A-08g-7 South Line GD Report FINAL

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

Geotechnical Design Report
Mott MacDonald Internal Ref. 312694/RPT040
September 2013
South Line Geotechnical

Design Report
312694
EST
YHE
RPT40
http://localhost:3579/UCdoc~EUNAPiMS/1541640933/312694
South Line GDR FINAL FOR ISSUE TWAO.doc
June 2013
RPT40
312694/RPT40
South Line Geotechnical Design Report
312694/RPT40C
September 2013
Metro and Leeds City Council
Wellington House
40 50 Wellington Street
Leeds
LS1 2DE
Mott MacDonald, 2nd Floor, 2 Brewery Wharf, Kendell Street,

T +44 (0)113 394 6700 F +44 (0)113 394 6701 W www.mottmac.com
Leeds
LS10
1JR,
United
Kingdom
Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report
Contents
Chapter
Title
1.
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
General___________________________________________________________________________ 1
Sources of Information _______________________________________________________________ 2
Report Structure ____________________________________________________________________ 2
2.
General Description of the Site and Proposed Construction
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
Site Location & Description ___________________________________________________________

Site History & Land Use ______________________________________________________________
Geology __________________________________________________________________________
Hydrogeology ______________________________________________________________________
Hydrology _________________________________________________________________________
Mining ____________________________________________________________________________
Seismicity of the Area ________________________________________________________________
Contaminated Land & Pollution Incidents _________________________________________________
Other Relevant Information ___________________________________________________________
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
3.
General Offline Highway Works
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.8
3.8.1
3.8.2
3.8.3
3.8.4
3.9
Description ________________________________________________________________________ 8
Source Documents __________________________________________________________________ 8
Ground Conditions __________________________________________________________________ 8
Characteristic Parameters ___________________________________________________________ 11
Pavement Design __________________________________________________________________ 15
Concrete Classification ______________________________________________________________ 15
Contamination and Waste Implications _________________________________________________ 16
Contamination Testing ______________________________________________________________ 16
Waste Categorisation _______________________________________________________________ 17
Earthworks Assessment _____________________________________________________________ 18
Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane ______________________________________________________ 18
Chadwick Street ___________________________________________________________________ 18
Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road ____________________________________________ 19
Hunslet Road _____________________________________________________________________ 19
Gas Risk Assessment ______________________________________________________________ 19
4.
General Online Highway Works
21
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Description _______________________________________________________________________
Source Documents _________________________________________________________________
Ground Conditions _________________________________________________________________
Pavement Design __________________________________________________________________
Contamination and Waste Implications _________________________________________________
Earthworks Assessment _____________________________________________________________
21
21
21
21
21
22
5.
Balm Road Bridge
23
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Description _______________________________________________________________________
Source Documents _________________________________________________________________
Assumptions ______________________________________________________________________
23
23
23
23
312694/EST/YHE/RPT/040 September 2013

http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objid=1524740743&objAction=browse&sort=name
Page

5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.10.1
5.10.2
5.11
5.12
Characteristic Parameters ___________________________________________________________

Approach Embankments ____________________________________________________________
Approach Retaining Walls ___________________________________________________________
Foundations ______________________________________________________________________
Concrete Classification ______________________________________________________________
Contamination Testing ______________________________________________________________
Waste Categorisation _______________________________________________________________
Gas Risk Assessment ______________________________________________________________
24
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
6.
Belle Isle Route
32
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.6.1
6.6.1.1
6.6.1.2
6.6.2
6.6.2.1
6.6.2.2
Description _______________________________________________________________________
History __________________________________________________________________________
Geology _________________________________________________________________________
Coal Mining ______________________________________________________________________
Proven Ground Conditions ___________________________________________________________
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Assessment ________________________________________
Foundations ______________________________________________________________________
NGT Stops _______________________________________________________________________
Belle Isle Circus ___________________________________________________________________
Earthworks _______________________________________________________________________
Access Embankment into the Stourton Park & Ride Site ____________________________________
Off Street Parking and Bus Lay-bys ____________________________________________________
32
33
33
33
34
34
35
35
35
35
35
36
7.
Stourton Park and Ride
37
7.1
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.2.5
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5.1
7.5.2
7.5.2.1
7.5.2.2
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
Description _______________________________________________________________________
Topsoil __________________________________________________________________________
Opencast Backfill __________________________________________________________________
Weathered Coal Measures (Residual Soils) ______________________________________________
Lower Coal Measures Bedrock _______________________________________________________
Coal Seams ______________________________________________________________________
Mining ___________________________________________________________________________
Groundwater Conditions _____________________________________________________________
Foundations ______________________________________________________________________
Foundations on rock (Depot Building) __________________________________________________
Foundations on opencast backfill ______________________________________________________
Geotechnical data _________________________________________________________________
Amenity Building ___________________________________________________________________
Embankments ____________________________________________________________________
Depot Cutting _____________________________________________________________________
Depot Retaining Structure ___________________________________________________________
Settlement _______________________________________________________________________
Pavement Design __________________________________________________________________
Concrete Classification ______________________________________________________________
Drainage _________________________________________________________________________
Gas Risk Assessment ______________________________________________________________
37
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
8.
Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Assessment
45
9.
Recommendations for Further Work
51
10.
References
52


Appendices
Appendix A.
A.1.
A.2.
A.2.1.
A.2.2.
A.2.3.
A.2.4.
A.2.5.
A.3.
A.3.1.
Appendix B.
B.1.
B.2.
Appendix C.
53
Contamination and Waste Assessment Methodology ______________________________________

Scope of Testing __________________________________________________________________
Assessment Criteria ________________________________________________________________
Human Health ____________________________________________________________________
Leachate and Groundwater __________________________________________________________
Waste Categorisation _______________________________________________________________
Summary of Contamination Testing ____________________________________________________
CAT Waste Results ________________________________________________________________
Gas Monitoring Methodology _________________________________________________________
Site Characteristic hazardous gas flow rate ______________________________________________
Calculation Methodology ____________________________________________________________
Bearing Resistance Methodology ______________________________________________________
Slope Stability Methodology __________________________________________________________
Limitations _______________________________________________________________________
54
54
56
56
58
59
61
62
63
63
65
65
66
68
Figures
Figure 2.1:
Figure 6.1:
Route Overview ____________________________________________________________________ 3

Proposed Belle Isle Route ___________________________________________________________ 32
Tables
Table 2.1:
Table 3.1:
Table 3.2:
Table 3.3:
Table 3.4:
Table 3.5:
Table 3.6:
Table 3.7:
Table 3.8:
Table 3.9:
Table 3.10:
Table 3.11:
Table 3.12:
Table 3.13:
Table 3.14:
Table 3.15:
Table 3.16:
Table 4.1:
Table 5.1:
Table 5.2:
Table 5.3:
Table 5.4:
Table 5.5:
Table 5.6:
Table 5.7:
Table 5.8:
Table 5.9:
Table 6.1:
Table 6.2:
Table 7.1:
Table 7.2:
Table 7.3:
Table 8.1:
Table 8.2:
Table 8.3:
Description of the South Route _________________________________________________________ 4

Reference Drawings and Boreholes for General Offline Sections ______________________________ 9
General Ground Conditions for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane ______________________________ 9
General Ground Conditions for Chadwick Street __________________________________________ 10
General Ground Conditions for Carlisle Road to South Accommodation Road ___________________ 10
General Ground Conditions for Hunslet Road ____________________________________________ 11
Characteristic Parameters for Soils Encountered __________________________________________ 12
Characteristic Parameters for Lower Coal Measures _______________________________________ 14
CBR Correlation with Plasticity Index ___________________________________________________ 15
Sulphate and pH Values for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane _______________________________ 15
Sulphate and pH Values for Chadwick Street _____________________________________________ 15
Sulphate and pH Values for Carlisle Road to South Accomodation Road _______________________ 16
Preliminary Concrete Class for Offline Sections ___________________________________________ 16
Offline Sections Contamination Testing Summary _________________________________________ 16
Offline Sections Waste Acceptance Criteria Summary ______________________________________ 17
Preliminary Cut and Fill Volumes for Offline Sections- South Line _____________________________ 18
Offline Sections - Characteristic Gas Situation ____________________________________________ 20
Preliminary Cut and Fill Volumes for General Online Highways Works _________________________ 22
Summary of Ground Conditions _______________________________________________________ 24
Characteristic Parameters for River Terrace Deposits ______________________________________ 25
Characteristic Parameters for Lower Coal Measures _______________________________________ 26
Preliminary Slope Stability Analysis ____________________________________________________ 27
Applied Loads for the Pad Foundaiton and Bearing Resistance for granular River Terrace Deposits __ 28
Sulphate and pH Values for Balm Road Bridge ___________________________________________ 28
Railway Sidings Contamination Testing _________________________________________________ 29
Balm Road Bridge Waste Acceptance Criteria Summary ____________________________________ 30
Balm Road Bridge - Characteristic Gas Situation __________________________________________ 31
Route Description __________________________________________________________________ 32
Anticipated ground conditions between Balm Road Bridge and Winrose Grove __________________ 34
Groundwater Strikes Stourton Park & Ride ______________________________________________ 38
Groundwater Monitoring Data - Stourton Park & Ride ______________________________________ 39
Stourton Park & Ride - Characteristic Gas Situation _______________________________________ 43
Risk Level Matrix __________________________________________________________________ 45
Hazard Likelihood Index _____________________________________________________________ 45
Hazard Impact Index _______________________________________________________________ 46


Table 8.4:
Table A.1:
Table A.2:
Table A.3:
Table A.4:
Table A.5:
Table A.6:
Table A.7:
Table A.8:
Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Register _________________________________

Soil Testing Suite __________________________________________________________________
Leachate Extract from Soil testing suite _________________________________________________
Groundwater Testing Suite ___________________________________________________________
WAC Testing Suite _________________________________________________________________
Human Health Risk Assessment Soil Guideline Values _____________________________________
Leachate and Groundwater testing Assessment Guideline Values ____________________________
Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria for Granular Wastes ____________________________________
Characteristic Gas situation by site characteristic gas flow rate _______________________________
47
54
54
55
55
56
58
59
63
Charts
Chart 3.1:
Chart 3.2:
Chart 5-1:
Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone from borehole DS51 ___________________________ 13
Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Sandstone and Siltstone from borehole DS53A ______________ 14
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. Introduction
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.
[1]
Mott MacDonald Limited (MM) prepared a desk study for the South Line (236834/RPT14B) issued in July
28
2009 and Belle Isle (312694/RPT048) 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
[2]
Investigation Scoping Document 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 Engineers 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
[10]
March 2010 .
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
[3]
May 2010 as Report No. 236834/RPT52A and revised following Client comments and reissued in June
[4]
2013 as report 312694/RPT039A .
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

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:
6
236834/ RPT32A - 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:
[4]
Mott MacDonald, South Line Ground Investigation Report, Report No. 312694 RPT039, June 2013.
Norwest Holst - Report on a ground investigation at Stourton Park and Ride, Supertram, Report No.
[8]
F12433, 2002 ,
Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Hunslet Sidings, Report No.
[9]
F12800, November 2003 ,
Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Leeds New Generation
[10]
Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010 ;
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.
2
2. General Description of the Site and

Proposed Construction
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
3
Table 2.1:
Description of the South Route
Drawing Reference
Route Description
Engineering Proposals
312694/TD/030
312694/TD/031
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.
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
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.
312694/TD/032
312694/TD/033
312694/TD/037
NGT Stops
NGT Substation and Compounds
Earthworks
with
possibility
of
retaining structures at Balm Road.
NGT Stops
.
312694/TD/038
312694/TD/039
312694/TD/040
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.
312694/TD/041
312694/TD/042
312694/TD/043B
2.2
Runs along highways

Minor land take for bus laybys
Land take at Belle Isle Circus
NGT Stops
The route terminates at Stourton Park and

Ride.
Retaining structures and earthworks.

Car park facility. Tram Depot.
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.
[1]
236834/RPT14B .
th
It is apparent that the south line has largely been a highway since at least the mid to late 19 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
th
19 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
[1]
Report No. 236834/RPT14B .
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.
4
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
[11]
[12]
EA Groundwater Protection Policy (GP3) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 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.
[1]
236834/RPT14B .
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
[1]
Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No. 236834/RPT14B . 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
[13]
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 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.
5
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
[1]
refer to the South Line Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No. 236834/RPT14B 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.
6
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 offstreet sections.
The potential for the presence of contaminated material to be encountered which may require off-site
disposal or on site treatment.
7
3. General Offline Highway Works

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
[1]
Study, Report No. 236834/RPT13B, July 2009;
Mott MacDonald, Proposed Ground Investigation Scope, Technical Note No. 236834/TN28B, October
[2]
2009;
Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Ground Investigation Report - South Line, Report
[4]
No. 312694/RPT039,February 2013;
[10]
Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010;
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.
[10]
F15694 dated March 2010 and discussed in Mott MacDonald Ground Investigation Report (GIR) Report
[4]
No. 312694/RPT039B . Geological cross section drawings are also presented in the GIR. General ground
profiles are summarised in Tables 3.2 to 3.5 below.
8
Table 3.1:
Reference Drawings and Boreholes for General Offline Sections
Offline Section
Reference Boreholes
Geological
Cross
Section Drawings 6
Ground
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:
Condition
General Ground Conditions for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane
Stratum
Made Ground
Typical Description
Depth
Top
TARMACADAM.
to
Depth
Base
to
Top
of
Stratum
Base of
Stratum
(m bgl)
(m bgl)
(m AOD)
(m AOD)
0.0
2.5
GL
23.5
2.5
5.5
23.5
20.5
5.5
Not
Proven
20.5
Not
Proven
Dark brown fine to coarse sand of ash and

subangular to subrounded fine to coarse gravel
sized fragments of brick, sandstone, limestone and
slag.
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.
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.
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.
9
Table 3.3:
General Ground Conditions for Chadwick Street
Stratum
Typical Description
Made Ground
Depth
Top
Concrete.
to
Depth
Base
to
Top
of
Stratum
Base of
Stratum
(m bgl)
(m bgl)
(m AOD)
(m AOD)
0.0
2.0
GL
24.0
2.0
3.0
24.0
23.0
Brown sandy grey angular to subangular fine to

coarse gravel of brick, clinker, concrete, ash and
rare iron with low cobble content.
Alluvium
Soft dark grey brown mottled sandy organic SILT.

Greyish brown stained orange slightly clayey fine
to medium SAND.
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
Stratum
Made Ground
Typical Description
Depth
Top
Concrete.
to
Depth
Base
to
Top
of
Stratum
Base of
Stratum
(m bgl)
(m bgl)
(m AOD)
(m AOD)
0.0
1.5
GL
24.5
Black gravelly fine to coarse sand of ash with low

cobble content. Gravel sized fragments are
angular to subangular of clinker and brick.
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
River Terrace
Deposits
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).
10
Table 3.5:
General Ground Conditions for Hunslet Road
Stratum
Typical Description
Depth
Top
to
Depth
Base
to
Top
of
Stratum
Base of
Stratum
(m bgl)
(m bgl)
(m AOD)
(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
River Terrace
Deposits
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.
5.5
Not
Proven
21.5
Not
Proven
6.7
9.0
9.5
12.0
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.
Coal
Coal
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
[14]
BS8002:1994, Table 2 . 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 crit values in
[14]
BS8002:1994 to give a conservative friction angle. The estimated critical friction angle for River Terrace
[14]
Deposits has also been estimated from the description of the material and using BS8002:1994
as
follows:
crit () = A + B
(Equation 5-1)
Where A = angularity of the particles and B = grading of the sand/gravel
11
Table 3.6:
Characteristic Parameters for Soils Encountered
Material
Unit Weight,
(kN/m3)
Angle
of
Friction, crit ()
Undrained
Shear Strength,
cu (kPa)
Drained Youngs
Modulus,
E
(MPa)
Made Ground (Cohesive)
18 1
25 3
25 3
Made Ground (Granular)
19
Alluvium (Cohesive)
17 1
29 1
40 3
82
River Terrace Deposits (Granular)
21 1
32 2
Weathered Lower Coal Measures (Clay)
20
28
27
150
19 2
2/3
30 2
1. BS8002:1994.
2. SPTN 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)
12
Chart 3.1:
Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone from borehole DS51
25
Drift Deposits
Upper and Lower

Bound Values
Elevation (m AOD)
20
Mudstone
15
Value excluded as
deemed
unrepresentative
10
Characteristic
Value
40
50
Compressive Strength (MN/m )
Note 1: Extremely weak = <1MN/m

Source:
30
NWH Rock Testing, F15694
13
Strong
20
Medium
Strong
10
Weak
(see Note 1)
Very
Weak
5
60
Chart 3.2:
Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Sandstone and Siltstone from borehole DS53A
Characteristic
Values
25
Drift Deposits
Elevation (m AOD)
20
Sandstone
15
Lower and Upper

Bound Values
Siltstone
10
Lower and Upper

Bound Values
40
50
Compressive Strength (MN/m )

Source:
30
Strong
20
Medium
Strong
10
Weak
(See Note 1)
Very
Weak
5
60
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, (kN/m3)
Compressive Strength, Co
(MPa)
Young's
(MPa)
Sandstone
25 1/2
51
600 2
Siltstone
23 1/2
31
400 2
Mudstone
22
1/2
1/2
1. Laboratory Results;
2. Conservative parameter based on engineering judgement and sample description;
14
150 2
Modulus,

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)
CBR values may be adopted and are presented below in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8:
[15]
, the following preliminary
CBR Correlation with Plasticity Index
Material
Characteristic Plasticity Index (%)
Correlated CBR Value (%)

Ref. IAN73/06 30
Made Ground
14
2.5*
Alluvium
20
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

Hole ID
Depth (m bgl)
SO4 (mg/l)
pH
WSS41
0.5
130
9.2
TPS42
0.5
200
10.1
TPS43
1.4
470
9.3
TPS44
1.0
120
9.2
15
Source:
Table 3.11: Sulphate and pH Values for Carlisle Road to South Accomodation Road
Hole ID
Depth (m bgl)
SO4 (mg/l)
pH
WSS47
1.0
200
9.5
WSS48
1.0
90
9.0
WSS49
1.0
85
8.7
Source:

[16]
The buried concrete design has been evaluated using the BRE Special Digest 1 (2005) . 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
Soil
Former Tetleys
Brewery
Car
Park
WSS38
WSS39
No exceedences of
SGVs or GACs for
metals or inorganic
compounds
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.
WSS40
Elevated levels of TPH

exceeding 1000 mg/kg
however.
Speciated
Extract
16
from
Groundwater Testing
No Testing
Route Section
Exploratory
Holes
Soil
Leachate
Soil
Extract
from
Groundwater Testing
testing did not exceed

GACs
Chadwick Street
WS41
TPS42
TPS43
No exceedences of
SGVs or GACs for any
contaminant
No Testing
No Testing
Elevated levels of TPH

and PAH exceeding
1000mg/kg in WSS48
only. Speciated testing
indicated
elevated
levels of Dibenzo (ah)
anthracene, Benzo-apyrene. Elevated levels
of Arsenic exceeding
SGVs or GACs.
Concentrations of majority
of contaminants fell below
EGS and UK DWS values.
No Testing
No testing
No Testing
TPS44
Carlisle Road to
South
Accommodation
Road
WSS45
Hunslet Road
WSS50
WSS46
WSS47
WSS48
WSS49
Slightly elevated levels of

pH between 9.9 exceeding
the EQS of 9.
Elevated level of copper at
140
g/l
in
WSS47
exceeding EQS
Concentrations of majority
EQS and UK DWS values
DS51
DS53A
WSS54
Elevated level of selenium

at 20 g/l in DS53A
exceeding EQS of 10 g/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 CATSOIL
WASTE ; 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
Route Section
Exploratory
Holes
CAT Waste Assessment
WAC Testing
Waterloo Street
to Bowman Lane
WSS38
WSS38 Hazardous Waste (Heavy

Fuel Oil)
WSS38 - Hazardous Waste (Total TPH, pH)
Chadwick Street
WS41
Non-hazardous Waste
TPS42 Total Organic Carbon content too

high for an inert landfill
WSS39
WSS40
TPS42
TPS43
TPS43 Hazardous Waste (Total PAH,)

TPS44 Inert Waste
TPS44
Carlisle Road to
South
Accommodation
Road
WSS45
WSS46
WSS47
WSS48
WSS49
Hunslet Road
WSS50
WSS39 Hazardous Waste

(pH)
WSS45 & WSS49 Non-hazardous

WSS48 Hazardous Waste (Benzo-apyrene 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,)
WSS50 Hazardous Waste (Total PAH)
WSS54 Total Organic Carbon content too

high for inert landfill
DS51
DS53A
WSS54
17


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
Waterloo Street
Bowman Lane
to
Chadwick Street
Carlisle Road
South
Accommodation
Road
Hunslet Road
to
Drawing Reference
Fill
Volume m3
(With
Capping)
Cut
Volume,
m3
Likely Material and Description
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.
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.
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.
18
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.
19
Table 3.16: Offline Sections - Characteristic Gas Situation

Route Section
Exploratory
Holes
Gas Concentration
Gas
Rate
(% v/v)
(l/hr)
Former Tetleys
Brewery
Car
Park
WSS38
Carbon Dioxide
0.1
0.1
Methane <0.1
WSS40
Carbon Dioxide
Site
hazardous
gas
flow
(l/hr)
Characteristic Situation
0.0001
1 Very Low Risk
(CIRIA C665
[18]
)
[17]
, BS8485
0.0001
0.1
0.1
Methane <0.1
Carbon Dioxide
Flow
0.0001
1 Very Low Risk
0.0001
0.1
0.1
WS41
Carlisle Road to
South
Accommodation
Road
WSS45
0.2
0.1
WSS47
Carbon Dioxide
Methane <0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0002
0.0001
1 Very Low Risk
Hunslet Road
WSS50
Carbon Dioxide
0.2
0.1
0.0002
1 Very Low Risk
Methane <0.1
Carbon Dioxide
0.0001
Methane <0.1
Carbon Dioxide
0.0002
1 Very Low Risk
0.0001
Methane <0.1
DS53A
0.0001
1 Very Low Risk
Chadwick Street
0.0001
0.2
-0.1
Methane <0.1
-0.0002
1 Very Low Risk
0.0001
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.
20
4. General Online Highway Works

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
[19]
counted as an online section requiring capping. These areas are outlined in MM Report 236834/RPT21 .
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.
4.2
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
1
Study, Report No. 236834/RPT14B, July 2009.
29
Mott MacDonald, NGT, Design Freeze Seven, South Line Drawings, June 2013, P2 ;
4.3
Ground Conditions
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
1
of the South Line is presented in the Desk Study Report . 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
[20]
sections of the scheme are comparable with Geotechnical Category 1, as defined in BS EN 1997-1:2004
as limited black top resurfacing works are anticipated with minor areas of carriage widening and junction
realignment.
4.5
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.
21
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.
4.6
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
to
236834-S-BASE-001
332
Made Ground: Tarmacadam, existing road

formation materials.
Whitfield Avenue to
Church Street
236834-S-BASE-006,
236834-S-BASE-007
1110
2250

Church Road
Balm Road
236834-S-BASE-007
On Hold*
Bridge
End
Hunslet Road
to

*The design along this section is currently on hold and as such no cut and fill volumes have been calculated for this section.
22
5. Balm Road Bridge

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
[6]
discussed in Mott MacDonald Report No. 236834/RPT32 .
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.
5.2
Source Documents
The following documents should be referred to in conjunction with this section:

Mott MacDonald, Leeds New Generation Transport, Ground Investigation Report - South Line, Report
[4]
5.3
No. 312694/RPT039, February 2013 ;

Norwest Holst Soil Engineering, Report on a Ground Investigation for Hunslet Sidings, Report No.
[9]
F12800, November 2003 ;
[10]
Transport, Report No. F15694, March 2010 ;
Mott MacDonald, NGT Route Development, Balm Road Bridge High Level Feasibility Report, Report
[6]
No. 236834/RPT32, November 2009, Rev A ;
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;
5.4
Ground Conditions
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
[9]
this investigation are presented in Norwest Holst Soil Engineering Factual Report Nos F12800 and
[10]
[4]
F15694 and discussed in Mott MacDonald Ground Investigation Report (GIR) . Geological cross section
23

[4]
drawings are also presented in GIR No. 312694/RPT039 . 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
Stratum
Typical Description
Depth
Top
to
Depth
Base
to
Top
of
Stratum
Base of
Stratum
(m bgl)
(m bgl)
(m AOD)
(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
River Terrace
Deposits
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
Weak
to
medium
strong
SILTSTONE.
Discontinuities are very closely to closely spaced
undulating rough locally clay smeared.
~9.0
Not
Proven
~21.0
Not
Proven
Lower
Coal
Measures
Siltstone
Mudstone
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.
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
[21]
former coal mining at less than 30m bgl as indicated in BGS Technical Report WA/92/1
and the MM
[1]
Desk Study Report .
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
[10]
[9]
test results (NHSE Ltd Report No. F15694 and F12800 ). 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
[14]
Indices ranging between 12% and 28% were compared to crit values in BS8002:1994
to give a
moderately conservative friction angle (Table 5.2).
24
No testing data was available to give site specific unit weights of the material; therefore, based on the soil
3
description, a unit weight of 18kN/m has been used to represent typical firm clay for the cohesive River
Terrace Deposits with the corresponding undrained shear strength (c u) of 40kPa.
The description for granular River Terrace Deposit has been compared to unit weights provided in
[4]
BS8002:1994, Table 2 . 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:
crit () = 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 SPTN values
ranging between 12 and 28 with one N value of 45 recorded. Correlating SPTN values with friction angles
after Barnes gave friction angles between 31 and 36.
th
However, in comparison to the SPTN correlation, the more conservative lower 5 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

Angle of Friction,
crit ()
Undrained Shear
Strength, cu (kPa)
Drained Youngs
Modulus,
E
(MPa)
18 2
27 1/2
40 1
93
20 2
31 1/2
19 3
Material
Unit Weight,
(kN/m3)
River Terrace Deposits (Cohesive)

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 I s(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.
25
Chart 5-1:
Compressive Strength vs. Depth for Mudstone and Siltstone
Made Ground
River Terrace Deposits (Cohesive)
25.00
Lower and Upper

River Terrace Deposits
Elevation (m AOD)
Bound Values
20.00
Siltstone
15.00
Mudstone
Siltstone
10.00
Lower and Upper
30
40
Compressive Strength, MN/m

Source:
20
Medium
Strong
10
Weak
(see Note 1)
Very Weak
Bound Values
5.00
50
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, (kN/m3)
Compressive Strength, Co
(MPa)
Young's
(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.
26
Modulus,

5.6
Approach Embankments
The approach embankments to the replacement bridge will be constructed using assuming either granular
[20]
or cohesive fill to achieve a safe slope angles in accordance with BS EN1997-1 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
27
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
0
be 1049kPa (Combination 1) and 709kPa (Combination 2), for a 14m by 7m footing on Gravel with =31 .
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
Abutment
Combination 2
Bearing
Resistance
(kN/m2)
Applied
Load (kN)
Applied
Pressure
(kN/m2)
Bearing
Resistance
(kN/m2)
Applied
Load (kN)
Applied
Pressure
(kN/m2)
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.
5.9
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
Hole ID
Depth (m bgl)
SO4 (mg/l)
pH
CRS60
1.2
1500
8.5
CRS60
4.0
710
8.3
CRS60
5.8
99
8.7
CRS60
9.7
250
8.7
28
Hole ID
Depth (m bgl)
SO4 (mg/l)
pH
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
Source:

[16]
The buried concrete design has been evaluated using the BRE Special Digest 1 (2005) . 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
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
Route Section
Exploratory
Holes
Soil
Leachate Extract from Soil
Groundwater
Testing
Balm
Road
Bridge
to
Wakefield Road
Bridge
CRS60
WSS55A
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.
All
concentrations
of
EQS and UK DWS values
All concentrations of
contaminants
fell
below EQS and UK
DWS values
WSS63
DS59
DS64
DS66
HSBH3
HSBH6
HSBH7
HSBH8
HSBH10
Elevated levels of Total PAH at

3600
mg/kg
in
WSS55A,
speciated
testing
indicates
elevated Benzo-a-pyrene.
HSBH12
HSTP1
HSTP3
HSTP5
29
Route Section
Exploratory
Holes
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 CATSOIL
WASTE ; 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
HSBH8
CRS60 Hazardous Waste (heavy fuel oil)
WSS55
A
HSBH10
HSBH12
WSS55A - Hazardous Waste

pyrene and heavy fuel oil)
WSS63
DS59
HSTP1
HSTP3
DS64
DS66
HSTP5
HSTP7
WSS 63 - Hazardous Waste (heavy fuel oil)

Hunslet Sidings exploratory holes - Non
Hazardous Waste
HSBH3
HSBH6
HSTP9
(Benzo-a-
WSS56 - Hazardous
Waste (Total TPH, Total
PAH, TOC, Loss on
Ignition)
HSBH7
5.11
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.
30
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.
5.12
Gas Risk Assessment
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
Gas Flow Rate
(% v/v)
WSS55A
Carbon Dioxide
0.4
(l/hr)
Site
hazardous
gas flow (l/hr)
-0.1
0.0004
1 Very Low Risk
Methane <0.1
DS59
Carbon Dioxide
(CIRIA C665 [17], BS8485 [18])
0.0001
1.9
0.1
0.0019
Methane <0.1
1 Very Low Risk
0.0001
DS64
Carbon Dioxide
Methane <0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0001
0.0001
1 Very Low Risk
DS66
Carbon Dioxide
0.2
0.1
0.0002
1 Very Low Risk
Methane <0.1
0.0001
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.
31
6. Belle Isle Route

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:
Source:
Proposed Belle Isle Route
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
Drawing Reference
Route Description
312694/TD/037
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.
312694/TD/038
Moor Road NGT Stops
32
Drawing Reference
Route Description
Woodhouse Hill Road.
Some widening of the highway at Telford
Gardens
NGT substation and compound
312694/TD/039
312694/TD/040
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.
The route continues south along Belle Isle Road
Existing gap in central reserve closed and

East Grange Road exit made left-turn only.
1.5m Inbound and outbound cycle lanes.

NGT substation and compound (set into
embankment
requiring retaining wall on
M621 side)
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
312694/TD/042
312694/TD/043
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
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.
Belle Isle Circus NGT Stop
Middleton Road NGT Stop located on high

level plaza level
Embankments taking the route from existing
road level into Stourton Park and Ride
[28]
A desk study Report 312694/RPT048A

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
33
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.
Typical Depth
to Top (m)
Typical
Depth
to
Base (m)
Made Ground
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
5.5
unproven
weak to very weak, moderately

weathered
0.0
0.5
Firm stony clay, with presence of

Ash
0.5
Firm, brown, stony and sandy.
Thornhill Rock
Weathered grey/brown
Siltstone
25.25
Completely
weathered,
highly
fractured, sandy with bands of
mudstone
Shaley Coal R2 only)
22.35
22.45
Shaley coal
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
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
Stratum
Typical description
Balm Road to M621
TD/037 to
TD/039
GEO/046
Weathered
Mudstone
M621 to Belle Isle Circus

Made Ground
TD/039 to
TD/041
GEO/046
to
/GEO/047
Weathered
Rock
Thornhill
Belle Isle Circus
TD/041
GEO/047
Winrose Grove
TD/042
6.6
GEO/047
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
34
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
35
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.
13
A ground investigation was carried out for Supertram in 2002 and an additional ground investigation was
12
carried out for NGT in 2010 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.
36
7. Stourton Park and Ride

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.
7.2
Ground Conditions
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.
37

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
1
Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report No. 236834/RPT14B which confirms that the site is
located within the boundary of an opencast site from which coal has been removed by opencast methods.
13
In September 2010 the Coal Authority published a Coal Mining Development Referral Areas plan 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
20.62
SPRBH01
29.62
Coal
13.5
16.12
SPRBH02
28.46
24.66
57.55
Weathered
Mudstone
3.8
SPRTP21
54.55
SPRTP26
39.07
RO77
34.63
RO78
39.26
SPRBH04
29.41
SPRBH06
30.50
SPRBH07
SPRBH08
3.1
35.97
Interface
between
opencast
pit/natural
ground
10.9
33.73
11.4
27.86
Opencast
Backfill (Made
Ground)
3.4
26.01
3.4
27.10
28.53
2.8
25.73
49.14
1.9
47.24
SPRBH09
36.61
7.8
28.81
SPRTP04
34.25
2.5
31.75
38
Hole ID
Hole elevation
(mAOD)
Stratum
Depth of Water
Strike (m)
SPRTP07
SPRTP27
Depth of Water
Strike (m AOD)
2.5
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
Hole ID
Hole elevation
(mAOD)
Response
Zone (m bgl)
SPRBH02
28.46
1.0 5.0
SPRBH15
58.68
1.0 5.0
SPRBH04
29.41
1.0 6.0
SPRBH06
30.50
1.0 7.7
SPRBH08
49.14
RO76
34.63
Stratum
Weathered Mudstone
Range
Depths
Monitored
Water (m)
of
of
Depth
Monitored
Water
AOD)
4.28*
24.18
4.28*
54.40
1.71*
27.70
2.49*
28.01
1.0 6.9
NR*
1.0 9.5
0.4 -1.37**
34.23 - 33.26
Opencast
Backfill
(Made Ground)
of
(m
*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
1.67
uppermost bedrock can be estimated from the relationship UCS (kPa) = 0.6154N
proposed by Turner
25
and Grose (Tunnel Construction & Piling, 1999) . 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
2
250kN/m is appropriate, after BS EN1997-1 Annex G. Additional Ground Investigation would be required
in order to consider a higher allowable bearing pressure.
39

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
0
from tan (27 )/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
40
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
26
Revision 1 Design Guidance for Road Pavement Foundations (Draft HD25) , 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.
41
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.
7.11
9
Samples of the opencast backfill were taken during the 2002 ground investigation , and therefore the
testing was carried out in accordance with BRE Concrete in Aggressive Ground Special Digest 1:2001. On
16
that basis some of the results have been adjusted to enable comparison with the current BRE SD1:2005
rd
Concrete in Aggressive Ground 3 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.
7.13
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
SOIL
using Waste Acceptance Criteria testing or CAT Waste
. 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.
SOIL
Analysis of the 2002 contamination testing data in CAT Waste

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.
7.14
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.
42
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.
7.15
Gas Risk Assessment
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:
Exploratory
Holes
Stourton Park & Ride - Characteristic Gas Situation

Gas Concentration
(% v/v)
Gas
Rate
(l/hr)
RO76
Carbon Dioxide
Methane <0.1
8.4
0.1
Flow
Site
hazardous
gas
flow
(l/hr)
0.0084
2 - Low Risk (0.07,<0.7)
(CIRIA C665 17, BS8485 18)
0.0001
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.
43
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.
44
8. Preliminary Geotechnical and

Contamination Risk Assessment
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.
[27]
The risk register has been based upon the methods defined in HD22/02 . 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
LIKELIHOOD
IMPACT
Table 8.2:
VL
VH
VL
VL
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
Hazard Likelihood Index
LIKELIHOOD
PROBABILITY
VL
Negligible / Improbable
<1%
Unlikely / Remote
>1%
Likely / Possible
>10%
Probable
>50%
VH
Very likely / Almost certain
>90%
45
Table 8.3:
Hazard Impact Index
Impact
VL
Very Low
Low
Cost
Time
Reputation
Health
Safety
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible effect on
programme
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Significant
1% budget
5%
effect
programme
on
Minor effect on local company

image. .business relationship
mildly affected
Minor injury
Minor environmental
incident
Serious
10%budget
12%
effect
programme
on
Local media exposure /

business relationship affected
Major injury
Environmental
incident
requiring
management input
Threat to future work

and client relations
20% budget
25%
effect
programme
on
Nationwide media exposure/

business relationship greatly
affected
Fatality
Environmental
incident leading to
prosecution
or
protestor action
Multiple fatalities
Major environmental
incident
with
irreversible
effects
and threat to public
health or protected
natural resource
Medium
High
VH
and
Very High
Threat to business
survival and credibility
50% budget
50%
effect
programme
46
on
Permanent nationwide effect

on
company
image
/
significant impact on business
relation ship
Environment
Table 8.4:
Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Register
VL
VL
VL
VL
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
SVGs and GACs 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.
VL
VL
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.
VL
VL
Coal
seams
should
be
excavated and replaced with
mass concrete to limit the
penetrations of air and reduce
risk of combustion.
Increased cost of disposal if

excess
black
top
and
aggregate
from
the
resurfacing
works
is
unsuitable for re-use in other
schemes.
VL
VL
VL
Wherever possible re-use

materials. Assessment will be
required
to
determine
suitability.
H&S
Reputation
Cost
Likelihood
H&S
Environment
Made Ground may not be

suitable sub-grade material.
Subsequent
rutting
and
pavement deterioration and
maintenance costs.
Programme
Construction
of
offline
sections within a sub-grade of
Made Ground.
Environment
Risk
Reputation
Impact
Programme
Consequence
Cost
Threat
Risk Control Measures

Actions to Mitigate
Offline Sections
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.
47
Encountering coal seams

whilst
constructing
the
foundation for the retaining
walls
and
approach
embankments.

Coal
Authority
licensing
VL
VL
VL
Coal
seams
should
be
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.
VL
VL
VL
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
SVGs and GACs 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.
VL
VL
Limit the amount of material to

be disposed of at a licensed
waste facility by utilising
ground
improvement
techniques where possible.
H&S
Reputation
Cost
Likelihood
H&S
Environment
Voids, if present, may migrate

upwards as loads are applied
during
the
construction
phase. The voids may
undermine
the
pad
foundations
and
cause
collapse.
Programme
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.
Environment
Risk
Reputation
Impact
Programme
Consequence
Cost
Threat

Actions to Mitigate
Balm Road Bridge

L
VL
VL
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.
48
illness
Environment
H&S
Reputation
Programme
Cost
Likelihood
Environment
H&S
Possible
contaminant
pathways.
Risk
Reputation
Health and Safety of workers

during the construction of the
foundations of the bridge due
to
the
presence
of
contaminants.
Impact
Programme
Consequence
Cost
Threat

Actions to Mitigate
via
transport
VL
VL
Appropriate working practices

should be employed in order
to reduce direct contact with
Made Ground. All employees
to wear appropriate PPE.
ground
Aggressive ground conditions

may
be
encountered.
Sulphate attack on concrete
may result in long term
failure.
VL
VL
VL
VL
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.
Review of existing ground

investigation information.
Construction of slopes.
Possibility of slope failure on

site.
VL
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.
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.
VL
VL
VL
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.
Stourton Park and Ride

Aggressive
conditions.
49
VL
VL
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
during construction.

Coal
Authority
licensing
VL
VL
VL
Coal
seams
should
be
risk of combustion.
H&S
Reputation
Cost
Likelihood
H&S
50

Environment
Programme
Excavations may encounter

perched water within the
open cast backfill.
Environment
Groundwater regime not fully

defined within the site.
seams
Risk
Reputation
Impact
Programme
Consequence
Cost
Threat

Actions to Mitigate
9. Recommendations for Further Work

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.
51
10. References
[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 19971:2004, 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
52
Appendices
Appendix A.
Contamination and Waste Assessment Methodology
54
Appendix B.
Calculation Methodology
65
Appendix C.
Limitations
68
53
Appendix A. Contamination and Waste

Assessment Methodology
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 / nonmetal

Elements
Organic Compounds
Inorganic
Compounds
and Others
Barium
Arsenic
Boron
Selenium
TPH CWG (aliphatic /

aromatic split with CWG
banding by GCMS)
pH
Beryllium
Cadmium
PAH (Speciated by GCMS)

VOCs including BTEX
Phenols
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Asbestos Screen
Water Soluble Sulphate
Total Sulphur
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
The suite of contaminants tested for leachate extract from soil included:
Table A.2:
Leachate Extract from Soil testing suite
Metallic Elements

Elements
Organic Compounds
Inorganic Compounds and

Others
Cadmium
Chromium
Arsenic
Selenium
pH
Sulphate
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
54
The suite of contamination testing for groundwater included;

Table A.3:
Groundwater Testing Suite
Metallic Elements

Elements
Organic Compounds
Inorganic Compounds and

Others
Beryllium
Barium
Arsenic
Selenium
pH
Sulphate
Cadmium
Chromium
Boron
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Vanadium
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
Semi-metal / nonmetal Elements
( 10: 1 Leachate)
( 10: 1 Leachate)
Barium
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Arsenic
Selenium
Boron
Organic
Compounds
Inorganic and Other
Solid Testing
Phenol Index
pH
Total Organic Carbon
Sulphate
Chloride
Fluoride
Loss on Ignition
BTEX
PCBs (7 congeners)
( 10: 1 Leachate)
Lead
Magnesium
Total
Solids
Mercury
Molybdenum
Dissolved
content
Dissolved
Organic
PAH Speciated (17)

pH
Acid
Capacity
Neutralisation
TPH Total WAC
Nickel
Zinc
Vanadium
55
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
nd
Assessment (2 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
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
51
291
10
3000
420
192000
230
30400
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Elemental Mercury (Hg)
Inorganic Mercury (Hg2+)
4.3
2330
1
170
35
71700
26
3600
Methyl Mercury (Hg+)

Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
11
130
350
75
410
1800
13000
3160
Zinc
Lead
o-xylene
m-xylene
3750
450
250
240
665000
750
2600
3500
p-xylene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Benzene
230
350
610
0.33
Aliphatic EC 5-6
Aliphatic EC >6-8
110
370
3200
2800
4400
95
13000
(1150)
42000 (736)
55
160
6200 (558)
18000 (322)
30
73
3400 (304)
8300 (144)
Aliphatic EC >8-10
Aliphatic EC >10-12
Aliphatic EC >12-16
110
540 (283)
3000 (142)
12000 (451)
49000 (283)
91000 (142
46
230 (118)
1700 (59)
5100 (190)
24000 (118)
83000 (59)
19
93 (48)
740 (24)
2100 (78)
10000 (48)
61000 (24)
56

CLEA Guidelines
LQM CIEH
CL:AIRE
6% SOM
2.5% SOM
1% SOM
Contaminant
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Aliphatic EC >16-35
76000
1800000
64000 (21)
1800000
45000 (8.48)
1600000
Aliphatic EC >35-44
76000
64000 (21)
280
65
1600000
28000
(1220)
Aromatic EC >7-8 (toluene)
611
270
1800000
49000
(2260)
110000
(1920)
45000 (8.48)
Aromatic EC 5-7 (benzene)
120
59000 (869)
Aromatic EC >8-10
151
65
8600 (1500)
27
3700 (613)
Aromatic EC >10-12
Aromatic EC >12-16
346
593
1800000
90000
(4710)
190000
(4360)
18000
(3580)
34500
(2150)
37800
160
310
29000 (899)
37000
69
140
17000 (364)
36000 (169)
Aromatic EC >16-21
Aromatic EC >21-35
Aromatic EC >35-44
Aliphatic + Aromatic EC >4470
Acenaphthene
770
1230
1230
28000
28000
28000
480
1100
1100
28000
28000
28000
250
890
890
28000
28000
28000
1300
1000
28000
100000
1300
480
28000
98000 (141)
1200
210
28000
85000 (57)
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
850
9200
5.9
1
100000
540000
97
14
400
4900
4.7
0.94
97000 (212)
540000
95
14
170
2300
3.1
0.83
84000 (86)
530000
90
14
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[ghi]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Chrysene
7
47
10
9.3
100
660
140
140
6.5
46
9.6
8
100
660
140
140
5.6
44
8.5
6
100
650
140
140
Dibenz[ah]anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno[123-cd]pyrene
0.9
670
780
4.2
13
23000
71000
62
0.86
460
380
3.9
13
23000
69000
61
0.76
260
160
3.2
13
23000
64000 (31)
60
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2-Dichloroethane
8.7
380
1600
0.014
1100 (432)
23000
54000
1.8
3.7
200
1000
0.008
480 (183)
22000
54000
1
1.5
92
560
0.0054
200 (76)
22000
54000
0.71
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
28
6.3
4.8
4.8
3100
1200
590
660
13
2.9
2.1
2.1
1400
580
260
290
6.2
1.4
0.9
0.94
700
290
120
130
0.089
0.49
15
55
0.039
0.22
6.6
25
0.018
0.11
3
12
2.7
370
1.3
190
0.75
110
0.00099
8
16
0.12
1100
6400
0.00064
3.7
7.4
0.081
1000
6400
0.00047
1.6
3.5
0.063
1000
6400
HMX
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Atrazine
26
2.1
2.2
1.3
110000
54
92
880
13
2
1.4
0.56
110000
54
91
880
5.7
1.7
0.69
0.24
110000
54
90
870
Dichlorvos
Alpha-Endosulfan
1.3
16
893
3390
0.6
7
872
2990 (0.007)
0.29
2.9
842
2310 (0.003)
Tetrachloromethane
(aka
carbon tetrachloride)
Trichloroethene
Trichloromethane
(aka
chloroform)
Chloroethene
(aka
vinyl
chloride)
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
RDX
130
57

CLEA Guidelines
LQM CIEH
CL:AIRE
6% SOM
2.5% SOM
Contaminant
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Beta-Endosulfan
AlphaHexachlorocyclohexanes
(including Lindane)
BetaHexachlorocyclohexanes
(including Lindane)
GammaHexachlorocyclohexanes
(including Lindane)
Chlorobenzene
15
3480
100
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
91
1.7
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
1% SOM
Residential
6.6
Commercial
3160
(0.0002)
2.8
Commercial
2580
(0.00007)
14900
46
14600
19
14000
8.5
1130
3.9
1130
1.7
1120
3
1.7
1.4
0.73
546
130
0.58
0.33
532
59
39
0.7
5100 (1370)
77
16
0.29
2100 (571)
32
167
552
310
12000
(3240)
180
22000
(1280)
72
10000 (540)
30
4500 (224)
6.1
11
1.3
62
620
1300
140
4500 (728)
2.6
4.5
0.57
29
270
560
57.8
3200 (304)
1
1.8
0.23
12
110
230
24
1800 (122)
Pentachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
2.8
1.4
17
1.4
250 (235)
97
830
55
1.2
0.68
10
1 (0.5)
120 (98.1)
73 (49.1)
770 (107)
53
0.49
0.3
5.2
0.59 (0.20)
52 (39.4)
44 (19.7)
650 (43)
48 (0.20)
Phenol
Chlorophenols
pentachlorophenol)
420
3200
4.4
4200
4000
0.87
3500
2.96
0.44
1.2
1400
50
120
1.3
0.2
0.51
1300
23
69
0.55
0.1
0.21
1200
12
32
(except
Pentachlorophenol
Carbon disulphide
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
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
pH
Sulphate as SO4 (mg/l)
EQS
Freshwater
UK DWQS
(g/l)
6-9
Dissolved Boron
400,000
-
Dissolved Arsenic
Dissolved Cadmium
Dissolved Chromium
Dissolved Lead
50
5
5 - 250
4 - 250
(g/l)
6.5 - 10.0
2000
58

Contaminant
EQS
Freshwater
UK DWQS
Dissolved Mercury
Dissolved Selenium
Dissolved Copper
Dissolved Nickel
Dissolved Zinc
1 - 28
5 - 200
8 - 500
10
-
Dissolved Iron
Vanadium
Phenols Monohydric
1000
20 - 60
-
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
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
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total
PAH
(sum
Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene)
A.2.3.
of
0.01
-
10
0.1
&
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 nonhazardous landfill
Hazardous
Landfill
Total Organic Carbon (%)
6*
Loss on Ignition (%)
10*
Sum of BTEX (mg/kg)
Sum of 7 PCBs (mg/kg)
Mineral Oil (mg/kg)
500
PAH Sum of 17 (mg/kg)**
100
pH
>6
Solid Waste Analysis
Limit Values for Compliance leachate testing using BS EN124573 at L/S 101kg
Arsenic
0.5
25
Barium
20
100
300
59
waste

Landfill Waste Acceptance Criteria Limits
Contaminant
Inert Waste Landfill
Stable
Non-reactive
hazardous waste in nonhazardous landfill
Hazardous
Landfill
Cadmium
0.04
Chromium
0.5
10
70
Copper
50
100
Mercury
0.01
0.2
Molybdenum
0.5
10
30
Nickel
0.4
10
40
Lead
0.5
10
50
Antimony
0.06
0.7
Selenium
0.1
0.5
Zinc
50
200
Chloride
800
15000
25000
Fluoride
10
150
500
Sulphate as SO4
1000#
20000
50000
Total Dissolved Solids
4000
60000
100000
Phenols
500
800
1000
Dissolved Organic Carbon
waste
* 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.

SOIL
In addition to the above WAC testing MM have used Atkins and McArdle group, CAT-WASTE
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 webbased 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.
60
A.2.4.
Summary of Contamination Testing
61
South Line Groundwater Test Results

EQS
EQS
EQS
Project ID
Zinc
Vanadium Sulphate as SO4
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) Water
Water
Water
Lower Limit
8
20
400
Upper Limit
50
60
400
Hole ID
Depth
UNITS
g/l
g/l
mg/l
Wakefield Road CRS71
9.7
7.3 <1
120
Hunslet Rd
DS53A
2.94
6.6 <1
90
Balm Road
DS59
2.23
25 <1
650
Bridge
DS64
1.77
14
1.8
370
Hunslet Sidings DS66
1.82
27
1.3
200
Stourton P&R RO76
1.37
49 <1
190
DWQS
Selenium
Water
10
10
g/l
1.8
20
5.4
4.1
5.7
2.1
Pyrene
Phenanthrene
Water (Organic) Water (Organic)
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
EQS
pH
Water
6
9
g/l
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.3
6.5
6.1
* Sum of benzo (b) flouranthene, benzo(k)flouranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene and Indeno (123 cd)pyrene
DWQS
Total PAH*
Water
0.1
0.1
g/l
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Total (of 16) PAHs
Water (Organic)
g/l
<0.2
<0.2
1.4
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
EQS
Nickel
Water
50
200
g/l
EQS
Naphthalene
Water (Organic)
10
10
g/l
13 <0.01
8.5 <0.01
11
1.4
5 <0.01
9.9 <0.01
46 <0.01
Magnesium
Water
mg/l
27
150
68
27
42
25

Lead
Project ID
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) Water
Lower Limit
4
20
Upper Limit
Hole ID
Depth
UNITS
g/l
9.7
<1
Hunslet Rd
DS53A
2.94
<1
Balm Road
DS59
2.23
<1
Bridge
DS64
1.77
<1
1.82
<1
Stourton P&R RO76
1.37
<1
Indeno (1,2,3 - cd) pyrene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
EQS
Copper
Water
1
28
g/l
Dibenzo (ah) anthracene
Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water (Organic)
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<1
EQS
Chromium
Water (Organic)
Water
5
50
g/l
g/l
1.1 <0.01
<1
3.8 <0.01
9.1
1.3 <0.01
8.6
2 <0.01
7
2.4 <0.01
5.5
<0.01
<1
Chrysene
EQS
Cadmium
Water
5
5
g/l
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
0.09
Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzo (ghi) perylene Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Water (Organic) Water (Organic) Water (Organic)
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01

DWQS
Project ID
Benzo (a) pyrene
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT)
Water (Organic)
Lower Limit
0.01
0.01
Upper Limit
Hole ID
Depth
UNITS
g/l
9.7
<0.01
Hunslet Rd
DS53A
2.94
<0.01
Balm Road
DS59
2.23
<0.01
Bridge
DS64
1.77
<0.01
1.82
<0.01
Stourton P&R RO76
1.37
<0.01
Benzo (a) anthracene
Water (Organic)
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Beryllium
Water
Barium
Water
g/l
g/l
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
EQS
Boron
Water
1000
1000
g/l
38 <20
65
45
58
34
25
EQS
Arsenic
Water
50
50
g/l
<1
320
330
180
35
45 <1
4.3
2.4
2.4
1.6
Anthanthrene Acenaphthylene
Water (Organic) Water (Organic)
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
g/l
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
South Line Soil Test Results
LQM
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
Hole ID
TPS42
TPS43
Zinc
Vanadium
Solid (Acid
extract)
3750
665000
Solid (Acid
extract)
75
3160
Total
petroleum
hydrocarbons Thiocyanate
Selenium
Solid (Acid
extract)
350
13000
1000
1000
pH
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
0
0
Phenol
(Total)
Lead
0
0
Solid (Acid
extract)
450
750
Total PCB
PAH total
Nickel
1000
1000
Solid (Acid
extract)
130
18000
Indeno (1,2,3 cd) pyrene
Mercury
4.2
62
Solid (Acid
extract)
170
3600
Depth
3.5
2.5
120
54
25
12
<10
<10
0.59
<0.2
7.7
8.1
<0.3
<0.3
30
29
<2
<2
38
18
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.21
TPS44
TPS73
TPS74
1
1.5
0.3
62
81
110
48
18
47
0.69
<0.2
0.58
8.7
8.4
8.5
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
130
50
140
<2
140
34
38
22
24
<0.1
9
1.3
0.4
0.14
0.42
WSS38
0.5
63
78
<0.2
10.9
<0.3
61
59
18
4.6
0.28
WSS40
WSS45
1
1
76
79
31
34
<10
140
81
53
2600
3800
<10
<10
0.29
<0.2
8.9
8
<0.3
<0.3
170
39
16
11
24
20
0.3
<0.1
1.6
<0.1
WSS48
0.5
330
80
0.79
<0.3
270
1600
98
49
0.25
WSS49
0.5
85
54
0.3
<0.3
330
200
60
3.05
27
26
<0.2
<0.3
8.7
3600
14
5.8
1.8
14
0.44
WSS55A
8.3
8.3
7.8
WSS63
CRS60
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP03
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP11
SPRTP12
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
1
1
1.6
2.5
0.9
1.9
2.5
0.6
0.8
1.7
0.8
1.8
0.9
1.8
0.6
1.8
0.8
2.9
1.5
2.8
0.8
2
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.7
63
67
9.4
16.5
21.7
14.2
19.4
41.2
66.1
46.5
62.1
56.8
67.4
89.8
76.2
82.4
76.6
74.1
77.8
78.6
76.5
67.2
87.2
74.9
86.2
68.9
160
23
0.29
<0.2
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
8.3
9
4.4
4.5
5.1
6
6
5.1
5.8
5.8
5.8
5
5.4
6.6
6.8
6.5
6.3
7.2
6.6
6.5
5.6
6
6.6
5.9
5.4
5.6
<0.3
<0.3
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
360
93
16
2.8
<0.5
<0.5
2.7
8.1
6.2
11.3
8.2
11.4
5.7
7.2
4.4
4.8
10.3
7.2
6.2
6.1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
3.4
1.7
<0.5
20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
47
21
1.6
5.8
13.8
5.3
6.8
17.8
28.6
22.3
25.1
28.1
28.2
35.2
26.2
34.9
27.1
36.5
32.5
34.8
41.5
38.8
45.4
32.5
34.7
32.2
1400
1100
64
520
21000
6500
1000
1300
14
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
11
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
0.7
<0.1
1.8
0.15
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
LQM
Project ID
Zinc
Residential
Commercial
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP15
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP17
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP20
SPRTP21
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP23
SPRTP24
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP30
SPRBH1
SPRBH2
SPRBH4
SPRBH5
SPRBH6
SPRBH7
SPRBH8
SPRBH9
SPRBH10
SPRBH11
SPRBH12
SPRBH14
SPRBH15
SPRBH3
SPRBH13
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH6
HSBH7
0.8
2.5
0.9
0.7
1.8
1
0.6
1.6
0.9
3.2
2
0.7
0.7
1.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.9
0.6
1.7
0.9
2.1
0.6
1.7
0.9
2.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
0.7
1
1
1
1
3.25
1
1
Solid (Acid
extract)
3750
665000
75.8
72
74.9
49.8
80.1
67.2
45.5
68.4
89.7
78
82.9
59.2
84
79.5
80.4
105.7
61.1
81.7
75.8
65.2
93.2
57.9
60.9
73.4
82.1
74.2
73.8
84.7
75.2
79
65.8
85.5
79.2
84.1
75.9
92.3
80.4
50.3
63.6
81.9
116.8
66.2
Vanadium
Solid (Acid
extract)
75
3160
Total
petroleum
1000
1000
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
17.8
47.5
73.8
45.6
Selenium
Solid (Acid
extract)
350
13000
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
pH
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
0
0
4.9
6.3
5.4
5.5
6.3
6.5
4.5
5
6.7
5.8
5.8
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.9
5.9
6.6
5.8
7
6.3
6
6
5.6
5.9
6.2
6.1
6.6
6
6.3
6.3
7.2
6.9
6.2
6.8
5
6.9
7.7
5.8
6
7.2
6.4
7.2
7.5
6.5
8.1
6.6
Phenol
(Total)
0
0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Lead
Solid (Acid
extract)
450
750
9.6
3.9
5.3
5.1
2.1
6.2
<0.5
4.1
4.6
6.5
8.8
8.9
31.5
13.7
1.9
<0.5
7.8
12.4
4.7
8.2
9.2
5.6
2.7
0.9
3.1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
1
14.5
1.1
4.1
2.3
2.5
2.1
14.4
0.9
3.7
1.1
8.4
65.8
16.3
14.1
8.8
67.2
56.9
Total PCB
PAH total
1000
1000
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Nickel
Solid (Acid
extract)
130
18000
27.9
30.7
36
20.5
38.4
23.1
21.1
33.3
40.9
48.2
40.9
21
23.8
31.2
31.4
31
17.7
37.8
35.5
31.4
51.3
32.5
24.9
32.7
34.5
34.5
19
42.9
30.2
29.2
29.8
35.1
36.5
35.1
32.2
34.8
34.9
20.6
26.4
24.1
53.4
30.8
19
35.2
33.4
37.8
4.2
62
Mercury
Solid (Acid
extract)
170
3600
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
LQM
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
HSBH7
HSBH10
HSBH12
HSTP1
HSTP3
HSTP5
HSTP7
HSTP9
HSBH8
HSBH8
4
0.5
0.5
0.65
0.75
0.65
0.4
0.15
1
1.75
Zinc
Vanadium
Solid (Acid
extract)
3750
665000
Solid (Acid
extract)
75
3160
Total
petroleum
1000
1000
59
71.7
246.8
56
39.5
806.5
259
79.6
114.8
43.3
Selenium
Solid (Acid
extract)
350
13000
pH
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
0
0
7.4
7.3
7.8
5.9
5.2
6.4
6.9
7.5
7.8
7.6
Phenol
(Total)
0
0
Lead
Solid (Acid
extract)
450
750
18.3
26.2
90
81.6
71.6
225.1
186.8
65.3
31.1
3.1
Total PCB
PAH total
1000
1000
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Nickel
Solid (Acid
extract)
130
18000
38.3
12.3
21.9
17.2
18.1
76.7
87.8
20
32.1
41.3
4.2
62
Mercury
Solid (Acid
extract)
170
3600
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Project ID
Fluoranthene
Residential
Commercial
Hole ID
TPS42
TPS43
670
23000
Fluorene
Iron
780
71000
Solid (Acid
extract)
0
0
Dibenzo (ah)
anthracene
Copper
0.9
13
Solid (Acid
extract)
1
71700
total Cyanide Free Cyanide
Complex
Cyanide
Chrysene
Chromium
Chromium
Cadmium
TPH aromatic
>C21-C35
9.3
140
Solid (Acid
extract)
3000
30400
Hexavalent
4.3
35
Solid (Acid
extract)
10
230
1230
28000
Depth
3.5
2.5
0.4
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
17000
17000
<0.1
<0.1
19
21
<0.1
<0.1
TPS44
TPS73
TPS74
1
1.5
0.3
0.1
19
6.1
<0.1
0.2
0.2
20000
15000
19000
<0.1
3.1
0.1
66
37
75
<0.1
WSS38
0.5
6.8
0.2
7600
0.7
WSS40
WSS45
1
1
3.1
1.8
<0.1
0.2
15000
22000
WSS48
0.5
220
59
WSS49
0.5
29
27
480
5.5
6.2
330
1.5
0.1
WSS55A
3.05
WSS63
CRS60
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP03
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP11
SPRTP12
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
1
1
1.6
2.5
0.9
1.9
2.5
0.6
0.8
1.7
0.8
1.8
0.9
1.8
0.6
1.8
0.8
2.9
1.5
2.8
0.8
2
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.7
25
11
0.93
0.43
11
2.3
18
15
28
0.49
0.13
0.35
210
37
18
4.4
73
0.91
400
<0.1
<0.1
52
17
1.3
0.5
18
25
0.57
0.31
25000
22
390
110
43
0.3
20000
130
15
14
100
23
<0.1
290
15000
1.7
5.4
4.7
18
<0.1
530
26000
13000
52
21
11.2
14.8
19.4
15.6
19.5
8.9
17
5
16.6
15.6
21.2
18.5
20.6
18.1
20.1
17
17.1
16.9
28.5
32.6
27.9
23.4
27
23.7
<0.1
<0.1
5.4
250
36
9.8
9.9
18.9
7
13
28.2
15.8
25
23.1
28.6
27.4
23.3
20.9
25.3
28.6
21.3
24.7
26.7
27.8
38.4
31.9
22
28.5
27.3
1.8
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.35
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
500
250
200
Project ID
Fluoranthene
Residential
Commercial
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP15
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP17
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP20
SPRTP21
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP23
SPRTP24
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP30
SPRBH1
SPRBH2
SPRBH4
SPRBH5
SPRBH6
SPRBH7
SPRBH8
SPRBH9
SPRBH10
SPRBH11
SPRBH12
SPRBH14
SPRBH15
SPRBH3
SPRBH13
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH6
HSBH7
0.8
2.5
0.9
0.7
1.8
1
0.6
1.6
0.9
3.2
2
0.7
0.7
1.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.9
0.6
1.7
0.9
2.1
0.6
1.7
0.9
2.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
0.7
1
1
1
1
3.25
1
1
670
23000
Fluorene
Iron
780
71000
Solid (Acid
extract)
0
0
Dibenzo (ah)
anthracene
0.9
13
Copper
Solid (Acid
extract)
1
71700
33.7
23
28
24.6
35.7
25.7
25.7
22
33.7
29.6
29.9
11.9
24.5
27.6
28
26.9
17
31.4
24.4
20.4
47.7
27.1
25.8
24.4
25.3
26.5
12.7
25.4
13.1
27.5
16.7
26.4
26.7
24.7
24.7
31.3
30
11.5
20.3
22.4
34.6
28.8
14.2
19.4
74.2
52.2
Complex
Cyanide
Chrysene
9.3
140
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Chromium
Chromium
Solid (Acid
extract)
Hexavalent
3000
4.3
30400
35
20.5
<1.0
19
<1.0
21.5
<1.0
18.2
<1.0
25.4
<1.0
27.4
<1.0
27.4
<1.0
15.3
<1.0
24.6
<1.0
24.1
<1.0
20.4
<1.0
15.3
<1.0
22.7
<1.0
21.7
<1.0
26.1
<1.0
24.1
<1.0
23.9
<1.0
25.3
<1.0
20.8
<1.0
18.5
<1.0
34.2
<1.0
17
<1.0
26.7
<1.0
23.7
<1.0
28
<1.0
25.4
<1.0
37.6
<1.0
25.7
<1.0
26
<1.0
30.1
<1.0
20.1
<1.0
25.9
<1.0
25.9
<1.0
25.3
<1.0
28.1
<1.0
30.8
<1.0
26.1
<1.0
13.5
<1.0
26.8
<1.0
29.8
<1.0
25.5
<1.0
20.8
<1.0
20.1
28
28.4
30.9
Cadmium
Solid (Acid
extract)
10
230
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
TPH aromatic
>C21-C35
1230
28000
Project ID
Fluoranthene
Residential
Commercial
HSBH7
HSBH10
HSBH12
HSTP1
HSTP3
HSTP5
HSTP7
HSTP9
HSBH8
HSBH8
4
0.5
0.5
0.65
0.75
0.65
0.4
0.15
1
1.75
670
23000
Fluorene
Iron
780
71000
Solid (Acid
extract)
0
0
Dibenzo (ah)
anthracene
0.9
13
Copper
Solid (Acid
extract)
1
71700
37.8
26.3
67.5
41.1
42.6
304.1
327.36
47
84
22.6
Complex
Cyanide
Chrysene
9.3
140
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Chromium
Chromium
Solid (Acid
extract)
Hexavalent
3000
4.3
30400
35
34.4
15.6
22.5
22
20.9
69.4
37.1
17.8
28.9
24.2
Cadmium
Solid (Acid
extract)
10
230
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
TPH aromatic
>C21-C35
1230
28000

TPH aliphatic TPH aromatic TPH aliphatic TPH aromatic TPH aliphatic TPH aromatic TPH aliphatic TPH aromatic TPH aliphatic TPH aromatic TPH aliphatic TPH aromatic TPH aliphatic
>C21-C35
>C16-C21
>C16-C21
>C12-C16
>C12-C16
>C10-C12
>C10-C12
>C8-C10
>C8-C10
>C7-C8
>C6-C8
>C5-C7
>C5-C6
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
Hole ID
TPS42
TPS43
76000
1800000
770
28000
76000
1800000
593
37800
3000
91000
346
34500
540
49000
151
18000
110
12000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Depth
3.5
2.5
TPS44
TPS73
TPS74
1
1.5
0.3
WSS38
0.5
WSS40
WSS45
1
1
WSS48
0.5
<0.1
430 <0.1
130 <0.1
WSS49
0.5
<0.1
220 <0.1
6.4 <0.1
WSS55A
3.05
WSS63
CRS60
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP03
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP11
SPRTP12
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
1
1
1.6
2.5
0.9
1.9
2.5
0.6
0.8
1.7
0.8
1.8
0.9
1.8
0.6
1.8
0.8
2.9
1.5
2.8
0.8
2
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.7
<0.1
<0.1
63 <0.1
15 <0.1
2000
39
<0.1
1000
110
2900
240 <0.1
91
45
83
51
5.7 <0.1
1.2 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.8 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
23 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
3.1 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
2500
79 <0.1
3.5 <0.1
<0.1
140
310
<0.1
20 <0.1
<0.1
23
3.8
<0.1
1.8 <0.1
<0.1

>C21-C35
>C16-C21
>C16-C21
>C12-C16
>C12-C16
>C10-C12
>C10-C12
>C8-C10
>C8-C10
>C7-C8
>C6-C8
>C5-C7
>C5-C6
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP15
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP17
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP20
SPRTP21
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP23
SPRTP24
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP30
SPRBH1
SPRBH2
SPRBH4
SPRBH5
SPRBH6
SPRBH7
SPRBH8
SPRBH9
SPRBH10
SPRBH11
SPRBH12
SPRBH14
SPRBH15
SPRBH3
SPRBH13
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH6
HSBH7
0.8
2.5
0.9
0.7
1.8
1
0.6
1.6
0.9
3.2
2
0.7
0.7
1.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.9
0.6
1.7
0.9
2.1
0.6
1.7
0.9
2.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
0.7
1
1
1
1
3.25
1
1
76000
1800000
770
28000
76000
1800000
593
37800
3000
91000
346
34500
540
49000
151
18000
110
12000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

>C21-C35
>C16-C21
>C16-C21
>C12-C16
>C12-C16
>C10-C12
>C10-C12
>C8-C10
>C8-C10
>C7-C8
>C6-C8
>C5-C7
>C5-C6
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
HSBH7
HSBH10
HSBH12
HSTP1
HSTP3
HSTP5
HSTP7
HSTP9
HSBH8
HSBH8
4
0.5
0.5
0.65
0.75
0.65
0.4
0.15
1
1.75
76000
1800000
770
28000
76000
1800000
593
37800
3000
91000
346
34500
540
49000
151
18000
110
12000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CL:AIRE
Benzo (k)
fluoranthene
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
Hole ID
TPS42
TPS43
Benzo (ghi)
perylene
10
140
Benzo (b)
fluoranthene
47
660
Benzo (a)
pyrene
Beryllium
Barium
1
14
Solid (Acid
extract)
51
420
Solid (Acid
extract)
1300
22000
10
140
Boron
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
291
192000
Arsenic
Anthanthrene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene
Solid (Acid
extract)
32
120
9200
540000
1000
100000
850
100000
Depth
3.5
2.5
<0.1
<0.1
TPS44
TPS73
TPS74
1
1.5
0.3
<0.1
WSS38
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
5.7 <0.1
3.7 <0.1
1.3
0.9
1.5
94 <0.1
11
41
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1.3
0.8
<0.1
0.4
0.3 <0.1
0.1
0.2
12 <1
3.2
1.5
180
74
210
0.5
1.7
5.9
8.6
4.2
1.7
250
0.8
11
1.1
0.2
WSS40
WSS45
1
1
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.1
1.8
0.9
1.6
0.7 <1
1.2
330
58
2.2
0.8
17
11
0.3 <0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
WSS48
0.5
52
60
120
110
330
0.8
130
92
61
8.7
WSS49
0.5
5.2
5.6
18
7
5.5
16
18
10
56
17
13
120 <1
3.9
170
1.2
32
32
5.3
7.5
8.7
320
2.5
3.4
410
2.1
2.1
8.6
0.7
2.9
2.4 <1
0.9
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.6
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
59
15
72.9
36
4
<1
19.5
5.5
1
5
3.7
20.1
9.7
<1
<1
2.5
4
1.1
1.6
2.2
3.7
3.7
1.6
2.4
<1.0
<1.0
1
1
1.6
2.5
0.9
1.9
2.5
0.6
0.8
1.7
0.8
1.8
0.9
1.8
0.6
1.8
0.8
2.9
1.5
2.8
0.8
2
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.7
1.7
3.1
1
19
4.3
WSS63
CRS60
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP03
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP11
SPRTP12
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
<0.1
150
74
11
1.5
3.05
<0.1
<1
<1
5.3
1
WSS55A
<0.1
0.1 <0.1
<0.1
1.4
420 <0.4
140
0.6 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1
CL:AIRE
Benzo (k)
fluoranthene
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP15
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP17
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP20
SPRTP21
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP23
SPRTP24
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP30
SPRBH1
SPRBH2
SPRBH4
SPRBH5
SPRBH6
SPRBH7
SPRBH8
SPRBH9
SPRBH10
SPRBH11
SPRBH12
SPRBH14
SPRBH15
SPRBH3
SPRBH13
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH6
HSBH7
0.8
2.5
0.9
0.7
1.8
1
0.6
1.6
0.9
3.2
2
0.7
0.7
1.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.9
0.6
1.7
0.9
2.1
0.6
1.7
0.9
2.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1.5
1
1.5
0.7
1
1
1
1
3.25
1
1
10
140
Benzo (ghi)
perylene
47
660
Benzo (b)
fluoranthene
10
140
Benzo (a)
pyrene
Beryllium
Barium
1
14
Solid (Acid
extract)
51
420
Solid (Acid
extract)
1300
22000
Boron
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
291
192000
<0.5
<0.5
1.6
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.6
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.6
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Arsenic
Solid (Acid
extract)
32
120
10.5
2.8
7.1
2.7
1.9
9.5
9.2
5.1
12.6
6
3.1
1.6
6.8
4.8
<1
<1
3.4
5.4
1.8
8.2
8.1
4.2
3.4
2.7
1.6
2
2.6
5.4
1.3
7
<1
<1
4.4
2
3
5.2
2
1.5
<1
5.3
<1
2.2
<1
<1
35.3
6.4
9200
540000
1000
100000
850
100000
CL:AIRE
Benzo (k)
fluoranthene
Project ID
Residential
Commercial
HSBH7
HSBH10
HSBH12
HSTP1
HSTP3
HSTP5
HSTP7
HSTP9
HSBH8
HSBH8
4
0.5
0.5
0.65
0.75
0.65
0.4
0.15
1
1.75
10
140
Benzo (ghi)
perylene
47
660
Benzo (b)
fluoranthene
10
140
Benzo (a)
pyrene
Beryllium
Barium
1
14
Solid (Acid
extract)
51
420
Solid (Acid
extract)
1300
22000
Boron
Solid (2:1
Soil/Water
extract)
291
192000
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.8
1.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Arsenic
Solid (Acid
extract)
32
120
3.9
6.4
11.5
14.1
11.8
65.7
35.7
3.5
17.1
<1
9200
540000
1000
100000
850
100000
South Line Leachate test Results

Project ID
Zinc
Sulphate as SO4
Selenium
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT)
Leachate
Leachate
Leachate
8
400000
10
EQS or
DWQS
50
400000
10
Hole ID
Depth
g/l
g/l
g/l
WSS38
2
4.2
77
3
WSS40
1.55
<1
19
1.4
WSS47
0.5
1.8
25
2.3
WSS55A
4
4.6
12 <1
pH
Lead
Nickel
Leachate
Leachate
Leachate
6
4
50
9
20
200
g/l
g/l
g/l
11
1.6
1.7
9.8 <1
1.2
9.9
2.8 <1
7.1 <1
<1
Mercury
Leachate
0
0
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Copper
Chromium
Leachate
Leachate
1
5
28
50
g/l
g/l
2.5
16
3.4
5.3
140
13
1.4 <1
Cadmium
Leachate
5
5
g/l
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
<0.08
Arsenic
Leachate
50
50
g/l
1.6
9
8
<1
Waste Acceptance Criteria Tests

Project ID
Zinc
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) mg/kg
Inert
4
Non-haz
50
Hazardous
200
Hole ID
Depth
CRS71
0.5
<0.5
CRS72
1
<0.5
TPS73
0.5
<0.5
TPS75
0.5
<0.5
RO76
1
<0.5
RO77
0.5
<0.5
RO78
0.5
<0.5
WSS41
0.5
<0.5
TPS42
1.5
<0.5
TPS43
0.5
<0.5
TPS44
0.5
<0.5
WSS38
1
<0.5
WSS39
0.5
<0.5
WSS40
0.5
<0.5
WSS46
0.5
<0.5
WSS47
0.5
<0.5
WSS49
0.5
<0.5
WSS50
0.5
<0.5
WSS54
2.22
<0.5
WSS56
1
<0.5
PCB28
mg/kg
Toluene
ug/kg
TPH Total WAC
mg/kg
500
500
<10
<10
<10
<10
130 <1
<1
180 <1
44 <1
63 <1
<1
<1
160 <1
360 <1
390 <1
110 <1
890 <1
68 <1
69 <1
100
2000
360
380 <1
<1
2600
PCB180
mg/kg
Sulphate as SO4
mg/kg
1000
20000
50000
71.3
125
108
66.2
356
192
206
176
525
784
251
783
204
731
1160
520
176
154
141
3220
2.5
1.1
3.6
5.6
PCB153
mg/kg
PCB138
mg/kg
Selenium
mg/kg
0.1
0.5
7
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Antimony
mg/kg
0.06
0.7
5
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
8.5
0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.02
0.03 <0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.02 <0.01
<0.01
0.01 <0.01
0.02 <0.01
PCB118
mg/kg
0.03
0.01
0.07
PCB101
mg/kg
7.2
Lead
mg/kg
3.5
1.8
1
0.4
0.3
2.3
0.9
45
0.4
8.3
1.3
8.1
12
150
34
19
1.4
79
Total (of 17) PAHs
mg/kg
100
100
Inert
Non-haz
Hazardous
Hole ID
CRS71
CRS72
TPS73
TPS75
RO76
RO77
RO78
WSS41
TPS42
TPS43
TPS44
WSS38
WSS39
WSS40
WSS46
WSS47
WSS49
WSS50
WSS54
WSS56
Phenol Index Phenol Index

mg/kg
mg/kg
7.9
7.4
8.5
8.3
6.7
6.9
5.5
7.7
11.3
9.3
10.4
10.7
8
10.9
8
9.4
8.3
8.4
8.6
8.4
<0.1
20
2.1
1
0.4
0.2
2.1
1.3
42
0.4
11
1.5
6.7
9.7
120
27
20
0.9
120
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
pH
mg/kg
6
>6
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
<0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Pyrene
mg/kg
o - Xylene
ug/kg
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Total organic carbon
mg/kg
3
5
6
Nickel
mg/kg
0
0
PCB52
mg/kg
Polychlorinated biphenyls
mg/kg
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Naphthalene m & p - Xylene

mg/kg
ug/kg
Depth
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.22
1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<2
59 <1
<1
140 <1
22 <1
8.8 <1
3.4 <1
2.7 <1
26 <1
9.7 <1
280 <1
5.1 <1
75 <1
12 <1
51 <1
70 <1
940 <1
180
120 <1
8.7 <1
820
17
7.4
0.61
0.89
7.8
3.8
1.4
1.6
21
9.8
7
0.62
2.7
5.1
3
5.1
7.2
9
3.9
5.2
10
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.1
<0.1
1.5 <1
<1
0.3 <1
1.2 <1
0.6 <1
0.2 <1
0.2 <1
5.1 <1
0.2 <1
3.9 <1
<1
1.5 <1
0.5 <1
1.8 <1
2.1 <1
29
6.1
2.2 <1
1.2 <1
10
4.4
4.3
23
Moisture content
mg/kg
Inert
Non-haz
Hazardous
Hole ID
CRS71
CRS72
TPS73
TPS75
RO76
RO77
RO78
WSS41
TPS42
TPS43
TPS44
WSS38
WSS39
WSS40
WSS46
WSS47
WSS49
WSS50
WSS54
WSS56
Molybdenum
mg/kg
0.5
10
30
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
10
10
10
Mercury
mg/kg
Mercury
mg/kg
Fluoride
mg/kg
10
150
500
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
Fluorene
mg/kg
Ethylbenzene
ug/kg
Dissolved organic carbon Dissolved organic carbon
mg/kg
mg/kg
Depth
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.22
1
14.4
15.1
10.4
15.3
16.8
20
19.3
20.1
8.8
17.3
11.2
11.5
18.8
14.6
5.55
12.3
13.1
6.39
6.41
5.33
0.06
<0.05
0.5
mg/kg
Inert
Non-haz
Hazardous
13.2
4.66
3.48
12.8
8.13
5.6
7.45
22.4
8.25
8.79
2.92
6.4
9.06
7.24
5.41
11.9
13.6
6.07
8.45
10.2
<0.1
0.1
0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
3
1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
2.74
0.42
0.06 <0.1
0.1
0.19 <0.1
0.12
<0.05
0.25
0.22
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.3
0.2
1.3
1.5
0.7
0.8
14
5.8
1.4
<0.1
7.3
Total dissolved solids Total dissolved solids Dibenzo (ah) anthracene
Hole ID
CRS71
CRS72
TPS73
TPS75
RO76
RO77
RO78
WSS41
TPS42
TPS43
TPS44
WSS38
WSS39
WSS40
WSS46
WSS47
WSS49
WSS50
WSS54
WSS56
Loss on ignition
mg/kg
4000
60000
100000
mg/kg
Copper
mg/kg
Copper
mg/kg
2
50
100
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
10.1
1 <0.1
16.1
11.4
1.97
1.19
1.28
8.98
30.1
9.49
4.61
3.66
14.2
4.56
4.71
0.01
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Chrysene
mg/kg
<1
13.8
10.8
10.1
16.4
Chromium
mg/kg
0.5
10
70
Coronene
mg/kg
9.8
<0.1
18
2.3
1
0.6
0.3
2.2
1.5
49
0.4 <0.1
11
1.5
7.8
12
140
29
23
1
130
Chloride
mg/kg
0.7 <1
<1
0.3 <1
0.1 <1
0.4 <1
0.2 <1
0.4 <1
2.3 <1
0.1 <1
7.4 <1
<1
0.8 <1
0.3 <1
1 <1
1.5 <1
29 <1
5.5 <1
2.8 <1
0.3 <1
10
Chloride
mg/kg
800
15000
25000
66
172
173
138
150
86.8
62.8
59.8
103
138
153
165
134
114
77.2
137
184
73.3
188
156
197
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
50
56
<50
<50
79.9
86
<50
100
104
116
5.4
Cadmium
mg/kg
0.04
1
5
Total BTEX
mg/kg
Benzene
ug/kg
Depth
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.22
1
480
116
280
360
401
240
260
400
560
839
340
1100
460
820
1220
1980
581
360
421
2800
1560
240 <0.1
792
1170
642
460
500 <0.1
1210
1270
1630
1160
3610
1030
1850
2460
4250
1520
1020
1080
4390
2.7
11
2.3
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.4
9.2
0.7
3.8
0.4
1.7
2.5
34
1.7
2.4
0.3
53
0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.07
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.1
0.06
<0.05
0.06
0.24
0.06
0.11
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
4.2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.1
10.9
0.1
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
5.7 <0.05
<0.05
14 <0.05
1.9 <0.05
0.5 <0.05
<0.05
0.1 <0.05
1.4 <0.05
1.1
23
0.4
7.9
1 <0.05
4.7
6.7 <0.05
82
15 <0.05
12 <0.05
0.7 <0.05
72 <0.05
0.06
0.14
0.18
0.22
0.08
0.24
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
14.6
16.6
7
15.6
9.41
12.4
38.1
6.41
20
36
16.2
106
90
74
26
152
16.2
10.8
10
30
13.3
49
15
24.5
14.7
13.3
45.9
9.59
36.7
52.4
19
123
105
112
31.8
244
17.7
24.6
26.7
34.3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
1.2
<1
0.011
<0.005
<0.005
<1
<1
0.048 <1
1.5
Benzo (k) fluoranthene Benzo (ghi) perylene Benzo (b) fluoranthene
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Benzo (a) pyrene
mg/kg
Inert
Non-haz
Hazardous
Hole ID
CRS71
CRS72
TPS73
TPS75
RO76
RO77
RO78
WSS41
TPS42
TPS43
TPS44
WSS38
WSS39
WSS40
WSS46
WSS47
WSS49
WSS50
WSS54
WSS56
Barium
mg/kg
0
0
Barium
mg/kg
20
100
Arsenic
mg/kg
0.5
2
Anthanthrene
mg/kg
Acid Neutralisation Capacity
mg/kg
Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
mg/kg
Depth
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.22
1
3.2
<0.1
2.4
<0.1
12
1.5
0.6
0.2
<0.1
11
1
0.4
0.2
<0.1
1
0.5
13
0.8
4.3
0.6
2
2.6
36
5.2
4.8
0.2
33
4.4
<0.1
<0.1
15
1.6
0.6
0.3
<0.1
0.5
0.4
11
0.1
2.8
0.6
1.5
2.6
35
7
4.4
0.4
47
1.1
0.6
17
0.5
5.1
1
3.4
3.6
52
18
4.8
0.5
58
4.9 <0.5
<0.5
11 <0.5
1.2 <0.5
0.6 <0.5
0.3 <0.5
0.2 <0.5
1.3 <0.5
0.8 <0.5
20 <0.5
0.4 <0.5
6.2 <0.5
0.9 <0.5
3.9 <0.5
5.8 <0.5
69 <0.5
17 <0.5
11 <0.5
0.4 <0.5
71 <0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
1.7
<0.1
<0.1
0.13
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.004
<0.002
1.5
0.7
0.2 <0.002
<0.002
0.4 <0.002
0.4
0.9
10
0.2
2.1
0.3
1.9
2.6
39
7.5
5.2
0.3
24
0.8
<0.1
0.007
0.013
0.011
0.052
0.023
0.049 <0.1
0.042
0.005
0.068
0.004
0.065
0.016
0.01
0.007
0.009
0.3
<0.1
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.3
1.3
0.4
11
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.4
2.3
0.3
0.7
<0.1
0.5
0.4
1
1.5
17
2.5
2.5
0.5
13
0.8
0.6
1.1
1.1
10
2.1
1.3
0.2
3.1
A.2.5.
CAT Waste Results
62
Classification Assessment Tool of Soil Wastes - Individual Compound Information
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
nicola.reid@mottmac.com
Mott Macdonald
Sample Depth
CRS60
CRS60
CRS60
CRS60
CRS60
TPS42
TPS42
TPS42
TPS42
TPS43
TPS43
TPS43
TPS43
TPS44
TPS44
TPS44
TPS44
TPS73
TPS73
TPS73
TPS73
TPS74
TPS74
TPS74
TPS74
WSS38
WSS38
WSS38
WSS38
WSS38
WSS38
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
3.5m
3.5m
3.5m
3.5m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
0.3m
0.3m
0.3m
0.3m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
WSS40
WSS40
WSS40
WSS40
WSS45
WSS45
WSS45
WSS45
WSS48
WSS48
WSS48
WSS48
WSS48
WSS48
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
WSS49
WSS49
WSS49
WSS49
WSS55A
WSS55A
WSS55A
WSS55A
WSS55A
WSS55A
WSS55A
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
3.05m
3.05m
3.05m
3.05m
3.05m
3.05m
3.05m
WSS63
WSS63
WSS63
1m
1m
1m
Contaminant
Concentration (%)
Heavy fuel oil (combination of
0.13
compounds)
Boron
0.002083333
Chromium (Total) when no Cr
0.01305159
VI results
Nickel
0.005536515
Vanadium
0.004106409
Boron
0.007175926
0.0155376
VI results
Nickel
0.01001845
Vanadium
0.004463489
Boron
0.002314815
0.006836544
VI results
Nickel
0.004745584
Vanadium
0.002142475
Boron
0.003009259
0.01118707
VI results
Nickel
0.01001845
Vanadium
0.008569898
Boron
0.002083333
0.00932256
VI results
Nickel
0.005800158
Vanadium
0.003213712
Boron
0.003472222
0.01740211
VI results
Nickel
0.006327445
Vanadium
0.008391359
0.26
compounds)
Boron
0.001851852
0.0453698
VI results
Nickel
0.004745584
Zinc
0.01747573
Vanadium
0.01392609
0.38
compounds)
Boron
0.005092592
0.01118707
VI results
Nickel
0.006327445
Vanadium
0.005534726
Boron
0.001851852
0.0155376
VI results
Nickel
0.005272871
Vanadium
0.006070345
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.011
0.14
compounds)
Boron
0.001851852
0.02672467
VI results
Nickel
0.02583707
Vanadium
0.01428316
0.11
compounds)
Boron
0.002777778
0.01429459
VI results
Nickel
0.01581861
Vanadium
0.009641135
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.012
2.1compounds)
Boron
0.002314815
0.01118707
VI results
Nickel
0.00369101
Zinc
0.007489598
Vanadium
0.004642028
0.65
compounds)
0.1compounds)
Boron
0.0009259259
0.03231821
VI results
Contaminant
Hazardous Waste Y/N
Hazard Class
Risk Phrases Exceeded
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
H7
R45
Additive Risk Phrases

Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases

Exceeded
Additional Risk Phrases (see notes section)

R14 (this risk phrase alone will not constitute a waste as being hazardous)
R43 see comment
R42 see comment, R43 see comment
R55 see comment
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
H7
R45
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
H7
R45
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
H14
H7
(R50 AND R53)

R45
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
H7
R45
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
H14
H7
(R50 AND R53)

R45
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R55 see comment
H7
H7
R45
R45
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
R43 see comment
16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID
WSS63
WSS63
WSS63
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP01
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP02
SPRTP03
SPRTP03
SPRTP03
SPRTP03
SPRTP03
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP04
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP05
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
Mott Macdonald
Sample Depth
1m
1m
1m
1.6m
1.6m
1.6m
1.6m
1.6m
1.6m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
1.9m
1.9m
1.9m
1.9m
1.9m
1.9m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
Contaminant
Contaminant
Concentration (%)
Nickel
0.01239125
Zinc
0.01747573
Vanadium
0.02856633
Boron
0.001157407
0.006960845
VI results
Nickel
0.0004218297
Zinc
0.00260749
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.0014
Boron
0.001157407
0.00919826
VI results
Nickel
0.001529133
Zinc
0.004576976
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01205718
VI results
Nickel
0.003638281
Zinc
0.006019418
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.009695463
VI results
Nickel
0.001397311
Zinc
0.003938973
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01211933
VI results
Nickel
0.001792776
Zinc
0.005381415
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.005531386
VI results
Nickel
0.004692855
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01056557
VI results
Nickel
0.007540205
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.00310752
VI results
Nickel
0.005879251
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01031697
VI results
Nickel
0.006617453
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.009695463
VI results
Nickel
0.007408384
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01317589
VI results
Nickel
0.007434748
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Hazardous Waste Y/N
Hazard Class

Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases

Exceeded
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

R43 see comment
R55 see comment
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R32 test or calculation
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP06
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP07
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP08
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP09
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP10
SPRTP11
SPRTP11
SPRTP11
SPRTP11
SPRTP11
SPRTP12
SPRTP12
SPRTP12
SPRTP12
SPRTP12
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
Mott Macdonald
Sample Depth
0.9m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
2.9m
2.9m
2.9m
2.9m
2.9m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
2.8m
2.8m
2.8m
2.8m
2.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
2m
2m
2m
2m
2m
2m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
Contaminant
Contaminant
Concentration (%)
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01149782
VI results
Nickel
0.009280253
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01280298
VI results
Nickel
0.006907461
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01124922
VI results
Nickel
0.00920116
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001388889
0.01249223
VI results
Nickel
0.00714474
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.0011
Boron
0.001157407
0.01056557
VI results
Nickel
0.00962299
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01062772
VI results
Nickel
0.008568415
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01050342
VI results
Nickel
0.009174796
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01771287
VI results
Nickel
0.01094121
Zinc
0.02122053
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.02026103
VI results
Nickel
0.01022937
Zinc
0.01864078
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01733996
VI results
Nickel
0.01196942
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01454319
VI results
Nickel
0.008568415
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01678061
VI results
Nickel
0.009148431
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Hazardous Waste Y/N
Hazard Class

Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases

Exceeded
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
SPRTP13
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP14
SPRTP15
SPRTP15
SPRTP15
SPRTP15
SPRTP15
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP16
SPRTP17
SPRTP17
SPRTP17
SPRTP17
SPRTP17
SPRTP17
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP18
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP19
SPRTP20
SPRTP20
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
Mott Macdonald
Sample Depth
0.6m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
2.5m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
1.8m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
1.6m
1.6m
1.6m
1.6m
1.6m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
3.2m
3.2m
3.2m
3.2m
3.2m
2m
2m
Contaminant
Contaminant
Concentration (%)
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01472965
VI results
Nickel
0.008489323
Zinc
0.01911234
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01274083
VI results
Nickel
0.007355655
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01180858
VI results
Nickel
0.008093857
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.003703704
0.01336234
VI results
Nickel
0.009491168
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01131137
VI results
Nickel
0.005404693
Zinc
0.01381415
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.0157862
VI results
Nickel
0.01012391
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01702921
VI results
Nickel
0.006090166
Zinc
0.01864078
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01702921
VI results
Nickel
0.005562879
Zinc
0.01262136
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.009509012
VI results
Nickel
0.00877933
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.015289
VI results
Nickel
0.01078302
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01497825
VI results
Nickel
0.01270762
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01267868
VI results
Hazardous Waste Y/N
Hazard Class

Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases

Exceeded
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID
SPRTP20
SPRTP20
SPRTP20
SPRTP21
SPRTP21
SPRTP21
SPRTP21
SPRTP21
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP22
SPRTP23
SPRTP23
SPRTP23
SPRTP23
SPRTP23
SPRTP23
SPRTP24
SPRTP24
SPRTP24
SPRTP24
SPRTP24
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP25
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP26
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP27
SPRTP28
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
Mott Macdonald
Sample Depth
2m
2m
2m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
1.9m
1.9m
1.9m
1.9m
1.9m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
0.8m
1.9m
1.9m
1.9m
1.9m
1.9m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
2.1m
2.1m
2.1m
2.1m
2.1m
0.6m
Contaminant
Contaminant
Concentration (%)
Nickel
0.01078302
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.009509012
VI results
Nickel
0.005536515
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001388889
0.01410814
VI results
Nickel
0.006274716
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01348664
VI results
Nickel
0.008225678
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01622126
VI results
Nickel
0.008278407
Zinc
0.02230236
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01497825
VI results
Nickel
0.00817295
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01485395
VI results
Nickel
0.004666491
Zinc
0.01694868
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01572405
VI results
Nickel
0.009965726
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01292728
VI results
Nickel
0.009359346
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01149782
VI results
Nickel
0.008278407
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001388889
0.02125544
VI results
Nickel
0.01352491
Zinc
0.02585298
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01056557
VI results
Nickel
0.008568415
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
Hazardous Waste Y/N
Hazard Class

Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases

Exceeded
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP28
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP29
SPRTP30
SPRTP30
SPRTP30
SPRTP30
SPRTP30
SPRTP30
SPRBH1
SPRBH1
SPRBH1
SPRBH1
SPRBH1
SPRBH2
SPRBH2
SPRBH2
SPRBH2
SPRBH2
SPRBH2
SPRBH4
SPRBH4
SPRBH4
SPRBH4
SPRBH4
SPRBH4
SPRBH5
SPRBH5
SPRBH5
SPRBH5
SPRBH5
SPRBH6
SPRBH6
SPRBH6
SPRBH6
SPRBH6
SPRBH7
SPRBH7
SPRBH7
SPRBH7
SPRBH7
SPRBH7
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
Mott Macdonald
Sample Depth
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
1.7m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
0.9m
2.4m
2.4m
2.4m
2.4m
2.4m
2.4m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
0.6m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
Contaminant
Contaminant
Concentration (%)

0.01659416
VI results
Nickel
0.006564725
Zinc
0.0168932
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01472965
VI results
Nickel
0.008621144
Zinc
0.02036061
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01740211
VI results
Nickel
0.009095702
Zinc
0.02277393
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.0157862
VI results
Nickel
0.009095702
Zinc
0.02058253
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.02336855
VI results
Nickel
0.005009227
Zinc
0.02047157
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01597265
VI results
Nickel
0.01131031
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.0161591
VI results
Nickel
0.007962035
Zinc
0.02085992
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01870727
VI results
Nickel
0.007698392
Zinc
0.02191401
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01249223
VI results
Nickel
0.007856578
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01609696
VI results
Nickel
0.009253888
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01609696
VI results
Nickel
0.00962299
Zinc
0.02196949
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Hazardous Waste Y/N
Hazard Class

Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases

Exceeded
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID
SPRBH8
SPRBH8
SPRBH8
SPRBH8
SPRBH8
SPRBH9
SPRBH9
SPRBH9
SPRBH9
SPRBH9
SPRBH9
SPRBH10
SPRBH10
SPRBH10
SPRBH10
SPRBH10
SPRBH10
SPRBH11
SPRBH11
SPRBH11
SPRBH11
SPRBH11
SPRBH11
SPRBH12
SPRBH12
SPRBH12
SPRBH12
SPRBH12
SPRBH14
SPRBH14
SPRBH14
SPRBH14
SPRBH14
SPRBH14
SPRBH15
SPRBH15
SPRBH15
SPRBH15
SPRBH15
SPRBH15
SPRBH3
SPRBH3
SPRBH3
SPRBH3
SPRBH3
SPRBH13
SPRBH13
SPRBH13
SPRBH13
SPRBH13
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH3
HSBH6
HSBH6
HSBH6
HSBH6
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
Mott Macdonald
Sample Depth
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
1.5m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
0.7m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
1m
3.25m
3.25m
3.25m
3.25m
1m
1m
1m
1m
Contaminant
Contaminant
Concentration (%)
Boron
0.001157407
0.01572405
VI results
Nickel
0.009253888
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01746426
VI results
Nickel
0.008489323
Zinc
0.02105409
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01914232
VI results
Nickel
0.009174796
Zinc
0.02560333
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01622126
VI results
Nickel
0.00920116
Zinc
0.02230236
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.008390305
VI results
Nickel
0.005431057
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01665631
VI results
Nickel
0.00696019
Zinc
0.01764216
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01852082
VI results
Nickel
0.006353809
Zinc
0.02271845
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01584835
VI results
Nickel
0.01407857
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01292728
VI results
Nickel
0.008120221
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Thiocyanate
0.001
Boron
0.001157407
0.01249223
VI results
Nickel
0.005009227
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Boron
0.001157407
0.01740211
VI results
Nickel
0.009280253
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Boron
0.001157407
0.01765071
VI results
Nickel
0.008805695
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Hazardous Waste Y/N
Hazard Class

Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases

Exceeded
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
16:14 19/02/2013
Site Name
Location
Site ID
Job Number
Date
User Name
Company Name
Hole ID
HSBH7
HSBH7
HSBH7
HSBH7
HSBH7
HSBH7
HSBH7
HSBH7
HSBH10
HSBH10
HSBH10
HSBH10
Leeds NGT
South Line
F1
236834
5/20/2010 4:28:02 PM
Mott Macdonald
Sample Depth
1m
1m
1m
1m
4m
4m
4m
4m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
0.5m
Contaminant
Contaminant
Concentration (%)
Boron
0.001157407
0.01920447
VI results
Nickel
0.009965726
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Boron
0.001157407
0.02137974
VI results
Nickel
0.01009755
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Boron
0.001157407
0.009695463
VI results
Nickel
0.003242816
Free Cyanide
0.0002
Hazardous Waste Y/N
Hazard Class

Exceeded
H14 Risk Phrases

Exceeded
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
R43 see comment
R12 test
16:14 19/02/2013
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:
Qhg
Chg
100
(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
Very Low
<0.07
Typically 1% methane concentration and 5&

carbon dioxide concentration (otherwise consider an
63


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
Moderate
0.7, <3.5
Moderate to High
3.5, <15
High
15, <70
Very high
70
Source:
Typical measured flow rate < 70 l/hr (otherwise

consider an increased characteristic gas regime)
Quantitative risk assessment required to evaluate
scope of protective measures
BS845:2007 and CIRIA C665
64
Appendix B. Calculation Methodology

B.1.
Bearing Resistance Methodology
Partial Factors
Table B.1 summarises the values of Partial Factors in accordance with Design Approach 1 and Design
11
Approach 2, BS EN 1997-1:2004 .
Table B.1:
Partial Factors for Design Approach 1 and Design Approach 2

Design Approach 1
Design Approach 2
Combination 1
Combination 2
Permanent Actions - Unfavourable
1.35
1.0
1.35
Permanent Actions - Favourable
1.0
1.0
Angle of Friction, ()
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;
2
traffic live load of 10kN/m ;
settlements are acceptable; and
assumed characteristic parameters are acceptable;
Equation
The ultimate bearing resistance of a soil is described by Terzaghis bearing resistance equation as:
(Equation B.1-1)
QULT c Nc z N q 0.5 B N
Where:
Nc, Nq and N are Birch - Hansens Bearing Resistance Factors related to the of the soil;
c is the cohesion of the material;
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 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 is and c = 0.
65
B.2.
Slope Stability Methodology
Partial Factors
Table B.2 summarises the partial factors for Design Approach 1, Combination 1 and Combination 2 as
11
required by BS EN1997-1:2004 .
Table B.2
Partial Factors for Design Approach 1, Combination 1 and Combination 2

Combination 1
Combination 2
Permanent Actions - Unfavourable
1.35
1.0
Permanent Actions - Favourable
1.0
1.0
Angle of Friction, ()
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 r u
= 0 for dry slopes;
c'(1 ru ) H cos 2 tan

FoS
H sin cos
(Equation B.2-1)
Where:
c is the effective cohesion;
ru is the pore water pressure;
is the soil unit weight
H is the height to the stratum below, be it impermeable or permeable;
is the slope angle; and
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:
66
c'
N
H of Safety against sliding for an infinite dry slope of granular soil is give as:
The Factor
FoS
tan
tan
(Equation B.2-2)
(Equation B.2-3)
Where;
is the slope angle; and
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.
67
Appendix C. Limitations
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 predate 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 MMs findings and opinions.
68

A-08g-7 South Line GD Report FINAL

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A-08g-7 South Line GD Report FINAL

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Environmental

TWAO Document Ref. A-08g-7

Supporting Document - South Line

South Line Geotechnical

Metro and Leeds City Council

Mott MacDonald, 2nd Floor, 2 Brewery Wharf, Kendell Street,

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

General Description of the Site and Proposed Construction

Site Location & Description ___________________________________________________________

General Offline Highway Works

General Online Highway Works

Balm Road Bridge

312694/EST/YHE/RPT/040 September 2013

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Characteristic Parameters ___________________________________________________________

Belle Isle Route

Stourton Park and Ride

Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Assessment

Recommendations for Further Work

312694/EST/YHE/RPT/040 September 2013

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Contamination and Waste Assessment Methodology ______________________________________

Route Overview ____________________________________________________________________ 3

Description of the South Route _________________________________________________________ 4

312694/EST/YHE/RPT/040 September 2013

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Preliminary Geotechnical and Contamination Risk Register _________________________________

312694/EST/YHE/RPT/040 September 2013

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

2. General Description of the Site and

Site Location & Description

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Description of the South Route

Start of the section from Briggate crossing

The route goes off-street parallel to Hunslet

Off-street to the north of Hunslet

The route section goes off-street parallel to

Removal of existing bund. Off-street

The route then runs along existing highway

Runs along highways

The route terminates at Stourton Park and

Retaining structures and earthworks.

Site History & Land Use

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Belle Isle Circus

Seismicity of the Area

Contaminated Land & Pollution Incidents

Other Relevant Information

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

3. General Offline Highway Works

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

Leeds NGT South Line Geotechnical Design Report

Reference Drawings and Boreholes for General Offline Sections

Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane;

WSS41, TPS42, TPS43,

Carlisle Road to South Accommodation

WSS40, DS51, DS53A,

General Ground Conditions for Waterloo Street to Bowman Lane

Dark brown fine to coarse sand of ash and