0.2

22 <2 <2 <2 15.3 <1.0 <0.2

33.7 <2 <2 <2 24.6 <1.0 <0.2

29.6 <2 <2 <2 24.1 <1.0 <0.2

29.9 <2 <2 <2 20.4 <1.0 <0.2

11.9 <2 <2 <2 15.3 <1.0 <0.2

24.5 <2 <2 <2 22.7 <1.0 <0.2

27.6 <2 <2 <2 21.7 <1.0 <0.2

28 <2 <2 <2 26.1 <1.0 <0.2

26.9 <2 <2 <2 24.1 <1.0 <0.2

17 <2 <2 <2 23.9 <1.0 <0.2

31.4 <2 <2 <2 25.3 <1.0 <0.2

24.4 <2 <2 <2 20.8 <1.0 <0.2

20.4 <2 <2 <2 18.5 <1.0 <0.2

47.7 <2 <2 <2 34.2 <1.0 <0.2

27.1 <2 <2 <2 17 <1.0 <0.2

25.8 <2 <2 <2 26.7 <1.0 <0.2

24.4 <2 <2 <2 23.7 <1.0 <0.2

25.3 <2 <2 <2 28 <1.0 <0.2

26.5 <2 <2 <2 25.4 <1.0 <0.2

12.7 <2 <2 <2 37.6 <1.0 <0.2

25.4 <2 <2 <2 25.7 <1.0 <0.2

13.1 <2 <2 <2 26 <1.0 <0.2

27.5 <2 <2 <2 30.1 <1.0 <0.2

16.7 <2 <2 <2 20.1 <1.0 <0.2

26.4 <2 <2 <2 25.9 <1.0 <0.2

26.7 <2 <2 <2 25.9 <1.0 <0.2

24.7 <2 <2 <2 25.3 <1.0 <0.2

24.7 <2 <2 <2 28.1 <1.0 <0.2

31.3 <2 <2 <2 30.8 <1.0 <0.2

30 <2 <2 <2 26.1 <1.0 <0.2

11.5 <2 <2 <2 13.5 <1.0 <0.2

20.3 <2 <2 <2 26.8 <1.0 <0.2

22.4 <2 <2 <2 29.8 <1.0 <0.2

34.6 <2 <2 <2 25.5 <1.0 <0.2

28.8 <2 <2 <2 20.8 <1.0 <0.2

14.2 <2 20.1 <0.2

19.4 <2 28 <0.2

74.2 <2 28.4 <0.2

52.2 <2 30.9 <0.2


Project ID

Residential

Commercial

HSBH7 4

HSBH10 0.5

HSBH12 0.5

HSTP1 0.65

HSTP3 0.75

HSTP5 0.65

HSTP7 0.4

HSTP9 0.15

HSBH8 1

HSBH8 1.75


Dibenzo (ah)


Complex


TPH aromatic

>C21-C35

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract) Hexavalent

Solid (Acid

extract)

670 780 0 0.9 1 9.3 3000 4.3 10 1230

23000 71000 0 13 71700 140 30400 35 230 28000

37.8 <2 34.4 <0.2

26.3 <2 15.6 <0.2

67.5 <2 22.5 <0.2

41.1 <2 22 <0.2

42.6 <2 20.9 <0.2

304.1 <2 69.4 <0.2

327.36 <2 37.1 <0.2

47 <2 17.8 <0.2

84 <2 28.9 <0.2

22.6 <2 24.2 <0.2


Project ID

Residential

Commercial

Hole ID Depth

TPS42 3.5

TPS43 2.5

TPS44 1

TPS73 1.5

TPS74 0.3

WSS38 0.5

WSS40 1

WSS45 1

WSS48 0.5

WSS49 0.5

WSS55A 3.05

WSS63 1

CRS60 1

SPRTP01 1.6

SPRTP01 2.5

SPRTP02 0.9

SPRTP02 1.9

SPRTP02 2.5

SPRTP03 0.6

SPRTP04 0.8

SPRTP04 1.7

SPRTP05 0.8

SPRTP05 1.8

SPRTP06 0.9

SPRTP06 1.8

SPRTP07 0.6

SPRTP07 1.8

SPRTP08 0.8

SPRTP08 2.9

SPRTP09 1.5

SPRTP09 2.8

SPRTP10 0.8

SPRTP10 2

SPRTP11 0.7

SPRTP12 0.6

SPRTP13 0.6

SPRTP13 1.7

TPH aliphatic

>C21-C35

TPH aromatic

>C16-C21

TPH aliphatic

>C16-C21

TPH aromatic

>C12-C16

TPH aliphatic

>C12-C16

TPH aromatic

>C10-C12

TPH aliphatic

>C10-C12

TPH aromatic

>C8-C10

TPH aliphatic

>C8-C10

TPH aromatic

>C7-C8

TPH aliphatic

>C6-C8

TPH aromatic

>C5-C7

TPH aliphatic

>C5-C6

76000 770 76000 593 3000 346 540 151 110 0 0 0 0

1800000 28000 1800000 37800 91000 34500 49000 18000 12000 0 0 0 0

<0.1 63 <0.1 5.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 15 <0.1 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

2000 110 45 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 430 <0.1 130 <0.1 23 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 220 <0.1 6.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

39 2900 83 2500 140 310 23 3.8 3.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 240 <0.1 79 <0.1 20 <0.1 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

1000 91 51 3.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1


Project ID

Residential

Commercial

SPRTP14 0.8

SPRTP14 2.5

SPRTP15 0.9

SPRTP16 0.7

SPRTP16 1.8

SPRTP17 1

SPRTP18 0.6

SPRTP18 1.6

SPRTP19 0.9

SPRTP19 3.2

SPRTP20 2

SPRTP21 0.7

SPRTP22 0.7

SPRTP22 1.9

SPRTP23 0.8

SPRTP24 0.7

SPRTP25 0.8

SPRTP25 1.9

SPRTP26 0.6

SPRTP26 1.7

SPRTP27 0.9

SPRTP27 2.1

SPRTP28 0.6

SPRTP28 1.7

SPRTP29 0.9

SPRTP29 2.4

SPRTP30 0.5

SPRBH1 0.7

SPRBH2 0.6

SPRBH4 1

SPRBH5 1

SPRBH6 1

SPRBH7 1

SPRBH8 0.5

SPRBH9 1

SPRBH10 1.5

SPRBH11 1

SPRBH12 1.5

SPRBH14 0.7

SPRBH15 1

SPRBH3 1

SPRBH13 1

HSBH3 1

HSBH3 3.25

HSBH6 1

HSBH7 1

TPH aliphatic

>C21-C35

TPH aromatic

>C16-C21

TPH aliphatic

>C16-C21

TPH aromatic

>C12-C16

TPH aliphatic

>C12-C16

TPH aromatic

>C10-C12

TPH aliphatic

>C10-C12

TPH aromatic

>C8-C10

TPH aliphatic

>C8-C10

TPH aromatic

>C7-C8

TPH aliphatic

>C6-C8

TPH aromatic

>C5-C7

TPH aliphatic

>C5-C6

76000 770 76000 593 3000 346 540 151 110 0 0 0 0

1800000 28000 1800000 37800 91000 34500 49000 18000 12000 0 0 0 0


Project ID

Residential

Commercial

HSBH7 4

HSBH10 0.5

HSBH12 0.5

HSTP1 0.65

HSTP3 0.75

HSTP5 0.65

HSTP7 0.4

HSTP9 0.15

HSBH8 1

HSBH8 1.75

TPH aliphatic

>C21-C35

TPH aromatic

>C16-C21

TPH aliphatic

>C16-C21

TPH aromatic

>C12-C16

TPH aliphatic

>C12-C16

TPH aromatic

>C10-C12

TPH aliphatic

>C10-C12

TPH aromatic

>C8-C10

TPH aliphatic

>C8-C10

TPH aromatic

>C7-C8

TPH aliphatic

>C6-C8

TPH aromatic

>C5-C7

TPH aliphatic

>C5-C6

76000 770 76000 593 3000 346 540 151 110 0 0 0 0

1800000 28000 1800000 37800 91000 34500 49000 18000 12000 0 0 0 0


Project ID

Residential

Commercial

Hole ID Depth

TPS42 3.5

TPS43 2.5

TPS44 1

TPS73 1.5

TPS74 0.3

WSS38 0.5

WSS40 1

WSS45 1

WSS48 0.5

WSS49 0.5

WSS55A 3.05

WSS63 1

CRS60 1

SPRTP01 1.6

SPRTP01 2.5

SPRTP02 0.9

SPRTP02 1.9

SPRTP02 2.5

SPRTP03 0.6

SPRTP04 0.8

SPRTP04 1.7

SPRTP05 0.8

SPRTP05 1.8

SPRTP06 0.9

SPRTP06 1.8

SPRTP07 0.6

SPRTP07 1.8

SPRTP08 0.8

SPRTP08 2.9

SPRTP09 1.5

SPRTP09 2.8

SPRTP10 0.8

SPRTP10 2

SPRTP11 0.7

SPRTP12 0.6

SPRTP13 0.6

SPRTP13 1.7

CL:AIRE

Benzo (k)

fluoranthene

Benzo (ghi)

perylene

Benzo (b)

fluoranthene

Benzo (a)

pyrene Beryllium Barium Boron Arsenic Anthanthrene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (2:1

Soil/Water

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

10 47 10 1 51 1300 291 32 9200 1000 850

140 660 140 14 420 22000 192000 120 540000 100000 100000

<0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <1 150 3.1 5.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 74 1 3.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.7 180 1.3 94 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

5.3 11 19 12 <1 74 0.9 11 1.3 0.4 0.1

1 1.5 4.3 3.2 1.5 210 1.5 41 0.8 0.3 <0.1

1.7 5.9 8.6 4.2 1.7 250 0.8 11 1.1 0.2 0.2

0.4 0.5 1.8 1.6 1.2 330 2.2 17 0.3 <0.1 <0.1

0.2 0.1 0.9 0.7 <1 58 0.8 11 0.3 0.1 0.1

52 60 120 110 5 330 0.8 130 92 61 8.7

5.2 7 18 17 3.9 170 1.2 32 7.5 2.5 2.1

5.6 5.5 10 13 8.7 3.4 2.1

18 16 56 120 <1 32 1 5.3 320 410 8.6

1.4 420 <0.4 59

0.7 1 2.9 2.4 <1 140 0.9 15 0.6 <0.1 <0.1

<0.5 72.9

<0.5 36

<0.5 4

<0.5 <1

<0.5 19.5

<0.5 5.5

<0.5 1

<0.5 5

<0.5 3.7

<0.5 20.1

<0.5 9.7

<0.5 <1

<0.5 <1

<0.5 2.5

0.6 4

<0.5 1.1

<0.5 1.6

<0.5 2.2

<0.5 3.7

<0.5 3.7

<0.5 1.6

<0.5 2.4

<0.5 <1.0

<0.5 <1.0


Project ID

Residential

Commercial

SPRTP14 0.8

SPRTP14 2.5

SPRTP15 0.9

SPRTP16 0.7

SPRTP16 1.8

SPRTP17 1

SPRTP18 0.6

SPRTP18 1.6

SPRTP19 0.9

SPRTP19 3.2

SPRTP20 2

SPRTP21 0.7

SPRTP22 0.7

SPRTP22 1.9

SPRTP23 0.8

SPRTP24 0.7

SPRTP25 0.8

SPRTP25 1.9

SPRTP26 0.6

SPRTP26 1.7

SPRTP27 0.9

SPRTP27 2.1

SPRTP28 0.6

SPRTP28 1.7

SPRTP29 0.9

SPRTP29 2.4

SPRTP30 0.5

SPRBH1 0.7

SPRBH2 0.6

SPRBH4 1

SPRBH5 1

SPRBH6 1

SPRBH7 1

SPRBH8 0.5

SPRBH9 1

SPRBH10 1.5

SPRBH11 1

SPRBH12 1.5

SPRBH14 0.7

SPRBH15 1

SPRBH3 1

SPRBH13 1

HSBH3 1

HSBH3 3.25

HSBH6 1

HSBH7 1

CL:AIRE

Benzo (k)

fluoranthene

Benzo (ghi)

perylene

Benzo (b)

fluoranthene

Benzo (a)


Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (2:1

Soil/Water

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

10 47 10 1 51 1300 291 32 9200 1000 850

140 660 140 14 420 22000 192000 120 540000 100000 100000

<0.5 10.5

<0.5 2.8

1.6 7.1

<0.5 2.7

<0.5 1.9

<0.5 9.5

<0.5 9.2

<0.5 5.1

<0.5 12.6

<0.5 6

<0.5 3.1

<0.5 1.6

0.6 6.8

<0.5 4.8

<0.5 <1

<0.5 <1

<0.5 3.4

<0.5 5.4

<0.5 1.8

<0.5 8.2

0.6 8.1

<0.5 4.2

<0.5 3.4

<0.5 2.7

<0.5 1.6

<0.5 2

0.5 2.6

<0.5 5.4

<0.5 1.3

<0.5 7

<0.5 <1

<0.5 <1

<0.5 4.4

<0.5 2

<0.5 3

<0.5 5.2

<0.5 2

<0.5 1.5

<0.5 <1

<0.5 5.3

<0.5 <1

<0.5 2.2

<0.5 <1

<0.5 <1

<0.5 35.3

<0.5 6.4


Project ID

Residential

Commercial

HSBH7 4

HSBH10 0.5

HSBH12 0.5

HSTP1 0.65

HSTP3 0.75

HSTP5 0.65

HSTP7 0.4

HSTP9 0.15

HSBH8 1

HSBH8 1.75

CL:AIRE

Benzo (k)

fluoranthene

Benzo (ghi)

perylene

Benzo (b)

fluoranthene

Benzo (a)


Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

Solid (2:1

Soil/Water

extract)

Solid (Acid

extract)

10 47 10 1 51 1300 291 32 9200 1000 850

140 660 140 14 420 22000 192000 120 540000 100000 100000

<0.5 3.9

<0.5 6.4

<0.5 11.5

0.8 14.1

1.2 11.8

<0.5 65.7

<0.5 35.7

<0.5 3.5

<0.5 17.1

<0.5 <1

South Line Leachate test Results

Project ID Zinc Sulphate as SO4 Selenium pH Lead Nickel Mercury Copper Chromium Cadmium Arsenic

Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT)Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate Leachate

8 400000 10 6 4 50 0 1 5 5 50

50 400000 10 9 20 200 0 28 50 5 50

Hole ID Depth µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l

WSS38 2 4.2 77 3 11 1.6 1.7 <0.5 2.5 16 <0.08 1.6

WSS40 1.55 <1 19 1.4 9.8 <1 1.2 <0.5 3.4 5.3 <0.08 9

WSS47 0.5 1.8 25 2.3 9.9 2.8 <1 <0.5 140 13 <0.08 8

WSS55A 4 4.6 12 <1 7.1 <1 <1 <0.5 1.4 <1 <0.08 <1

EQS or

DWQS

Waste Acceptance Criteria Tests

Project ID Zinc TPH Total WAC Toluene Sulphate as SO4 Selenium Antimony Pyrene Phenanthrene pH Phenol Index Phenol Index Polychlorinated biphenyls PCB52

Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

Inert 4 500 1000 0.1 0.06 6

Non-haz 50 500 20000 0.5 0.7 >6

Hazardous 200 50000 7 5

Hole ID Depth

CRS71 0.5 <0.5 130 <1 71.3 <0.01 0.02 8.5 7.2 7.9 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

CRS72 1 <0.5 <10 <1 125 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 7.4 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

TPS73 0.5 <0.5 180 <1 108 <0.01 0.01 20 3.5 8.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

TPS75 0.5 <0.5 44 <1 66.2 0.01 0.01 2.1 1.8 8.3 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

RO76 1 <0.5 63 <1 356 <0.01 <0.01 1 1 6.7 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

RO77 0.5 <0.5 <10 <1 192 <0.01 <0.01 0.4 0.4 6.9 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

RO78 0.5 <0.5 <10 <1 206 <0.01 <0.01 0.2 0.3 5.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

WSS41 0.5 <0.5 160 <1 176 <0.01 <0.01 2.1 2.3 7.7 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

TPS42 1.5 <0.5 360 <1 525 <0.01 0.01 1.3 0.9 11.3 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

TPS43 0.5 <0.5 390 <1 784 <0.01 0.03 42 45 9.3 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

TPS44 0.5 <0.5 110 <1 251 <0.01 <0.01 0.4 0.4 10.4 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

WSS38 1 <0.5 890 <1 783 0.02 0.03 11 8.3 10.7 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

WSS39 0.5 <0.5 68 <1 204 0.03 <0.01 1.5 1.3 8 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

WSS40 0.5 <0.5 69 <1 731 0.01 0.01 6.7 8.1 10.9 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

WSS46 0.5 <0.5 100 2.5 1160 <0.01 <0.01 9.7 12 8 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

WSS47 0.5 <0.5 2000 1.1 520 0.02 0.07 120 150 9.4 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

WSS49 0.5 <0.5 360 3.6 176 0.02 <0.01 27 34 8.3 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

WSS50 0.5 <0.5 380 <1 154 <0.01 <0.01 20 19 8.4 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

WSS54 2.22 <0.5 <10 <1 141 0.01 <0.01 0.9 1.4 8.6 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

WSS56 1 <0.5 2600 5.6 3220 0.02 <0.01 120 79 8.4 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <0.1

PCB28 PCB180 PCB153 PCB138 PCB118 PCB101 Lead Total (of 17) PAHs o - Xylene Total organic carbon Nickel Naphthalene m & p - Xylene

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg

Inert 100 3 0

Non-haz 100 5 0

Hazardous 6

Hole ID Depth

CRS71 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 59 <1 7.4 <0.05 1.5 <1

CRS72 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <2 <1 0.61 <0.05 <0.1 <1

TPS73 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 140 <1 0.89 <0.05 0.3 <1

TPS75 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 22 <1 7.8 <0.05 1.2 <1

RO76 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 8.8 <1 3.8 <0.05 0.6 <1

RO77 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 3.4 <1 1.4 <0.05 0.2 <1

RO78 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 2.7 <1 1.6 <0.05 0.2 <1

WSS41 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 26 <1 21 <0.05 5.1 <1

TPS42 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 9.7 <1 9.8 <0.05 0.2 <1

TPS43 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 280 <1 7 <0.05 3.9 <1

TPS44 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 5.1 <1 0.62 <0.05 <0.1 <1

WSS38 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 75 <1 2.7 <0.05 1.5 <1

WSS39 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 12 <1 5.1 <0.05 0.5 <1

WSS40 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 51 <1 3 <0.05 1.8 <1

WSS46 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 70 <1 5.1 <0.05 2.1 <1

WSS47 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 940 <1 7.2 <0.05 29 4.4

WSS49 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 180 3 9 <0.05 6.1 4.3

WSS50 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 120 <1 3.9 <0.05 2.2 <1

WSS54 2.22 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 8.7 <1 5.2 <0.05 1.2 <1

WSS56 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 820 17 10 <0.05 10 23

Moisture content Molybdenum Indeno (1,2,3 - cd) pyrene Indeno (1,2,3 - cd) pyrene Loss on ignition Mercury Mercury Fluoride Fluoranthene Fluorene Ethylbenzene Dissolved organic carbon Dissolved organic carbon

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg mg/kg mg/kg

Inert 0.5 10 10

Non-haz 10 10 150

Hazardous 30 10 500

Hole ID Depth

CRS71 0.5 14.4 0.06 0.5 13.2 <0.005 <0.005 10.1 9.8 0.7 <1 66 172

CRS72 1 15.1 <0.05 <0.1 4.66 <0.005 <0.005 1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 <50 173

TPS73 0.5 10.4 0.1 3 3.48 <0.005 <0.005 16.1 18 0.3 <1 <50 138

TPS75 0.5 15.3 0.05 1 12.8 <0.005 0.01 11.4 2.3 0.1 <1 <50 150

RO76 1 16.8 <0.05 <0.1 8.13 <0.005 <0.005 1.97 1 0.4 <1 <50 86.8

RO77 0.5 20 <0.05 <0.1 5.6 <0.005 <0.005 1.19 0.6 0.2 <1 <50 62.8

RO78 0.5 19.3 <0.05 <0.1 7.45 <0.005 <0.005 1.28 0.3 0.4 <1 <50 59.8

WSS41 0.5 20.1 0.1 0.3 22.4 <0.005 <0.005 8.98 2.2 2.3 <1 <50 103

TPS42 1.5 8.8 2.74 0.2 8.25 <0.005 <0.005 30.1 1.5 0.1 <1 <50 138

TPS43 0.5 17.3 0.42 1.3 8.79 <0.005 <0.005 9.49 49 7.4 <1 <50 153

TPS44 0.5 11.2 0.06 <0.1 2.92 <0.005 <0.005 4.61 0.4 <0.1 <1 50 165

WSS38 1 11.5 0.1 1.5 6.4 <0.005 <0.005 3.66 11 0.8 <1 56 134

WSS39 0.5 18.8 0.19 <0.1 9.06 <0.005 <0.005 14.2 1.5 0.3 <1 <50 114

WSS40 0.5 14.6 0.12 0.7 7.24 <0.005 <0.005 4.56 7.8 1 <1 <50 77.2

WSS46 0.5 5.55 <0.05 0.8 5.41 <0.005 <0.005 4.71 12 1.5 <1 79.9 137

WSS47 0.5 12.3 0.25 14 4 11.9 <0.005 <0.005 <1 140 29 <1 86 184

WSS49 0.5 13.1 0.22 5.8 13.6 <0.005 <0.005 13.8 29 5.5 <1 <50 73.3

WSS50 0.5 6.39 <0.05 1.4 6.07 <0.005 <0.005 10.8 23 2.8 <1 100 188

WSS54 2.22 6.41 <0.05 <0.1 8.45 <0.005 <0.005 10.1 1 0.3 <1 104 156

WSS56 1 5.33 <0.05 7.3 10.2 <0.005 <0.005 16.4 130 10 5.4 116 197

Total dissolved solids Total dissolved solids Dibenzo (ah) anthracene Copper Copper Chrysene Chromium Coronene Chloride Chloride Cadmium Total BTEX Benzene

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg

Inert 4000 2 0.5 800 0.04

Non-haz 60000 50 10 15000 1

Hazardous 100000 100 70 25000 5

Hole ID Depth

CRS71 0.5 480 1560 2.7 0.05 0.07 5.7 <0.05 <0.1 14.6 13.3 <0.01 <0.005 <1

CRS72 1 116 240 <0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 16.6 49 <0.01 <0.005 <1

TPS73 0.5 280 792 11 <0.05 <0.05 14 <0.05 <0.1 7 15 <0.01 <0.005 <1

TPS75 0.5 360 1170 2.3 <0.05 <0.05 1.9 <0.05 <0.1 15.6 24.5 <0.01 <0.005 <1

RO76 1 401 642 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 0.5 <0.05 <0.1 9.41 14.7 <0.01 <0.005 <1

RO77 0.5 240 460 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 12.4 13.3 <0.01 <0.005 <1

RO78 0.5 260 500 <0.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 <0.1 38.1 45.9 <0.01 <0.005 <1

WSS41 0.5 400 1210 0.6 <0.05 0.06 1.4 <0.05 <0.1 6.41 9.59 <0.01 <0.005 <1

TPS42 1.5 560 1270 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 1.1 0.06 <0.1 20 36.7 <0.01 <0.005 <1

TPS43 0.5 839 1630 9.2 <0.05 0.06 23 0.14 <0.1 36 52.4 <0.01 <0.005 <1

TPS44 0.5 340 1160 0.7 0.11 0.24 0.4 0.18 <0.1 16.2 19 <0.01 <0.005 <1

WSS38 1 1100 3610 3.8 <0.05 0.06 7.9 0.22 <0.1 106 123 <0.01 <0.005 <1

WSS39 0.5 460 1030 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 1 <0.05 <0.1 90 105 <0.01 <0.005 <1

WSS40 0.5 820 1850 1.7 <0.05 <0.05 4.7 0.08 <0.1 74 112 <0.01 <0.005 <1

WSS46 0.5 1220 2460 2.5 <0.05 <0.05 6.7 <0.05 <0.1 26 31.8 <0.01 <0.005 1.2

WSS47 0.5 1980 4250 34 4.2 10.9 82 0.24 <0.1 152 244 <0.01 <0.005 <1

WSS49 0.5 581 1520 1.7 <0.05 0.1 15 <0.05 <0.1 16.2 17.7 <0.01 0.011 1.5

WSS50 0.5 360 1020 2.4 <0.05 <0.05 12 <0.05 <0.1 10.8 24.6 <0.01 <0.005 <1

WSS54 2.22 421 1080 0.3 <0.05 <0.05 0.7 <0.05 <0.1 10 26.7 <0.01 <0.005 <1

WSS56 1 2800 4390 53 <0.05 <0.05 72 <0.05 <0.1 30 34.3 <0.01 0.048 <1

Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzo (ghi) perylene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Benzo (a) pyrene Barium Barium Arsenic Anthanthrene Acid Neutralisation Capacity Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

Inert 0 20 0.5

Non-haz 0 100 2

Hazardous

Hole ID Depth

CRS71 0.5 3.2 2.4 4.4 4.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 1.7 0.004 0.8 0.3

CRS72 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.1 <0.002 <0.1 <0.1

TPS73 0.5 12 11 15 11 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 1.5 0.007 0.7 0.3

TPS75 0.5 1.5 1 1.6 1.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.7 0.013 0.7 0.8

RO76 1 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.2 <0.002 0.5 0.8

RO77 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 <0.1 <0.002 0.2 0.2

RO78 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.4 <0.002 0.3 0.4

WSS41 0.5 1 0.5 1.1 1.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.4 0.011 1.3 2.3

TPS42 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.9 0.052 0.4 0.3

TPS43 0.5 13 11 17 20 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 10 0.023 11 0.7

TPS44 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.2 0.049 <0.1 <0.1

WSS38 1 4.3 2.8 5.1 6.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 2.1 0.042 0.5 0.8

WSS39 0.5 0.6 0.6 1 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.3 0.005 0.4 0.6

WSS40 0.5 2 1.5 3.4 3.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 1.9 0.068 1 1.1

WSS46 0.5 2.6 2.6 3.6 5.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 2.6 0.004 1.5 1.1

WSS47 0.5 36 35 52 69 <0.5 <0.5 0.13 39 0.065 17 10

WSS49 0.5 5.2 7 18 17 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 7.5 0.016 2.5 2.1

WSS50 0.5 4.8 4.4 4.8 11 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 5.2 0.01 2.5 1.3

WSS54 2.22 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0.3 0.007 0.5 0.2

WSS56 1 33 47 58 71 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 24 0.009 13 3.1

62



A.2.5. CAT Waste Results

Site Name

Location

Site ID

Job Number

Date

User Name

Company Name

Hole ID Sample Depth ContaminantContaminant

Concentration (%)Hazardous Waste Y/N Hazard Class Risk Phrases Exceeded

Additive Risk Phrases

Exceeded

H14 Risk Phrases

ExceededAdditional Risk Phrases (see notes section)

CRS60 1m Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.13 Y H7 R45

CRS60 1m Boron 0.002083333 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

CRS60 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01305159 N R43 see comment

CRS60 1m Nickel 0.005536515 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

CRS60 1m Vanadium 0.004106409 N R55 see comment

TPS42 3.5m Boron 0.007175926 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

TPS42 3.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.0155376 N R43 see comment

TPS42 3.5m Nickel 0.01001845 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

TPS42 3.5m Vanadium 0.004463489 N R55 see comment





TPS44 1m Boron 0.003009259 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

TPS44 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01118707 N R43 see comment

TPS44 1m Nickel 0.01001845 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

TPS44 1m Vanadium 0.008569898 N R55 see comment









WSS38 0.5m Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.26 Y H7 R45

WSS38 0.5m Boron 0.001851852 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

WSS38 0.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.0453698 N R43 see comment

WSS38 0.5m Nickel 0.004745584 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

WSS38 0.5m Zinc 0.01747573 N R43 see comment

WSS38 0.5m Vanadium 0.01392609 N R55 see comment

Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.38 Y H7 R45

WSS40 1m Boron 0.005092592 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

WSS40 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01118707 N R43 see comment

WSS40 1m Nickel 0.006327445 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

WSS40 1m Vanadium 0.005534726 N R55 see comment





WSS48 0.5m Benzo(a)pyrene 0.011 Y H14 (R50 AND R53)

WSS48 0.5m Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.14 Y H7 R45










WSS55A 3.05m Benzo(a)pyrene 0.012 Y H14 (R50 AND R53)

WSS55A 3.05m Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)2.1 Y H7 R45

WSS55A 3.05m Boron 0.002314815 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

WSS55A 3.05m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01118707 N R43 see comment

WSS55A 3.05m Nickel 0.00369101 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

WSS55A 3.05m Zinc 0.007489598 N R43 see comment

WSS55A 3.05m Vanadium 0.004642028 N R55 see comment


WSS63 1m Heavy fuel oil (combination of compounds)0.1 Y H7 R45



[email protected]

Mott Macdonald

Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information

Leeds NGT

South Line

F1

236834

5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM

This output data has been generated by the CAT-Waste Soil waste classification tool provided by Atkins Consultants Ltd and J.McArdle Contracts and should be read in conjuntion with the standard Terms and Conditions 16:14 19/02/2013

Site Name

Location

Site ID

Job Number

Date

User Name

Company Name




Exceeded

H14 Risk Phrases


[email protected]

Mott Macdonald


Leeds NGT

South Line

F1

236834

5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM


WSS63 1m Zinc 0.01747573 N R43 see comment


SPRTP01 1.6m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

SPRTP01 1.6m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.006960845 N R43 see comment

SPRTP01 1.6m Nickel 0.0004218297 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

SPRTP01 1.6m Zinc 0.00260749 N R43 see comment

SPRTP01 1.6m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test

SPRTP01 1.6m Thiocyanate 0.0014 N R32 test or calculation























































Site Name

Location

Site ID

Job Number

Date

User Name

Company Name




Exceeded

H14 Risk Phrases


[email protected]

Mott Macdonald


Leeds NGT

South Line

F1

236834

5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM











































SPRTP10 2m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

SPRTP10 2m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.02026103 N R43 see comment

SPRTP10 2m Nickel 0.01022937 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

SPRTP10 2m Zinc 0.01864078 N R43 see comment

SPRTP10 2m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test

SPRTP10 2m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation
















Site Name

Location

Site ID

Job Number

Date

User Name

Company Name




Exceeded

H14 Risk Phrases


[email protected]

Mott Macdonald


Leeds NGT

South Line

F1

236834

5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM





































SPRTP17 1m Zinc 0.01864078 N R43 see comment



























Site Name

Location

Site ID

Job Number

Date

User Name

Company Name




Exceeded

H14 Risk Phrases


[email protected]

Mott Macdonald


Leeds NGT

South Line

F1

236834

5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
































































Site Name

Location

Site ID

Job Number

Date

User Name

Company Name




Exceeded

H14 Risk Phrases


[email protected]

Mott Macdonald


Leeds NGT

South Line

F1

236834

5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM






























SPRBH1 0.7m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

SPRBH1 0.7m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01597265 N R43 see comment

SPRBH1 0.7m Nickel 0.01131031 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

SPRBH1 0.7m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test

SPRBH1 0.7m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation




SPRBH2 0.6m Zinc 0.02085992 N R43 see comment



SPRBH4 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

SPRBH4 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01870727 N R43 see comment

SPRBH4 1m Nickel 0.007698392 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

SPRBH4 1m Zinc 0.02191401 N R43 see comment

SPRBH4 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test

SPRBH4 1m Thiocyanate 0.001 N R32 test or calculation


















Site Name

Location

Site ID

Job Number

Date

User Name

Company Name




Exceeded

H14 Risk Phrases


[email protected]

Mott Macdonald


Leeds NGT

South Line

F1

236834

5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM



















































HSBH3 1m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

HSBH3 1m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01249223 N R43 see comment

HSBH3 1m Nickel 0.005009227 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

HSBH3 1m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test

HSBH3 3.25m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

HSBH3 3.25m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.01740211 N R43 see comment

HSBH3 3.25m Nickel 0.009280253 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

HSBH3 3.25m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test






Site Name

Location

Site ID

Job Number

Date

User Name

Company Name




Exceeded

H14 Risk Phrases


[email protected]

Mott Macdonald


Leeds NGT

South Line

F1

236834

5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM









HSBH10 0.5m Boron 0.001157407 N R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)

HSBH10 0.5m Chromium (Total) when no Cr VI results0.009695463 N R43 see comment

HSBH10 0.5m Nickel 0.003242816 N R42 see comment, R43 see comment

HSBH10 0.5m Free Cyanide 0.0002 N R12 test


63



A.3. Gas Monitoring Methodology

Gas monitoring standpipes were installed within exploratory holes where there was the potential for ground

gas to be generated by either Made Ground or natural sources.

The installations have been placed in accordance with guidance presented in BS8485 “Code of practice for

the characterization and remediation from ground gas in affected developments” and CIRIA665 “Assessing

risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings”

In accordance with the guidance above, the installations were monitored for:

Methane

Oxygen

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon Dioxide

Hydrogen Sulphide

Gas Flow Rate

Atmospheric Pressure

In addition these holes were also monitored using a PID meter to determine the presence of volatile

compounds

A.3.1. Site Characteristic hazardous gas flow rate

Following the guidance presented in BS 8485, the following site monitoring data was acquired for each

monitoring point:

a) ground gas concentration as measured by monitoring equipment methods for ground gas

concentrations measurement as given in CIRIA C665 expressed as a percentage by volume of

each hazardous ground gas being considered (methane and carbon dioxide) which provides a

concentration Chg for each specific hazardous gas.

b) borehole flow rate i.e. volume of total gas flow measured as being emitted from the monitoring

point, q, expressed in litres per hour

Thus for each monitoring point for each monitoring event, hazardous gas flow rate Qhg should be calculated

using Equation B.3.1:

(Equation A.3-1)

If gas borehole flow was not detectable, it should be assumed to be at the detection limit of the equipment

used.

Having determined the hazardous gas flow rate, the characteristic gas situation in the rage 1 to 6 should be

chosen using the Table A.8.

Table A.8: Characteristic Gas situation by site characteristic gas flow rate

Characteristic Gas Situation

Hazard Potential Site Characteristic hazardous gas flow rate (l/hr)

Additional Factors

1 Very Low <0.07 Typically ≤ 1% methane concentration and ≤ 5& carbon dioxide concentration (otherwise consider an

qC

Qhg

hg 100

64



Characteristic Gas Situation

Hazard Potential Site Characteristic hazardous gas flow rate (l/hr)

Additional Factors

increased characteristic gas regime)

2 Low ≥0.07 - <0.7 Typical measured flow rate < 70 l/hr (otherwise consider an increased characteristic gas regime)

3 Moderate ≥ 0.7, <3.5

4 Moderate to High ≥3.5, <15 Quantitative risk assessment required to evaluate scope of protective measures

5 High ≥15, <70

6 Very high ≥70

Source: BS845:2007 and CIRIA C665

65



B.1. Bearing Resistance Methodology

Partial Factors

Table B.1 summarises the values of Partial Factors in accordance with Design Approach 1 and Design

Approach 2, BS EN 1997-1:2004 11

.

Table B.1: Partial Factors for Design Approach 1 and Design Approach 2

Design Approach 1 Design Approach 2


Permanent Actions - Unfavourable 1.35 1.0 1.35

Permanent Actions - Favourable 1.0 1.0 -

Angle of Friction, φ (˚) 1.0 1.25 1.0

Undrained Cohesion, cu (kPa) 1.0 1.4 1.0

Bearing resistance 1.0 1.0 1.4

Source: BS EN 1997-1:2004

Assumptions

The following was assumed when calculating preliminary bearing capacities:

assume a strip footing;

width of the footing was 1.0m;

depth of the footing was 1.0m;

traffic live load of 10kN/m2;

settlements are acceptable; and

assumed characteristic parameters are acceptable;

Equation

The ultimate bearing resistance of a soil is described by Terzaghi’s bearing resistance equation as:

(Equation B.1-1)

Where:

Nc, Nq and Nγ are Birch - Hansen’s Bearing Resistance Factors related to the φ of the soil;

c is the cohesion of the material;

γ is the unit weight;

z is the depth of the footing; and

B is the width of the footing.

Design Approach 2, applies a partial factor to the gross bearing resistance to be in line with other

geotechnical structures.

The soil parameters c and φ are not necessarily total stress parameters and dependent on the drainage

conditions. For a clay, c is take as cu and for sands and gravels φ is φ’ and c = 0.

Appendix B. Calculation Methodology

NBNzNcQ qcULT 5.0

66



B.2. Slope Stability Methodology

Partial Factors

Table B.2 summarises the partial factors for Design Approach 1, Combination 1 and Combination 2 as

required by BS EN1997-1:2004 11

.

Table B.2 Partial Factors for Design Approach 1, Combination 1 and Combination 2


Permanent Actions - Unfavourable 1.35 1.0

Permanent Actions - Favourable 1.0 1.0

Angle of Friction, φ (˚) 1.0 1.25

Effective Cohesion, c’ (kPa) 1.0. 1.25

Undrained Cohesion, cu (kPa) 1.0 1.4

Source: BS EN 1997-1:2004

Assumptions

The following was assumed when carrying preliminary slope stability assessments:

infinite slope;

dry granular slope;

pore pressures are evenly distributed through cohesive soil slopes;

minimum slip surface is 0.5m deep; and

first time failures.

Equation

Two methods are proposed for cohesive and granular material encountered during the preliminary ground

investigation. Equation C.2-1 is for cohesive material and can be manipulated to give a stability number N

(Equation C.2-2) for quick assessment of stability. Equation C.2-3 is for quick stability assessment for

granular soils.

The global factor of safety against sliding is given by the infinite slope expression for cohesive soils, with ru

= 0 for dry slopes;

(Equation B.2-1)

Where:

c’ is the effective cohesion;

ru is the pore water pressure;

γ is the soil unit weight

H is the height to the stratum below, be it impermeable or permeable;

β is the slope angle; and

φ is the friction angle of the soil.

The infinite slope expression can be rearranged to give a stability number (N) which can be compared to

stability charts, such that:

cossin

tancos)1(' 2

H

HrcFoS u

67



(Equation B.2-2)

The Factor of Safety against sliding for an infinite dry slope of granular soil is give as:

(Equation B.2-3)

Where;

β is the slope angle; and

φ is the friction angle of the soil.

EC7 requires that for slope stability analysis, the application of partial factors to the actions and resistances

leads to a “target” factor of safety, FoS = 1.0. A FoS < 1.0 means that the slope has failed the EC7

specification.

H

cN

'

tan

tanFoS

68



This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon

or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior

written authority of MM being obtained. MM accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequences of

this document being used for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was commissioned. Any person

using or relying on the document for such other purposes agrees, and will by such use or reliance to be

taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify MM for all loss or damage resulting there from. MM accepts no

responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was

commissioned.

To the extent that this document is based on information supplied by other parties, MM accepts no liability

for any loss or damage suffered by the Client stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by

parties other than MM and used by MM in preparing this report.

The findings and opinions of this report are based on information obtained from a variety of sources, as

detailed in this report. MM cannot and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the information it

has relied on from others. To the extent that this document is based on information obtained from ground

investigations persons using or relying on it should recognise that any such investigation can examine only

a fraction of the subsurface conditions. Also, in any ground investigation there remains a risk that pockets

or “hot-spots” of contamination may not be identified, because investigations are necessarily based on

sampling at localised points. It is also noted that much of the previous ground investigation data may pre-

date current testing and contamination assessment guidelines. Furthermore, certain indicators or evidence

of hazardous substances or conditions may have been outside the portion of the subsurface investigated or

monitored and thus may not have been identified or their full significance appreciated.

It is also possible that environmental monitoring has not identified certain conditions because of the

relatively short monitoring period. Accordingly it is possible that the ground investigation and monitoring

failed to indicate the presence or significance of hazardous substances or conditions. If so, their presence

could not have been considered in the formulation of MM’s findings and opinions.

Appendix C. Limitations

a-08g-7 south line gd report final

Documents

south accommodation

pavement design

general description

wellington street leeds

leeds ls10

report structure

kendell street

waterloo street