Status: Report Version: 2 Job No.: 153-16 Date issued: 05/01/17
Client:
Ferguson Environmental Services Ltd.
Author: EurGeol, Bruno Teillard, PGeo, M.Sc. Hydrogeology
Contacts:
Fiona Murphy
Address:
Unit 74, Cido Business Complex, Carn Drive, Portadown, Craigavon, County Armagh, BT63 5WH, Northern Ireland.
Phone: Fax: E-mail:
00442838525080
Comments: Digital copy issued
REPORT ISSUE FORM (Private & Confidential)
Yearly Groundwater Quality Monitoring
At IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd.,
Blanchardstown Industrial Park,
Blanchardstown, Dublin 15.
December 2016 Monitoring
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. R 153-16
Project No 153-16
Document Title Yearly groundwater quality monitoring Date Released 5th of January 2017
Author EurGeol Bruno Teillard, PGeo M.Sc. Hydrogeology Signed on behalf of Aqua Geoservices
Signed on behalf of the client*
* Where it is a requirement that this report be issued to a regulatory or other authority, then the client should sign the appropriate place in the above table and, unless specifically agreed in writing to the contrary, forward copies to the appropriate authority (e.g. EPA etc.)
FOREWORD This report has been prepared by Aqua GeoServices Ltd. (AGS) in line with best current practice and with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the limitations imposed by the techniques applied and the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client (IPSEN Manufacturing [Ireland] Ltd.). No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report or any other services provided by us.
CONFIDENTIALITY REPORT This document and its contents are confidential and may not be disclosed, copied, quoted or published unless IPSEN Manufacturing (Ireland) Ltd. have given their prior written consent. AGS accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising as a result of any person other than the named client acting in reliance on any information, opinion or advice contained in this document. This document may not be relied upon by any person other than the client, its officers and employees.
INFORMATION AGS accepts no liability and gives no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of information provided to it by or on behalf of the client or its representatives and takes no account of matters that existed when the document was transmitted to the client but which were not known to AGS until subsequently.
LIMITATIONS Where field investigations have been carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detailed required to achieve the stated objectives of the services. The results of any measurements taken may vary spatially or with time and further confirmatory measurements should be made after any significant delay in using this report. Where assessments of works or costs required to reduce or mitigate any environmental liability identified in this report are made, such assessments are based upon the information available at the time and are subject to further investigations or information which may become available. Costs may therefore vary outside the ranges quoted. No allowance has been made for changes in prices or exchange rates or changes in any other conditions, which may result in price fluctuations in the future. Where assessments of works or costs necessary to achieve compliance have been made, these are based upon measures which, in AGS’ experience, could normally be negotiated with the relevant authorities under present legislation and enforcement practice, assuming a pro-active and reasonable approach by site management.
CURRENCY This document supersedes any prior documents (whether interim or otherwise) dealing with any matter that is the subject of this document.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. R 153-16
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by these parties from whom it has been requested. Information obtained from third parties has not been independently verified by AGS, unless otherwise stated in the report. AGS accepts no liability for any matters arising if any recommendations contained in this document are not carried out, or are partially carried out, without further advice being obtained from AGS. No warranty is provided by AGS that the results in this report can be applied to particular requirements of third parties. AGS accept no responsibility or liability for any loss or damage arising as a result of this document being used other than for the purposes for which it was intended. This document may not be relied upon by any person or Company other than the named client, its officers and employees. Where this report shall be reproduced, it shall only be reproduced in full. No alteration to this report by third parties is permitted.
OUTSTANDING FEES No person (including the client) is entitled to use or rely on this document and its contents at any time if any fees (or reimbursement of expenses) due to AGS by its client are outstanding. In those circumstances, AGS may require the return of all copies of this document.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. R 153-16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
I.1 SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................................................................... 1 I.2 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 1
IV. GROUNDWATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 4
IV.1 LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................................. 4 IV.2 FIELD PARAMETERS .................................................................................................................... 5 IV.3 HEAVY METALS, INORGANICS AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON .................................................. 6
IV.3.1 Heavy Metals ......................................................................................................................... 6 IV.3.2 Inorganic Parameters ............................................................................................................... 6 IV.3.3 Total Organic Carbon .............................................................................................................. 6
IV.4 MINERAL OIL, DIESEL RANGE ORGANICS (DRO), PETROL RANGE ORGANICS (PRO) & BTEX 6 IV.4.1 Mineral Oil ........................................................................................................................... 7 IV.4.2 Diesel Range Organics (DRO) .................................................................................................. 7 IV.4.3 Petrol Range Organics (PRO) ................................................................................................... 7 IV.4.4 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene & Xylene (BTEX) .................................................................... 7
V. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 8
VI. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 10
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. R 153-16
ACRONYMS The following abbreviations are used in this report: AGS: Aqua Geoservices Ltd. b.T.O.C. Below the Top of Casing (in m) BTEX: Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene & Xylene DRO: Diesel Range Organics EPA: Environmental Protection Agency EQS: Environmental Quality Standard GSI: Geological Survey of Ireland IGV: Interim Guideline Value (Refers to EPA 2003 Guidelines) IMIL: IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. JEL: Jones Environmental Laboratory Ltd. LoD: Limit of Detection (of the laboratory instrument used) NPOC: Non Purgeable Organic Carbon OCPs: Organo-Chlorinated Pesticides PCBs: Polychlorinated Biphenyls PRO: Petrol Range Organics sVOC: semi-Volatile Organic Compounds TIC: Tentatively identified Compounds TOC: Total Organic Carbon TV: Threshold Value (refers to S.I. No. 9 of 2010 as amended by S.I. No. 366 of 2016) VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 1 / 11 R 153-16
I INTRODUCTION Aqua Geoservices Ltd. (AGS) were requested by Ferguson Environmental Services Ltd., on behalf of their client IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. (IMIL), to carry out the yearly Groundwater Monitoring Programme as per the requirements of their Industrial Emissions (IED) Licence Ref. No. P0117-01 at their plant in Blanchardstown Industrial Park, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15. The following report details the monitoring carried out by AGS in early December 2016. It is based on the groundwater sample collection undertaken on the 5th of December 2016 and the subsequent analyses performed by Jones Environmental Laboratory Ltd. (JEL) in the United Kingdom (UK). A trend analysis of the former results is also included as part of this report.
I.1 Scope of Work The scope of work consisted of the sampling and analysis of 3 monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3). All the monitoring wells are located within the IMIL Compound (Figure 01). The samples were analysed for a range of parameters as per the IED Licence requirements. The assessment and reporting took place following receipt of the analytical results from the laboratory. They consist of the following elements:
• Document the methodology of the monitoring; • Compile and analyse the data gathered during the site visit; • Present the investigation findings, assess the trend of the groundwater quality in each monitoring well
and provide the results in their environmental context.
I.2 Methodology The methodology followed the guidance set out in BS ISO 5667-22:2010 (Water Quality. Sampling guidance on the design and installation of groundwater monitoring points) and consisted of the following:
I.2.1 Well purging In order to fill the sampling bottles with groundwater samples representative of the groundwater formation, each monitoring well was extensively purged prior to the sample collection. This allowed the removal of stale well water. Purging was carried out using the following equipment:
• a Waterra Power Pack PP1 and associated High Flow inertial pump tubing and valves; • a 2” submersible pump with tubing and valves; • a hand held High Flow inertial pump tubing and valves.
During the purging, field parameters (Temperature, pH, Conductivity) were also monitored using a field monitoring kit (Hanna Instrument 9828). Except for well MW2 (which ran dry), the other two monitoring wells were purged until a minimum of least three times their volume of water was abstracted from each well and/or the field chemistry parameters had stabilised.
I.2.2 Groundwater sampling The sampling was carried out in strict accordance with the best practices available. Due to the necessity of sampling Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (sVOC), it was necessary to take the following precautions: • Use of a hydrasleeve™ sampling method so as to minimise turbulence and avoid any contact with air;
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
Ballycoolin Road (R843)
R 121 St Philomena’s Park
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd.
Alcatel LucentThe Cottages
Snug
boro
ugh
Roa
d
Kitchen & Bedroom Elegance
N
Scale:
Metres0 25 50
Figure 01: Groundwater Contour Map
Ref. No. 153-16
Date: 07/12/16
Project: IPSEN, Blanchardstown Ind. Park, Dublin 15.
Static Water Table in m. a.OD (05/12/16)
Groundwater flow direction
Monitoring Well (in use)
Monitoring Well (decommissioned)
Site Boundary
Building / Structure
Car park / Concrete Slab
House / Private dwelling
Fire Retention Pond
MW-3
MW-2
MW-1(new 2016)
76
Legend:
Aqua GeoServicesYour Partner in Environment, Geology & Water
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 2 / 11 R 153-16
• Separate, dedicated bailer and/or High Flow inertial pump tubing and valves were used; • Use of dedicated sampling bottles (Polypropylene for inorganic and PTFE capped glass bottles for
organic) provided by the laboratory according to the determinands to be analysed. • Use of a cool box and ice packs keeping a temperature of <4oC.
I.2.3 Groundwater Analysis Groundwater analysis was carried out in accordance with Schedule 4(ii) Groundwater Monitoring of IED Licence Number P0117-01 and amended on the 23/05/07 under Section S96(1) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Acts, 1992 and 2003. All the samples were stored in an electrical cool box refrigerated at 4oC during the sampling. They were then transferred in a coolbox with icepacks and collected on-site by DHL, on behalf of JEL. The three groundwater samples were analysed for the following parameters:
Full details of the analysis are provided in Appendix 1 of this report.
I.3 Project Team Aqua-GeoServices Ltd. project team for this work consisted of:
• EurGeol Bruno Teillard, PGeo, M.Sc. Hydrogeology – Desk Study & Reporting. Bruno is a qualified Hydrogeologist with over 18 years of experience in Ireland and abroad.
I.4 Assessment and Reporting The assessment and reporting took place following completion of laboratory analysis. They consist of the following elements:
• Documentation of the study methodology; • Presentation the study findings; • Compilation and analysis of the data gathered; • Preparation of a comprehensive report, production of 2 copies.
II. SITE LOCATION The IMIL site is located in an industrial park in Blanchardstown, Dublin 15 (Cf. Figure 01). It is positioned at National Grid Reference E310850-N231675 in the Ordnance Survey Discovery Series Map Sheet No. 50. It is bounded by Snugborough Road to the West, the Regional Road R843 to the North, a grass field to the East, a car park to the South. More industrial buildings and housing estates are situated in the surrounding area (Cf. Figure 01).
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 3 / 11 R 153-16
III. ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
III.1 Geology
III.1.1 Bedrock Geology The most recent geological map of this region (bedrock 100k Solid Geology, Geological Survey of Ireland website, 2015) shows that the site area is underlain by rocks belonging to the Malahide Formation (ML). The Malahide Formation is Courceyan in Age (Jones & al. 1988). The top of the Formation is made up of Argillaceous, less fossiliferous limestones, nodular pale wackestones and shales while the lower part of the Formation is composed of calcareous shales, siltstones and sandstones, and occasional thin limestones at its base. Its thickness ranges from 300m to more than 1,200m. The General Draft Generalised Bedrock Map (GSI) classifies the Malahide Formation as Dinantian Upper Impure Limestone (DUIL).
III.1.2 Quaternary Geology As previously reported by White Young Green (WYG) in their Annual Groundwater monitoring report (Ref: CE02044, dated 30/09/09), “overburden geology beneath the site is composed of backfill material varying in depth between 0.3metres below Ground Level (m b.G.L.) and 4.5m b.G.L., which overlies pebbly boulder clays and silts. Beneath this lies grey shaley limestone bedrock which was found at depths ranging from 1.8m b.G.L. to 5.0m B.G.L. on the site (…)”.
III.2 Hydrogeology The bedrock aquifer has been classified by the GSI as a “Locally Important Aquifer – Bedrock which is Moderately Productive only in Local Zones” (LI). Generally, the limited groundwater movement within the rock tends to be restricted to the upper most weathered part of the bedrock or to non-extensive fractured zones. These zones tend to have a limited hydraulic continuity, low storage capacity and potential yield.
III.3 Vulnerability The Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) gives an aquifer vulnerability rating of “high” across the site. However, the site specific investigations described in sub-section III.1.2 (Source: WYG, Report Ref: CE02044, dated 30/09/09) shows that an aquifer vulnerability rating of High (H) to Extreme (E) would be more appropriate.
III.4 Groundwater Monitoring Wells There are a total of 3 no. monitoring wells located on site:
• MW-1 is located to the north of the production building. This monitoring well was drilled on the 29/11/16. It replaces the former upgradient monitoring well, which was located in the car park. The drilling was undertaken by Doran Ground Engineering Ltd. under the supervision of AGS’ hydrogeologist. The former monitoring well MW-1 was decommissioned on the 30/11/16 in an approved manner;
• MW-2 is located at the site boundary to the southeast of the production building and; • MW-3 is located to the south of the building.
During the current monitoring round in December 2016, the groundwater levels at the site were recorded below the Top of the Casing (m. b.T.O.C.) of each well as per Table 3.1 below:
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 4 / 11 R 153-16
Well No. Easting Northing Total Depth (m. b.T.O.C)
*T.O.C: Top of Steel Casing m. a.O.D.: metres above Ordnance Datum Table 3.1 – Depth to the Water Table, IMIL, Dublin 15 (05/12/16)
During the purging of the wells, very little drawdown was observed in monitoring wells MW-3, indicating a good permeability rate in the bedrock at these locations. Well MW-2 was dewatered within 10 minutes of the start of purging and recovered slowly.
III.5 Groundwater Flow Direction Upon completion of the drilling and decommissioning of the wells, all the wells in use within the IMIL facility were surveyed by AGS on the 05/12/16 using a Stonex 59 GN20 Rover level and the static water levels were recorded on that day. All the wells were referenced to the Ordnance Datum (O.D.) Level. The top of the steel casing was taken as the datum point on each well from which groundwater levels measurements were taken. A groundwater contour map was compiled from static groundwater levels taken from the 3 monitoring wells (MW1, MW2 and MW3). A digital contouring software (Surfer 13) was then used to produce the groundwater contour map using the groundwater levels and survey data as presented in Table 1. Figure 1 illustrates the groundwater contour map and the groundwater flow direction. Based on Figure 1, the groundwater flow direction was orientated to the South South West on the 05/12/16, i.e. toward the River Tolka located approximately 1.78km away. As MW-1 is the up-gradient well on the site, it is therefore considered representative of off-site/background water quality.
IV. GROUNDWATER QUALITY The following tables summarize the results of the Field Measurements and the Analytical Results. Full details of the analytical results are provided in the Appendix.
IV.1 Legislation In the absence of published criteria for good groundwater chemical status, the results obtained were compared the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations, 2010: This report therefore refers to the Statutory Instrument No. 9 of 2010 as subsequently amended by S.I. No. 389 of 2011, S.I. No. 149 of 2012 and S.I. No. 366 of 2016. These Regulations establish a comprehensive system of water quality and quantity objectives for all bodies of groundwater and thereby provide a basis for systems of control for achieving those groundwater objectives, taking into account the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC). The Threshold Values are based on the assessment of the general quality of
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 5 / 11 R 153-16
groundwater in a groundwater body in terms of whether its ability to support human uses has been significantly impaired by pollution. Where there are no Threshold Values (TV) for a parameter the results are compared to the Interim Guideline Values (IGVs) “Interim report towards setting guideline values for the protection of groundwater in Ireland”, published by the EPA in June 2003. These IGVs are to be used to assist with the characterisation of groundwater bodies and to establish the need for additional investigation or further action in the event of the guideline values being exceeded. Where there are no EPA IGV’s available (i.e. VOC and sVOC values), the analytical results are compared and discussed with reference to the Dutch Target and Intervention Values (VROM 2000 and subsequent amendments). Using the Dutch criteria the degree of contamination is assessed using the following guidelines:
• S-Value: The Dutch S-Value is a target concentration and is generally considered to represent typical uncontaminated/background values for groundwater.
• I-Value: The Dutch Intervention Value is a level above which the need for further investigation assessment or remediation is indicated (which should take into account site-specific conditions).
Both human and environmental impairment are considered in the development of the guidelines. The Dutch values are only used for guideline purposes in this country as they have no statutory basis outside the Netherlands. However, the Dutch guidelines are generally considered to be one of the most advanced set of generic criteria available, and they are widely accepted by the environmental industry and by the Irish regulatory authorities.
IV.2 Field Parameters These parameters were measured directly on site prior to the filling of the sample containers using standard calibrated field equipment. The parameters are summarised below.
Parameter MW-1 MW-2 MW-3
Prior to purging End of Purging Prior to purging End of Purging Prior to purging End of Purging
pH 7.75 7.67 7.50 7.48 7.77 7.51
Temperature 11.11°C 11.79°C 11.47°C 11.77°C 11.83°C 11.89°C
Table 4.1 Summary of Field Measurements, IMIL, Dublin 15 (02/09/15) The pH readings recorded at the well head were within the EPA IGV range of 6.5-9.5. At the end of the purging (i.e., when the field parameters stabilised), the pH results were consistent with the previous monitoring rounds. Typical groundwater temperatures range from 10ºC - 12ºC. Upon stabilisation, the groundwater temperatures recorded on the day of sampling ranged from 11.77ºC in MW-2 to 11.89ºC in MW-3. These temperatures remained consistent with the observed value in the previous round of monitoring.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 6 / 11 R 153-16
Upon stabilisation, the recorded conductivity readings were all below S.I. No. 366 of 2016 lower limit (800µS/cm) of the Threshold Value range. These readings were substantially lower than those recorded in the previous rounds of monitoring. Previous monitoring were undertaken during the Summer while the 2016 round was conducted in Winter: The variation in conductivity may be related to an increase in groundwater flow at this time of the year. As with the observations made in the previous rounds of monitoring, each of the three groundwater samples had a grey (MW-1) to light grey / brown tint (MW-2 and MW-3) with no odour detected in any of the wells.
IV.3 Heavy Metals, Inorganics and Total Organic Carbon The analytical results of the Heavy Metal, Inorganics and Total Organic Carbon parameters are presented in Tables 4.2.a, 4.2.b and 4.2.c at the end of this report and are discussed below. Full Details of the Laboratory analysis are provided in the Appendix.
IV.3.1 Heavy Metals The concentrations of all of the other Heavy Metal parameters were below either the laboratory detection limit or the relevant Threshold Value for each of the three wells.
IV.3.2 Inorganic Parameters • Chloride: The comparison with past results for this parameter shows that Chloride levels are still
on the rise at MW-2 but have decreased at MW-1 and MW-3. The chloride concentration detected in the up-gradient well MW-1 was reported as 91.8mg/l, which is a substantial decrease (-66.0mg/l) since 2015. Although the analytical result for Chloride in December 2016 remains less than the upper TV of 187.5mg/l for this parameter, it is well above the lower TV range of 24mg/l and considered as elevated for the type of aquifer Formation underlying the site where a value of 30mg/l would be considered as more representative. The chloride level in MW-2 (75.1mg/l) was still on the rise (+30.5mg/l) by comparison to last year’s result. Although it remains below the upper TV range of 187.5mg/l for this parameter, it is also considered as elevated for the same reasons highlighted for MW-1. As for MW-1, the chloride level in MW-3 (135.1mg/l) experienced a substantial decrease (-27.4mg/l) since last year and is now below the upper TV range of 187.5mg/l.
• Sulphate: Although remaining below the TV of 187.5mg/l for this parameter, the levels of Sulphates are deemed as high at all locations monitored. By comparison with the last round of monitoring (September 2015), the Sulphate level is still on the rise at MW-1 (+38.72mg/l), almost steady at MW-2 (+1.06mg/l) and decreasing at MW-3 (-43.71mg/l).
• Other Inorganics: The concentrations of all of the other Inorganic parameters were below either the laboratory detection limit or the relevant Threshold Value for each of the three wells.
IV.3.3 Total Organic Carbon The analytical results for TOC were consistent with the previous rounds of monitoring. There are no TV in S.I. No. 9 of 2010 and S.I. No. 366 of 2016 for this parameter but the TOC levels are very low at all locations monitored and there were no abnormal changes between the rounds of monitoring undertaken since 2011.
IV.4 Mineral Oil, Diesel Range Organics (DRO), Petrol Range Organics (PRO) & BTEX The analytical results of the Mineral Oil, DRO, PRO and BTEX parameters are presented in Tables 4.3.a, 4.3.b and 4.3.c at the end of this report and are discussed below. Full Details of the Laboratory analysis are provided in the Appendix.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 7 / 11 R 153-16
IV.4.1 Mineral Oil The concentrations of Mineral Oil was below the detection limit of the laboratory instrument used (0.01mg/l) in the three wells and below the EPA IGV for this parameter (0.01mg/l) as there are no relevant TV in S.I. No. 9 of 2010 for this parameter. These results are consistent with the previous sampling rounds since 2001.
IV.4.2 Diesel Range Organics (DRO) Concentrations of DRO for this sampling round were all below the laboratory detection limit of 0.01mg/l, consistent with the previous sampling rounds since 2001.
IV.4.3 Petrol Range Organics (PRO) Concentrations of PRO for this sampling round were all below the laboratory detection limit of 0.01mg/l, consistent with the previous sampling rounds since 2001.
IV.4.4 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene & Xylene (BTEX) The concentrations of BTEX compounds were below their relevant laboratory detection limits for all of the samples analysed. These results are again consistent with each of the monitoring rounds undertaken since 2001.
IV.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) The results of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) analysis are presented in Tables 4.3.a to 4.3.c of this report. PCBs were not detected in any of the wells above the laboratory detection limit; this remains the same as with each of the previous monitoring rounds undertaken since 2001. There are no TV values for PCBs in S.I. No. 9 of 2010 but Guidelines Values provided in the EPA 2003 Guidelines (0.00001mg/l) remain well below the detection limit of the laboratory instrument used.
IV.6 Organo-Chlorinated Pesticides (OCPs) The analytical results are presented in Tables 4.4.a to 4.4.c of this report. None of the compounds were detected at levels above the laboratory detection limits of 0.00001mg/l which remains the same as the previous monitoring rounds carried out since 2001. The LoD for Endosulphan-alpha (I) is of 0.0001mg/l and therefore remains higher than the EPA IGV for this parameter (0.000001mg/l). Although the results were below the LoD for this parameter in 2015 (and since the beginning of the monitoring), it is therefore not possible to comment it with respect to the EPA IGV for this parameter. Total OCPs were also below the detection limit of the instrument used (0.00033mg/l) and remained well below the TV of S.I. No. 366 of 2016 (0.000375mg/l).
IV.7 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) The results of the analysis for the VOC suite of compounds are presented in Tables 4.5.a to 4.5.c of this report. All of the VOCs analysed for in the three monitoring wells were at concentrations below their respective laboratory detection limits, which is consistent with the previous monitoring rounds. It should be noted that the LoD of the instrument used by the laboratory still remain above the EPA IGV (as there are no TV in S.I. No. 366 of 2016) for n-butylbenzene, for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene and Hexachlorobutadiene.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 8 / 11 R 153-16
NB: The results from past monitoring undertaken in 2011 indicated a Toluene concentration of 0.008mg/l in MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3. While this value was less than the Threshold Value of 0.01mg/l, it was the first and only occasion that this parameter had been detected above the laboratory detection limit since 2001. As Toluene was detected in the background well MW-1 it would indicate an off-site source impacting water quality at the site or due to an anomalous laboratory error. The laboratory results from 2011 also reported a chloroform concentration of 0.014mg/l detected in MW-1, which slightly exceeded the Threshold Value of 0.012mg/l, with no detections in the remaining two monitoring wells. Its presence in the up-gradient well MW-1 would also indicate an off-site source impacting the underlying groundwater quality. In summary, no exceedence of either of the two above listed parameters was noted in the monitoring rounds undertaken since 2012.
IV.8 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) The results for SVOCs are presented in Tables 4.6.a to 4.6.c of this report. For all of the samples analysed, no compounds were detected at levels above their respective laboratory detection limits which is the same as the previous monitoring rounds. Since AGS’s started the monitoring in 2013, the LoD were further improved by up to a factor 100 for most of the SVOCs. However, some LoD still remain above the relevant threshold or guideline value for their respective parameters. They are:
• Phenols: Although the LoD further improved in 2014 from 0.01mg/l to 0.001mg/l, the LoD from the laboratory still remains above the EPA 2003 IGV (0.0005mg/l) for this parameter.
• Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene: Its LoD remains unchanged (0.001mg/l) since 2013 and is above the EPA 2003 IGV (0.0001mg/l),
• Benzo(a)pyrene: Although the LoD improved by a factor 10 since 2013 with 0.001mg/l, it still remains above the T.V of SI No. 366 of 2016 (0.0000075mg/l) and the Dutch Guideline values;
• Hexachlorobenzene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene and benzo(ghi)perylene: their respective LoD remain unchanged since 2013 and are above both the EPA 2003 IGVs and the Dutch Guideline values;
• Indeno(123cd)pyrene): its LoD improved by a factor 10 since the 2013 monitoring but it remains above both the EPA 2003 IGV and the Dutch Guideline Value for this parameter (there are no TV set out in SI No. 366 of 2016 for this parameter).
IV.9 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) TICs In the SVOC analysis when tentatively identified compounds (TICs) are required, the mass spectra of any compounds detected in the sample that are not in the sVOC list are compared to those in the reference library of compounds contained within the GCMS software. For a positive identification of a compound, “The quality match of the mass spectrum of this compound, when compared to the mass spectra contained in the GCMS library, should meet or exceed the Laboratory acceptance criteria of >80% quality match” (Source: Jones Environmental Laboratory). Thre were no TICs detected as part of this round of monitoring in any of the wells.
V. DISCUSSION The following is an outline of the findings in this report: • Groundwater monitoring for MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3 was undertaken by AGS at the IMIL site on
the 5th of December 2016.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 9 / 11 R 153-16
• The site is underlain by the Malahide Formation, which has been classified by the GSI as a “Locally Important Aquifer – Bedrock which is Moderately Productive only in Local Zones” (LI).
• The vulnerability of the aquifer is likely to range from High to Extreme.
• The nearest surface water body is the River Tolka located approximately 1.78 Km SouthWest of the site.
• MW-1 is the up-gradient well at the site. Its groundwater quality is therefore considered as representative
of off-site/background water quality levels. • Concentrations of Organo-Chlorinated Pesticides, SVOCs, PCBs, Mineral Oil, DRO, PRO and
BTEX were not detected above their respective LoD and/or Threshold Values (whichever was the highest) for any of the three wells, which was consistent with previous monitoring rounds including since 2011.
• Listed VOCs had concentrations below the laboratory detection limit. Compared with the
monitoring round in 2011, no excess of the parameters Toluene or Chloroform was observed during the monitoring in 2016.
• There was no exceedence in Heavy Metal concentrations in any of the three wells. In particular, the
analytical results for Nickel in MW-2, which was above the Threshold Value (TV) of S.I. No. 9 of 2010 (0.015mg/l) in the 2013 monitoring round, is now below the TV of S.I. No. 9 of 2010(there are no TV for Nickel in S.I. No. 366 of 2016). As previously reported by the client, Nickel is not used at the facility and there is no discharge to groundwater. This further supports the likelihood of elevated nickel concentrations resulting from an off-site source.
• There was no exceedence in Total Ammonia levels in any of the three wells. In particular, the level of
Total Ammonia in MW-1, which reached a peak at 0.23mg/l in 2013, is now well below the T.V. of S.I. No. 366 of 2016 (0.175mg/l) for this parameter. The result of the 2016 monitoring is consistent with results obtained at MW-1 before 2013.
• The concentrations of Chlorides are still on the rise at MW-2 but have decreased at MW-1 and MW-
3. The highest level of chloride was encountered at MW-3 (135.1mg/l).
The chloride levels are below the upper TV (187.5mg/l) for this parameter at all locations monitored but are well above the lower TV (24mg/l) and are deemed as very elevated at all locations given that a value of 30mg/l would be considered as more representative of natural background conditions for the type of aquifer formation underlying the site. Given that elevated levels of chlorides were originally recorded upgradient (MW-1 with the highest level on record at 202.1mg/l on the 23/08/10) and are now on the decrease downgradient (MW-3) from the site, it is likely that the potential source of contamination may originate from off-site and that the bulk of the plume contamination is now leaving the site area. As indicated by White young Green in their 2010 report, “the most likely source of chloride may be linked to Estate Management issues outside of the IMIL property, e.g. potentially leaking sewer”.
• The concentrations of Sulphates remain on the rise at MW-1 (+38.72mg/l) while they remained
almost steady in MW-2 (+1.06mg/l) and continued to decrease in MW-3 (-43.71mg/l). The concentrations of sulphate are below the Threshold Value of 187.5mg/l at all locations but the sulphate levels across the site are still deemed as very elevated.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 10 / 11 R 153-16
It should be noted that from 2001 to 2008, Sulphate levels in MW-1 and MW-3 were mainly above the Threshold Value for this parameter. Since the most recent peak value experienced in 2010 at MW-1 (191.31mg/l), the Sulphate levels at this location have reduced down to below the TV as set out in S.I. no. 366 of 2016. Given that higher levels of sulphates were first encountered in the past at MW-1, the most likely source of sulphate contamination at MW-3 may be originating from off-site. However, a potential source of contamination by sulphates in MW-3 may also be related to construction works undertaken 3 years ago in its vicinity or could also be geogenic (i.e. originating from the bedrock).
• The results of the sVOC analysis were all below the detection limit of the laboratory instrument used, which is consistent with the previous rounds of monitoring undertaken at the site by AGS.
• No deviating sample was recorded as part of the TIC analysis during this round of monitoring. As a result, glycerol monostearate (GMS) was not detected, thus confirming the results obtained in MW-1 and MW-2 in November 2015.
VI. CONCLUSIONS A review of the groundwater monitoring results over the period 2001 to 2016 showed that groundwater quality beneath the IMIL site is generally good and improving. The peak of Total Ammonia detected in the upgradient well MW-1 in 2013 may be considered as an anomalous result as the analytical result for this parameter in 2016 returned a value well below the TV for this parameter (0.175mg/l). Chloride levels are still on the rise at MW-2 (+30.5mg/l) but are decreasing at MW-1 (-66.0mg/l) and MW-3 (-274mg/l). The highest level of chloride was encountered in MW-3 (131.5mg/l). All the chloride levels are now below the upper limit of the TV range for this parameter (187.5mg/l) but are deemed as elevated as well above the value of 30mg/l, which would be considered as more representative of the background quality of the underlying aquifer formation. The concentration of chloride is most likely to have originated from off site as the highest chloride level on record was detected in MW1 on the 23/10/2010. Although remaining below the TV of 187.5mg/l for this parameter, the levels of Sulphates are deemed as high at all locations monitored. By comparison with the last round of monitoring (September 2015), the Sulphate level is still on the rise at MW-1 (+38.72mg/l), almost steady at MW-2 (+1.06mg/l) and decreasing at MW-3 (-43.71mg/l). Given that higher levels of sulphates were first encountered in the past at MW-1, the most likely source of sulphate contamination at MW-3 may be originating from off-site. However, a potential source of contamination by sulphates in MW-3 may also be related to construction works undertaken 3 years ago in its vicinity or could also be geogenic (i.e. originating from the bedrock). The analytical results for TOC were consistent with the previous rounds of monitoring in most of the monitoring wells. There are no TV in S.I. No. 9 of 2010 and S.I. No. 366 of 2016 for this parameter but the TOC levels were very low at all locations monitored and there were no abnormal changes between the rounds of monitoring undertaken since 2011.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:37
IPSEN Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. Yearly groundwater quality monitoring December 2016
Aqua GeoServices Ltd. 11 / 11 R 153-16
Chloroform detected in the upgradient well in 2011 was not observed in any of the monitoring rounds undertaken since 2012: This may be an indication of either an anomalous result or a possible off-site source of chloroform impacting well MW-1 in 2011 which has since stopped. The results of the sVOC analysis were all below the detection limit of the laboratory instrument used, which is consistent with the previous rounds of monitoring undertaken at the site by AGS. No deviating sample was recorded as part of the TIC analysis during this round of monitoring. As a result, glycerol monostearate (GMS) was not detected, thus confirming the results obtained in MW-1 and MW-2 in November 2015.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS AGS recommend continuation with the annual groundwater monitoring at the site.
Legend:mg/l = Milligrams per litre"-" = No guidelines available * S.I. No. 9 of 2010 only1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003)Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold Value
Legend:mg/l = Milligrams per litre"-" = No guidelines available * S.I. No. 9 of 2010 only1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003)Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold Value
Legend: -57.4mg/l = Milligrams per litre -43.71"-" = No guidelines available * S.I. No. 9 of 2010 only1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003)Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold Value
Legend:mg/l = Milligrams per litre"-" = No guidelines available1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003)2 = Taken as sum p/m-Xylene and o-Xylene* including hydrocarbons C2 - C5 and C6 - C40Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold ValueResults are in bold where the limit of detection of the laboratory is below the Threshold Value
Legend:mg/l = Milligrams per litre"-" = No guidelines available1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003)2 = Taken as sum p/m-Xylene and o-Xylene* including hydrocarbons C2 - C5 and C6 - C40Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold ValueResults are in bold where the limit of detection of the laboratory is below the Threshold Value
Legend:mg/l = Milligrams per litre"-" = No guidelines available1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003)2 = Taken as sum p/m-Xylene and o-Xylene* including hydrocarbons C2 - C5 and C6 - C40Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold ValueResults are in bold where the limit of detection of the laboratory is below the Threshold Value
Legend: Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold Value
mg/l = Milligrams per litre Results are underlined where the Dutch S-Value is exceeded.
"-" = No guidelines available Results are in italic and underlined where the Dutch I-Value is exceeded1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003) Results are in bold where the limit of detection of the laboratory is below the Threshold Value or reference
Legend: Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold Value
mg/l = Milligrams per litre Results are underlined where the Dutch S-Value is exceeded.
"-" = No guidelines available Results are in italic and underlined where the Dutch I-Value is exceeded1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003) Results are in bold where the limit of detection of the laboratory is below the Threshold Value or reference
Legend: Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold Value
mg/l = Milligrams per litre Results are underlined where the Dutch S-Value is exceeded.
"-" = No guidelines available Results are in italic and underlined where the Dutch I-Value is exceeded1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003) Results are in bold where the limit of detection of the laboratory is below the Threshold Value or reference
Legend: Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold Value
mg/l = Milligrams per litre Results are underlined where the Dutch S-Value is exceeded.
"-" = No guidelines available Results are in italic and underlined where the Dutch I-Value is exceeded1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003) Results are in bold where the limit of detection of the laboratory is below the Threshold Value or reference
Legend: Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold Value
mg/l = Milligrams per litre Results are underlined where the Dutch S-Value is exceeded.
"-" = No guidelines available Results are in italic and underlined where the Dutch I-Value is exceeded1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003) Results are in bold where the limit of detection of the laboratory is below the Threshold Value or reference
Legend: Results are shaded and in bold where they exceed the Threshold Value
mg/l = Milligrams per litre Results are underlined where the Dutch S-Value is exceeded.
"-" = No guidelines available Results are in italic and underlined where the Dutch I-Value is exceeded1 = EPA IGVs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines (2003) Results are in bold where the limit of detection of the laboratory is below the Threshold Value or reference
QF-PM 3.1.4 v11Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced
All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 7 of 12
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:38
Notification of Deviating Samples
J E
Job
No.
Batch Depth J E Sample
No.Analysis Reason
Please note that only samples that are deviating are mentioned in this report. If no samples are listed it is because none were deviating.
Only analyses which are accredited are recorded as deviating if set criteria are not met.
Exova Jones Environmental
153-16
Ipsen
Fiona MurphyContact:
Sample ID
Client Name: Ferguson Environmental Services
Reference:
Location:
No deviating sample report results for job 16/18137
QF-PM 3.1.11 v3 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 8 of 12
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:38
JE Job No.:
SOILS
DEVIATING SAMPLES
SURROGATES
DILUTIONS
BLANKS
NOTE
ISO17025 accreditation applies to surface water and groundwater and usually one other matrix which is analysis specific, any other liquids are
outside our scope of accreditation.
As surface waters require different sample preparation to groundwaters the laboratory must be informed of the water type when submitting samples.
Where appropriate please make sure that our detection limits are suitable for your needs, if they are not, please notify us immediately.
Data is only reported if the laboratory is confident that the data is a true reflection of the samples analysed. Data is only reported as accredited when
all the requirements of our Quality System have been met. In certain circumstances where all the requirements of the Quality System have not been
met, for instance if the associated AQC has failed, the reason is fully investigated and documented. The sample data is then evaluated alongside
the other quality control checks performed during analysis to determine its suitability. Following this evaluation, provided the sample results have not
been effected, the data is reported but accreditation is removed. It is a UKAS requirement for data not reported as accredited to be considered
indicative only, but this does not mean the data is not valid.
Where possible, and if requested, samples will be re-extracted and a revised report issued with accredited results. Please do not hesitate to contact
the laboratory if further details are required of the circumstances which have led to the removal of accreditation.
Where an MCERTS report has been requested, you will be notified within 48 hours of any samples that have been identified as being outside our
MCERTS scope. As validation has been performed on clay, sand and loam, only samples that are predominantly these matrices, or combinations
of them will be within our MCERTS scope. If samples are not one of a combination of the above matrices they will not be marked as MCERTS
accredited.
Negative Neutralization Potential (NP) values are obtained when the volume of NaOH (0.1N) titrated (pH 8.3) is greater than the volume of HCl (1N)
to reduce the pH of the sample to 2.0 - 2.5. Any negative NP values are corrected to 0.
Where a CEN 10:1 ZERO Headspace VOC test has been carried out, a 10:1 ratio of water to wet (as received) soil has been used.
All samples will be discarded one month after the date of reporting, unless we are instructed to the contrary.
% Asbestos in Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) is determined by reference to HSG 264 The Survey Guide - Appendix 2 : ACMs in buildings
listed in order of ease of fibre release.
All analysis is reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected. Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C unless
otherwise stated. Moisture content for CEN Leachate tests are dried at 105°C ±5°C.
Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.
Please note we are not a UK Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) Approved Laboratory .
If you have not already done so, please send us a purchase order if this is required by your company.
Samples must be received in a condition appropriate to the requested analyses. All samples should be submitted to the laboratory in suitable
containers with sufficient ice packs to sustain an appropriate temperature for the requested analysis. If this is not the case you will be informed and
any test results that may be compromised highlighted on your deviating samples report.
NOTES TO ACCOMPANY ALL SCHEDULES AND REPORTS
Please note we are only MCERTS accredited (UK soils only) for sand, loam and clay and any other matrix is outside our scope of accreditation.
Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.
16/18137
WATERS
It is assumed that you have taken representative samples on site and require analysis on a representative subsample. Stones will generally be
included unless we are requested to remove them.
Surrogate compounds are added during the preparation process to monitor recovery of analytes. However low recovery in soils is often due to peat,
clay or other organic rich matrices. For waters this can be due to oxidants, surfactants, organic rich sediments or remediation fluids. Acceptable
limits for most organic methods are 70 - 130% and for VOCs are 50 - 150%. When surrogate recoveries are outside the performance criteria but
the associated AQC passes this is assumed to be due to matrix effect. Results are not surrogate corrected.
A dilution suffix indicates a dilution has been performed and the reported result takes this into account. No further calculation is required.
Where analytes have been found in the blank, the sample will be treated in accordance with our laboratory procedure for dealing with contaminated
blanks.
QF-PM 3.1.9 v33Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced
All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 9 of 12
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:38
JE Job No.:
#
SA
B
DR
M
NA
NAD
ND
NDP
SS
SV
W
+
++
*
AD
CO
LOD/LOR
ME
NFD
BS
LB
N
TB
OC
AA
AB
Analysis subcontracted to a Jones Environmental approved laboratory.
Matrix Effect
Blank Sample
Client Sample
Trip Blank Sample
AQC Sample
Suspected carry over
Limit of Detection (Limit of Reporting) in line with ISO 17025 and MCERTS
Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C
No Asbestos Detected.
No Determination Possible
Indicates analyte found in associated method blank.
None Detected (usually refers to VOC and/SVOC TICs).
ISO17025 (SANAS) accredited - South Africa.
MCERTS accredited.
Dilution required.
x2 Dilution
x250 Dilution
ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS USED
Outside Calibration Range
No Fibres Detected
Result outside calibration range, results should be considered as indicative only and are not accredited.
Results expressed on as received basis.
Surrogate recovery outside performance criteria. This may be due to a matrix effect.
ISO17025 (UKAS) accredited - UK.
16/18137
AQC failure, accreditation has been removed from this result, if appropriate, see 'Note' on previous page.
Calibrated against a single substance
Not applicable
QF-PM 3.1.9 v33Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced
All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 10 of 12
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:38
JE Job No: 16/18137
Test Method No. Description
Prep Method
No. (if
appropriate)
Description
ISO
17025
(UKAS/S
ANAS)
MCERTS
(UK soils
only)
Analysis done
on As Received
(AR) or Dried
(AD)
Reported on
dry weight
basis
TM5Modified USEPA 8015B method for the determination of solvent Extractable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (EPH) with carbon banding within the range C8-C40 GC-FID. PM30 Water samples are extracted with solvent using a magnetic stirrer to create a vortex.
TM5Modified USEPA 8015B method for the determination of solvent Extractable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (EPH) with carbon banding within the range C8-C40 GC-FID. PM30 Water samples are extracted with solvent using a magnetic stirrer to create a vortex. Yes
TM15Modified USEPA 8260. Quantitative Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) by Headspace GC-MS.PM10
Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC
headspace analysis.
TM15Modified USEPA 8260. Quantitative Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) by Headspace GC-MS.PM10
Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC
headspace analysis. Yes
TM16Modified USEPA 8270. Quantitative determination of Semi-Volatile Organic compounds
(SVOCs) by GC-MS. PM30 Water samples are extracted with solvent using a magnetic stirrer to create a vortex.
TM16Modified USEPA 8270. Quantitative determination of Semi-Volatile Organic compounds
(SVOCs) by GC-MS. PM30 Water samples are extracted with solvent using a magnetic stirrer to create a vortex. Yes
TM30Determination of Trace Metal elements by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma -
Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7 and 6010BPM14
Analysis of waters and leachates for metals by ICP OES. Samples are filtered for
dissolved metals and acidified if required.
TM30Determination of Trace Metal elements by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma -
Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7 and 6010BPM14
Analysis of waters and leachates for metals by ICP OES. Samples are filtered for
dissolved metals and acidified if required.Yes
TM36Modified US EPA method 8015B. Determination of Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) in
the carbon chain range of C4-12 by headspace GC-FID. PM12
Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC
headspace analysis.Yes
TM38Soluble Ion analysis using the Thermo Aquakem Photometric Automatic Analyser.
Modified US EPA methods 325.2, 375.4, 365.2, 353.1, 354.1PM0 No preparation is required. Yes
Exova Jones Environmental Method Code Appendix
QF-PM 3.1.10 v14 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 11 of 12
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 12-04-2017:03:00:38
JE Job No: 16/18137
Test Method No. Description
Prep Method
No. (if
appropriate)
Description
ISO
17025
(UKAS/S
ANAS)
MCERTS
(UK soils
only)
Analysis done
on As Received
(AR) or Dried
(AD)
Reported on
dry weight
basis
TM60
Modified USEPA 9060. Determination of TOC by calculation from Total Carbon and
Inorganic Carbon using a TOC analyser, the carbon in the sample is converted to CO2
and then passed through a non-dispersive infrared gas analyser (NDIR).
PM0 No preparation is required. Yes
TM149Determination of Pesticides by Large Volume Injection on GC Triple Quad MS, based
upon USEPA method 8270PM30 Water samples are extracted with solvent using a magnetic stirrer to create a vortex.
Exova Jones Environmental Method Code Appendix
QF-PM 3.1.10 v14 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 12 of 12
