Barratts NIMR Remediation Plan
Barratts NIMR Remediation Plan
Barratts NIMR Remediation Plan
AT
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH (NIMR),
THE RIDGEWAY, MILL HILL,
LONDON, NW7 1AA
FOR
BARRATT LONDON LIMITED
DECEMBER 2017
ASHBURNHAM HOUSE 1 MAITLAND ROAD LION BARN ESTATE NEEDHAM MARKET SUFFOLK IP6 8NZ
TELEPHONE (01449) 723723 FAX (01449) 723907
Remediation Method Statement - Proposed Residential Development at
National Institute of Medical Research (NIMR), The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA
CONTENTS
Page No.
CONTENTS 1
1. INTRODUCTION 4
2. SITE SETTING 7
3. GROUND CONDITIONS 9
3.1 Summary of Geology and Ground Investigation 9
3.2 Visual/Olfactory Evidence of Contamination 12
4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT 13
4.1 Development Scheme 13
4.2 Geotechnical Considerations 13
4.3 Geoenvironmental Considerations 15
4.3.1 End Users 15
4.3.1.1 NIMR - Northwest 15
4.3.1.2 NIMR - Northeast 17
4.3.1.3 NIMR - Southwest 19
4.3.1.4 NIMR - Southeast 22
4.3.1.5 MRCT - South 26
4.3.1.6 Asbestos in Buildings 28
4.4 Groundworkers and Demolition Workers 29
4.5 Controlled Waters 29
4.6 Off-site Human and Property Receptors 30
4.7 Building Materials 31
4.7.1 Below Ground Concrete 31
4.7.2 Potable Water Pipes 31
4.8 Vegetation 31
4.9 Refined Conceptual Model 32
5. REMEDIATION METHOD STATEMENT 35
5.1 Introduction and Concise Summary of Anticipated Works 35
5.2 Pre-Construction 37
5.2.1 Demolition 37
5.2.2 Inspection of Areas of Interest Not Previously Accessible 39
CONTENTS CONTINUED
CONTENTS CONTINUED
Drawing No.
1. INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared to present a statement of the remedial measures to be
carried out to counter the relevant plausible pollutant linkages identified at the site, in
order to protect vulnerable receptors. The Remediation Method Statement (RMS)
forms a document against which the remedial measures can be validated, and in due
course a Verification Report will be prepared to confirm that the remediation has been
carried out in accordance with the RMS, and that the site has been satisfactorily
prepared for the intended end use.
It was required by the Client that the site investigation be advanced as far as was
practicable prior to demolition, to provide coverage of the site area and enable
assessment with respect to contamination to be refined such that the remediation
strategy could be suitably developed pre-demolition, and could be discussed and
agreed with the regulators. A supplementary intrusive ground investigation was
carried out by RSA Geotechnics Limited in October and November 2017, designed
to augment the coverage of the earlier investigation, and include areas previously
inaccessible, as well as investigation beneath existing building footprints. The
supplementary investigation also targeted specific areas of the site where
contaminative impact had been recorded during the earlier phase of investigation, or
where further assessment was identified to be required. The supplementary
investigation also included the installation of additional ground gas monitoring wells
and additional monitoring visits, to refine the assessment of the site gassing regime.
The findings of both phases of investigation were reported within RSA Geotechnics
report reference 14684GI2, 8 December 2017.
It is recommended that this report is read in conjunction with both the desk study and
site investigation reports by RSA Geotechnics Limited, reference 14684DS dated
5 April 2017, and 14684GI2 dated 8 December 2017.
This report has been prepared for the sole internal use and reliance of the Client,
Barratt London Limited. It shall not be relied upon by other parties without the
express written authority of RSA Geotechnics Limited. If an unauthorised third party
comes into possession of this report they rely on it at their own risk and the authors
owe them no duty of care and skill.
Advice and recommendations in this report have been based on the findings of the
previous investigations, site reconnaissance visits, desk study information and
intrusive investigation. It must be appreciated that not finding indicators does not
mean that hazardous substances do not exist at the site.
RSA Geotechnics Limited has based this report on the sources detailed within report,
which are believed to be reliable. However, RSA Geotechnics Limited cannot and
does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the third party information it has
relied upon.
2. SITE SETTING
This site was located within the Mill Hill area of London, NW7 to the north of the
junction between The Ridgeway (the B552) and Burtonhole Lane. The site can be
located approximately by National Grid Reference TQ 234 925 and the extent of the
site is illustrated on drawing number 14684GI2/5.
The larger site area approximates a ‘b’ shape with the northern limb comprising of
two vegetated areas referred to as the ‘Northern Fields’ and the southern section
dominated by the NIMR site in the western two-thirds, with the MRCT site located
adjacent to the east, representing approximately one-third of the area. For the
purposes of this report, these areas can be further sub-divided as indicated below
(and illustrated on drawing reference 14684GI1/9):
Northern Fields
NIMR
MRCT
A detailed site description is given in the desk study report, 14684DS, prepared by
RSA Geotechnics in April 2017, and it is recommended that these reports are read
in conjunction.
The investigation and assessment considers the development area of the site, i.e.
the NIMR North, NIMR South and MRCT South areas of the site.
3. GROUND CONDITIONS
The British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 Series Sheet 256, ‘North London’,
2006 and the BGS online Geology of Britain Viewer indicated the site to be
underlain by the London Clay Formation of the Thames Group, with the Claygate
Member of the London Clay Formation recorded in the southern part of the site. A
small outcrop of the Stanmore Gravel Formation was shown overlying the Claygate
Member in the southern extremity of the site, and Head Deposits derived from the
Claygate Member and Stanmore Gravel Formation were shown to be present in the
southern part of the site. An area of Landslip some 250 m by 200 m was recorded
within the London Clay Formation approximately 220 m to the west of the site.
The Head Deposits and the shallow London Clay were broadly similar materials,
which would be expected given that the Head Deposits were derived from the
London Clay. The typically firm at shallow depth London Clay became stiff and very
stiff, and closely fissured, with depth. Claystone layers were recorded at various
levels within the London Clay.
Laboratory testing classified the Head Deposits clays and the shallow London Clay
generally as high to very high plasticity clays with a medium to high volume change
potential.
Made ground deposits were encountered in the majority of the exploratory holes
across the site and were found to contain anthropogenic inclusions including brick,
flexible surfacing, roof tile, concrete, ash, clinker, coal and cast iron fragments,
wood, wire, whole and partial brick, concrete boulders, metal, glass, slag, slate,
pottery, polystyrene, whole and broken amber glass bottles, clay pipe and mortar
fragments and locally asbestos containing material.
Asbestos fragments were observed within the topsoil and made ground in TP339 as
well as scattered within the leaf litter at surface close to that location. Asbestos
fragments were also noted in TP341 from 0.2 to 0.7 m depth, WS343 from 1.6 to
2.0 m depth, TP349 from 0.85 to 2.3 m (occasional) and 2.3 to 2.5 m (numerous),
WS368 from 0.0 to 0.4 m, TP608 from 0.0 to 0.3 m, WS630 from 0.0 to 0.15 m,
TP776 from 0.1 to 2.4 m and TP780 from 0.25 to 0.5 m.
Visual and olfactory evidence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) was observed
in TP336 from 0.15 to 0.9 m with a layer of oily fine gravel and black staining noted,
TP342 from 0.4 to 1.2 m with a very strong odour and staining noted, TP346 from
0.3 to 1.4 m with a slight odour and black staining noted, TP484 from 0.55 to 2.6 m
with a fuel odour noted and WS617 from 0.0 to 1.7 with a slight hydrocarbon odour
noted. A hydrocarbon odour was recorded in WS706 from 0.36 to 0.75 m depth,
becoming slight from 0.75 m to approximately 1.5 m depth. Hydrocarbon odours
were recorded within TP777 (0.2 to 0.8 m), TP778 (0.08 to 0.25 m), TP779 (0.2 to
0.5 and 1.0 to 1.3 m) and TP780 (0.25 to 1.4 m depth).
It is understood that all the structures on the site will be supported on piled
foundations taken down to found within the London Clay Formation, and contiguous
piled retaining walls and undercroft basements will be constructed as part of the
development. Anti-heave precautions will be required for foundations and floor
slabs in areas of the site within the zone of influence of past, present and proposed
future trees and hedges.
Due to the significant gradient and changes in ground level across much of the site,
earthworks are proposed to create terraces suitable for the proposed development,
and the stability of slopes also needs to be considered. Earthworks fill materials
derived from areas of cut will comprise predominantly shallow London Clay,
reworked London Clay, or Head Deposits predominantly derived from London Clay.
The made ground encountered in the investigation would generally not be regarded
as suitable for use as a fill material ‘as dug’, due to the variability of the materials,
the presence of soft materials, organic materials and anthropogenic inclusions such
as asbestos, glass, metal, brick, concrete, ash, clinker, coal, bituminous materials
and flexible surfacing. However, consideration is to be given to the screening,
segregation and treatment of made ground where the Contractor judges that such
processing would be justified by the benefits anticipated to be obtained, in terms of
Topsoil was present locally on the site and could potentially be considered for re-use
in the project, subject to robust testing to demonstrate its chemical suitability, and
the absence of asbestos, sharps and other anthropogenic contamination. Topsoil
from different areas and of different composition should be stockpiled separately
and tested, prior to combining any materials, to maximise the potential for re-use.
Topsoil proposed for re-use should not be stored in stockpiles greater than 2 m in
height or for extended periods to avoid deterioration. Guidance is contained within
BS 3882: 2015.
Preliminary discussions were held during the early stages of the site investigation
works between Barratt London Limited, RSA Geotechnics Limited and a potential
Contractor for the earthworks. The Contractor was considering modifying the
shallow natural cohesive soils by the addition of lime and/or cement, to reduce
moisture content where necessary and increase soil strength. It was understood
that this addition was purely to modify the soils, rather than comprising stabilisation,
which represents a more permanent improvement.
Vigilance will need to be maintained throughout the works to identify and segregate
any potentially contaminated soils, e.g. those containing ash, clinker, glass, flexible
surfacing, asbestos etc. or those soils subject to desiccation.
The average liquid limit and plasticity index values for the high plasticity shallow clay
soils were 70% and 43% respectively, which significantly exceed the Specification
for Highway Works recommended limits for a selected cohesive fill to structures
Care will need to be taken in the selection of acceptability and performance criteria
for the materials to ensure that the compacted fill materials meet their design
requirements. Moisture control will be crucial, and earthworks trials should be
conducted to help determine the most appropriate methodology. The appointed
earthworks contractor would be expected to undertake his own robust testing and
trials to enable the design and control of the earthworks scheme, and to provide a
suitable warranty for the performance of the works.
The Northwest Quadrant was predominantly occupied by farm buildings and derelict
residential houses at the time of the investigations. The northern half of this area
was proposed to become public open space, with the southern half becoming
residential houses with private gardens.
value (79 mg/kg). Additionally, the two elevated lead concentrations were also in an
area that was proposed to become public open space, which resulted in a screening
value of 630 mg/kg, well in excess of the 242 and 240 mg/kg encountered
respectively in WS314 and WS771.
Some asbestos was identified around the stable buildings and the maintenance
shed. The highest asbestos concentration measured on site was located near the
southwest corner of the residential property on the eastern side of the maintenance
shed. The concentration of 0.492% of asbestos fibres by weight would be classified
as ‘Hazardous’ with respect to waste disposal as it exceeds the threshold of 0.1%.
These areas may be associated with the construction or modification of the nearby
A negligible risk was considered for the topsoil and natural soils in this area.
The Northeast Quadrant was occupied by the Mellanby Building, laboratories, and
storage buildings at the time of the investigations. The northern half of this area was
proposed to become public open space, with the southern half becoming residential
houses with private gardens.
VOC/SVOC concentrations were generally below the detection limit of the laboratory
methods, with the exception of one concentration of bis(2-ethylhexl)phthalate
encountered in WS420, which was significantly below the adopted screening value.
WS420 was located beside the disused oil tank to the north of the Mellanby
Building.
Given the potential for asbestos to be present within made ground, and the
presence of tar-based flexible surfacing, a moderate to high potential risk was
identified to end users without remediation, restricted to the area around the
buildings, and the tennis court for flexible surfacing.
Invasive plant species (Japanese Knotweed, Giant Hogweed and Marestail) were
present within this area of the site, and will need to be considered by a specialist
with respect to how they may influence works in this area.
A negligible risk was considered for the topsoil and natural soils in this area.
The Southwest Quadrant was occupied by the SPF Building, Kyper (Maintenance)
Building and other laboratories, with Car Parks 1 and 2 situated downslope to the
north of the buildings. This area was proposed to become residential apartment
blocks with no private gardens.
Two outliers were identified for arsenic with a log-normal distribution test; TP341 at
0.5 m (137 mg/kg) and WS347 at 0.6 m (98 mg/kg). These are considered to carry
a moderate risk to end users of the development without remediation. The Upper
Confidence Limits (UCL) for the contaminants did not exceed the adopted screening
values for a ‘residential without plant uptake’ and were therefore not considered
statistically significant.
Elevated PAH concentrations were also encountered in this area. The majority of
the highest concentrations were from samples of a flexible surfacing layer buried
below the existing surface of Car Parks 1 and 2. It was considered that this layer
may be present below much of the car park at a depth of approximately
0.05 to 0.5 m. Other elevated PAH concentrations in five locations still exceeded
individual screening values; the majority of these locations were located in the
vicinity of Car Parks 1 and 2, which may also have been associated with flexible
surfacing incorporated into the made ground, or be associated with coal or ash
content.
TPH concentrations in this area were generally below the detection limit of the
laboratory method, however the buried flexible surfacing sample obtained from
TP349 in Car Park 1 exceeded the respective screening values and returned a
Hazard Index of 6.6 for a ‘residential without plant uptake’ end use. Providing the
appropriate segregation and removal of the buried flexible surfacing is undertaken, a
negligible risk from TPH was determined in this area of the site from the
investigation.
Asbestos fragments and fibres of amosite and chrysotile were encountered within
samples obtained from the vicinity of both Car Parks 1 and 2. A high risk for
asbestos was determined for the made ground in this area. Further asbestos
fragments and fibres were encountered from the sample obtained from the southern
side of the former Spray Room at the southwest corner of the site.
Hydrocarbon impact was recorded within TP342 in Car Park 2. Although the values
did not exceed Tier 1 screening values, groundwater was impacted at the location
and ground gas was also recorded in the adjacent well (WS342B), considered
associated with the impact. It was considered that the recorded concentrations may
not be indicative of the maximum concentrations present, and it was consequently
recommended that the affected soils were excavated and removed. Other localised
elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons were recorded; however these were
associated with flexible surfacing.
A CS1 classification for ground gas precautions was determined, which requires no
special precautionary measures, with the exception of location WS342B where
elevated concentrations of methane were recorded. Remediation of the
hydrocarbon impact at this location is proposed, and the area is to be reduced in
level during the reprofiling of the site, which will likely remove the majority of the
impacted soils. Gas protection measures were not considered generally necessary
for the southwest NIMR area, subject to the satisfactory remediation and re-
assessment of the area around WS342B, the removal of the Cobalt Store in
Car Park 2, and subject to a watching brief during groundworks for any previously
undiscovered contamination.
Given the potential for asbestos to be present within made ground, the presence of
tar-based flexible surfacing, and localised TPH impact, a moderate to high potential
risk was identified to end users without remediation. Asbestos containing materials
within the existing buildings were identified as a potential high risk.
Within the NIMR Southwest area, Car Park 1 and the adjacent area was
investigated. The previous reports describe a ‘localised layer of ash/clinker’ limited
to an area between Car Park 1 and 2 (as indicated on the appended drawing
reference 14684GI1/11), which was considered likely to have been generated from
incineration/disposal activities on site. This material was also determined to have
contained elevated concentrations of lead. Isolated asbestos fragments were also
encountered in the general area of Car Park 1. The presence of elevated lead and
asbestos was confirmed by the recent investigation. It was considered possible that
‘ashy layers’ may be present elsewhere in the areas of the trees, however due to
limitations of access from the presence of the trees and root protection zones, this
has yet to be determined. BRD have stated that they consider the ashy soils in this
area to represent ‘typical’ made ground rather than indicative of ‘special’ waste.
Limited further remediation of this area is to be undertaken by BRD as part of their
works for the facility, and will be reported by them in due course.
The Southeast Quadrant was occupied by the Main Cruciform Building, laboratories
and offices, with Car Parks 3 and 4 located to the north of the buildings. This area
was proposed to become residential apartment blocks with no private gardens.
The highest lead concentration of 2220 mg/kg encountered during the pre-
demolition investigation was for a sample obtained from WS456 at 1.8 m depth in
Car Park 3. This sample was associated with a layer containing ash and asbestos
fibres below the ‘clean’ sand and gravel subbase. Other samples obtained from the
car park area did not show any significant exceedances, and it is considered that
this contaminated material may be present along the northern edge of Car Park 3 at
a similar depth.
Exceedances of the adopted screening values were encountered for arsenic, cobalt
and beryllium. Relatively high concentrations of all of these determinands were
encountered in one location; TP484, which was located to the southwest of the
demolished Chemical Store. The area east of this location was behind the hoarding
erected around the post-demolition investigation for ‘unconventional’ contamination
by BRD. The likely source of the elevated determinands may be the former
infrastructure associated with the demolished Chemical Store to the northeast of this
location. BRD were still to complete their investigation and remediation of this area
at the time of this report, and their works will be reported by them in due course.
Other exceedances were encountered for beryllium in the made ground on the
western side of the Cruciform Building and the garage area northwest of the
Cruciform Building. The remaining cobalt exceedances were also in the vicinity of
the garage area. The 95th %ile upper confidence limit (UCL) for these determinands
were below their respective screening values indicating they were not statistically
significant.
One sample was obtained from the vicinity of the only accessible electricity
substation on this part of the site and analysed for PCBs. No measurable
concentrations were detected and a negligible risk was determined.
The highest concentrations of asbestos fibres recorded in site soils during the
investigation were located at the northern end of the demolished Chemical Store,
with amosite fibres quantified as 1.8% by weight in this location. Quantifications of
0.003% by weight were encountered in BH314 located beside the northeast wing of
the Cruciform Building and 0.001% in Building D. Other quantifications of < 0.001%
were recorded in three samples obtained from the north, east and west sides of the
existing Chemical Store/former Squash Court, as well as fibres detected at WS456
in Car Park 3.
An electricity substation was also present near the northern end of Building D, which
will be inspected at the demolition stage once suitable access is available.
A CS1 classification for ground gas precautions was determined, which requires no
special precautionary measures. This classification is subject to further inspections
at the demolition stage, and the watching brief to be maintained throughout the
groundworks.
Previous investigations by others had been conducted and were summarised in the
Desk Study report by RSA Geotechnics (reference 14684DS), which should be read
in conjunction with this report. The previous investigations were generally targeted
to ‘higher risk’ contaminants such as buried incinerated laboratory waste, but
included commentary on ‘conventional’ brownfield contamination encountered.
and trace VOC were also reported, however the exploratory location plan provided
did not include the trial pit references, so the locations were unclear. The report
concluded that the full extent of the waste pits was not determined as
redevelopment has taken place.
With the potential for asbestos to be present within made ground, and the presence
of flexible surfacing, a moderate to high potential risk was identified to end users
It is anticipated that the made ground across the area will generally be excavated
and processed for potential re-use (subject to testing and assessment) or disposal,
which will enable further inspection and assessment. Careful segregation of heavily
impacted areas by the Remediation Contractor prior to further processing would be
expected to maximise the potential for re-use and reduce costs for disposal.
The main MRCT site was occupied by laboratories, with some residential premises
and car parks. This area was proposed to become residential apartment blocks with
no private gardens.
One exceedance of beryllium was encountered in the natural soils in this area, with
an UCL exceeding the screening values, however further assessment of beryllium in
the natural soils resulted in no significant risk being determined.
PAH concentrations within the made ground and natural soils were typically below
their respective screening values, and a negligible risk was considered. The
presence of PAH and TPH would be anticipated within flexible surfacing.
One sample was obtained from the vicinity of the only accessible electricity
substation on this part of the site and was analysed for PCBs. No measurable
concentrations were detected.
Asbestos fragments were found in the southern part of the garden area, below the
concrete slab north of the Main Building and below the surface of the upper car
park. Asbestos was also encountered near the northwestern corner of the site, near
the base of a former store building. Asbestos containing materials within the
existing buildings were identified as a high risk.
A CS1 classification for ground gas precautions was determined, which requires no
special precautionary measures. Therefore, gas protection measures were not
considered necessary for the MRCT South area.
Previous investigations by others had been conducted within the MRCT South area.
(Report Reference: 85500/1/2/JSH [SSO0677] - ‘Intrusive Contamination Survey’
MRC Technology, Mill Hill, Environmental Scientifics Group Limited [ESG], dated
24 January 2012) comprised eight shallow trial pits to determine the extent of
potential waste laboratory materials that had been exposed by rabbit burrowing on
the MRCT site. Chemical analysis of the recovered samples was carried out for
PAH, TPH, VOC, phenols, total cyanide, sulphate, nitrite, nitrate and sulphide. It
was determined that isolated pockets of contamination were encountered, with a
total TPH concentration of 2300 mg/kg in TP02, elevated lead concentrations of
861.6 mg/kg and total PAH concentrations of 47.28 mg/kg. The findings were that
two of the trial pits exposed waste typical of laboratory waste, but that three of the
trial pits exposed waste thought to have been generated from demolition. The
locations of the exploratory holes were not clear.
Asbestos surveys have been recently completed for all buildings across the site, with
significant asbestos confirmed to be present. Below-ground ducts and former air raid
shelters are present locally on the site, with the potential for asbestos and asbestos
containing materials to be present, and remnant materials from former development
on the site may also be encountered.
Asbestos within existing buildings and site infrastructure poses a significant risk to
site receptors until it is fully removed. Demolition workers are at particular risk from
any remnant asbestos containing materials.
The adopted screening values were considered conservative, given that the main
contamination was recorded within the shallow groundwater rather than at depth.
The shallow groundwater is not currently utilised for abstraction. Furthermore, the
impermeability of the London Clay would be expected to mitigate downward or
No exceedances were encountered in either of the surface water samples (SW1 and
SW2) recovered from the down-gradient side of the site, indicating that the risk to
the surface waters receptors of contamination from the site soils was negligible,
providing surface water run-off from the site is avoided. It will be crucial to avoid any
potentially contaminated run-off entering the drainage ditches and Folly Brook
during the development of the site.
Neighbouring properties were considered to be at low risk from mobile and potential
leachable contaminants migrating from the site, because of the generally low
concentrations of contamination identified within the soil and groundwater.
Off-site receptors could also be subjected to nuisances from windblown dust and
soil attached to the wheels of vehicles leaving the site, especially during the
demolition of the existing buildings, and during the re-profiling operations expected
on the site and excavation of the made ground and natural soils containing elevated
concentrations of heavy metals, PAH, TPH, VOC, SVOC and asbestos fibres.
Consequently precautions will need to be taken in order to prevent the potential for
contamination to impact off-site receptors. A moderate potential risk was
determined.
Due to the change in elevation of the site and the impermeability of the London Clay
soils, surface run-off should also be managed appropriately during site works to
prevent potentially contaminated run-off flowing downslope into the drainage ditches
leading to the Folly Brook.
Based on assessment with reference to the guidance within BRE Special Digest 1
(SD-1), 2005, ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’, mobile groundwater conditions, a
brownfield site and assuming pyritic ground for the natural soils, a Design Sulphate
category of DS-5 with an ACEC Class of AC-5 was recommended for the site.
A very high risk was therefore determined for below ground concrete from the acidic
ground conditions and pyritic soils.
4.8 Vegetation
Nickel, copper and zinc are phytotoxic and could therefore inhibit plant growth or
establishment. In order to assess the risk posed to vegetation on site from these
potentially phytotoxic contaminants the concentrations of copper, zinc and nickel
were compared against values given in the British Standard BS 3882: 2015,
‘Specification for topsoil’.
Adopting a pH value of >7, screening values for nickel, copper and zinc are
110 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg and 300 mg/kg, respectively. Concentrations of zinc were
identified to be generally elevated within the southern areas of the site, while
localised exceedances of copper and nickel across the site were generally shown
not to be statistically significant.
Laboratory analysis of topsoil samples has indicated that topsoil within the northern
areas of the site may be potentially suitable for re-use in the development, as
discussed later in this report.
The risk to Controlled Waters has been discounted in the above consideration
based on the findings of the investigations and the assessments to date. The
assessment will be reviewed in the light of further inspections of areas of interest at
the demolition stage, and during the watching brief to be maintained throughout the
groundworks.
The site investigation and risk assessment, as described in detail in RSA Geotechnics
report reference 14684GI2, 8 December 2017, have identified that while a significant
proportion of the site is not significantly impacted by contamination, elevated
concentrations of lead, arsenic, beryllium, barium, cobalt, PAH and TPH, as well as
asbestos, have been recorded within made ground, predominantly within the areas of
the site occupied by buildings or car parks.
Elevated levels of the phytotoxic metals nickel, copper and zinc were recorded when
compared to the BS 3882 British Standard screening values for multipurpose topsoil,
and regardless of the presence of contamination, the physical nature of the shallow
made ground with anthropogenic inclusions such as brick, metal, clinker and concrete
would, render the soils unsuitable for use as topsoil or subsoil in gardens and
landscaped areas.
While the re-use of made ground on the site is to be explored, it is considered that
screening and treatment will be required to render the materials appropriate for use.
There are some limited areas of the site that have not yet been able to be suitably
inspected, as appropriate access will only be available at demolition stage.
This report details the methodology for remediation of the site based on the
investigations and assessments carried out, however is not prescriptive with respect
to the detail of the remedial works. The Remediation Contractor will prepare a
Remediation Implementation Plan (RIP) for his works which will provide
comprehensive detail of how the remedial objectives will be met. Discussion of the
information required to be included within the Remediation Implementation Plan is
contained within subsection 5.7 of this report.
All recommendations made in this report need to be agreed with the Planning
Department and Environmental Health Department at the Local Authority, before
being undertaken.
5.2 Pre-Construction
5.2.1 Demolition
Any treatment and re-use will be undertaken with all appropriate permitting in place.
It is anticipated that such re-use would be undertaken under the voluntary CL:AIRE
Definition of Waste Code of Practice, which would re-classify the waste soils following
treatment and assessment as ‘non-waste’. Relevant permits or exemptions will need
to be in place for recycling, treating, storing, or disposing of materials.
Asbestos surveys have been recently completed for all buildings across the site, with
significant asbestos confirmed to be present. All asbestos and asbestos containing
materials will be fully removed by an appropriately licensed and experienced
specialist contractor in accordance with best practice and current legislation prior to
demolition, and with all necessary mitigation measures in place to avoid any adverse
impact to site receptors via migration of asbestos containing materials and fibres.
Detailed records of the removal, handling, waste classification and disposal of
asbestos containing materials will be kept by the Contractor and copies provided to
the Client.
The Demolition Contractor will, as the waste producer at this stage, be responsible
for the notification, segregation, handling, testing and classification of all waste
materials with reference to WM3 (2015) ‘Guidance on the classification and
assessment of waste’. Waste materials will be removed from site under full Duty of
Care to appropriately licensed treatment or disposal facilities. Any treatment on site
must be suitably permitted. It is possible that some materials, such as site-won
recycled aggregates, may be considered for re-use on other sites. Re-use will be
supported by testing for chemical and physical suitability (including confirming the
absence of asbestos) and robust risk assessment. Materials to be re-used will need
to be reclassified as non-waste and should not be transported as waste. Full
records detailing the removal and disposal of asbestos and asbestos containing
materials will be retained by the Client and provided to the geoenvironmental
engineer for cursory review at the verification stage of the Project, to evidence that
the materials have been transported by appropriately licensed carriers to suitably
permitted facilities.
Below-ground ducts and former air raid shelters are present locally on the site, with
the potential for asbestos and asbestos containing materials to be present, and
remnant materials from former development on the site may also be encountered.
Vigilance will be maintained by the Demolition Contractor and Remediation
Contractor throughout their respective works for any potential asbestos within site
infrastructure, beneath foundations and floors and within made ground. Any suspect
materials will be tested by the Contractor to confirm the presence and nature of any
asbestos present, and will be notified to the Client and geoenvironmental engineer.
Remedial actions will generally comprise the full removal of such materials, adopting
all precautions necessary to prevent adverse impact to site receptors, however low
concentrations within made ground may potentially be retained providing risk
assessment can demonstrate that a robust break in pathway can be maintained
between the impacted soils and sensitive receptors.
Invasive plant species are present locally on the site and works in such areas will
need to be supervised/authorised by the appointed specialist in this field.
There are a number of areas of potential contaminative impact which will not be
practicably accessible for inspection until the demolition stage. These include the
areas of fuel tanks and generators, plant rooms and similar infrastructure. Areas of
particular interest are illustrated on drawing number 14684GI2/22. However, general
vigilance will be maintained throughout the groundworks to identify any previously
undiscovered contamination, including evidence of hydrocarbon impact and asbestos,
which will be brought to the immediate attention of the Geoenvironmental Engineer
for assessment.
Any treatment and re-use must be undertaken with all appropriate permitting in
place. It is anticipated that such re-use would be undertaken under the voluntary
CL:AIRE Definition of Waste Code of Practice, to enable the processed soils to be
classified as ‘non-waste’. Relevant permits or exemptions will need to be in place
for recycling, treating, storing, or disposing of materials. Treatment on site is
typically undertaken by mobile plant under a Mobile Treatment Permit, for example
under standard rules permit SR2008No27 – mobile plant for the treatment of soils or
contaminated material, substances or products. This would be undertaken for the
purpose of treatment or remedial action, and could include chemical treatment,
bioremediation, soil washing, solidification, stabilisation, sorting and separation. A
Deployment Form for the relevant permit must be agreed in writing by the
Environment Agency prior to commencement on site, and at least seven days’
notice shall be given of commencement of operations.
The proposals for treatment and re-use must accord with the overall objectives of
the agreed remedial strategy.
The Remediation Contractor will be the waste producer at this stage and will be
responsible for the testing and classification of all waste materials with reference to
WM3 (2015) ‘Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste’. Waste
materials will be removed from site under full Duty of Care to appropriately licensed
treatment or disposal facilities, with full records kept and copies provided to the
Client for retention.
Location TP342 has recorded some hydrocarbon impact, which is considered to have
influenced the gas monitoring in the adjacent well WS342B. It is proposed to
excavate this location and remove any gross contamination identified. Initial
screening values will be based on S4ULs for a ‘residential without plant uptake’ end
use and as a minimum to achieve a Hazard Index value of <1. Subject to satisfactory
validation of this remediation it is considered that no further works will be required,
and the requirement for anti-ground gas measures will be mitigated, however this will
be further assessed in the light of the remedial works. The findings will be reported to
the Local Authority.
5.3.2 Earthworks
The main earthworks are anticipated to be conducted using the shallow natural clay
soils of the London Clay or broadly similar Head Deposits clay derived from the
London Clay. These soils have not been found to have been significantly impacted
by contamination, and consequently have no special requirements with respect to
remediation. However, they have been found to be naturally high in sulphate
content, requiring special consideration in the design of buried concrete.
Particular care is required in the excavation, handling and placing of these high
plasticity clays, as detailed within RSA Geotechnics site investigation report
reference 14684GI2, December 2017.
It is understood that the Consulting Engineers will define the specification for such
works, with liaison with the geotechnical engineer as necessary.
The main remedial measure to be adopted for the protection of end users is the
provision of clean cover soil systems in soft landscaped areas, within areas of the
site shown to have been unacceptably impacted by contamination. The cover soils,
which are to be placed over a basal geotextile marker/’deter-to-dig’ layer, will
provide a break in pathway between the soils and end users. Large areas of the
northern site areas have not been found to contain significant contaminative impact,
and the need for cover soils in these areas is limited. The southern areas of the site
generally require the provision of clean cover soils in soft landscaped areas.
The majority of the soft landscaped areas across the site comprise communal
landscaping or public open space. It is proposed that a minimum thickness of
300 mm of suitable topsoil/subsoil will be provided in such areas, overlying a
conspicuous ‘deter to dig’ geotextile membrane of appropriate permeability and
longevity.
For the limited private garden areas associated with the houses in the northern area
of the site, the proposed minimum thickness is 600 mm over a similar membrane, to
allow for the potential for ‘double digging’ of such areas.
Consideration should be given by the designers of the scheme to ensure that soft
landscaped areas are suitably underdrained, as the underlying Head
Deposits/London Clay are low permeability deposits and excavations into these
could act as sumps with the risk of waterlogging of subsoil and topsoil placed above.
Where the thickness of the made ground is less than the required thickness of clean
cover soils, relative to finished levels, (i.e. where clean natural soils are
encountered), the thickness of new clean cover soils could be restricted to the
thickness of the made ground in these areas, subject to testing to confirm the
prepared surface of the shallow natural soils is compliant with residential screening
values. Similarly, where clean natural soils are to be placed during earthworks, and
the clean soils are present to the required base depth of the clean cover soil system
and do not contain other soil inclusions, the thickness of topsoil/subsoil could be
restricted to the thickness specified by the landscape architect/soil scientist for the
proposed planting scheme, again subject to compliance testing of the placed fill.
It is proposed that the Remediation Contractor will construct the soft landscaped
areas to a level equivalent to finished level less the required thickness of clean
cover soils. A sacrificial protective layer of suitably clean granular material may be
placed over completed areas, to be removed by the Groundworker immediately prior
to placing the clean cover soils. The Groundworker will place the subsoil and topsoil
to the requirements of the Landscape Architect/Soil Scientist for the Project.
The investigation and testing to date have indicated that the topsoil in some northern
areas of the site is potentially suitable for re-use in the scheme. A thin cover of
topsoil was recorded to be present at fifty-one of the exploratory hole locations
(approximately 20% of locations) across the main site, with an average thickness of
approximately 0.25 m. It should however be noted that some topsoil contained brick
fragments and locally ash, coal and clinker, with asbestos fragments recorded at two
locations (TP339 and TP608), which would render such materials unsuitable for re-
use as topsoil or subsoil. Eighteen samples of the topsoil were analysed for a suite
of commonly occurring determinands. The testing indicated that topsoil within the
northern area of the NIMR site was potentially suitable for use, with the exception of
soils in the vicinity of existing buildings, roads and hardstandings.
Further detailed testing including robust screening for asbestos would be required to
confirm the suitability of site-won topsoil and subsoil for re-use. An initial testing
frequency of one sample per 20 m3 is proposed, with a minimum of three tests per
area. It is recommended that the advice of the landscape architect/soil scientist for
the scheme is sought with respect to the physical and nutrient properties of the
topsoil and the proposed site planting scheme.
Topsoil proposed for potential re-use should be stockpiled separately for each
source area prior to testing. Guidance on the assessment and handling of topsoil is
contained within British Standard BS 3882.
If site-won topsoil is not suitable for re-use, or is insufficient for the scheme, suitable
topsoil will need to be imported. The thickness of topsoil should not normally
exceed 300 mm, so for clean cover systems greater than this thickness imported
subsoil will also be required. The advice of the landscape architect/soil scientist
should be sought.
Once prospective topsoil and/or subsoil have been segregated (for site-won soils) or
delivered to site (for imported soils) they will either prior to or after placing be subject
to independent compliance sampling and testing by the Geoenvironmental Engineer
to confirm chemical suitability for use in a residential setting. The compliance
testing will include analyses for heavy metals, cyanide, phenol, speciated PAH and
asbestos, and where necessary TPH analysis (this will be informed by PID
headspace screening of recovered samples, and by visual and olfactory inspection.
An initial testing frequency of one sample per 20 m3 is proposed, with a minimum of
three tests per source. Consideration may be given to reducing the testing
frequency in the light of consistently compliant test results, to one sample per 50 m3.
The results of the compliance testing will be reviewed against Tier 1 screening
values for the appropriate end use, which will comprise a ‘residential without plant
uptake’ end use for the majority of the site, a ‘residential with plant uptake’ end use
for the gardens associated with the houses in the northern area of the site, and
potentially ‘public open space’ screening values for relevant areas. The
Geoenvironmental Engineer would also inspect the completed soft landscaped
areas and confirm the minimum thickness has been achieved, and that the basal
membrane is present.
Any imported soils found to be non-compliant will need to be removed from site and
replaced.
The requirements for clean cover soils within the different site areas are illustrated
on drawing numbers 14684GI2/16 to 14684GI2/20 which accompany this report.
Numerous mature trees are present across the site, a significant proportion of which
will be retained as part of the development, and are protected by Tree Preservation
Orders and have Root Protection Areas. Liaison between the Developer and his
consultants, and the Local Authority Environmental Health Departments and Tree
Protection Officer will be necessary to determine the detail of how suitably protective
clean cover systems can be implemented in the vicinity of protected trees and root
systems.
5.3.3.3 Groundworkers
Groundworkers will be made aware of the potential for asbestos and other
contamination to be present within the made ground. Due to the potential health risk
from asbestos to both on-site and off-site receptors, any handling of potentially
impacted materials will be carefully controlled, with suitable mitigation measures in
place to prevent any mobilisation of asbestos fibres. The generation of any dust will
be prevented, by the use of rigorous damping down of the materials as necessary.
Consideration will be given to boundary monitoring for dust and asbestos fibres to
provide confidence in the adopted mitigation measures. The works will be
undertaken by contractors experienced in working with asbestos, with the provision
of appropriate housekeeping and welfare facilities and personal protective
equipment (PPE). All operatives should be trained in working with asbestos, such
that they are aware of the potential risks, the need to prevent the generation of dust,
and the requirements for PPE/RPE.
The former uses of the site included work with pathogens and radioactive isotopes.
It is understood through liaison with Barratt London and from review of third party
reports provided via Barratt London that specialist consultants BRD Environmental
Ltd and Aurora Health Physics Services Ltd have effectively decommissioned the
site through surveying and remediation where necessary to remove any significant
risks, and that these works have enabled the surrender of the Environmental Permit
for the site, such that it is now considered suitable for redevelopment to a residential
end use. The specialists have recommended that vigilance is maintained
throughout the groundworks for any indication of potential contamination, such as
laboratory waste or radiation trefoils, and the requirement for such vigilance should
be communicated to all site personnel. Liaison with the above specialists or other
To prevent direct contact with the soils, groundworkers will as a matter of course
wear protective clothing, in accordance with Health and Safety Regulations, during
any groundworks. Workers will be properly equipped with dust masks, safety boots,
gloves, hard hats and overalls and provided with adequate washing facilities and
their use will be enforced where appropriate. All site workers will wash their hands
before eating, drinking or smoking. Site visitors will be supervised and protected as
necessary.
Reduced oxygen levels have been recorded within borehole wells, and suitable
assessment will be made where personnel are required to enter confined spaces
such as excavations to confirm a safe working atmosphere prior to entry and for the
duration of the works, with safe systems of work in place.
A very high risk was determined for below ground concrete from the acidic ground
conditions and pyritic soils, and a Design Sulphate category of DS-5 and an ACEC
Class of AC-5 for the site was determined. Buried concrete will be designed to take
account of these high concentrations.
A moderate potential risk to potable water supplies was identified, due to locally
elevated concentrations of determinands. Consultation with the potable water
providers is recommended, taking into account the proposed routing and level of
any water supply, to establish their requirements with regard to pipework and backfill
materials, as they are the final arbiter in this respect.
Any fuel or chemical storage facilities and associated infrastructure will require
careful emptying and decommissioning prior to any works on site.
The small electricity substations located on site are anticipated to be removed prior
to the main groundworks. If on removal of the structures, the residual soils appear
to be visually impacted, or contain an odour, then samples of the residual soils
should be collected and analysed for speciated TPH and PCB to measure the
concentrations in the residual soils and assess whether further remediation will be
necessary.
5.3.3.7 Vegetation
Localised impact to perched groundwater has been recorded, however the low
permeability of the clay soils underlying the site is considered to mitigate the
potential for migration of such impact.
Drainage systems are present below much of the site, and a culvert may exist in the
northern part of the NIMR site, connecting the drainage ditch beside the western
boundary with the ditch that flows along the eastern edge of the northern fields to
the Folly Brook. Measures will be taken to ensure that such infrastructure does not
form a pathway for potentially contaminated materials to flow offsite and into the
watercourse, both during and post-construction.
Due to the significant variation in elevation from the north to the south of the site and
the impermeability of the London Clay soils, surface water runoff should be
appropriately managed to prevent potentially contaminated water flowing into
ditches and offsite.
Ground gas concentrations were typically low. Localised elevated flow during earlier
monitoring has been further investigated; a significant risk has not been determined
and a Characteristic Situation 1 (CS1) has been determined for the site, with the
exception of location WS342B where elevated concentrations of methane were
recorded, considered associated with hydrocarbon impact at this location. This
location (and the adjacent TP342) is proposed to be remediated for contamination,
as detailed elsewhere in this report, and following appropriate remediation it is
anticipated that a similar classification could be adopted for this area.
The proposed development for the northern part of the NIMR site includes detached
housing with gardens. Assessment using the alternative NHBC ‘Traffic Light’
system for ‘Situation B – Low rise housing with a ventilated underfloor void’, as set
out in the CIRIA document C665, 2007 would result in a classification of ‘Green’ for
a 150 mm sub-floor void, and no special anti-ground gas precautions would be
anticipated to be required.
Depleted oxygen conditions have been recorded within borehole wells during the
monitoring, and atmospheres within confined spaces such as excavations requiring
personnel entry will need to be suitably assessed prior to entry and during the
works, with safe working practices adopted.
Photoionisation Detector (PID) measurements were carried out within borehole wells
during the three rounds of monitoring by BRD in 2014, and during six of the twelve
monitoring visits by RSA Geotechnics in 2017. Concentrations were typically below
the 0.1 %v/v detection limit of the instrument, and a negligible risk was determined
from vapours based on the assessment to date. There are still some areas of the
site, including the locations of fuel tanks, that have not yet been fully inspected due
to restrictions of access that will not be removed until the demolition stage of the
redevelopment. Further inspection of pertinent locations (e.g. fuel tanks) will be
undertaken once demolition enables suitable access to these areas, and these will
be considered further at that time.
Vigilance will need to be maintained throughout the siteworks for any degradable
materials or hydrocarbon impacts that could be potential sources of ground gas
and/or vapours. Any residual impact will need to be assessed on a location by
location basis to determine requirements for remediation either via removal or
mitigation through the provision of suitable barrier systems.
5.6 Waste
The redevelopment of the site will lead to the creation of surplus soils and materials,
including from demolition, reprofiling of the site and removal of materials unsuitable
for retention in the scheme, from remediation of contaminated soils, from excavation
for foundations, floors, groundbeams, undercrofts, pile caps and from pile arisings.
Materials will also be generated from the demolition of the existing buildings and
associated infrastructure.
The Demolition Contractor and Remediation Contractor will, as the waste producer
for their respective stages of the works, be responsible for the segregation,
handling, testing and classification of all waste materials in their remit with reference
to WM3 (2015) ‘Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste’. Waste
materials will be removed from site under full Duty of Care to appropriately licensed
treatment or disposal facilities with a fully audited trail from source to destination,
and copies of all records must be maintained on site. It is important to note that this
duty of care applies equally to recycled aggregates that are surplus to requirements;
such materials would need to be formally re-classified as non-waste with all
appropriate testing before they could be considered for re-use on other sites, and in
this event should not be transported as ‘waste’. Re-use will need to be supported by
testing for chemical and physical suitability (including confirming the absence of
asbestos) and robust risk assessment. It is recommended that the waste producer
undertakes checks to ensure that waste carriers and receiving facilities are suitably
dealing with the waste.
The likely categorisation of the Made Ground and natural soils for waste disposal
purposes was assessed by comparing the results of the chemical analysis with the
guidance given in the Environment Agency document ‘Guidance on the
classification and assessment of waste’, Technical Guidance WM3, 2015. The
contamination test results indicated that the majority of the soils would be classed as
‘Non-Hazardous’, however Hazardous and Potentially Hazardous classifications
were recorded for samples from some locations, based on concentrations of metals,
PAH and TPH, and locally asbestos, as detailed in report 14684GI2.
Uncontaminated natural soils are typically classified as Inert for waste disposal
purposes, unless they contain a high proportion of organic materials.
Further testing in accordance with current guidance will be required at the siteworks
stage by the appointed contractor to confirm the classification of wastes being
produced as the scheme progresses, to confirm requirements for disposal. Liaison
with the proposed receiving facility is recommended to be undertaken at an early
stage in the scheme to confirm the requirements.
Further advice can also be sought from the local waste regulatory authority, who
should also be able to offer advice on which landfills are available to accept the
waste.
It is anticipated that the RIP will be presented to the Local Authority and any
warrantors such as NHBC prior to commencement, for review and
comment/approval. Any variations in the agreed strategy and RIP to be formally
agreed with the Regulators. Contractor to be responsible for ensuring the works
undertaken meet the approval of the Regulators/Warrantors such that the planning
conditions can be discharged.
The following is an indicative but not exhaustive list of aspects that should be
considered in detail within the RIP:
Environmental Monitoring
Environmental monitoring before (baseline) and during works. Noise, dust,
vibration, odour/vapour. Action plans should adopted trigger levels be exceeded,
detailing measures for controlling any breaches, the reporting and investigation of
breaches, and the review of working practices to help avoid further breaches
occurring.
Proposals for Excavation, Treatment and Re-use of the Made Ground and the
Natural Soils
Discuss and detail any proposals for treating the soils by segregation and screening,
the addition of binders (both to improve strength and to limit
leachability/permeability) for modification/stabilisation and any other treatment such
as bioremediation, the testing proposed to evidence satisfactory treatment and
compliance with the remedial objectives, and justification of target values and
screening values to be adopted. Protocols for sampling including frequency of
testing, laboratory accreditation, chain of custody.
Detail the locations and levels where materials are proposed to be re-used.
Contingency actions in the event of non-compliance, or previously undiscovered
contamination. Testing and risk assessment for site-won and imported materials.
Proposals for any temporary works envisaged; retaining structures, hoarding,
exclusion of unauthorised personnel. Considerations with respect to UXO, invasive
plant species, tree and root protection, ecology and contamination. Site inductions
need to cover all of these aspects.
Estimation of Volumes
For excavation; treatment; re-use on site; reclamation for use on other sites; and
disposal to treatment facilities or landfill. Mass balance considerations,
requirements for fill materials and volumes for disposal. Consideration of import
requirements.
placing and compacting, and site controls (to include measurement of locations,
levels, plant, layer thickness, moisture control, measurement of binder addition,
degree of pulverisation, mellowing periods, site and laboratory testing). Proposals
for acceptability and performance criteria testing, including test frequencies and
laboratory accreditation. Protection of completed areas and finished surfaces. Haul
routes. Stockpiling of soils and materials.
Localised Remediation
Details of any localised remedial works to remove identified contamination, and
validation of residual soils following such works.
Waste Management
Segregation, screening, stockpile management and labelling, testing and
classification, record keeping. Roles and responsibilities to be defined. Liaison with
receiving facilities. Details of how waste materials are to be screened, segregated,
treated. Measures to mitigate risks to site receptors during the works, particularly
with respect to asbestos. Bunding, basal membranes, leachate collection, covering,
damping down. Personal and boundary monitoring. Audit trail for materials
handling from source to destination.
Reporting Requirements
Progress/programme, health, safety and environment, equipment and resource
records, detailed records of works undertaken (including drawings and photographs,
test results, sample locations and depths, locations, dimensions and depths of areas
excavated), records of quantities of materials and treatment undertaken, audit trail of
materials from source to final destination, records of materials removed from site
(including classification and waste transfer documentation) and details of carriers
and destinations.
The Contractor will prepare a Completion Report for each phase within nominally
one month of completion of the phase. The report will include full details of the
works undertaken with suitable supporting evidence to demonstrate that the works
have been undertaken fully in accordance with the agreed strategy.
In due course a Verification Report will need to be prepared for each completed
phase. The Verification Report will append the Demolition Completion Report and
Remediation Contractor Completion Report, together with information from the
appointed specialist detailing the treatment/removal of invasive plants, and will also
include details with respect to other remedial works that fall outside of the
Contractor’s remit, as they are to be undertaken during or post-construction.
These include:
- Details of the Watching Brief, and signed statements from relevant key
personnel.
- Validation of appropriate clean cover soil thickness and the presence of basal
membranes.
6. VERIFICATION PLAN
In order to verify that the remediation has been carried out in accordance with this
Remediation Method Statement, reports will be prepared by the appointed Invasive
Plant Specialist, Demolition Contractor and Remediation Contractor providing full
details of their remedial works as detailed earlier in this document.
- Sampling and chemical testing of any recycled materials imported onto site
where necessary;
- Sampling and testing of imported topsoil and subsoil; analyses will include
heavy metals, phenol, cyanide, pH, organic content and speciated PAH and
TPH and asbestos where appropriate;
- Cursory inspection of waste transfer notes for soils/materials exported off site
as part of the redevelopment.
The works listed on the Verification Plan will be carried out or monitored by RSA
Geotechnics Limited on behalf of the Client. Validation of the recommendations
relating to construction worker health and safety, off site receptors and building
materials, including the inspection of any ground gas precautionary measures, will
be carried out by third parties.
The information and analytical data collected during the remediation of the site will
be collated in a final Verification Report, as discussed in Section 5 of this report,
which will need to be submitted to the Environmental Health Department at London
Borough of Barnet for review.
A M PHILLIPS, FGS
Technical Director
WS419
WS313
WS105
WS428
BH101
BH101:
WS331 0.1/0.1/0.1
WS732
WS747 WS748
WS443 WS443:
WS750 <0.1/0.1/1.6/2.7/2.6/0.1/
WS749 6.6/0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1//<0.1
WS111
331
WS111:
WS342B BH308:
-0.2/<0.1/0.1 BH308
2.0/na/na/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/ BH316
3.5/0.3/0.2/0.1/0.1//<0.1
BH317
WS343
WS118 WS120
WS118:
0.1/0.2/0.2 WS119:
-0.2/0.1/0.2/
na/na/na/na/na/na/ BH311
3.8/0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1//<0.1 BH315
WS119
WS114
WS713C
BH314
WS114:
<0.1/<0.1/<0.1
BH306
na/0.2/<0.1/<0.1/0.2/<0.1/
BH306: <0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1//<0.1
WS701 <0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/
<0.1/<0.1/-0.5/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1
BH102 BH318
BH102: BH307
0.2/0.1/0.1/ WS370 WS714 BH103
WS759
na/11.2/0.5/0.2/0.1/0.2/
<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1//<0.1 BH312
3
BH312: WS632
7.0/5.0/2.8/7.3/3.0/-4.2/ WS115
<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1//<0.1
Key: BH313
WS313:
WS419
Maximum 0.1
WS313
WS105
WS428
WS331 WS331:
WS732
Maximum 0.1
WS747 WS748
WS443 WS443:
WS750 Maximum 0.1
WS749
WS342B WS342B:
BH308
0.1/<0.1/2.0/1.6/3.1/4.5/ BH316
0.9/<0.1/0.3/0.2/<0.1/5.6
BH317
WS343 BH317:
Maximum 0.1
WS118 WS120
BH311:
BH311
Maximum 0.4 BH315
WS119
(one occasion only
– rest all <0.1) WS114
WS713C
BH314
BH314:
BH306 Maximum 0.1
WS701
BH102 BH318
BH307
WS370
BH307:
WS714
Maximum 0.1 WS759 BH103: BH103
Key: BH313
WS419
WS313
WS105
WS428
WS331
WS732
WS747 WS748
WS443
WS750
WS749
WS342B
BH308
BH316
BH317
WS343 WS343:
4.7/4.9/5.2/4.7/4.9/5.1/
2.0/2.3/2.0/2.7/2.7/2.3
WS118 WS120
BH311
BH315
WS119
WS114
WS713C
BH314
BH306
BH314:
WS701 1.0/1.2/1.3/1.4/1.8/2.1/
7.1/7.1/5.9/6.8/6.8/5.2
BH102 BH318
BH307
WS370 WS714
WS759 BH103
WS370: BH307:
0.1/<0.1/0.7/0.8/2.3/1.7/ 0.2/0.9/1.0/1.2/1.7/1.6/ BH312
6.0/3.6/2.2/1.6/3.8/3.7 5.6/5.2/5.6/4.4/5.1/4.7 3
WS632
WS115
WS632:
1.1/4.1/3.2/2.2/5.9/3.9/
4.4/<0.1/4.5/4.3/3.9/4.5
BH313
Key:
NOTE: All locations are approximate
Gas/groundwater monitoring location GROUND GAS MONITORING SUMMARY - CARBON DIOXIDE Date 22 NOVEMBER 2017
ILLUSTRATION LIMITED TO THOSE LOCATIONS RECORDING
CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS OF 5% V/V OR GREATER Scale NOT TO SCALE
WS343: THE RIDGEWAY, MILL HILL, LONDON
4.7/4.9/5.2/4.7/4.9/5.1/ Carbon dioxide concentrations over 12 rounds of monitoring
2.0/2.3/2.0/2.7/2.7/2.3 % v/v (steady state) RSA GEOTECHNICS LIMITED Drawing No 14684GI2/8C Version A
NORTH
FIELD
SOUTH
FIELD
NORTH EAST
QUADRANT
NORTH
MRCT
NORTH WEST
QUADRANT
SOUTH EAST
SOUTH WEST QUADRANT
SOUTH
QUADRANT
MRCT
<0.001 <0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.492
0.003
x x
0.057
0.033
<0.001 x
<0.001
0.002
x
x x <0.001
0.005 <0.001
<0.001 1.800
x 0.008
x x x x
<0.001 <0.001 0.015
x 0.003 x
x
x 0.045
x
0.004
0.001
xx 0.003 KEY
x Asbestos fragments
WS419
WS313
WS105
WS428
WS331
WS732
WS747 WS748
WS443
WS750
WS749
WS342B
BH308
BH316
BH317
WS343
WS118 WS120
BH311
BH315
WS119
WS114
WS713C
BH314
BH306
WS701
BH102 BH318
BH307
WS370 WS714
WS759 BH103
BH312
3
WS632
WS115
BH313