EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The report presents option appraisal process for the site at former St Anthony’s Lead Works
following a recommendation from previous land contamination risk assessment of the site.
Elevated levels of lead and arsenic were identified using generic quantitative risk assessment
and the site was classified as contaminated. This report contains a review of existing data
including the refined conceptual site model showing the relevant pollutant linkages. Key
remediation objectives have been established in the process and a list of remediation options
presented. Examples of remediation options included in the report are: excavation of the
contaminated soil to secure landfills, break layers and capping, simple covering,
phytoremediation and planting of thorny shrubs on the slopes. Upon detailed appraisal of the
options based on the criteria of effectiveness, suitability, cost and timeline; a combined scheme
that entailed simple covering, capping, break layer and planting of thorny shrubs were selected
as the best scheme for the remediation of the contaminated land. Further a detailed remediation
strategy and subsequent verification has been presented for the site.
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Scope of investigation
Detailed risk assessment report has been produced for the land at former St Anthony’s Lead
Works following site investigations by the City Council and Newcastle University including
groundwater investigations results by Entec (UK) Ltd. Elevated concentrations of arsenic and
lead within shallow surface have been established and a remediation strategy proposed as a
result.
As a requirement for developing a suitable remediation strategy for a contaminated land as set
out by the Environment Agency’s guidelines, this report presents the results of ‘Option
Appraisal’ process including the adopted remediation strategy for the above mentioned site as
described in the CLR 11.
The report presents an overview and appraisal of the existing site investigation data. In addition,
the report outlines contaminant linkages, the proposed remediation works in respect to the
established pollutants on the land. The objectives of the option appraisals and the remediation
works are also included in the subsequent sections.
1.2. Review of existing data and report
Newcastle City Council, Newcastle University and Entec (UK) Ltd. Issued a report titled
FORMER ST ANTHONY’S LEAD WORKS Site Investigation Report, dated July 2010. This
report presented the findings of site investigation of the site including Preliminary Risk
Assessment and Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment in compliance with the guidelines of
CLR 11.
The site is currently used as a public park by local residents, commuters and lunchtime users of
the neighbouring industrial estate as well as the visitors and tourists using Hadrian’s Way
national footpath and cycle way. The site is located at the western part of Walker Riverside Park
while at the southern part of the site exists the River Tyne. The current use of the land is for
recreational purposes. The site consist of grassed terraces and demarcated wooded areas that
include nuts and wild edible berries. To the northern part of the site exists a playground and a
football pitch.
Historically, the site was used as an industry for St Anthony’s Lead Works factory which
predisposed the site to pollution by heavy metals such as lead and the associated metals used
in the factory. Within its vicinity also existed other industries such as the St Anthony’s Chemical
Works and St Anthony’s Tar Works.
Based on the above mentioned site investigation report, a significant possibility of significant
harm to human health has been established via risk assessment. Subsequently, a site
conceptual model has been prepared to show the contaminant linkages that are considered
significant. The conceptual model is as shown in figure 1 below.
The outcome of the risk assessment to human health were performed using tier 2 generic
criteria risk assessment and tier 3 site specific criteria risk assessment. Tier 2 generic criteria
was conducted in topsoil and subsoil. For topsoil, run A was used to analyse statistical data of
samples across all the zones in the area and the results showed the true population mean of
arsenic and lead on balance of probability to be above the critical concentration. Similarly the
results for run B (which entailed 30 samples at given zones to evaluate bioaccessibility),
demonstrated on balance of probability that the true population mean of lead and arsenic
exceeded the critical concentration. For the sub-soil on tier 2 tests, the results remained the
same for lead and arsenic
Figure 1: Conceptual site model

Likewise, tier 3 site specific criteria risk assessment for lands to be used as public parks and
using site specific values (SSV) lead and arsenic concentrations exceeded the critical
concentrations for the Site Specific Higher Possibility Assessment Values (SSHPAV)
requirements in accordance with CIEH CLAIRE. Tier 3 results were obtained using run C that
entailed 0 – 300mm and topsoil only materials.
Potential risk to contamination of ground water and controlled water as well as possible
groundwater and surface water contamination due to the former St Anthony’s Lead Work Site
was established. However, it was recommended that EA be consulted prior to further works in
understanding the site and the significance of the contaminant linkages. Thus, in order to inform
the remediation strategy for groundwater protection a written document from the EA regarding
the recommendation must be obtained.
Potentially unacceptable risks, therefore, were established in relation to lead and arsenic and as
shown in the conceptual site model in figure 1 above.

2. REMEDIATION OBJECTIVES
Following the review of the existing data and the previous report, the site has been established
as a contaminated land with a potentially significant risk to human health. The contaminants in
higher concentrations than their respective acceptable critical concentrations are lead and
arsenic. In order to achieve the option appraisal objectives, the remedial strategies must,
therefore, seek to reduce or stop completely the risk from the contaminants to human health. As
such, the remedial objectives, thus, include:
 To immobilize contaminants
 To minimize/reduce the concentration of the contaminants (lead and arsenic
concentrations) to acceptable levels for a public park
 To remove the source/contaminants from the site
 To break the contaminant linkages
 To remove the pathways between the contaminants and the receptor

3. FEASIBLE OPTIONS
The feasible options for appraisal process in the subsequent include all the options with the aim
of fulfilling the remediation objectives aforementioned. A list of feasible options for the site
include:
  Excavation and removal of the contaminated soil, especially the red lead hotspots, to
secure landfills
 Break layers
 Capping
 Covering
 Phytoremediation
 Planting of thorny shrubs on the slopes to restrict access to contaminated hotspots
The options listed above and their usefulness in the containment of the contaminated land is as
summarised in the table 1 below
Table 1: Contaminant linkages and relevant remediation options

Contaminant Linkages Remediation Objective Suitabili

Source/Contaminants Receptor Receptor and Option achieved ty
Pathway scheme
(1 – 5)
Removal of Removal of 4
contaminated soil source
to secure landfill

Lead in the
topsoil/made ground  Ingestion of soil and
 Local dust
residents  Inhalation of soil and
 Visitors dust
Break layer and Removal of 5
 Tourists  Dermal Contact of capping pathways
 Industrial soil and dust
estate workers  Ingestion of edible
vegetation and
attached soil Covering To 5
immobilize
contaminant
Phytoremediation Reducing 3
Lead in the sub-soil concentratio
n of
contaminant
Planting of thorny To break 4
shrubs on slopes contaminant
linkages
 Contaminant Linkages Remediation Objective Suitability
Source/Contaminants Receptor Receptor and Option achieved scheme
Pathway (1 – 5)

Removal of Removal 4
contaminated soil of source
to secure landfill

Arsenic in the
topsoil/made ground  Ingestion of soil and
 Local dust
residents  Inhalation of soil and
 Visitors dust
Break layer and Removal 5
 Tourists  Dermal Contact of capping of
 Industrial soil and dust pathways
estate workers  Ingestion of edible
vegetation and
attached soil Covering To 5
immobilize
contamina
nt
Arsenic in the sub-soil Phytoremediation Reducing 3
concentrati
on of
contamina
nt
Planting of thorny To break 4
shrubs on slopes contamina
nt linkages

4. OPTIONS APPRAISAL
The options appraisal criteria is based on the relevance of the proposed options to meet the
objectives of the remediation including effectiveness, complexity of executing the strategy, cost
and timeline. The ultimate option or combination of option shall be the one effective for
containment of both lead and arsenic.
Option 1 Appraisal: Removal of contaminated soil to secure landfill
The contaminated soil is excavated and transported to a licenced landfill. This entails
excavation of the hotspots of the areas contaminated by lead and arsenic. This method is
simple and fast. However, the cost for landfill tax must be incurred. Additional survey must also
be carried to ensure no zones of elevated concentrations are left out. This method will remove
the source contaminant from the site, thus, useful.
Option 2 Appraisal: Covering
Using this option, the contaminated zones are covered with clean materials/soil, thus,
immobilizing the contaminants from reaching the receptor. This option yields a cheap, quick and
effective results, especially where risk of ingestion and inhalation is probable. A minimum soil
cover of 600mm is often used depending on the concentration. This method, however, is only
suitable where contaminants are not mobile. Besides, regular monitoring shall also be required
to ensure the cover is not excavated in future.
Option 3 Appraisal: Break layer and capping
Break layers are granular cover materials designed to impede leaching of contaminants above
the soil. The can be incorporated with covering. Capping, on the other hand, are impermeable
simple covering meant to stop rainfall infiltration into underlying strata. This too can be
incorporated with simple covers. These options also yield a cheaper and effective way to
remove pathways to the receptors. Besides, they can be combined with covering.
Option 4 Appraisal: Phytoremediation
This is a bioremediation option where plants and other living microorganisms are used in
reducing the concentration of the contaminants. With the right types of plants, this method can
be effective for lead and arsenic. However, it takes a long period of time before the plants can
reduce the concentrations to acceptable levels. Besides, the plants have to be harvested and
new ones planted. Although a suitable option, for the sake of time, it might not be a viable
option.
Option 5 Appraisal: Planting thorny shrubs on the slopes
Planting thorny shrubs on the slopes will restrict access of people to the slope zones hence
blocking contaminant linkages. This is a long term process, although will still help to enhance
the aesthetics of the public park. This option is cheap and can be incorporated with other
options such as covering to the terraces.

5. SELECTED REMEDIAL SCHEME

Based on the appraisal of the aforementioned options in section 4, the best remediation scheme
will be to provide simple covers, break layers and capping to the terraces as well as the planting
of thorny shrubs on the slopes. These combined option is a well-established scheme that will
yield a suitably effective outcome in breaking the contamination pathways as well as
immobilizing contaminants. This scheme has a track record of being cheap and sustainable.
Besides, the simply cover above the break layer and capping will make it possible for planting
grasses and landscaping the site to retain pleasing aesthetics for a public park.

6. REMEDIATION STRATEGY
The remediation strategy shall involve a number of key activities as follows:
Excavation and removal of contaminated soil in hotspot areas
Areas of extremely high concentration of contaminants such as red lead were established on
the ground within the site. Excavation of soils in those areas shall be carefully conducted and
the excavated soil transferred to secure landfills in accordance with the legal regulations.
Further survey shall be conducted to ensure that no areas and zones of elevated concentrations
of contaminants remain within the site.
Engineering capping and provision of break layers and simple covers
Capping, break layers and simple covers shall be used to achieve the required landscaping on
the site while still aiding in containment of the contaminants. Gap graded granular materials
made of gravels and crushed stones shall be used to provide capping. Overlying it shall be a
200mm break made of suitable clayey soil. At the very top, shall be a 450mm clean soil material
cover certified as top soil material. It is upon this layer that the grass shall be planted for the
landscaping works.
These provisions shall be done on the sections of grass terraces.
Planting of thorny shrubs
Approved thorny shrubs shall be planted on the site, specifically on the slope areas. These were
sections that were identified to have elevated concentrations of lead materials. The planting of
these thorny shrubs will act to restrict access to those areas.
Verification
Upon satisfactory completion of all the works, a verification report shall be provided including
the certification that the remediation works have been executed in compliance with the
remediation strategy. The remediation report shall present a brief of the remediation works
undertaken including the drawing and any other relevant documentation.