Barratts NIMR Remediation Plan

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AT
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH (NIMR),
THE RIDGEWAY, MILL HILL,
LONDON, NW7 1AA
FOR
BARRATT LONDON LIMITED
REMEDIATION METHOD STATEMENT

`
REPORT NUMBER 14684RS
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
14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 1 of 61

CONTENTS CONTINUED
5.3 Remediation and Earthworks 39

5.3.1 Excavation, Treatment and Potential Re-use of Made Ground 39
5.3.2 Earthworks 41
5.3.3 Contaminated Land 42
5.3.3.1 Clean Cover Soil Systems 42
5.3.3.2 Site-Won Topsoil and Subsoil 44
5.3.3.3 Groundworkers 46
5.3.3.4 Buried Concrete 47
5.3.3.5 Potable Water 47
5.3.3.6 Watching Brief 48
5.3.3.7 Vegetation 49
5.4 Controlled Waters 49
5.5 Ground Gas and Vapours 50
5.6 Waste 51
5.7 Remediation Implementation Plan (RIP) 53
5.8 Completion Report and Verification Report 57
6. VERIFICATION PLAN 59

CONTENTS CONTINUED
Drawing No.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT

AND AREA OF INVESTIGATION 14684GI2/5
EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN (WEST) 14684GI2/6A
EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN (EAST) 14684GI2/6B
ISOPACHYTE PLAN CUT AND FILL APPRAISAL 14684GI1/7
GROUND GAS MONITORING SUMMARY – FLOW (STEADY

STATE) ILLUSTRATION LIMITED TO THOSE LOCATIONS
RECORDING POSITIVE FLOW FROM BOREHOLE WELLS 14684GI2/8A
GROUND GAS MONITORING SUMMARY – METHANE

ILLUSTRATION LIMITED TO THOSE LOCATIONS RECORDING
DETECTABLE CONCENTRATIONS OF METHANE 14684GI2/8B
GROUND GAS MONITORING SUMMARY – CARBON DIOXIDE

CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS OF 5% V/V OR GREATER 14684GI2/8C
EXISTING SITE LAYOUT WITH INDICATIVE

DESCRIPTIVE AREAS 14684GI1/9
PLAN OF POSITIVE ASBESTOS DETECTIONS 14684GI2/10
BRD REMEDIATION PLAN 14684GI1/11
MONITORING LOCATION PLAN 14684GI2/12
TCM INVASIVE VEGETATION PLAN 14684GI1/13
NORTHWEST QUADRANT – CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

OF INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIAL REQUIREMENTS 14684GI2/16
NORTHEAST QUADRANT – CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

SOUTHWEST QUADRANT – CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

SOUTHEAST QUADRANT – CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

MRCT SOUTH – CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDING OF

INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIAL REQUIREMENTS 14684GI2/20
POTENTIAL CONTAMINATIVE SOURCES 14864GI2/22

1. INTRODUCTION
Consideration is being given by Barratt London Limited to a residential development

at the site of the former National Institute for Medical Research (commonly
abbreviated to NIMR), and the adjacent Medical Research Council Technology
(MRCT) site, both located at The Ridgeway, London NW7 1AA.
The proposed redevelopment comprises the removal of the existing structures on

the site and the redevelopment of the site with 450 apartments split over 19 blocks
(A, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, E1, E2, F1, F2, F3, G1, G2, J1, J2 ,J3, K1 and K2) and
12 split-level detached houses (H1 to H12); as well as approximately 21,000 m2 of
community space; residents’ fitness suite and concierge facilities; secure undercroft
and street level parking, plant rooms and ancillary space together with public and
communal landscaped areas and private gardens. The general layout of the
proposed development is illustrated on drawing number 14684GI2/5 later in this
report.
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.
An intrusive pre-demolition ground investigation was carried out by

RSA Geotechnics Limited on behalf of the Client, Barratt London Limited in two
phases. The first phase was undertaken between January and April 2017, and
considered geotechnical aspects as well as geoenvironmental assessment for areas
of the site accessible at that time. A separate desk study was undertaken prior to
the investigation and is presented in RSA Geotechnics Report 14684DS, dated
5 April 2017.

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.
Authorisation for the preparation of a Remediation Method Statement was provided

by an instruction from Barratt London Limited on 25 September 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
2.1 Site Location
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.
2.2 Geography and Topography
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
- North Field – occupied by grass playing fields.

- South Field – overgrown grass and vegetation with small trees and footpaths.
NIMR
- Northwest Quadrant – occupied by farm buildings and derelict residential

houses.
- Northeast Quadrant – occupied by the Mellanby Building, laboratories, and
storage buildings.
- Southwest Quadrant – occupied by SPF Building, Kyper Building and other
laboratories, with Car Parks 1 and 2 to the north of the buildings.
- Southeast Quadrant – occupied by Main Cruciform Building, laboratories and
offices, with Car Parks 3 and 4 to the north of the buildings.

MRCT
- South – Main MRCT site, occupied by laboratories, with some residential

premises.
- North – overgrown partially wooded area to the north of the main MRCT site.
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
3.1 Summary of Geology and Ground Investigation
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 ground investigation disclosed the expected geological sequence, with a

variable thickness of topsoil and made ground, and a limited thickness of Head
Deposits clays overlying the London Clay Formation in some areas, with the Chalk
Group expected at depth but not proven in the boreholes.
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.
Desiccation has been observed within recovered samples, and should be

anticipated to be present in clay soils within the zone of influence of trees, of which
there are numerous present across the site. This has implications for geotechnical
design and the re-use of soils and is discussed within the geotechnical section of the
site investigation report.

For a detailed description of the ground conditions encountered, reference should

be made to the exploratory hole logs and the site investigation report reference
14684GI2, 8 December 2017. The following section presents a concise summary of
the ground conditions encountered within each of the indicative areas described in
Section 2, namely the NIMR NW, NE, SE and SW Quadrants and the MRCT South
area.
Table 3.1 - Summary of Ground Conditions, NIMR NW Quadrant
Stratum Min/Max Depth Min/Max Depth Min/Max

of Top of of Base of Thickness of
Stratum (m) Stratum (m) Stratum (m)
Topsoil G.L 0.1 - 0.5 0.1 - 0.5
Made Ground G.L - 0.3 0.05 - 1.5 0.05 - 1.4
Head Deposits 0.05 - 0.7 0.5 - 1.2* 0.2 - >0.85*
London Clay Formation 0.1 - 1.5 >25* >23.5*
Groundwater (mbgl) 1.4 - 2.4 During Drilling
0.64 - 2.3 Monitored
* not fully penetrated
Table 3.2 - Summary of Ground Conditions, NIMR NE Quadrant

Topsoil G.L 0.07 – 0.6 0.07 – 0.6
Made Ground G.L – 0.4 0.15 – 2.0* 0.15 – 1.99*
Head Deposits 0.15 – 1.0 0.7 – 1.4 0.4 – 1.0
London Clay Formation 0.2 – 1.5 >30.0* >28.7*
Groundwater 0.22 – 2.0 During Drilling
0.22 – 3.36 Monitored

Table 3.3 - Summary of Ground Conditions, NIMR, SE Quadrant

Topsoil G.L 0.1 – 0.4 0.1 – 0.4
Made Ground GL – 0.43 0.28 – >3.3 0.06->3.02
Head Deposits 0.17 – 2.4 0.28 - >3.0* 0.3 – 1.9*
Groundwater 0.5 - 14.7 During Drilling
0.17-4.53 Monitored
*not fully penetrated
Table 3.4 - Summary of Ground Conditions, NIMR SW Quadrant

Topsoil G.L 0.2 - 0.35 0.2 - 0.35
Made Ground G.L – 1.05 0.25 – 3.5 0.15 – 3.3
Head Deposits 0.3 – 2.4 0.5 - 3.0 0.2 – >1.4
0.22 - 6.42 Monitored
Table 3.5 - Summary of Ground Conditions, MRCT South

Topsoil G.L 0.1 – 0.6 0.1 – 0.6
Made Ground G.L – 0.4 0.2 – 2.2 0.2 – 2.1
Head Deposits 0.2 – 1.9 0.5 – 3.0 0.2 – >1.45
0.7 – 6.27 Monitored

3.2 Visual/Olfactory Evidence of Contamination
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).
Suspected bituminous or tar-based layers of bound material were present at a

number of locations, both at and below surface, and also locally beneath concrete
floors.

4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT
4.1 Development Scheme
The proposed redevelopment comprises the removal of the existing structures on

the site and the redevelopment of the site with 450 apartments split over 19 blocks,
12 split-level detached houses, approximately 21,000 m2 of community space,
residents’ fitness suite and concierge facilities, secure undercroft and street level
parking, plant rooms and ancillary space together with public and communal
landscaped areas and private gardens.
4.2 Geotechnical Considerations
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

sustainability, reducing the amount or class of materials requiring off-site disposal,

and increasing the availability of locally sourced backfill materials. Initial preliminary
discussions with a prospective Contractor indicate that careful screening of such
materials and treatment by the addition of lime and/or cement binders will be
explored, for the potential re-use of materials beneath roads and hardstandings,
which will provide a physical barrier between the materials and end users, and
where infiltration will be much reduced. Such processing and re-use will need to be
supported by robust risk assessment and appropriate testing to evidence suitability
for use.
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

of 45% and 25% respectively. It has consequently been recommended that

earthworks using these clay soils are restricted to general fill.
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.
Geotechnical aspects including earthworks are discussed in detail in report

reference 14684GI2, 8 December 2017.
4.3 Geoenvironmental Considerations
A brief summary of the findings of the investigations and assessments is presented

below, for the various areas of the site.
4.3.1 End Users
4.3.1.1 NIMR - Northwest
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.
Concentrations of arsenic (WS318) and lead (WS314 and WS771) were

encountered in excess of the initial adopted screening values for the most onerous
‘residential with plant uptake’ end use for the respective areas. However, the
arsenic exceedance (43 mg/kg) was encountered in an area of proposed public
open space, and did not exceed the ‘public open space (residential)’ screening

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.
PAH concentrations were significantly elevated in one sample (WS303) on the

north-eastern side of the stables, however further sampling in this area, including at
the original location (which did not replicate the original elevated concentration),
indicated it was localised to the very shallow soils and within a radius of less than
1 m. Similarly, three additional window sample locations around BH301 (WS765 to
WS767) indicated that elevated PAH were likely to be localised.
Concentrations of PAH were also encountered immediately north of the

maintenance shed which appeared, based on aerial photographs (dated from 1981),
to have potentially been areas of former flexible surfacing. Further sampling in this
area confirmed that the flexible surfacing remains in an overgrown or decomposed
state in these areas and laboratory results indicate that this may contain coal tar.
Such materials will require segregation and removal.
Excluding the samples of flexible surfacing tested, no significant TPH concentrations

were encountered in this area, however the highest PID reading obtained from a
Window Sample location of 143 ppm was encountered at WS318 at 0.2 m depth.
The only measurable concentration of VOC/SVOC encountered in the NIMR
Northwest area, for 4-nitrophenol, was also within the sample obtained from WS318.
No screening values were available for this determinand, however the 0.3 mg/kg
concentration encountered was considered to be relatively low.
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

structures; on which labels were affixed (presumably as a result of a previous

survey) indicating asbestos was part of their construction.
Based on the pre-demolition assessment of the NIMR Northwest area, a negligible

risk was considered inorganics in the made ground, a low risk for organics (once
flexible surfacing is removed) and a moderate to high risk for asbestos within the
made ground. Asbestos containing materials within the existing buildings were
identified as a potential high risk.
A negligible risk was considered for the topsoil and natural soils in this area.
A CS1/Green classification for ground gas precautions was determined based on

the Modified Wilson and Card system and NHBC Traffic Light system for a 150 mm
sub-floor void, and based on this assessment, gas protection measures were not
considered necessary for the northwest NIMR area.
4.3.1.2 NIMR - Northeast
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.
Concentrations of beryllium in excess of the adopted screening values were

encountered in the made ground within WS422, WS728, WS731 and WS761 and
the natural soil within WS449. The concentrations in the made ground were
recorded in close proximity to the buildings and hardstandings within this area and
the latter was located below the concrete loading area on the west side of
Building C. Lead was elevated at two locations in the south west of this area
(WS452 and WS732), although both beryllium and lead were demonstrated
statistically not to pose an unacceptable risk.

No significant PAH or TPH concentrations were encountered in soils within this

area, however would be present within the flexible surfacing which covered parts of
the area, including a tennis court.
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.
Fibres of amosite and chrysotile asbestos were encountered within samples

obtained from soils to the northern side of the Mellanby Building and the western
side of the larger former maintenance shed. The buildings in this area had labels
affixed (presumed to be the result of a previous asbestos survey) indicating they had
asbestos within their construction. A moderate to high risk of asbestos was
determined for the made ground in this area. Asbestos containing materials within
the existing buildings were identified as a potential high risk.
A CS1/Green classification for ground gas precautions was generally determined,

which requires no special precautionary measures, based on the Modified Wilson
and Card and NHBC Traffic Light system for a 150 mm sub-floor void.
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.

4.3.1.3 NIMR - Southwest
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.
Elevated concentrations of lead, arsenic, beryllium and cyanide were encountered

within the made ground and two elevated concentrations of beryllium were present
in the natural soils in this area, mainly in the region of Car Parks 1 and 2.
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.
No measurable concentrations of VOC/SVOC were encountered in this area as part

of the pre-demolition 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.
Elevated concentrations of beryllium were encountered in natural soil in the vicinity

of the SPF Building (TP355 and WS705). The UCL of 1.58 mg/kg for beryllium in
the natural soils did not exceed the adopted screening value of 1.7 mg/kg for a
‘residential without plant uptake’ end use, and the requirement for remediation was
not determined.
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.
Previous investigations by Aurora Health Physics Services Ltd and

BRD Environmental Ltd had been conducted at the instruction of the site owner to
investigate contamination associated with the particular activities of the former
facility: these 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.
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.

4.3.1.4 NIMR - Southeast
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.
High concentrations, such as that recorded at location WS456, will need to be

remediated where there is a risk of impact to sensitive site receptors. If it can be
demonstrated that this contamination is restricted to depth, it may not pose a
significant risk to end users. This assessment should include consideration of the
proposed changes in levels, the presence and depths of buried services, attenuation
tanks, and drainage. The remediation required will depend on the detailed
proposals for this area. The maximum concentrations encountered exceed the
‘Hazardous’ waste classification threshold and consequently have implications for
waste disposal. It will be crucial to carefully segregate different materials from this
area (and generally across the site) to ensure that the potential for cross-
contamination is minimised, and that materials with different requirements for waste
disposal can be kept separate.
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.
Elevated PAH concentrations were encountered in this area in two locations;

WS469 at 0.5 m depth and WS464 at 0.5 m depth. Location WS469 was located
behind the existing Chemical Store and upslope of the wooded area to the east of
Car Park 4, in an area of generally deep made ground. Slightly elevated
concentrations were also encountered in WS751 at 1.3 m depth in the vicinity of the
former Chemical Store. Location WS464 was located to the north of the computer
building. It was considered possible that ashy materials may have been
incorporated into the made ground as a result of re-profiling undertaken in these
areas. As the UCL was below the Tier 1 Screening Value, no significant risk was
determined for PAH within the made ground in NIMR Southeast area, subject to
removal and segregation of any flexible surfacing.
Three samples containing measurable concentrations of VOC/SVOC were

encountered in the NIMR Southeast area; TP484 at 2.3 m depth, WS488 at 0.5 m
depth and WS467 at 0.8 m depth. These concentrations were well below the
adopted screening values and a negligible risk was therefore determined for
VOC/SVOC in this area of the site, subject to removal and segregation of any
flexible surfacing or similarly bound materials (such as that encountered in WS714).
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.
Further remediation is understood to be undertaken in the vicinity of the demolished

buildings and will be reported by BRD in due course.
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.
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.
Report Reference: 85500/1/2/JSH (SWE01625) - ‘Investigation into Potential

Ground Contamination’ NIMR, Mill Hill by Scientifics Limited, dated 9 March 2007
comprised eight trial pits to determine the extent of historic tipping into former waste
pits along the eastern boundary of the NIMR 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 no significant
concentrations of contaminants were encountered, with a maximum TPH
concentration of 1400 mg/kg in TP04. Marginally elevated concentrations of PAH

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.
A more recent previous investigation by BRD (reference BRD2058-OR7-A)

described a Post-Demolition investigation in the eastern area of the NIMR Southeast
area. This area was behind hoarding during the recent investigation by RSA
Geotechnics. The report summarised the previous investigations in this area in
terms of the ‘Chemical Store’ and ‘Building No. 4 – East Annex’, both of which have
been demolished. The report refers to previous investigations by ESG and BRD,
and concluded that the chemical waste pits in this area were removed as part of the
construction of the Chemical Store in the early 1990s, due to the lack of evidence
encountered regarding their presence. However, it was noted that slight solvent
odours were recorded; hydrocarbon/chemical odours and staining were identified;
thin layers of clinker gravel were recorded with elevated concentrations of lead; and
elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons recorded in the perched groundwater.
With regards to the East Annex, former burial pits were indicated to have been
present, however only limited investigation of this area was possible due to services.
Following demolition of the Chemical Store, additional samples recorded elevated

concentrations of TPH, VOC and SVOC, as well as elevated concentrations of
ethylbenzene and asbestos fragments at depths of up to 2.7 m. These elevated
concentrations were not considered to be of significant concern by BRD. Following
demolition of the East Annex, incineration waste was encountered immediately
south of the building footprint to 1.3 m depth, and chlorinated solvents were
encountered within the London Clay from 2 m to in excess of 3 m below much of the
building footprint and extending southwards, as indicated on the appended drawing,
reference 14684GI1/11. BRD concluded the VOC encountered in this area
represented leakages from a drainage disposal point and were not considered to be
significant.
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

without remediation. Asbestos containing materials within the existing buildings

were identified as a potential high risk.
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.
4.3.1.5 MRCT - South
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.
Concentrations of inorganic determinands in the made ground were generally below

their respective screening values, with the exception of lead, cobalt, barium and
beryllium; the statistical analysis determined the 95th %ile Upper Confidence Limit
for lead to exceed the screening value for a ‘residential without plant uptake’ end
use of 310 mg/kg. Elevated lead was encountered in the made ground from the
western part of the lawn area to the western boundary of the MRCT site, and also
below the tennis court in the southwestern corner of the MRCT site. The highest
barium concentration of 1690 mg/kg in WS602 (0.5 m) was considered an outlier, as
was the highest beryllium concentration of 6.3 mg/kg in WS630 (0.2 m).
Consequently a moderate risk was considered from these determinands within the
made ground in this area.
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.

No significant TPH concentrations were encountered in this area; however three

exploratory locations presented measurable VOC/SVOC concentrations. These
were located in the lower car park, the former solvent storage area, and adjacent to
the former fuel tank base. None of these concentrations exceeded their respective
adopted screening values and a negligible risk to human health was determined.
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.
special precautionary measures. Therefore, gas protection measures were not
considered necessary for the MRCT South area.
Previous investigations by others 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.
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.
Previous phases of investigation of the MRCT South area by BRD culminated in a

Remediation Verification Report (reference BRD2058-OR5-A), dated December
2016. These investigations encountered between 1 to 2 m of Made Ground
overlying London Clay. The Made Ground in the lawn area on the northwestern part
of the MRCT site revealed some ashy soils understood to be comprised of
incinerated laboratory waste, in addition to isolated asbestos fragments and some
elevated lead concentrations. Remedial excavation of three areas to remove the
ashy soils that were delineated by previous investigations was undertaken, as
indicated on drawing reference 145684GI1/11, as appended. The WS160 - WS162
remedial excavation measured up to 12.2 m by 3.6 m and was up to 1.1 m deep.
The WS173 remedial excavation measured up to 11.7 m by 7.0 m and was up to
0.70 m deep. The WS142/TP110 remedial excavation measured up to 9.4 m by
6.3 m and was up to 0.70 m deep.
4.3.1.6 Asbestos in Buildings
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.
Due to the occurrence of measurable asbestos fibres and fragments, a moderate to

high risk from asbestos in made ground has been established for the site. A high
risk was determined for asbestos within existing buildings and infrastructure.

4.4 Groundworkers and Demolition Workers
Construction workers, and in particular groundworkers could come into direct

contact with the soils and were considered to be potentially at a moderate risk from
heavy metals and PAH in made ground, and a moderate to high risk from the
presence of asbestos. To mitigate the risk, appropriate levels of personal
equipment and good housekeeping and working practice will be required to
minimise exposure. Vigilance should be maintained during site works to identify
previously undiscovered contamination.
If previously undiscovered incinerator ash or laboratory waste is encountered during

site works, operations should cease until a suitably qualified specialist can ascertain
the nature of the contamination and determine that it is free of pathogens and
radioactive material.
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.
Asbestos could be present within ducts below ground.
4.5 Controlled Waters
From 15 groundwater locations sampled and tested, localised impact to shallow

perched groundwater was recorded for hydrocarbons (2 locations),
ammonium (3 locations, cobalt (4 locations) and selenium (2 locations). Sulphate
was elevated at 12 locations, however was considered associated with the typically
high levels recorded in the London Clay geology of the area.
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

lateral migration of contaminants, providing surface water runoff is suitably

controlled.
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.
No remediation was considered warranted for the protection of Controlled Waters,

subject to the watching brief to be maintained throughout the groundworks, and
assessment in respect of any contamination found.
4.6 Off-site Human and Property Receptors
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.

4.7 Building Materials
4.7.1 Below Ground Concrete
Laboratory analysis of numerous samples of made ground and natural soils is

discussed in report 14684GI2, December 2017. Groundwater was also analysed for
pH and sulphate content.
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.
4.7.2 Potable Water Pipes
Localised elevated concentrations of PAH, TPH and measurable concentrations of

VOC and SVOC have been recorded within the made ground. These would
generally be expected to be segregated and removed as part of the remedial works,
however liaison 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. A moderate potential risk has been assigned to this receptor.
4.8 Vegetation
Invasive vegetation, which included Giant Hogweed, Japanese Knotweed and

Marestail, has been identified on the NIMR site, as indicated by the previous TCM
R&D Ltd investigation. This vegetation will need to be appropriately managed and
removed prior to site works in these areas. The TCM plan illustrating the affected

locations has been appended to this report as drawing number 14684GI1/13.

Additional survey following the intrusive investigation has identified significantly
more Marestail elsewhere on site.
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.
A potential risk to vegetation from elevated concentrations of zinc was established

for the southern areas of the site, however it should be recognised that due to the
presence of anthropogenic materials such as glass, metal, concrete and asbestos,
the made ground would in any case be rendered generally unsuitable for use as
subsoil or topsoil in the scheme.
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.
4.9 Refined Conceptual Model
The plausible pollutant linkages identified by the investigations and assessments

undertaken are summarised in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9 - Plausible Pollutant Linkages

Source Contaminants Pathway Receptor
Previous uses of See Table 4.2.1 All End users
buildings on site Groundworkers
Off-site receptors
Building materials
Vegetation
Authorised/ Biological, chemical All End users
unauthorised or radiological Groundworkers
dumping of waste contamination Off-site receptors
materials in pits or Building materials
loose on site Vegetation
(including fume
cabinets and ash
disposal on site)
Made ground Hydrocarbons Direct contact End users
(TPH, PAH, Ingestion Groundworkers
VOC/SVOC) Inhalation Off-site receptors
Heavy metals Direct contact Building materials
Plant uptake Vegetation
Asbestos Inhalation of fibres End users
Groundworkers
Off-site receptors
Acidity and Direct contact Building materials
sulphate
Existing buildings on Oils, paints, Direct contact End users
site hydrocarbons Ingestion Groundworkers
Inhalation Off-site receptors
Direct contact Building materials
Plant uptake Vegetation
Asbestos Inhalation End users
Groundworkers (esp.
demolition workers)
Off-site receptors
UXO Explosion Direct contact End users
Groundworkers
Off-site receptors
Natural soils Acidity and Direct contact Building materials
sulphate
Above and below Hydrocarbons Direct contact End users
ground storage (TPH) Ingestion Groundworkers
tanks/Spillage of Inhalation
fuel oil/Leakage Direct contact Building materials
from plant rooms Inhalation of End users
vapours Groundworkers
Electricity PCBs Direct contact End users
substations Ingestion Groundworkers
Inhalation Building materials

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.

5. REMEDIATION METHOD STATEMENT
5.1 Introduction and Concise Summary of Anticipated Works
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.
Specialist surveys have recorded asbestos to be widespread within existing buildings

across the site.
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.
Consequently it is considered that some remedial actions will be required to suitably

prepare the site for a residential end use. Remedial requirements for the site relate
predominantly to the protection of:

End users Via breaks in pathway between any residual

contaminated soils and end users, to be provided by a
combination of clean cover soil systems and the
construction of buildings and hardstandings, and
through localised excavation and removal or treatment
of significantly impacted soils.
Site Workers during Through good working practice, housekeeping and

demolition and welfare
construction
Off-site receptors Prevention of migration of soils and potential

contamination (including asbestos) via dust and road
wheels, through damping down, covering of stockpiles,
keeping wheels clean
Vegetation By the provision of certified and validated subsoil and

topsoil in soft landscaped areas
Building materials Via appropriate specification of pipework and backfill

materials for potable water supply (with liaison with the
potable water provider) and by the design of buried
concrete to take account of the high concentrations of
sulphate recorded within site soils
Remediation to protect Controlled Waters is not considered warranted based on the

findings to date, however vigilance will need to be maintained throughout the
development to identify any previously undiscovered contamination, and to ensure
that site activities are protective against impact to surface waters or groundwater.
Remedial recommendations are discussed below, in general chronological order in

which they are anticipated to occur for each area, though it should be noted that
phased construction will mean that activities will be occurring at various times within
different areas of the site.
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
Demolition of the existing buildings is to be undertaken by a specialist Demolition

Contractor appointed by the Client. The Contractor will also be tasked with the
removal of remnant infrastructure including floor slabs, hardstandings and
foundations following demolition of the existing buildings. The Contractor will
segregate and process these site-won materials for either re-use on site or effective
disposal or re-use off site.
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.

Cross-contamination of materials with asbestos is a common issue on demolition

sites, and great care will need to be taken to avoid such impact throughout the works.
Measures must be taken to prevent the generation of any dust, and personal and
boundary monitoring for asbestos is recommended to confirm that mitigating
measures are effective in preventing the release of asbestos fibres. All works should
be supervised by suitably trained and experienced personnel. All other site users will
need to be informed of the asbestos works being undertaken and the protocols
adopted to mitigate risks.
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.
An appropriate method statement and Environmental Management Plan will be

prepared for the demolition phase of the works. Suitable environmental monitoring
will be undertaken (including baseline monitoring and asbestos monitoring) with
action plans in place should breaches occur, and health and safety considerations
and actions will be detailed. The works will be controlled to avoid any potential
impact to sensitive receptors, including surface water or groundwater receptors via
infiltration, migration via drainage and buried services, or surface water runoff.
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.
5.2.2 Inspection of Areas of Interest Not Previously Accessible
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.
5.3 Remediation and Earthworks
5.3.1 Excavation, Treatment and Potential Re-use of Made Ground
A specialist Remediation Contractor is to be appointed by the Client to prepare the

site for the proposed residential development.

In the interests of sustainable development and reducing the classification of

materials for off-site disposal, it is proposed to process site-won made ground where
practicable through screening, segregation and by the addition of binders (lime
and/or cement), to enable as far as possible the re-use of these materials in the
development. It is proposed to use the treated materials beneath roads and
hardstandings, where infiltration will be limited, and consequently there will be a
break in pathway between these soils and end users. The Remediation Contractor
will be required to support such re-use by suitable testing and risk assessment to
demonstrate that such use will not present an unacceptable risk to sensitive
receptors, including surface water and groundwater. The materials will also have to
be shown to be physically suitable for such use, in terms of strength, settlement and
resilience. These materials are to be the equivalent or better than those specified
by the Civil Engineer.
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 Remediation Contractor will prior to commencement provide detailed proposals

for his works within a Remediation Implementation Plan (RIP) which will include
comprehensive detail of how the remedial objectives will be met. Details of the
testing regimes and protocols to be adopted must be detailed within the RIP, with
justification of adopted screening values. The content of the RIP is further discussed
in subsection 5.7.

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.

The earthworks will be undertaken by the appointed Remediation Contractor, who is

also anticipated to undertake the construction of roads and drainage.
It is understood that the Consulting Engineers will define the specification for such
works, with liaison with the geotechnical engineer as necessary.
A detailed proposal and methodology will be prepared by the appointed Remediation

Contractor in conjunction with his advisors, to be agreed with the Client, to illustrate
how the earthworks are to be undertaken, and the warranty to be provided for the
works. This will confirm the specification to be adopted, including regimes for
acceptability and compliance testing (both prior to the works to inform the design, and
during the works, and covering both laboratory and site testing), and will include
details of the plant and methods proposed for use, earthworks trials, site controls
(including control of surface water and groundwater), contingencies for non-
compliance with the specification, consideration of inclement weather protocols, how
existing services, foundations, obstructions and other such infrastructure are to be
addressed, the identification and exclusion of unacceptable materials, and
compaction and benching and other relevant aspects. Any proposals for the addition
of binders shall be supported by appropriate testing and assessment, and
environmental considerations.
5.3.3 Contaminated Land
5.3.3.1 Clean Cover Soil Systems
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.
In areas of hardstanding (including buildings and roads) a suitable break in pathway

would be considered to be present between affected soils and human site receptors.
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.
5.3.3.2 Site-Won Topsoil and Subsoil
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.
Any imported topsoil or subsoil should be accompanied by a compliance certificate,

indicating that the soil has originated from a clean source and is potentially suitable
for use in soft landscaping area associated with a residential development.
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

appropriately qualified specialists in these fields will be undertaken to establish

contingencies and protocols to be followed in the event that suspect materials are
encountered during siteworks. Any supervision considered necessary by the
specialists during development will be implemented.
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.
5.3.3.4 Buried Concrete
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.
5.3.3.5 Potable Water
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.

5.3.3.6 Watching Brief
A ‘Watching Brief’ should be maintained during the groundworks on site, by relevant

personnel, i.e. a combination of the site management team and the contractors (who
will be present for the duration of the works) and where appropriate the
geoenvironmental engineer (who is anticipated to attend part-time to inspect
pertinent areas). Should any previously undiscovered contamination be identified,
works should cease in the affected area and the geoenvironmental engineer
involved in the project should be notified so further assessment can be carried out.
Detailed records should be kept of any contamination found, and the Local Authority
should be informed of any such occurrences and provided with details of any further
assessment and remedial proposals. The Watching Brief will be required to be
maintained throughout the development, with specialists available as necessary to
advise on any unexpected ‘high risk’ discoveries. Particular attention should be
given to significant sources, such as fuel tanks, Chemical Stores, electricity
substations, incinerators, waste areas, Ejector House, etc. The chemical waste pits
are indicated to represent local ‘hotspots’ of contamination, and therefore present an
ongoing risk of encountering such pits and associated impact. Indicators of potential
laboratory waste or animal-related waste should be brought to the attention of the
specialists responsible for assessing radiation and pathogens. Further works to be
undertaken by BRD locally on the site to remove ashy soils associated with the
former uses of the site are to be reported and considered in due course.
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.

Supervision on site by a suitably qualified geoenvironmental engineer Will be

undertaken for areas of particular interest, such as fuel tank areas, to ensure that
suitable inspection and sampling as necessary are undertaken and documented, to
formally evidence suitable remedial works.
5.3.3.7 Vegetation
Invasive vegetation (Giant Hogweed, Japanese Knotweed and Marestail) will be

appropriately managed and removed prior to site works in affected areas. The TCM
plan illustrating the affected locations has been appended to this report as drawing
14684GI1/13. Additional survey following the intrusive investigation has identified
significantly more Marestail elsewhere on site.
A potential risk to vegetation from elevated concentrations of zinc was established

for the southern areas of the site, however it should be recognised that due to the
presence of anthropogenic materials such as glass, metal, concrete and asbestos,
the made ground would in any case be rendered generally unsuitable for use as
subsoil or topsoil in the scheme, and such use is not proposed.
5.4 Controlled Waters
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.
Remediation of ‘hotspots’ of contamination is proposed, which will reduce any

potential risk to Controlled Waters, and existing testing to date shows no impact to
the nearby water course down-gradient of the site. The assessment will be updated
in the light of the post-demolition inspections and watching brief.

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.
5.5 Ground Gas and Vapours
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.

5.7 Remediation Implementation Plan (RIP)
A Remediation Implementation Plan will need to be produced by the appointed

Contractor to document in full detail the methodology to be used to meet the
requirements of the remedial strategy, for his scope of works. Certain aspects, such
as the validation of imported clean cover systems, will be undertaken at the
construction or post-construction stage of the development and will be undertaken
by others.
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:
A Detailed Description of the Scope of Works to be undertaken within the

Contractor’s Remit
This should discuss the remedial objectives, how they are to be achieved, and how
they fit into the overall remedial requirements for the site. Confirmation of
anticipated plant and facilities for the works.
Roles and Responsibilities

Confirmation of all roles and responsibilities. Management structure and
supervision. Confirmation of appropriate training and experience for key personnel.
Details of quality auditing for the works.

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.
Proposals for Earthworks, for both Unmodified and Modified Materials

Laboratory testing to inform the design of earthworks, proposals for earthworks
trials. Confirmation of the specification to be adopted and the targets to be met
(including strength, compaction and air voids). Methodology to be adopted for

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.
Decommissioning of Redundant Infrastructure

Details of emptying/decommissioning of ducts/air raid shelters/tanks/pits/chambers
and associated infrastructure such as pipework, and inspection and validation of
residual soils. Removal and/or stopping up of redundant remnant pipework leading
onto/off site, to prevent it acting as a conduit for the migration of potentially
contaminated groundwater.
Permitting, Notifications, Protocols, Methodologies, Planning, Sequencing,

Phasing
All crushing, screening, treatment and re-use to be undertaken under appropriate
permitting and to be suitably notified, such as CL:AIRE Definition of Waste Code of
Practice, Mobile Treatment Licence, Deployment notification, Discharge Consents.
Materials Management Plan (MMP), Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP)
including waste notifications, Risk Assessments. Construction Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP), Health and Safety. Full details to be provided in the RIP
together with proposals for liaison with the Local Authority and Environment Agency
and any relevant warrantors with respect to gaining approval for the detailed
proposals. Sequencing and phasing of the works to be suitably considered.
WAMITAB supervision and programmed attendance. The Contractor should
provide written evidence to the Client confirming that all necessary permits are in
place prior to commencement.

Surface Water and Groundwater Control

Detailed proposals for the control of groundwater and surface water during
earthworks and siteworks, to avoid impact to Controlled Waters receptors.
Proposals for storage, treatment and discharge/disposal of waters. Infiltration of
made ground to be avoided.
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.
Records of any groundwater treatment undertaken, including volumes treated and

discharged, testing, permit details.
Records of WAMITAB supervision and visits to site.
Reporting of any previously undiscovered contamination, environmental issues,

exceedances of environmental monitoring target values.

Records of geotechnical testing (laboratory and site testing), assessment of

compliance with adopted specification, any deviations from the specification
requirements and scheduled works and details of remedial actions to correct such
deviations.
5.8 Completion Report and Verification Report
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 records made by the Geoenvironmental Engineer during the

inspection of areas previously inaccessible, or identified during the site
Watching Brief, and associated actions.
- Details of the Watching Brief, and signed statements from relevant key
personnel.
- Compliance certification and independent validation testing for imported soils

and materials.
- Cursory review of waste transfer documentation, carriers and receiving

facilities.
- Specification of potable water pipework and backfill materials.
- Specification for Buried Concrete.

- Specification for any ground gas/vapour precautions, should such measures

be deemed necessary by any findings during the works.
- Validation of appropriate clean cover soil thickness and the presence of basal
membranes.
- Foundation works risk assessment, as required.

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.
Additionally, a programme of validation inspection and testing will be carried out or

monitored by the Geoenvironmental Engineer, to include the following:-
- Inspection of areas of potential contaminative interest identified from the desk

study and site investigation, at the demolition stage, once suitable access is
available, and remedial actions as considered appropriate;
- Inspection/risk assessment and remedial actions as considered appropriate

based on risk assessment, for any previously undiscovered contamination,
including where issues are reported during the Watching Brief to be
maintained throughout the groundworks;
- Inspection and assessment of localised remedial excavations, where

significant contaminative impact has been identified, or where such impact is
identified during the works;
- Validation sampling of the residual soils of such remedial excavations to

evidence that the remedial works have met the required objectives;
- Inspection and validation testing of any soils to be used as backfill materials

for the remedial excavations;
- Inspection of compliance certificates for any imported materials;
- Sampling and chemical testing of any recycled materials imported onto site
where necessary;
- Compliance testing of any site won material or recycled demolition materials

proposed for re-use on site;

- Inspection of compliance certificates for imported topsoil and subsoil to be

used in domestic and communal garden areas;
- 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;
- Inspection of the basal membrane/deter to dig layer in gardens and soft

landscaping areas, and inspection of the thickness of the placed clean cover
system;
- 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.
This Remediation Method Statement should be submitted to London Borough of

Barnet for formal approval.

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.
G J BELL, BSc, MSc, CGeol FGS

Senior Geotechnical Engineer
L M STOCKDALE, MSci (Lond), MSc (MCSM), FGS

Geoenvironmental Engineer
A M PHILLIPS, FGS
Technical Director
Report Number 14684RS

Report Issued 23 November 2017
Version 2 Report Issued 6 December 2017
Version 3 Report Issued 8 December 2017

Approximate area covered
by investigation
NOTE: All locations are approximate

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT AND AREA OF INVESTIGATION Date 22 NOVEMBER 2017
(Based upon RMA Architects drawing number 1775_0500, Rev A)
NIMR, THE RIDGEWAY, MILL HILL, LONDON Scale NOT TO SCALE
RSA GEOTECHNICS LIMITED Drawing No 14684GI2/5 Version A

EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN (WEST) Date 22 NOVEMBER 2017
(Based upon Sterling Surveys drawing number 1604-1C)
RSA GEOTECHNICS LIMITED Drawing No 14684GI2/6A Version A

EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN (EAST) Date 22 NOVEMBER 2017
(Based upon Sterling Surveys drawing number 1604-1C)
RSA GEOTECHNICS LIMITED Drawing No 14684GI2/6B Version A

N

ISCOPACHYTE PLAN CUT AND FILL APPRAISAL Date 17 MAY 2017
(Based upon Brand Consulting drawing number 11348-5025)

N
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
Gas/groundwater monitoring location NOTE: All locations are approximate

GROUND GAS MONITORING SUMMARY - FLOW (STEADY STATE) Date 22 NOVEMBER 2017
BH102: Flow measurement over 12 rounds of monitoring l/hr (steady state) ILLUSTRATION LIMITED TO THOSE LOCATIONS RECORDING
0.2/0.1/0.1/
Earlier 2014 monitoring by BRD in italics POSITIVE FLOW FROM BOREHOLE WELLS Scale NOT TO SCALE
na/11.2/0.5/0.2/0.1/0.2/ THE RIDGEWAY, MILL HILL, LONDON
<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1/<0.1 na = location not accessible for monitoring
RSA GEOTECHNICS LIMITED Drawing No 14684GI2/8A Version A
N
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
BH312 Maximum 0.1

3
WS632
WS115
Key: BH313
Gas/groundwater monitoring location NOTE: All locations are approximate

GROUND GAS MONITORING SUMMARY – METHANE Date 22 NOVEMBER 2017
WS342B: DETECTABLE CONCENTRATIONS OF METHANE Scale NOT TO SCALE
0.1/<0.1/2.0/1.6/3.1/4.5/ Methane concentrations over 12 rounds of monitoring THE RIDGEWAY, MILL HILL, LONDON
0.9/<0.1/0.3/0.2/<0.1/5.6 % v/v (steady state)
RSA GEOTECHNICS LIMITED Drawing No 14684GI2/8B Version A
N
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:
Gas/groundwater monitoring location GROUND GAS MONITORING SUMMARY - CARBON DIOXIDE Date 22 NOVEMBER 2017
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

EXISTING SITE LAYOUT WITH INDICATIVE DESCRIPTIVE AREAS Date 17 MAY 2017
(Based upon drawing by others)

N
<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
Amosite asbestos fibres
Chrysotile asbestos fibres
0.002 Area covered by investigation

x

PLAN OF POSITIVE ASBESTOS DETECTIONS Date 22 NOVEMBER 2017

N

BRD PROPOSED REMEDIATION PLAN Date 17 MAY 2017
(Based upon BRD Environmental Ltd drawing number BRD2058-OD9 Rev B)

N
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

MONITORING LOCATION PLAN – SHALLOW WELLS Date 22 NOVEMBER 2017
Key:
THE RIDGEWAY, MILL HILL, LONDON Scale NOT TO SCALE
Gas/groundwater monitoring location
TCM INVASIVE VEGETATION PLAN Date 17 MAY 2017
(Based upon BRD Environmental Ltd drawing number BRD2058-OD9 Rev B)

Barratts NIMR Remediation Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barratts NIMR Remediation Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

REMEDIATION METHOD STATEMENT

REPORT NUMBER 14684RS

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 1 of 61

5.3 Remediation and Earthworks 39

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 2 of 61

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT

EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN (WEST) 14684GI2/6A

EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN (EAST) 14684GI2/6B

ISOPACHYTE PLAN CUT AND FILL APPRAISAL 14684GI1/7

GROUND GAS MONITORING SUMMARY – FLOW (STEADY

GROUND GAS MONITORING SUMMARY – METHANE

GROUND GAS MONITORING SUMMARY – CARBON DIOXIDE

EXISTING SITE LAYOUT WITH INDICATIVE

PLAN OF POSITIVE ASBESTOS DETECTIONS 14684GI2/10

BRD REMEDIATION PLAN 14684GI1/11

MONITORING LOCATION PLAN 14684GI2/12

TCM INVASIVE VEGETATION PLAN 14684GI1/13

NORTHWEST QUADRANT – CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

NORTHEAST QUADRANT – CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

SOUTHWEST QUADRANT – CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

SOUTHEAST QUADRANT – CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

MRCT SOUTH – CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDING OF

POTENTIAL CONTAMINATIVE SOURCES 14864GI2/22

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 3 of 61

Consideration is being given by Barratt London Limited to a residential development

The proposed redevelopment comprises the removal of the existing structures on

An intrusive pre-demolition ground investigation was carried out by

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 4 of 61

Authorisation for the preparation of a Remediation Method Statement was provided

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 5 of 61

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 6 of 61

2.1 Site Location

2.2 Geography and Topography

- North Field – occupied by grass playing fields.

- Northwest Quadrant – occupied by farm buildings and derelict residential

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 7 of 61

- South – Main MRCT site, occupied by laboratories, with some residential

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 8 of 61

3.1 Summary of Geology and Ground Investigation

The ground investigation disclosed the expected geological sequence, with a

Desiccation has been observed within recovered samples, and should be

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 9 of 61

For a detailed description of the ground conditions encountered, reference should

Table 3.1 - Summary of Ground Conditions, NIMR NW Quadrant

Stratum Min/Max Depth Min/Max Depth Min/Max

Table 3.2 - Summary of Ground Conditions, NIMR NE Quadrant

Stratum Min/Max Depth Min/Max Depth Min/Max

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 10 of 61

Table 3.3 - Summary of Ground Conditions, NIMR, SE Quadrant

Stratum Min/Max Depth Min/Max Depth Min/Max

Table 3.4 - Summary of Ground Conditions, NIMR SW Quadrant

Stratum Min/Max Depth Min/Max Depth Min/Max

Table 3.5 - Summary of Ground Conditions, MRCT South

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 11 of 61

3.2 Visual/Olfactory Evidence of Contamination

Suspected bituminous or tar-based layers of bound material were present at a

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 12 of 61

4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Development Scheme

The proposed redevelopment comprises the removal of the existing structures on

4.2 Geotechnical Considerations

14684RS - Report, GJB,LMS,AMP,PJB - 08-12-17 - Vers.3 Page 13 of 61