New Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd · 2014. 12. 16. · Janssen were recipients of a Johnson & Johnson...

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd Annual Environmental Report 2008

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd

Annual Environmental Report

2008

Page 1 of 328


Page 2 of 328

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction …………………………………………………………… 3. 1.1 Licence Registration Number and Site Details …………………………………………. 3. 1.2 Company History .............................................................................................................. 5. 1.3 Products and Site Activities .............................................................................................. 7. 1.4 Production Facilities ......................................................................................................... 7. 2.0 Summary Data ...........................................................................................10. 2.1 Releases to Air ....................................................................................................................10. 2.2 Releases to Water ................................................................................................................10. 2.3 Releases to Wastewater or Sewer ...................................................................................... 10. 2.4 Onsite Treatment and Offsite Treatment of Waste .............................................................10. 2.5 Agency Monitoring and Enforcement ................................................................................11. 2.6 Resource Consumption .......................................................................................................11 2.7 Environmental Complaints & Incidents .............................................................................12 3.0 Management of the Activity ........................................................................14. 3.1 Environmental Management Programme Report 2008 ........................................................ 14. 3.2 Environmental Management Programme Proposal 2009-2013 .......................................... 40. 3.3 Environmental Audits ................................................................................................. 67. 4.0 Licence Specific Reports .............................................................................. 69 4.1 Bund Testing .........................................................................................................................69 4.2 Drain Integrity Testing .......................................................................................................... 69 4.3 Groundwater Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 70 4.4 Site Noise Survey Report ...................................................................................................... 70 4.5 Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan ......................................................... 70 4.6 Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment ......................................................................... 70 4.7 Toxicity Report ......................................................................................................................70 5.0 Summary Data as submitted by AER Reporting System ................... 71 Appendices ............................................................................................... 72


Page 3 of 328

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Licence Registration Number and Site Details IPPC Licence Register Number: P0016-02 Licensee Name: Janssen Pharmaceutical., Address: Little Island, Cork. Telephone Number: 021 - 4978500 Contact Name: Mr. Simon Garrett

Environmental Manager Mr. Pat Hannon Director of Human Resources


Page 4 of 328


Page 5 of 328

1.2 Company History Janssen Pharmaceutical is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, the US healthcare company, and is an associate company of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV of Beerse, in Belgium. The company founder Paul Janssen, a medical doctor and pharmaceutical research chemist, set up the company in the 1950s to research pharmaceutical products and it became a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson in 1963.

Janssen Pharmaceutical has a range of human pharmaceutical products for use in psychiatry, anaesthesia, gastroenterology, mycology, parasitology, allergology, immunology and cardiovascular medicine. Three of the Company's drugs are on the United Nations World Health Organisation list of essential drugs. Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd products are very highly regarded by the medical profession in Ireland. Janssen are more recently commencing the manufacture of products for HIV/ Aids.

Janssen Pharmaceutical bought a small, existing plant from Pilmar Pharmachemicals Ltd in the Little Island IDA Industrial Estate in 1981. The Company has upgraded and added facilities over the years. Initially the site was 7 acres and now covers 13 acres. Some planning applications relating to Environmental/ Process improvements are listed below:

• 1981 Site purchased • 1983 Waste Water Treatment Plant installed. • 1984 Natural gas boilers installed. • 1986 Land North of site (2 acres) purchased • 1991 Land East of site (4 acres) purchased Carbon abatement system installed Condenser system upgraded Upgrade boiler house with new low NOx high efficiency boiler installed • 1993 New chemical production and Powder Handling Unit constructed.

• 1995 Waste Water Treatment Plant upgrade On site sewage treatment facility added

• 1998 Central Cleaning Building constructed

• 1999 Plant 1 Drying Room expanded

• 2000 New Steam Boiler commissioned

• 2001 Seven new replacement condensers installed in Plant One

• 2002 Replacement deduster installed on F1.2

• 2003 Planning Application & EIS Submitted for Construction of Plant 3 Production Facility

• 2004 Commenced Construction on new Plant 3 facility. IPPC Licence review sought from the EPA.


Page 6 of 328

• 2005 New EPA IPPC licence was issued in January. The Environmental Protection Agency through an Integrated Pollution Prevention Control licence currently regulates the Janssen Pharmaceutical site at Little Island, Cork. The company received ISO 14001 certification in December 1997 and successfully maintained certification since then. The Company is also certified to ISO 9000: 2000 and OHSAS 18001. As part of our commitment to the continuous improvement of our HSE process Janssen agreed to participate in the Voluntary Prevention Program being rolled out via a pilot scheme by the HSA. In 2006 Janssen were awarded ‘Star’ certification (the highest level possible) following a successful audit. In December 2003 Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. were awarded the ACCA (Association of Certified Chartered Accountants ) Environmental Reporting Award for their 2002 Environment & Social Responsibility Report. As a result of this Janssen go forward representing Ireland in the European Sustainability Reporting Award scheme which aims to find, from the national winners, the best sustainability and environmental report from 15 member countries. In 2004 Janssen published its second Sustainability report entitled ‘Values into Value’. This was the first report of its kind produced by a Johnson & Johnson facility. In 2005 Janssen were awarded a Special Environmental Reporting Award from ACCA for this report. In 2006 Janssen were awarded an IBEC Managing for Sustainable Development Award for their Process Based Approach to HSE Management. Janssen were awarded the 2003 Johnson & Johnson Healthy People, Healthy Planet Environmental Excellence Award for Innovation for a project entitled: “Beyond Compliance through Process Excellence”. This award was an acknowledgement of the contribution made by so many personnel from various departments across the site resulting in a very positive environmental impact. In 2006 Janssen were recipients of a Johnson & Johnson Safety Leadership Award. Janssen Pharmaceutical, as part of its Responsible Care Statement, commits to continuous improvements in standards of health, safety and the environment. The Company is committed to environmental excellence and instils this goal to all levels of the operation. The Company reporting structure is such that everyday environmental matters are highlighted at senior management level. A brief Company Environmental Reporting Structure is shown below.


Reporting Structure

Environmental Operators(Ireland)

Environmental Manager(Ireland)

Director of Human Resources(Ireland)

Managing Director, Janssen Ireland(Ireland)

Executive Vice President Chemical(Belgium)

President Janssen(Belgium)

President, Johnson & Johnson(United States)

1.3 Products and Site Activities Since 1981 the number of employees has increased from approximately 20 up to 220. The plant currently operates from 0800 Monday to 0800 Saturday. It shuts down for the Christmas/New Year holiday period and for a 2-week period in July. 1.4 Production Facilities There are two processing plants. Plant 1 is the older one (1980), the facilities of which have been upgraded over the years. The plant houses reaction vessels and centrifuges. After centrifuging, product is moved to the Drying Room for drying, milling and packing. A diagram of a typical process flow is as follows:

Page 7 of 328


Generic Processes Flow Diagram

REACTION

CENTRIFUGE

DRYING

CONDENSER

VACUUM SYSTEM

CONDENSER CARBON

ADSORPTION SYSTEM

Powder Raw Materials

Solvent

Mother Liquor (Solvents) (Waste)

Used Solvent Waste

Dry Solids to Delumper/Mill

Coarse Particles

MILLING

SIEVING

BLENDING

PACKING Bulk Bin Containing Dry Solids

Fines to Bulk Bin or Bag

Product

Plant 2 was built 1992-1993 and has two sections. The chemical processing section has 4 levels and operates a gravity material flow and has state of the art automation and containment. The other section of Plant 2 is the Powder-Handling Unit (PHU). Automation and containment are also state of the art in this section. Janssen are currently in the process of commissioning a new Plant 3 production facility and associated Central Utilities Building. Full scale production is scheduled for 2010. Janssen Pharmaceutical makes only its own bulk active ingredients, known as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API’s), at Little Island, Cork. Typically the API’s will have been made in Belgium for a number of years before being transferred to Little Island. The raw materials used include intermediates from the sister plant in Belgium. The customers for finished product are other associated plants but of equal importance in terms of volume are various trade customers particularly Japanese ones. Production is by batch processing and there are no continuous processes.

Page 8 of 328

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd Annual Environmental Report 2008 The active ingredients are produced by organic synthesis in batch processes. A typical synthesis operation is shown below:

Generic Synthesis Route

Reaction Vessel

Filter

Cooling/Crystallisation

Centrifuge

Dryer

Milling

Sieving

Blending

API for Sale

Ingredient A, Ingredient B and Solvents

Packing/Storage

In accordance with the Master Formula for the particular product, two powdered materials are added to an organic solvent in a reaction vessel and a controlled chemical reaction takes place. The reaction is allowed to continue to completion. Then the desired product is separated from the reaction vessel liquid contents, using various separation methods, and dried. The dried product is milled and sieved resulting in a fine powder which is packed and sent to the customer. All operations are carried out in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practice following the method set out in the plant Standard Operating Procedures. All production details are recorded in the Batch Record Book.

The Quality Control Laboratories’ personnel are responsible for the analytical testing of all raw materials, intermediate, and API’s on-site. All incoming process materials, from non-Janssen sources, are tested and classified as appropriate. The laboratory personnel also carry out in-process testing. The environmental laboratory staff are responsible for all environmental monitoring and testing, including emission monitoring and operational control testing for air and water treatment systems.

Page 9 of 328


Page 10 of 328

2.0 Summary Data 2.1 Releases to Air The data as required under the new AER Electronic Reporting System can be found in Section 5. 2.2 Releases to Water With respect to the Janssen operation the only release to water relates to our discharge to the stormwater sewer. As no flow data is available the ‘Releases to Water’ sheet was not completed on the electronic file. We therefore provide a summary of the 2008 pH and TOC data below.

Parameter Unit Licensed Limit

Average Max Min

TOC mg/l Not Specified 8.8 1001 0

pH

pH units 6 to 9 7.63 11.80 2.30

2.3 Releases to Wastewater or Sewer The data as required under the new AER Electronic Reporting System can be found in Section5. 2.4 Onsite Treatment and Offsite Transfers of Waste The data as required under the new AER Electronic Reporting System can be found in Section 5.

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. Annual Environmental Report 2008

Page 11 of 328

2.5 Agency Monitoring and Enforcement The Agency were on site 3 times during the year for emissions monitoring. Zero non compliances were reported. Our EPA Inspector conducted a site inspection on July 01st 2008. All corrective actions are complete. 2.6 Resource Consumption The following tables indicate energy and water usage for the period 2004 to 2008 inclusive. Details on both water and energy reduction programmes can be found in the EMP report for 2008. (Sections 8 & 9)

Energy Consumption

Units 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Energy usage MWh 29904 34339 40331 41590 41036

Water Consumption

Units 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Water Usage M3 134118 162173 187517 185444 160842


Page 12 of 328

2.7 Environmental Complaints and Incidents

Complaints Janssen Pharmaceutical received no environmental complaints in 2008.


Page 13 of 328


3.0 Management of the Activity

3.1 Environmental Management Programme Report 2008

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd.

Environmental Management Programme

Report

2008

Page 14 of 328


Page 15 of 328

Table of Programme Elements

No. Item

1. Campaign Length Increase

2. ISO 14001: 2004 Environmental Management System Maintenance

3. Preventive Maintenance Reporting

4. Solvent Recovery Increase

5. Awareness & Training

6. NCP Reduction

7. Solvent Usage Reduction

8. Energy Usage Reduction

9. Water Usage Reduction

10. Hazardous Waste Reduction

11. Non- Hazardous Waste Reduction

12. Conservation/ Community Awareness

13. Removal of List II substances

14. Alternative Technologies

15. Emergency Response System

16. Groundwater Protection

17. Biodiversity


Page 16 of 328

Environmental Management Programme Items


Reason Increasing the production campaign length will in effect reduce the number of cleanings required thus reducing the quantity of solvent/materials being used for cleaning purposes. This reduction in material usage and waste generation for the same production output is in line with the principles of cleaner technology.

IPPCL Conditions

2.1 The Licensee shall maintain an Environmental Management System. This

system shall assess all operations and review all practicable options for the use of cleaner technology, cleaner production and the reduction and minimisation of waste and shall as a minimum those elements specified in Conditions 2.2 to 2.9.

Priority

Medium

Time Frame

Ongoing programme 2008 to 2012 with a specific target set for 2008.

Target/Objective The objective is to meet and where possible exceed the 2007 level of 6.54 batches per campaign. The target will be reviewed annually thereafter to the year 2012.

Methods The target will be achieved using the efficient management of material inventories and customer order processing combined with the use of a production planning software package to optimise the use/allocation of processing equipment. Process excellence teams will continue to be used to further drive the application of a Lean Manufacturing approach to production processing.

Responsible Person

Director of Manufacturing

Monitoring Method

Included as a component of quarterly environmental reports

Achievement

Refer to the table below

Average Campaign Lengths

Units 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Campaign Length No. of

Batches 6.70 6.32 6.24 6.35 6.54 5.13


Page 17 of 328


Page 18 of 328

2. ISO 14001: 2004 Environmental Management System Maintenance IS 393: Energy Management System Maintenance

Reason To ensure that the site maintains an environmental management system that meets the requirements of the externally verified standards ISO 14001:2004, IS 393: 2005 and the IPPCL. To comply with the Johnson & Johnson policy of certification of it’s operating facilities to ISO 14001: 2004. To ensure completion of the annual Management Action Awareness Reporting System (MAARS) self assessment.

IPPCL Condition

2.1 The Licensee shall maintain an Environmental Management System.

This system shall assess all operations and review all practicable

options for the use of cleaner technology, cleaner production and the

reduction and minimisation of waste and shall as a minimum those

elements specified in Conditions 2.2 to 2.9

2.2.1 The licensee shall maintain a schedule of Environmental Objectives

& Targets. The operation and maintenance of an externally verified management system is relevant to all conditions of the IPPCL.

Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective • Operation and maintenance of the ISO 14001: 2004 environmental

management standard, with the successful completion of external verification audits in 2008.

• Operation and maintenance of the IS 393:2005 energy management standard with a certification audit in Q2, 2008

• Development of a schedule of Environmental and Energy Objectives and Targets

• Completion of the annual Management Action Awareness Reporting System (MAARS) self-assessment using the Johnson & Johnson Total Risk Assessment Tool (TRAC) and the timely closure of all Management Action Plan items.

Methods

Programme of activities to ensure the requirements of ISO 14001: 2004 and IS 393: 2005 are addressed including as a minimum : i. External verification audits ii. Internal Audits iii. Maintenance and updating of environmental documentation iv. Quarterly monitoring of E.M.P.AND Energy MAP targets and objectives


Page 19 of 328

v. MAARS Self Assessment vi. External MAARS Assessment. Completion of Responsible Care Self Assessments for Environment, Safety and Energy vii.Completion of an Annual Environmental Report for submission to the EPA.

Responsible Person

Environmental Manager/ Maintenance and Facilities Manager

Achievement

All items were completed in 2008 with the exception of the IS393:2005 certification audit


Reason To ensure a high level of equipment up time to maintain efficient operation of the manufacturing and environmental systems.

IPPCL Condition

2.1 The Licensee shall maintain an Environmental Management System. This system shall assess all operations and review all practicable options for the use of cleaner technology, cleaner production and the reduction and minimisation of waste and shall as a minimum those elements specified in Conditions 2.2 to 2.9.

Priority

Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Maintain the 2007 achievement of 100% equipment up time for 2008.

Methods

Apply the SAP PM tracking system to monitoring the percent up-time of specific environmental equipment as identified in the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Licence.

Responsible Person

Director of Engineering

Monitoring Method


Achievement

100% uptime for 2008.


Page 20 of 328


Reason

To increase the percent recovery of solvent going off site for disposal in line with the Johnson & Johnson 2010 Healthy Planet Goal on Waste Reduction.

IPPCL Condition



Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

The objective is to maintain the percentage of solvent going for recovery at a level of > 75%

Methods

1. Management of the Bulk Waste System to optimise the utilisation of the

waste storage tanks for the segregation of waste streams with high recovery potential.

2. Maintenance of the changes resulting from the Process Excellence Project on Waste Stream Optimisation to increase the recovery potential of existing waste streams.

3. To monitor the impact of the Value Stream Mapping-Lean Manufacturing approach and where possible to ensure additional recovery of materials

4. Partner with Indaver in the management of waste streams to ensure maximum recoverability.

Responsible Person

Environmental Manager & Production Manager

Monitoring Method


Achievement

Refer to the table below

Additional Information

The objective of increasing the percent of waste recovered verses recycled has been part of Janssen’s Environmental Programme for several years with achievements to date tabulated below.

Recovered Solvents

Units 2004 2005 2005 2007 2008 Total Solvent Usage Tonnes 1921 1842 1680 1643 1293


Page 21 of 328

Total Solvent Recovered Tonnes 1311 1377 1349 1286 1092 Percentage of Usage Recovered % 68 75 80 78 84


Page 22 of 328


Reason

Training in environmental areas assists in increasing employee/contractor awareness of IPPCL requirements and on environmental issues specific to their job function. This helps to underpin the importance of the environmental aspects of the site operations to all employees. Environmental Literacy, an element of the “Johnson & Johnson 2010 Healthy Planet Goals” aims to go further and increase the Environmental literacy of all J&J employees through awareness and understanding of global environmental issues.

IPPCL Condition

2.7.1 The licensee shall maintain procedures for identifying training needs, and for providing appropriate training, for all personnel whose work can have a significant effect upon the environment. Appropriate records of training shall be maintained. 2.7.2 Personnel performing specifically assigned tasks shall be qualified on the basis of appropriate education, training and/or experience, as required.

Priority

High

Time Frame

Ongoing programme from 2007 to 2011 with specific targets for 2008.

Target/Objective

Proposed Environmental and Energy Training programme 2008: • Environmental induction training for all new employees and contractors. • Refresher training for all production, lab and warehouse personnel on the

Potential Environmental Impact of their operations • Refresher training for ERT personnel on the site Emergency response system

and the firewater Retention Tank. • Annual review of training needs via Appraisal system, audit program and gap

analyses. • Energy training in line with 2008 Energy Training Matrix.

Methods

Utilisation of focused training and awareness sessions as well as competitions and newsletters.

Responsible Person

Environmental Manager and Training Manager

Monitoring Method

Included as a component of quarterly environmental reports and training effectiveness questionnaires as appropriate.

Achievement

All items were completed in 2008.


Page 23 of 328

6. NCP Reduction

Reason

In applying the principles of Cleaner Technology to chemical production operations any decrease in Non Conforming Product levels leads to a reduction in the level of potential reworks and associated increase in material usage and waste generation

IPPCL Condition


Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

The objective is to achieve an NCP level of < 32.

Methods

There are primarily 3 ways to achieve NCP reductions (i) Drive ‘Right First Time’ manufacturing approach (ii) Ongoing training of production personnel on the key/critical process steps effecting current deviation levels. (iii) The use of process excellence teams to identify areas for further reductions in

NCPs

Responsible Person

Production Manager & Director of Chemical Technology

Monitoring Method


Achievement

Refer to Table below.


Non Conforming Product Levels

Unit 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 NCP level # 126 107 81 40 29


Page 24 of 328


Reason

To minimise the amount of solvent used on site, which will reduce the quantity of hazardous waste generated in line with the J&J Healthy Planet 2010 goals for Waste Reduction

IPPCL Condition



10 Resource Use and Energy Efficiency

Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

• Minimise the increase in solvent use caused by increasing regulatory

requirements (e.g. cleaning validation.)

• Maintain the usage increase below 2000 tonnes and where possible drive usage below the 2007 figure.

Methods

• Develop and apply a Hazardous Waste Assessment tool with the Clean

Technology Centre in order to determine any further opportunities for hazardous waste elimination and reduction.

• Through the application of the Process Excellence tools e.g. the Lean Manufacturing approach to focus on getting it “Right First time” in order to reduce reprocessing and cleaning both leading to a reduction in solvent usage.

Responsible Person

Production Manager

Monitoring Method

Included as a component of quarterly environmental reports.

Achievement

Refer to Table below

Solvent usage

Units 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


Page 25 of 328

Solvent Usage Tonnes 2131 1921 1842 1680 1643 1293


Page 26 of 328


Reason

To minimise the amount of energy used on site in line with the Johnson & Johnson energy usage “2010 Healthy Planet Goal’ and EPA IPPCL and Greenhouse Gas Permit requirements.

IPPCL Condition

2.1 The Licensee shall maintain an Environmental Management System. This system shall assess all operations and review all practicable options for the use of cleaner technology, cleaner production and the reduction and minimisation of waste and shall as a minimum those elements specified in Conditions 2.2 to 2.9. 10 Resource Use and Energy Efficiency

Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

To reduce energy usage below the 2007 figure and meet the National Allocation Plan allowance for Carbon emissions (Value for 2008: 5650)

Methods

Continuation of the ‘2007 Company Must Do’ focusing on Resource Management and our use of Natural Gas, Electricity, Water and Diesel via

• Plant based Energy monitoring and measurement • Promoting a culture of awareness of energy conservation through the use

of an energy awareness magazine, events and competitions • continuing to ensure that energy efficiency is a requirement for all new

facilities and equipment in line with the Johnson & Johnson Enhanced Best Practices.

• Producing a 2008 energy report • Completing a self assessment against the Responsible Care Energy Code. • Pursuing best practices in Energy conservation • Active participation in the Campus Ireland Energy team • Preparation for certification to IS 393 • Implementation of weekend shutdown procedure for site utility systems • Implementation of projects in line with 2007 Energy Audit

recommendations

Responsible Person

Director of Engineering, Environmental Manager

Monitoring Method



Page 27 of 328

Additional Information Energy usage

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Energy usage

MWh 30822 29904 34339 40331 41590 41036

Verified Carbon Emissions vs NAP Allowance (in brackets)

Tonnes

n/a n/a 4049 (4329)

4761 (4865)

4848 (5656)

4981 (5650)


Page 28 of 328


Reason

To minimise the amount of water used on site in line with the Johnson & Johnson water use ‘2010 Healthy Planet Goals’ and IPPCL requirements.

IPPCL Condition


Priority Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective With the continued commissioning of Production Plant 3 and its associated utilities drive the water usage figure below the 2007 value.

Methods • Continuation of ‘2007 Company Must Do’ focusing on Resource

Management and our use of Natural Gas, Electricity, Water and Diesel. This will include an audit of current water usage practices and the identification of improvement projects.

• Apply the Johnson &Johnson Water Usage Best Practices to all existing and future site operations to maintain 100% implementation.

• To develop the existing water monitoring programme to enable more detailed plant based water metering in an effort to identify further opportunities for reduction and reuse.

Responsible Person

Maintenance and Facilities Manager & Environmental Manager

Monitoring Method


Achievements

Refer to Table below


Water Usage

Units 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Water Usage M3 131601 134118 162173 187517 185444 160842


Page 29 of 328


Reason

To minimise the quantity of hazardous waste generated in line with the Johnson & Johnson Waste Reduction ‘2010 Healthy Planet Goal’ and IPPCL requirements.

IPPCL Condition

2.1 The Licensee shall maintain an Environmental Management System. This system shall assess all operations and review all practicable options for the use of cleaner technology, cleaner production and the reduction and minimisation of waste and shall as a minimum those elements specified in Conditions 2.2 to 2.9. 7 Waste Management

Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Minimise the increase in hazardous waste generation caused by increasing solvent use (e.g. item 9 above). Keep the generation increase below the 2007 value.

Methods

• Maintain a focus on NCP reduction to drive down the level of reworks etc • Maintain our efforts on reducing solvent use throughout the site, using

management options such as Lean Manufacturing (e.g. campaign length increase) and the application of alternatives to solvents where possible.

• To evaluate cleaning options that utilise reduced levels of solvents • Continue the focus on recovery before incineration while increasing the use

of better environmental disposal options such as ‘waste to energy’ (e.g. item 6 above)

Responsible Person

Production Manager & Director of Manufacturing

Monitoring Method


Achievements

Refer to the Table below


Page 30 of 328

Hazardous Waste

Units 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Hazardous Waste Tonnes 2683 2437 2377 2898 2199 1795


Page 31 of 328


Reason

To minimise the quantity of non recoverable non-hazardous waste generated in line with the Johnson & Johnson Waste Reduction ‘2010 Healthy Planet Goal’ and IPPCL requirements.

IPPCL Condition


Priority

Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Achieve a target of <300 tonnes for 2008.

Methods

• Canteen food waste and general office waste is the main component of non-

hazardous waste and significant reductions have been achieved in this area. A food composting program will further reduce the amount of non hazardous waste being landfilled.

• The continued segregation of recyclable components (e.g. cardboard, paper, plastic, metal, pallets) from the general waste will further minimise the overall volume of non-hazardous waste being sent to landfill. A Binless office system will be implemented across the site in 2008 to further assist in the segregation of non hazardous waste streams.

• Work with suppliers (e.g. canteen suppliers) to eliminate/reduce the level of

packaging associated with material supplies to the site

Responsible Person

Environmental Manager

Monitoring Method


Achievement

Refer to the Table below


Non-Hazardous Waste


Page 32 of 328

Units 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Non-Haz Waste Tonnes 345 335 379 361 293 152 179



Reason

As significant improvements/reductions in the environmental aspects of the company have been achieved over the last decade the corporate Worldwide Environmental Affairs department have included a conservation and community outreach element in the 2010 Healthy Planet Goals for each of their operating companies. This involves activities in the area of community and regulatory projects and partnerships activities.

IPPCL Condition

Not applicable

Priority

Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Maintain the existing Community Outreach Program in line with the Johnson and Johnson requirements.

Methods Maintain the 2007 Community/Conservation programme of activities including: • Continued participation in the LIIDC (Little Island Industry Development

Company) and LISA (Little Island Safety & Access Committee) • Participation in the Cork Chamber of Commerce Waste Management

Taskforce • Support for the Clean Technology Centre (CTC) • Continued sponsorship of the Sherkin Marine Research Station • Participate as an active member of Comhar (The National Sustainable

Development Council ) representing the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland • Continued sponsorship of the Lifetime Lab • Membership of the ECAD CSR group

Responsible Person


Monitoring Method

To be monitored as a component of the quarterly environmental reports.

Achievement

All of the above items are being progressed

Page 33 of 328


Page 34 of 328

13. Removal of List II Substances

Reason

To reduce or eliminate emissions of List II substances from the site e.g. Toluene and Dichloromethane (DCM)

IPPCL Condition

Annual Environmental Report requirement

Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

For 2008 the objective is to focus on the changeover to the Modified R 51211 process (only process using DCM) process which uses MEK instead of DCM.

Methods

• As one of the overall site company objectives support the changeover to the

new R51211 process. • Through the Worldwide Chemical Production Environmental, Health &

Safety Taskforce work with Chemical Development in Janssen Belgium to maintain the focus and support them in all initiatives leading to the elimination DCM and toluene.

Responsible Person

Director of Manufacturing & Director of Quality & Compliance

Monitoring Method


Achievement

Modified R51211 introduced during 2008 with replacement of DCM with MEK.


Page 35 of 328


Reason As part of our continuous improvement programme to further reduce the quantity of non-hazardous material (wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge and canteen food waste) being sent to landfill.

IPPCL Condition


Priority Low

Time Frame


Target/Objective For 2008 to complete with the CO2 project in the WWTP and evaluate further technologies.

Methods • To progress the Strategic Assessment that was completed on the WWTP by

obtaining more detailed cost analysis and agreeing an action plan. • Conduct an feasibility study for the removal of R22 from site air conditioning

units etc • As part of the Worldwide Chemical Environmental Health & Safety

Taskforce complete a benchmark assessment of all chemical sites in order to identify alternative technologies.

Responsible Person


Monitoring Method


Achievement

The above three items are being progressed and are ongoing


Page 36 of 328


Reason To ensure a well-trained and equipped Emergency Response Team is available to respond to any incident on site and minimise the effects of the incident.

IPPCL Condition

2.1 The Licensee shall maintain an Environmental Management System. This system shall assess all operations and review all practicable options for the use of cleaner technology, cleaner production and the reduction and minimisation of waste and shall as a minimum those elements specified in Conditions 2.2 to 2.9. Condition 13. Accidents and Emergency Response

Priority High

Time Frame


Target/Objective To maintain a fully equipped and competent Emergency response team on site at all times during production operations.

Methods • To continue to improve all areas of the Health Safety and Environmental

(HSE) management system and maintain certification of the site to BS: OSHAS 18001 Safety Management System standard and ISO 14001: 2004 Environmental Management System

• Continue the existing programme of environmental incident response

simulations. • Utilise the PSM (Process Safety Management) and MAARS (Management

Action Awareness Reporting System) Programmes in order to achieve continued improvements in all aspects of Emergency Response.

• Where invited conduct a joint training exercise with the External Emergency

Services • Maintain the HSA Voluntary Prevention Program ‘Star’ rating

Responsible Person

Director of Manufacturing and Safety Manager

Monitoring Method


Achievement



Page 37 of 328


Reason To ensure that the Operational activities of the site continue to ensure the protection of our groundwater. To work with the other Little Island Companies to determine the root cause for the poor groundwater quality evident in the locality.

IPPCL Condition

9.3.1 No environmentally polluting substance or matter shall be permitted to discharge to ground or groundwater under the site. 9.3.2 All groundwater monitoring points shall be included in the site’s maintenance programme. 9.3.3 Groundwater monitoring points BH8 to BH27, as listed in Schedule 4(ii) Groundwater Monitoring, shall be sampled and analysed in accordance with Schedule 4(ii) Groundwater Monitoring of this licence. A report of such results shall be submitted annually as part of the AER.

Priority High

Time Frame


Target/Objective To continue to coordinate a Groundwater Monitoring program between Janssen and the neighbouring companies to identify the sources of contamination.

Methods • To conduct regular monitoring of the groundwater. • To take appropriate action as required in agreement with the EPA.

Responsible Person


Monitoring Method


Achievement



Page 38 of 328

17. Biodiversity

Reason

As significant improvements/reductions in the environmental aspects of the company have been achieved over the last decade the corporate Worldwide Environmental Affairs department have included as one element of their Healthy Planet Goals 2010 a Biodiversity conservation project.

IPPCL Condition

Not applicable

Priority

Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Progress the 5 year Biodiversity programme in line with the Johnson & Johnson 2010 Healthy Planet Goals.

Methods • Complete Year 3 actions as defined in the site biodiversity action plan • Via the Environmental Manager’s membership of Comhar (National

Sustainable Development Council) keep abreast of the status of the National Biodiversity Plan.

Responsible Person


Monitoring Method


Achievement



♦

3.2 Environmental Management Programme Proposal 2009-2013


Environmental Management Programme Proposal

2009-2013

Submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency under Condition 2 of the

Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Licence, Licence o. P0016-02.

Page 39 of 328


Page 40 of 328


Page 41 of 328

Introduction

Janssen Pharmaceutical Limited prepares an annual Environmental Management Programme that contains 5 year targets for the environmental objectives where appropriate. The programme elements address the requirements of our Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Licence, (as defined in under conditions 2.1 - 2.9), Johnson & Johnson 2010 Healthy Planet Goals, ISO 14001: 2004, IS 393: 2005 and specific company objectives identified during management review. Although the Environmental Management Programme has a 5 year time frame, specific quantitative targets are normally set on an annual basis as the programmes used by Janssen to achieve the overall target may require adjustments in light of ongoing experience and advances in knowledge and technology. Targets and goals in such programmes are set to ensure that resources and systems are put in place to achieve the targets and the success of the programme should be measured by the effectiveness of the systems installed, rather than by absolute results in meeting targets. The Environmental Management Programme presented below is not a stand alone document and is fully integrated into the site management system. Hence Janssen’s management strategy recognises a number of customers, one of whom is the statutory authorities (HSA and EPA). A number of critical success factors have been defined on this basis, one of which is to meet and exceed statutory requirements. Key processes based on the critical success factors have been identified, which include: the support of production innovation; management of process waste; creation and implementation of training plans. Over the next 5 years cross-functional teams will continue to be used to assist in the implementation of the appropriate EMP items. This process is subject to an annual Management Review by the site Leadership Team to ensure the effectiveness of the overall process. However, the wording in Condition 1.1 of the IPPC Licence, which states that "All programmes required to be carried out under the terms of this Licence, become part of this Licence" compel us to insert caveats in some sections, and the following general one. Commitments made in this programme assume that our product mix remain substantially the same. Commitments made are also subject to trials being successful, that the quality of the product is maintained or improved and that the required regulatory approval is forthcoming.

The following proposal outlines the areas and methods for the 2009 to 2013 Environmental

Management Programme and each item is addressed under the specific licence condition requirement.


Page 42 of 328

Table of Programme Elements

No. Item


19. ISO 14001: 2004 Environmental Management System Maintenance




23. NCP Reduction







30. Removal of List II substances




34. Biodiversity


Page 43 of 328

Licence Requirements Compliance

IPPCL Condition

Addressed by Item(s)

Condition 2.1

EMP Item 2. (Also reference the Additional IPPCL Components to the EMP section at the end of the proposal)

Condition 2.2.1

All EMP Items

Condition 2.3.1

EMP Item 2

Condition 2.3.2

EMP Item 2

Condition 2.4.1

For 2009 Janssen will report against the list identified in the European PRTR Guidance Document issued in May 2006. (Ref letter to the Agency dated Feb 6th, 2007)

Condition 2.4.2

The list of solvents to be included in the 2009 PER will be as follows: DCM, Toluene, and Non Methane VOCs as per the European PRTR Guidance Document

Condition 2.5.1

EMP Item 2

Condition 2.5.2

A copy of the licence is available to all site personnel via the online Documentum system. Formal hard copies have been distributed to all relevant personnel whose duties relate to any condition of the licence.

Condition 2.6.1

Should any requirements of the licence not be fulfilled a formal Environmental deviation will be raised as per the existing site Corrective Action process. The deviation will require a full investigation, identification of the root causes and subsequent completion of identified corrective actions.

Condition 2.7.1

EMP Item 7

Condition 2.7.2

EMP Item 7

Condition 2.8.1

Procedures are in place to ensure that a person in charge in available on site at all times when the activity is in operation.

Condition 2.9.1

This programme has been approved by the Agency and is in place.

Condition 2.9.2

The requirement to submit an Annual Environmental report to the Agency by March 31st each year has been included in the Environmental Reports SOP CORK 980


Page 44 of 328

Environmental Management Programme Items


Reason Increasing the production campaign length will in effect reduce the number of cleanings required thus reducing the quantity of solvent/materials being used for cleaning purposes. This reduction in material usage and waste generation for the same production output is in line with the principles of cleaner technology.

IPPCL Conditions



Priority

Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective The objective is to meet and where possible exceed the 2008 level of 5.13 batches per campaign. The target will be reviewed annually thereafter to the year 2013.

Methods The target will be achieved using the efficient management of material inventories and customer order processing combined with the use of a production planning software package to optimise the use/allocation of processing equipment. Process excellence teams will continue to be used to further drive the application of a Lean Manufacturing approach to production processing.

Responsible Person

Director of Manufacturing

Monitoring Method


Average Campaign Lengths

Units 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Campaign Length No. of

Batches 6.32 6.24 6.35 6.54 5.13


Page 45 of 328

3. ISO 14001: 2004 Environmental Management System Maintenance IS 393: Energy Management System Maintenance

Reason To ensure that the site maintains an environmental management system that meets the requirements of the externally verified standards ISO 14001:2004, IS 393: 2005 and the IPPCL. To comply with the Johnson & Johnson policy of certification of it’s operating facilities to ISO 14001: 2004. To ensure completion of the annual Management Action Awareness Reporting System (MAARS) self assessment and the timely closure of all Management Action Plan items.

IPPCL Condition

2.2 The Licensee shall maintain an Environmental Management System.

This system shall assess all operations and review all practicable

options for the use of cleaner technology, cleaner production and the

reduction and minimisation of waste and shall as a minimum those

elements specified in Conditions 2.2 to 2.9

2.2.1 The licensee shall maintain a schedule of Environmental Objectives

& Targets. The operation and maintenance of an externally verified management system is relevant to all conditions of the IPPCL.

Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective • Operation and maintenance of the ISO 14001: 2004 environmental

management standard, with the successful completion of external verification audits in 2008.

• Operation and maintenance of the IS 393:2005 energy management standard with a certification audit by Q2.2009

• Development of a schedule of Environmental and Energy Objectives and Targets

• Completion of the annual Management Action Awareness Reporting System (MAARS) self-assessment using the Johnson & Johnson Total Risk Assessment Tool (TRAC) and the timely closure of all Management Action Plan items.

Methods

Programme of activities to ensure the requirements of ISO 14001: 2004 and IS 393: 2005 are addressed including as a minimum : viii.External verification audits ix. Internal Audits x. Maintenance and updating of environmental documentation


Page 46 of 328

xi. Quarterly monitoring of E.M.P.AND Energy MAP targets and objectives xii.MAARS Self Assessment xiii.External MAARS Assessment. xiv.Completion of Responsible Care Self Assessments for Environment, Safety

and Energy xv. Completion of an Annual Environmental Report for submission to the EPA.

Responsible Person

Environmental Manager/ Maintenance and Facilities Manager

Monitoring Method



Reason

To ensure a high level of equipment up time to maintain efficient operation of the manufacturing and environmental systems.

IPPCL Condition


Priority

Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Maintain the 2008 achievement of 100% equipment up time for 2009.

Methods

Apply the SAP PM tracking system to monitoring the percent up-time of specific environmental equipment as identified in the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Licence.

Responsible Person

Director of Engineering

Monitoring Method



Page 47 of 328


Reason

To increase the percent recovery of solvent going off site for disposal in line with the Johnson & Johnson 2010 Healthy Planet Goal on Waste Reduction.

IPPCL Condition



Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

The objective is to maintain the percentage of solvent going for recovery at a level of >75%

Methods

5. Management of the Bulk Waste System to optimise the utilisation of the

waste storage tanks for the segregation of waste streams with high recovery potential.

6. Maintenance of the changes resulting from the Process Excellence Project on Waste Stream Optimisation to increase the recovery potential of existing waste streams.

7. To monitor the impact of the Value Stream Mapping-Lean Manufacturing approach and where possible to ensure additional recovery of materials

8. Partner with Indaver in the management of waste streams to ensure maximum recoverability.

Responsible Person

Environmental Manager & Production Manager

Monitoring Method



The objective of increasing the percent of waste recovered verses recycled has been part of Janssen’s Environmental Programme for several years with achievements to date tabulated below.

Recovered Solvents

Units 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Solvent Usage Tonnes 1842 1680 1643 1293 Total Solvent Recovered Tonnes 1377 1349 1286 1092 Percentage of Usage Recovered % 75 80 78 84


Page 48 of 328


Page 49 of 328


Reason

Training in environmental areas assists in increasing employee/contractor awareness of IPPCL requirements and on environmental issues specific to their job function. This helps to underpin the importance of the environmental aspects of the site operations to all employees. Environmental Literacy, an element of the “Johnson & Johnson 2010 Healthy Planet Goals” aims to go further and increase the Environmental literacy of all J&J employees through awareness and understanding of global environmental issues.

IPPCL Condition

2.7.1 The licensee shall maintain procedures for identifying training needs, and for providing appropriate training, for all personnel whose work can have a significant effect upon the environment. Appropriate records of training shall be maintained. 2.7.2 Personnel performing specifically assigned tasks shall be qualified on the basis of appropriate education, training and/or experience, as required.

Priority

High

Time Frame

Ongoing programme from 2009 to 2013 with specific targets for 2009.

Target/Objective

Proposed Environmental and Energy Training programme 2009: • Environmental induction training for all new employees and contractors. • Refresher training for all production, lab and warehouse personnel on the

Potential Environmental Impact of their operations • Refresher training for ERT personnel on the site Emergency response system

and the firewater Retention Tank. • Annual review of training needs via Appraisal system, audit program and gap

analyses. • Environmental Literacy module in line with the J&J 2010 Healthy Planet

Goals. • Energy training

Methods

Utilisation of focused training and awareness sessions as well as competitions and newsletters.

Responsible Person

Environmental Manager and Training Manager

Monitoring Method

Included as a component of quarterly environmental reports and training effectiveness questionnaires as appropriate.


Page 50 of 328

6. NCP Reduction

Reason

In applying the principles of Cleaner Technology to chemical production operations any decrease in Non Conforming Product levels leads to a reduction in the level of potential reworks and associated increase in material usage and waste generation

IPPCL Condition


Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

The objective is to achieve an NCP level of < 32.

Methods

There are primarily 3 ways to achieve NCP reductions (i) Drive ‘Right First Time’ manufacturing approach (ii) Ongoing training of production personnel on the key/critical process steps effecting current deviation levels. (iii) The use of process excellence teams to identify areas for further reductions in

NCPs

Responsible Person

Production Manager & Director of Chemical Technology

Monitoring Method



Non Conforming Product Levels

Unit 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 NCP level # 107 81 40 29


Page 51 of 328


Reason

To minimise the amount of solvent used on site, which will reduce the quantity of hazardous waste generated in line with the J&J Healthy Planet 2010 goals for Waste Reduction

IPPCL Condition



10 Resource Use and Energy Efficiency

Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

• Minimise the increase in solvent use caused by increasing regulatory

requirements (e.g. cleaning validation.)

• Maintain the usage increase below 2000 tonnes and where possible drive usage below the 2008 figure.

Methods

• Develop and apply a Hazardous Waste Assessment tool with the Clean

Technology Centre in order to determine any further opportunities for hazardous waste elimination and reduction.

• Through the application of the Process Excellence tools e.g. the Lean Manufacturing approach to focus on getting it “Right First time” in order to reduce reprocessing and cleaning both leading to a reduction in solvent usage.

Responsible Person

Production Manager

Monitoring Method



Solvent usage

Units 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Page 52 of 328

Solvent Usage Tonnes 1921 1842 1680 1643 1293


Page 53 of 328


Reason

To minimise the amount of energy used on site in line with the Johnson & Johnson energy usage “2010 Healthy Planet Goal’ and EPA IPPCL and Greenhouse Gas Permit requirements.

IPPCL Condition


Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

To reduce energy usage below the 2008 figure and meet the National Allocation Plan allowance for Carbon emissions .

Methods

Continuation of the ‘2007 Company Must Do’ focusing on Resource Management and our use of Natural Gas, Electricity, Water and Diesel via

• Plant based Energy monitoring and measurement • Promoting a culture of awareness of energy conservation through the use

of an energy awareness magazine, events and competitions • continuing to ensure that energy efficiency is a requirement for all new

facilities and equipment in line with the Johnson & Johnson Enhanced Best Practices.

• Completing a self assessment against the Responsible Care Energy Code. • Pursuing best practices in Energy conservation • Active participation in the Campus Ireland Energy team • Preparation for certification to IS 393 • Implementation of weekend shutdown procedure for site utility systems • Implementation of projects in line with 2007 Energy Audit

recommendations and Energy Group recommendations.

Responsible Person

Director of Engineering, Environmental Manager

Monitoring Method


Additional Information Energy usage

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Energy usage

MWh 29904 34339 40331 41590 41036


Page 54 of 328

Verified Carbon Emissions vs NAP Allowance (in brackets)

Tonnes

n/a 4049 (4329)

4761 (4865)

4848 (5656)

4981 (5656)


Page 55 of 328


Reason

To minimise the amount of water used on site in line with the Johnson & Johnson water use ‘2010 Healthy Planet Goals’ and IPPCL requirements.

IPPCL Condition


Priority Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective With the continued commissioning of Production Plant 3 and its associated utilities drive the water usage figure below the 2008 value.

Methods • Conduct an audit of current water usage practices and the identification of

improvement projects. • Raise the issue of increasing water usage at HSE Steering meeting to

highlight to Senior Management the need for a cross functional team to concentrate on reducing water usage on site.

• Apply the Johnson &Johnson Water Usage Best Practices to all existing and future site operations to maintain 100% implementation.

• To develop the existing water monitoring programme to enable more detailed plant based water metering in an effort to identify further opportunities for reduction and reuse.

Responsible Person

Maintenance and Facilities Manager & Environmental Manager

Monitoring Method



Water Usage

Units 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Water Usage M3 134118 162173 187517 185444 160842


Page 56 of 328


Reason

To minimise the quantity of hazardous waste generated in line with the Johnson & Johnson Waste Reduction ‘2010 Healthy Planet Goal’ and IPPCL requirements.

IPPCL Condition


Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Minimise the increase in hazardous waste generation caused by increasing solvent use (e.g. item 9 above). Keep the generation increase below the 2008 value.

Methods

• Maintain a focus on NCP reduction to drive down the level of reworks etc • Maintain our efforts on reducing solvent use throughout the site, using

management options such as Lean Manufacturing (e.g. campaign length increase) and the application of alternatives to solvents where possible.

• To evaluate cleaning options that utilise reduced levels of solvents • Continue the focus on recovery before incineration while increasing the use

of better environmental disposal options such as ‘waste to energy’ (e.g. item 6 above)

Responsible Person

Production Manager & Director of Manufacturing

Monitoring Method



Hazardous Waste

Units 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Page 57 of 328

Hazardous Waste Tonnes 2437 2377 2898 2199 1795


Page 58 of 328


Reason

To minimise the quantity of non recoverable non-hazardous waste generated in line with the Johnson & Johnson Waste Reduction ‘2010 Healthy Planet Goal’ and IPPCL requirements.

IPPCL Condition


Priority

Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Achieve a target of <300 tonnes for 2009.

Methods

• Canteen food waste and general office waste is the main component of non-

hazardous waste and significant reductions have been achieved in this area. A food composting program will further reduce the amount of non hazardous waste being landfilled. This should be explored during 2009.

• The continued segregation of recyclable components (e.g. cardboard, paper, plastic, metal, pallets) from the general waste will further minimise the overall volume of non-hazardous waste being sent to landfill. A Binless office system was implemented across the site in 2008 to further assist in the segregation of non hazardous waste streams. This should be strictly monitored in 2009.

• Work with suppliers (e.g. canteen suppliers) to eliminate/reduce the level of

packaging associated with material supplies to the site

Responsible Person


Monitoring Method



Non-Hazardous Waste

Units 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Page 59 of 328

Non-Haz Waste Tonnes 335 379 361 293 152 179


Page 61 of 328


Reason

As significant improvements/reductions in the environmental aspects of the company have been achieved over the last decade the corporate Worldwide Environmental Affairs department have included a conservation and community outreach element in the 2010 Healthy Planet Goals for each of their operating companies. This involves activities in the area of community and regulatory projects and partnerships activities.

IPPCL Condition

Not applicable

Priority

Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Maintain the existing Community Outreach Program in line with the Johnson and Johnson requirements.

Methods Maintain the 2008 Community/Conservation programme of activities including: • Continued participation in the LIIDC (Little Island Industry Development

Company) and LISA (Little Island Safety & Access Committee) • Participation in the Cork Chamber of Commerce Waste Management

Taskforce • Support for the Clean Technology Centre (CTC) • Continued sponsorship of the Sherkin Marine Research Station • Participate as an active member of Comhar (The National Sustainable

Development Council ) representing the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland • Continued sponsorship of the Lifetime Lab • Membership of the ECAD CSR group

Responsible Person


Monitoring Method



Page 62 of 328

13. Removal of List II Substances

Reason

To reduce or eliminate emissions of List II substances from the site e.g. Toluene and Dichloromethane (DCM)

IPPCL Condition

Annual Environmental Report requirement

Priority

High

Time Frame


Target/Objective

For 2009 the objective is to focus on the use of DCM for cleaning. Working with Chemical Technology and Production departments to find an alternative.

Methods Through the Worldwide Chemical Production Environmental,

Health & Safety Taskforce work with Chemical Development in Janssen

Belgium to maintain the focus and support them in all initiatives leading to

the elimination DCM and toluene.

Responsible Person

Director of Manufacturing & Director of Quality & Compliance

Monitoring Method



Page 63 of 328


Reason As part of our continuous improvement programme to identify alternative technologies which can be used to reduce our environmental impact or improve our environmental performance.

IPPCL Condition


Priority Low

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Methods • Work with Engineering consultants on optimizing waste streams to decrease

volumes of waste being sent abroad for incineration or recovery. • Conduct an feasibility study for the removal of R22 from site air conditioning

units etc • As part of the Worldwide Chemical Environmental Health & Safety

Taskforce complete a benchmark assessment of all chemical sites in order to identify alternative technologies.

Responsible Person


Monitoring Method



Page 64 of 328


Reason To ensure a well-trained and equipped Emergency Response Team is available to respond to any incident on site and minimise the effects of the incident.

IPPCL Condition

2.1 The Licensee shall maintain an Environmental Management System. This system shall assess all operations and review all practicable options for the use of cleaner technology, cleaner production and the reduction and minimisation of waste and shall as a minimum those elements specified in Conditions 2.2 to 2.9. Condition 13. Accidents and Emergency Response

Priority High

Time Frame


Target/Objective To maintain a fully equipped and competent Emergency response team on site at all times during production operations.

Methods • To continue to improve all areas of the Health Safety and Environmental

(HSE) management system and maintain certification of the site to BS: OSHAS 18001 Safety Management System standard and ISO 14001: 2004 Environmental Management System

• Continue the existing programme of environmental incident response

simulations. • Utilise the PSM (Process Safety Management) and MAARS (Management

Action Awareness Reporting System) Programmes in order to achieve continued improvements in all aspects of Emergency Response.

• Where invited conduct a joint training exercise with the External Emergency

Services • Maintain the HSA Voluntary Prevention Program ‘Star’ rating

Responsible Person

Director of Manufacturing and Safety Manager

Monitoring Method



Page 65 of 328


Reason To ensure that the Operational activities of the site continue to ensure the protection of our groundwater. To work with the other Little Island Companies to determine the root cause for the poor groundwater quality evident in the locality.

IPPCL Condition

9.3.1 No environmentally polluting substance or matter shall be permitted to discharge to ground or groundwater under the site. 9.3.2 All groundwater monitoring points shall be included in the site’s maintenance programme. 9.3.3 Groundwater monitoring points BH8 to BH27, as listed in Schedule 4(ii) Groundwater Monitoring, shall be sampled and analysed in accordance with Schedule 4(ii) Groundwater Monitoring of this licence. A report of such results shall be submitted annually as part of the AER.

Priority High

Time Frame


Target/Objective To continue to coordinate a Groundwater Monitoring program between Janssen and the neighbouring companies to identify the sources of contamination.

Methods • To conduct regular monitoring of the groundwater. • To take appropriate action as required in agreement with the EPA.

Responsible Person


Monitoring Method



Page 66 of 328

17. Biodiversity

Reason

As significant improvements/reductions in the environmental aspects of the company have been achieved over the last decade the corporate Worldwide Environmental Affairs department have included as one element of their Healthy Planet Goals 2010 a Biodiversity conservation project.

IPPCL Condition

Not applicable

Priority

Medium

Time Frame


Target/Objective

Progress the 5 year Biodiversity programme in line with the Johnson & Johnson 2010 Healthy Planet Goals.

Methods • Complete Year 4 actions as defined in the site biodiversity action plan

Responsible Person


Monitoring Method



Page 67 of 328

Additional IPPCL Components to the EMP In addition to the above items in the 2009 to 2013 EMP the following conditions required in the IPPCL will be addressed as follows Condition 2.1 The Licensee shall establish an Environmental Management System (EMS) which shall

fulfil the requirements of this licence. The EMS shall assess all operations and review all practicable options for the use of cleaner technology, cleaner production and the reduction and minimisation of waste and shall include as a minimum those elements specified in the Conditions 2.2 to 2.9..

The main process by which Janssen decided to assess practical options for cleaner technology was to become a founder member of and provider of the first Chairman to the Clean Technology Centre at Cork Institute of Technology. Janssen is committed to the philosophy of clean technology. By this we understand the following:

♦ Priority is given to reducing the production of waste and the consumption of energy rather than relying

on the treatment of the waste to ensure environmentally acceptable disposal. The Process Excellence Lean Manufacturing Approach provides the tools necessary to apply this thinking.

♦ "Cleaner" implies less waste and emissions, per unit of product quantity, than previously produced and

this can only be assessed in a particular context. "Technology" covers not only basic technology, but also knowledge, organisation and, in some instances, the product itself.

♦ However, the fundamental message is the same: It is better to reduce the quantity of waste produced

rather than rely on treating the waste once it has been produced.

Janssen's philosophy towards cleaner technologies, waste minimisation and raw material substitution has evolved over the past decade. However, the evolution has taken place within a sector, which is heavily regulated by national and international Health Regulatory Agencies (e.g. FDA, IMB, etc). Historically, Janssen recognised the environmental advantage of natural gas over fuel oil and was one of the first companies (1981) in Ireland to avail of it, with 100% commitment to natural gas for site boilers. Through the work of the site energy Management team Janssen successfully negotiated a ‘Green Energy’ contract with Eirtricity. Janssen will continue evaluate the potential for CHP on an ongoing basis. Janssen is continuously committed to reducing and avoiding energy usage. During the design phase of all new buildings energy efficiency requirements (most recently the Plant 3 project) are taken into account in line with the Johnston & Johnston Energy Star Building Programme and the 2010 Healthy Planet Enhanced Best Practices. Janssen was amongst the first plants locally to introduce "technologies for treating water emissions" (1983) involving primary treatment (pH correction); secondary treatment (aerobic activated sludge) incorporating sludge treatment (gravity thickening and sludge filtration). All Waste water Treatment Plant sludge is being sent for use as an energy source.


Page 68 of 328

In the early part of the site development "Containment of Emissions" was the priority, this is reflected in the installation of bulk storage tanks which incorporated bunding of tanks, overfill protection and over ground pipelines and transfer lines . Note: Johnson & Johnson prohibit the use of underground storage tanks. However, as knowledge and company philosophy developed, the advent of the Air Pollution Act allowed Janssen to invest in "Technologies for Load Minimisation" (optimisation of condensation efficiencies). The "Containment of Emissions" (vent collection and ducting from reaction vessels and Tank Farm to central abatement system) and a 'state of the art' carbon adsorption system was installed in 1991. The upgrading of the condensation system in Plant 1 during 2001 and 2002 is an example of cleaner technology. In the design of new chemical production and powder handling facilities, improved process control to reduce emissions/waste at source was an inherent part of the operating philosophy. The down-flow of materials (e.g. solids are charged to reaction vessels on the 2nd floor, which discharge to centrifuges on the 1st floor, which discharge to driers on the ground floor) is an obvious example of this. Pumping from reaction vessel to centrifuge to drier is avoided and the transfer of material is within a totally closed system. Another example of Janssen’s cleaner technology/philosophy is the Powder Handling Unit where Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBC’s), which are easily cleaned and reusable, have replaced bags, which were used once and then sent for incineration, reducing waste at source. There is a facility to couple the IBC directly to the feed of driers, mills, sieves and blenders in a fully contained system reducing dust emissions at source and reducing the potential load at source on the deduster filters. The use of FIBCs in place of bags has also been incorporated into the design and construction of the more recent drying room expansion. Reusable ASP units have replaced plastic drums for the transport and storage of filter waste material prior to disposal by energy recovery. In 1988, an on-going commitment to yield improvements was made and a long-term objective of eliminating EEC list 1 solvents was defined. This being achieved in 1996 when the last production process using chloroform was made.

Current terminology would refer to the former as elimination of wastes and the latter as substitution of solvents by less harmful ones. Theoretically, the former is higher in the environmental hierarchy, but Janssen has and will continue to give the latter at least as high a priority. Note: However, process changes introduced by Janssen must conform with

restrictions imposed by regulatory bodies, such as the FDA and their approval period may be up to 2 years.

Material substitution and waste minimisation is not restricted to chemical processing and the level of detail to which we go in our search for suitable projects can be seen in the following. ♦ Used paper, cardboard, plastic sent off site for recycling. ♦ Recycled paper used on site. ♦ Double sided photocopying. ♦ End of life electronic equipment (i.e. out of date PC’s) is sent off site for recycling. ♦ Electronic and voice mail for Johnson & Johnson World-wide (reducing both internal company and inter

company paper reports) ♦ Global electronic database for corporate guidance and reference documentation (eliminating the need to send hard

copies of such documents to each company in the Johnson & Johnson family of companies).


Page 69 of 328

♦ New Computer based document control, change control and corrective action systems have been installed to reduce the paper use associated with these site operations.

♦ Installation of an additional bulk storage tank to replace DCM drum solvent deliveries thus eliminating the need to incinerate a significant quantity of empty drums.

♦ Introduction of IBCs for utility materials (e.g. glycol) as opposed to drums which previously would have been sent for recycling.

3.3 Environmental Audits One Internal Johnson & Johnson MAARS (Management Action Awareness Reporting System) self assessment was conducted during 2008 . One Integrated ISO 14001:2004, OHSAS 18001 and ISO 9001:2000 Audit was completed in 2008 by SGS resulting in continued certification to ISO 14001. All aspects of the EMS were monitored on a continuous basis. Environmental documentation was updated and maintained as required. An EMP update report was produced for management review on a quarterly basis.


4.0 Licence Specific Reports 4.1 Bund Testing

Bund testing was completed in 2007 by Horgan Lynch and Partners and is not required to be retested until 2010.

4.2 Drain Integrity Testing Integrity testing of the site Process drains were conducted in 2007 by Horgan Lynch and Partners and are not required to be retested until 2010. Integrity testing of the site Stormwater drains were conducted in 2008 by Horgan Lynch and Partners.

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. Annual Environmental Report 2008 4.3 Groundwater Monitoring The Groundwater Report for 2008 is included in Appendix A of this report. 4.4 Site Noise Survey Report The Site Noise Survey Report is included in Appendix B of this report. 4.5 Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan The Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan is included in Appendix C of this report. 4.6 Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment The Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment is included in Appendix C of this report 4.7 Toxicity Report The Toxicity Report is included in Appendix D of this report.

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. Annual Environmental Report 2008 5.0 Summary Data as submitted by AER Reporting system.

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. Annual Environmental Report 2008 Appendix A : Groundwater Report for 2008 .


Janssen Pharmaceutical Limited

Bi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report 2008

WYG Environmental and Planning (Ireland) Limited

25th February 2009


REPORT CONTROL

Project: Bi-annual Groundwater Monitoring Report 2008

Client: Janssen Pharmaceutical Limited

Job Number: CE06524

File Origin:

G:\CE0\CE06524\P-05 Project Development\03 Env\03 Draft

Reports\Annual GW 2008

Document Checking:

Primary Author: Aoife Geary Initialled: AG

Contributor: Donal Hogan Initialled: DH

Review By: Donal Marron Initialled: DM

Issue Date Status Checked for Issue

1 02/02/09 Draft Report DM

2 25/02/09 Final Report DM

3

4


CONTENTS

Page No

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................2 2.0 SITE DETAILS...........................................................................................................................................2 2.1 SITE LOCATION................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 2 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...................................................................................................................3 3.1 GEOLOGY............................................................................................................................................ 3 3.2 HYDROGEOLOGY............................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 SITE WORKS ............................................................................................................................................3 4.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 4 5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................4 5.1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ................................................................................................................... 4 5.2 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY....................................................................................................................... 6 5.3 INORGANIC CHEMISTRY ................................................................................................................. 16 6.0 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................................38 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................................................................41 8.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................42


TABLES Organic Chemistry

Table 5.2.1 - Summary of Exceedances – BH-8




Inorganic Chemistry

Table 5.3.1 - Summary of exceedances – BH-8












GRAPH

Graph 5.2.3 Tert-butyl methyl ether concentrations in BH-11.

FIGURES

Figure 1 - March 2008 Groundwater Contour Map

Figure 2 - September 2008 Groundwater Contour Map

APPENDICES

Appendix 1A - Volatile Organic Compounds

Appendix 1B - Acids, Alcohols, Acetates

Appendix 2A - Inorganics

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. Annual Environmental Report 2008 Appendix 2B - VOC Tentatively Identified Compounds

Appendix 3 - Groundwater Monitoring Logs

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED

WYG Ireland part of the WYG Group creative minds safe hands

Annual Groundwater Report G:\CE0\CE06524\P-05 Project Development\03 Env\03 Draft Reports\Annual GW 2008 25/02/2009

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. commissioned WYG Environmental and Planning (Ireland) Limited (WYG)

to carry out a groundwater monitoring programme at their facility at Little Island, Co. Cork in 2008.

Groundwater monitoring has been carried out at the site since 1996. Groundwater samples were collected on a

biannual basis in March and September from 12 groundwater monitoring boreholes. The samples were

analysed for both organic and inorganic parameters at Alcontrol Laboratory, Blanchardstown, Dublin and for

bacteriological analysis at Consultus Laboratories in Glanmire, Cork.

The results from the 2008 monitoring programme indicated relatively poor quality groundwater

beneath the site. This was represented by high concentrations of a number of organic and inorganic

parameters.

Organic parameters including toluene, xylene, chlorobenzene and tert-butyl methyl ether (MTBE)

were detected in a number of boreholes (BH-8, BH-11, BH-16 and BH-25). The highest concentration of

MTBE detected during the IPPC biannual monitoring was 2,349µg/l in BH-11 in March 2008. A

review of all the available data for this borehole indicated a period from September 2006 to July 2008 where

significant elevations of this parameter were detected. However, elevations were also detected in December

2008. Further monitoring of this parameter is recommended in order to identify potential trends. This is

currently being undertaken as part of the diesel spill remediation works. It is also recommended to undertake

an inventory of all raw materials at the site and a review of processes to rule out any site activity that may be

contributing to these organic compound elevations.

There were also elevated levels of a number of inorganic parameters; predominantly aluminium,

ammonium, chloride, iron, manganese, potassium and sodium, among others which were consistently

detected in the groundwater samples from beneath the site. Some elevations such as iron,

manganese, sodium and chloride can be attributed to natural groundwater hydrochemistry. However

elevated levels of ammonium and chloride are also typical of sewage contamination and industrial-

type contamination. Temperature values remain elevated at the site with measurements recorded

above the typical Irish average temperature of 12oC. Temperatures have been recorded at the site

between 13.5oC (BH-26) and 16.5oC (BH-25) in 2008.




2

Microbiological groundwater quality on site is poor with significantly elevated levels of faecal

contamination detected during the 2008 monitoring rounds. It is recommended that Janssen continue

to test the integrity of all underground pipework on site, especially foul drains, in order to eliminate

any possible sources of contamination. Sampling of the remediation pumping wells for bacteriological

parameters and major ions is recommended in order to rule out the wastewater treatment plant

(WWTP) as a possible source of contamination. Pending the outcome of the sampling, it may be

recommended to undertake integrity testing of the WWTP.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

WYG Environmental and Planning (Ireland) Limited (WYG) was retained by Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd.

(Janssen) to undertake a groundwater monitoring programme at the facility in Little Island, Co. Cork in 2008.

This report details the results of the biannual groundwater monitoring exercises carried out at the site and

summarises the position regarding groundwater quality at the site during 2008. The groundwater monitoring

programme consisted of sampling 12 groundwater monitoring boreholes on a biannual basis. Sampling was

carried out in March and September 2008. The analytical results are presented in Appendix 1 and 2 and are

discussed in detail in the following sections. The groundwater monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 1.

2.0 SITE DETAILS

2.1 SITE LOCATION

The Janssen site is located on approximately five hectares in Little Island and north of Lough Mahon in County

Cork. Neighbouring lands are occupied by other industrial plants which form part of the Little Island industrial

estate. The topography of the site is relatively flat sloping very gently to the south at a height of approximately

12 metres ordnance datum (mOD).

2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. has been operating at the Little Island facility since 1981 and is involved in

the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and their intermediates. Only the bulk pharmaceutical chemicals




3

are manufactured at Little Island and these are exported for formulation into the finished products such as

capsules, tablets and ointments. Production is organic synthesis by batch processing and the chemistry used is

substitution reactions, condensation reactions, oxygen and nitrogen alkylations, hydrolysis, reduction,

hydrogenation, esterification, hydration, dehydration, salt formation and decarboxylation.

The bulk of the production processing is carried out in process plant 1 and process plant 2. The raw materials,

reagents, solvents, finished product and waste used in the process are stored at various locations.

The site plan is presented in Figure 1.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 GEOLOGY

The site is underlain by Lower Carboniferous Waulsortian Limestone. The Waulsortian is a massive,

unbedded, mudbank facies limestone. The geological logs from 23 boreholes drilled at the site indicated the

bedrock to be composed of highly fractured, karstic limestone.

3.2 HYDROGEOLOGY

The draft copy of the Groundwater Protection Scheme for South Cork (GSI, 2003) indicates that the

Waulsortian Limestone is classified as being a regionally important karstic aquifer (Rk). However, the

Waulsortian Limestone found at Little Island is less than 4.5 km2 in areal extent. There are no large scale

groundwater abstractions in the Little Island area with most (if not all) of the potable water demand supplied

by the public water mains system. Little Island (and consequently the Waulsortian) is surrounded on three

sides by the Lough Mahon estuary.

4.0 SITE WORKS

Groundwater samples were collected from a total of 12 monitoring wells located on the Janssen site

during March and September 2008.




4

4.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

Each monitoring borehole was bailed using dedicated waterra tubing or a dedicated bailer and at least three

borehole volumes of water were purged prior to sample collection. This ensures that stagnant water was

purged from the borehole and representative groundwater drawn in. The sample was then collected into

designated containers (supplied by the laboratory). All sampling equipment was decontaminated before arriving

on site and between boreholes by washing with laboratory soap (Decon 90) and rinsing with de ionised water

to eliminate the potential for cross contamination. The samples were packed into cooler boxes (to maintain

sample temperature below approximately 4°C) and forwarded to the laboratory. The water samples were

analysed on a biannual basis for a wide range of organic and inorganic parameters at the Alcontrol Laboratory,

Blanchardstown, Dublin; microbiological parameters were analysed at the Consultus Laboratory in Glanmire,

Cork.

5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The analytical results are presented in Appendix 1 and 2. Groundwater sampling logs for each sampling round

are presented in Appendix 3.

5.1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Comparisons between concentrations of the analytical parameters and industry-recognised benchmark

criteria have been made to highlight the range of concentrations observed.

The inorganic water quality results have been compared to the following;

• Parametric Value (PV) under S.I. 278 of 2007

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Interim Guideline Values as detailed in the “Interim report towards

setting guideline values for the protection of groundwater in Ireland”

• Previous sampling rounds

The organic analytical results are discussed with reference to the Dutch Target (S) and

Intervention (I) Values (VROM 2000) and subsequent amendments, as these provide the

most comprehensive listing of contaminants. Using the Dutch criteria the degree of

contamination is assessed using the following guidelines:




5

S-Value Reference for normal uncontaminated/background values for groundwater.

I-Value Levels 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 Irish regulatory

authorities.




6

5.2 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY

The water samples were analysed for a wide suite of organic parameters, which included analysis of methanol,

ethanol, acetic acid, toluene and dichloromethane among others. The results are presented in Appendix 1A and

1B and are discussed below per borehole location.

5.2.1 Borehole 8

A summary of the exceedances from the bi-annual groundwater monitoring undertaken in March and

September 2008 are presented below in Table 5.2.1.

Table 5.2.1 Summary of Exceedances – BH-8

Parameter Units Dutch

S-Value

Dutch

I-Value

IGV PV Samplin

Date

03/03/0

MTBE µg/l - - 30 30 175

Notes:

Results are shaded where they exceed the Dutch I-Level, Drinking Water PV or EPA IGV

- = No comparison standard available

< = Indicates the result was below the comparison standards

The VOC results from the sampling rounds carried out in March and September 2008 indicated that all

parameters were below their respective laboratory limits of detection (LOD) with the exception of tert-butyl

methyl ether (MTBE).

The results from the acid, alcohol and acetate compounds analysed in March and September 2008

indicated all parameters were below their respective laboratory detection limits.

In 2007 both the March and September results for MTBE were above the LOD and chlorobenzene

concentrations were above the LOD in March 2007. An elevated concentration of 1,3-




7

Dichlorobenzene, above the Dutch S-Value but below the I-Value was also detected in the

groundwater sample taken from BH-8 in March 2007. After comparing the 2008 results with the 2007

results it was evident that overall there was an improvement in the results for the organic parameters

analysed as there was only one instance of MTBE above the LOD in 2008 and all other parameters

were below the LOD.




8

5.2.2 Borehole 10

The VOC results from March and September 2008 indicated all values were below their respective

laboratory LOD.

Propene and hexadiene (VOC Tentatively Identified Compounds) were detected at this location in September

2008 at concentrations of 94µg/l and 25µg/l respectively. There have been no previous exceedances of these

parameters.

The results from the acid, alcohol and acetate compounds analysed in March and September 2008 indicated all

parameters were below their respective laboratory detection limits.

These results were consistent with the 2007 groundwater monitoring results.

5.2.3 Borehole 11





S-Value

Dutch

I-Value

IGV PV Samp

Date

03/03

Chlorobenzen

e

µg/l - - 1.0 - 13

Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - 5

Xylene µg/l 0.2 70 10.0 - 2

MTBE µg/l - - 30 30 2,3



Notes:




The VOC results from the sampling rounds carried out in March and September 2008 indicated that all

parameters were below their respective laboratory limits of detection with the exception of chlorobenzene,

toluene, xylene and MTBE. MTBE concentrations of greater than 2,349µg/l in March 2008 were above the

laboratory calibration limits for the compound. Specific MTBE monitoring undertaken at Janssen has indicated a

trend over a period from 20th September 2006 to 8th July 2008 with a peak concentration of 3,120µg/l on the

14th December 2007 which gradually reduced to a concentration of <1µg/l on the 9th September 2008.

However, further MTBE monitoring undertaken in December 2008 indicated a significant increase in MTBE

concentrations since September 2008. This is presented below in Graph 5.2.3.

MTBE Levels in IPPC Well BH-11

1615

0 0 9 7 67 0

2349

324

797

2257

31203080

000000300

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

28/06/2003 14/01/2004 01/08/2004 17/02/2005 05/09/2005 24/03/2006 10/10/2006 28/04/2007 14/11/2007 01/06/2008 18/12/2008 06/07/2009

Date

MTB

E le

vel (

ug/

l)

Graph 5.2.3 Tert-butyl methyl ether (MTBE) concentrations in BH-11.


9




10

Propane, a VOC Tentatively Identified Compound, was detected in September 2008 with a

concentration of 162µg/l. There have been no previous exceedances of this parameter.

The results from the acid, alcohol and acetate compounds analysed in 2008 from BH-11 indicated all

parameters were below their respective laboratory detection limits with the exception of n-butyric acid with

concentrations of 17mg/l in September 2008. Compared with the results from the acid, alcohol and acetate

compounds analysed in 2007 there was a slight deterioration in water quality due to the elevated

concentrations of n-butyric acid in September 2008.

Compared with previous monitoring rounds the concentrations of chlorobenzene have decreased.

Xylene and toluene concentrations were marginally above the limit of detection in March and September 2008

which was consistent with previous monitoring rounds.

5.2.4 Borehole 12

The results of the VOC, acid, alcohol and acetate compounds from the biannual groundwater

monitoring round in March and September 2008, as with results from 2007, indicated that all parameters were

below their respective detection limits.

5.2.5 Borehole 13

The VOC results from the groundwater sampling carried out in March and September 2008 indicated

that all parameters were below their respective laboratory limit of detection. In February of 2006 toluene

concentrations were detected at 2,194µg/l. All subsequent VOC results were below the limits of detection.

The results from the acid, alcohol and acetate compounds analysed in 2008 indicated that all

parameters were below their respective laboratory detection limits. These results were consistent with previous

water quality recorded at this location with the exception of acetic acid which had concentrations of 14mg/l in

the March 2007 sampling round.




11

5.2.6 Borehole 14

The VOC results from the March and September 2008 groundwater monitoring indicated that

concentrations of all parameters were below their respective laboratory limits of detection.

Similar to previous monitoring rounds, the results from the acid, alcohol and acetate compounds

analysed in March and September 2008 indicated that levels were below their respective laboratory detection

limits.

These results were consistent with previous water quality recorded at this location.




12

5.2.7 Borehole 15

The VOC results from March and September 2008 indicated that all parameters were below the

laboratory limits of detection.

The results from the acid, alcohol and acetate parameters analysed in 2008 indicated that levels were

below their respective laboratory detection limits.

These results were consistent with previous monitoring rounds.

5.2.8 Borehole 16





S-Value

Dutch

I-Value

IGV PV Samplin

Date

03/03/0

MTBE µg/l - - 30 30 285

Notes:




The VOC results from the March and September 2008 groundwater sampling rounds indicated that all

parameters were below the laboratory limits of detection with the exception of MTBE. These results




13

indicated an increase in concentrations of MTBE since the 2007 monitoring round. However there was an

overall improvement in water quality in this location as last years monitoring round indicated elevated levels of

toluene, chlorobenzene and MTBE.

In the March and September 2008 groundwater sampling rounds, Methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK), an

alcohol derivative and a ketone derivative (VOC Tentatively Identified Compounds) were detected in borehole

16 at concentrations of 67µg/l, 18µg/l and 68µg/l respectively. An elevated level of MEK was last detected in

March 2005 with a concentration of 455µg/l. There were no previous exceedances of alcohol or ketone

derivatives.

The results from the acid, alcohol and acetate parameters analysed in March and September 2008

indicated that levels were below their respective laboratory detection limits. This was consistent with previous

groundwater monitoring rounds with the exception of acetic acid, which had concentrations of 143mg/l in

March 2007 and 206mg/l in March 2005. Other previous elevations occurred in 2003 and 2004.

5.2.9 Borehole 24

The VOC results from March and September 2008 indicated that all values were below the laboratory

limit of detection. This was similar to the 2007 monitoring round with the exception of chloroform which was

detected in March and September 2007 at concentrations of 12µg/l and 4µg/l respectively.

The results from the acid, alcohol and acetate parameters analysed in March and September 2008, as

with results from 2007, indicated that all parameters were below their respective detection limits.

5.2.10 Borehole 25






14



S-Value

Dutch

I-Value

IGV PV Samplin

Date

03/03/0

MTBE µg/l - - 30 30 208

Notes:




The VOC results from March and September 2008, as with results from 2007, indicated that all values

were below the laboratory limit of detection with the exception of MTBE. These concentrations exceeded the

IGV and PV limit of 30µg/l. These results were consistent with historical data and showed an overall increase in

concentrations of MTBE since the 2007 monitoring round.


indicated levels below their respective laboratory detection limits. This was similar to previous monitoring

rounds.




15

5.2.11 Borehole 26

The VOC results from March and September 2008 indicated that all parameters were below the

respective laboratory limit of detection for both sampling rounds. This was similar to the 2007 results with the

exception of chloroform, which had concentrations of 2µg/l in September 2007 which were marginally above

the limit of detection.


indicated levels below their respective laboratory detection limits. These results were consistent with historical

data.

5.2.12 Borehole 27

The VOC results from March and September 2008, as with results from 2007, indicated that all values

were below the respective laboratory detection limits during each of the sampling rounds.


indicated levels below their respective laboratory detection limits.

These results were consistent with previous monitoring rounds.

5.2.13 Summary

Elevated concentrations of a number of organic parameters including toluene, xylene, chlorobenzene

and MTBE were detected in a number of boreholes (BH-8, BH-11, BH-16 and BH-25). The concentrations of

toluene and xylene (BH-11) were only marginally above the laboratory limit of detection. The concentrations of

chlorobenzene (BH-11) and MTBE (BH-8, BH-11, BH-16 and BH-25) were generally consistent with previous

groundwater monitoring rounds.




16

A review of all MTBE monitoring data for borehole 11 indicated significantly high concentrations during

the period 20th September 2006 to 8th July 2008. MTBE concentrations of <1µg/l were detected in the

September 2008 IPPC monitoring round however; MTBE monitoring undertaken in December 2008 indicated

another significant increase in MTBE concentrations.

Propene, hexadiene, propane, MEK and ketone derivatives, and alcohol derivatives were detected in

BH-10, BH-11 and BH-16.

Overall, the acid, alcohol and acetate concentrations were below their respective laboratory detection

limits during 2008 with a few exceptions. Borehole 11 indicated elevations of n-butyric acid in September 2008

which was inconsistent with historical data.

5.3 INORGANIC CHEMISTRY

The inorganic analytical results are presented in Appendix 2A. The groundwater samples were analysed for a

wide range of parameters including pH, conductivity, chloride, sodium, potassium, temperature, chemical

oxygen demand (COD) and total organic carbon (TOC) among many others.

5.3.1 Borehole 8

The results from the groundwater monitoring in March and September 2008 indicated that ten of the

twenty-nine parameters were found to exceed the comparison standards. Table 5.3.1 below presents a

summary of the exceedances.




17

Table 5.3.1 Summary of exceedances – BH-8

Parameter Units IGV PV Sampling

Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 11.868 3.741

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 < 0.52

Chloride mg/l 30 250 147 121

Aluminium mg/l 0.2 0.2 0.201 <

Iron mg/l 0.2 0.2 1.248 <

Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 1.622 0.999

Potassium mg/l 5 - 7.9 6.2

E. coli cfu/100mls - 0 < 16

Total

Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 116 921

Electrical

Conductivity µS/cm 1,000 2,500 1,021 1,016

Notes:

Results are underlined where they exceed the EPA IGV

Results are shaded and underlined where they exceed the EPA IGV and the PV - = No comparison standard available


Concentrations of ammonium exceeded the interim guideline value (IGV) and parametric value (PV).

Concentrations were significantly above the threshold limits in March and September 2008 which were similar

to historical monitoring rounds. An improvement was evident in the September 2008 monitoring round. Nitrite

concentrations exceeded the comparison standards in the September 2008 monitoring rounds. This indicated a

decline since 2007 as there were no exceedances last year. The concentrations of chloride exceeded the IGV

but were below the PV in March and September 2008 which was consistent with the previous year. Aluminium




18

concentrations marginally exceeded the IGV and PV in March 2008. This was inconsistent with previous rounds

as results for this parameter were usually below the comparison standards. The concentration of iron exceeded

the IGV and PV in March 2008 which was inconsistent with the 2007 monitoring rounds as these results were

below the comparison standards. The 2008 results for manganese and potassium indicated a small

improvement compared with the 2007 results but overall the results were relatively consistent with historical

data.

Elevated levels of E.coli were detected in March 2008 which exceeded the PV. Total coliforms were

detected in both sampling rounds in 2008 which exceeded the IGV and PV. This was consistent with historical

data. The results for the September 2008 monitoring round indicated a distinct increase in the coliform

concentrations compared with the 2007 results.

The results for electrical conductivity in 2008 were marginally above the IGV limit in both rounds. This

was similar to previous monitoring rounds and indicated a slight improvement from the 2007 round.

The groundwater temperature at BH-8 averaged at 15.5oC, which was above average groundwater

temperatures in Ireland (9oC to 12oC). Temperature readings improved since the 2007 monitoring round as

levels averaged at 18.85oC. Levels of pH for March and September 2008 were within the current IGV and PV

range (6.5 – 9.5). This indicated an improvement from the pH levels in 2007 as these were below the

comparison standards range.

5.3.2 Borehole 10

The results from the groundwater monitoring in March and September 2008 indicated that eleven of

the twenty nine parameters were found to exceed the comparison standards. Table 5.3.2 below presents a




Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08




19

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 2.064 3.096

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 < 0.34

Chloride mg/l 30 250 76 583

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.173 0.398

Iron mg/l 0.2 0.2 0.458 <

Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.825 1.622

Potassium mg/l 5 - < 8.6

Sodium mg/l 150 200 < 278.6

E. coli cfu/100mls - 0 1 21,430

Total

Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 172 51,720

Electrical

Conductivity µS/cm 1,000 2,500 < 2,121

Notes:




Elevated levels of ammonium exceeded both the IGV and the PV in March and September 2008. These

results indicated a small improvement compared with the 2007 results but overall the results were relatively

consistent with historical data. Nitrite results indicated a decline in the September 2008 monitoring round which

was inconsistent with the last six monitoring rounds. Chloride concentrations in March 2008 indicated an

improvement compared with the March 2007 monitoring round. However the September 2008 concentrations

increased since September 2007. Overall these results were relatively consistent with historical data. In

general, barium concentrations were consistent with historical data with some improvement evident since the

2007 monitoring rounds. Levels of iron in March 2008 exceeded both the IGV and PV and were inconsistent

with historical data.




20

The March and September 2008 monitoring results indicated an increase in the concentrations of

manganese as both monitoring rounds exceeded the IGV and PV. Overall, concentrations of manganese were

consistent with previous monitoring rounds. Although concentrations of potassium and sodium exceeded the

IGV in September 2008, results indicated an overall improvement as there was only one exceedance in 2008

compared with elevations above the comparison standards in both rounds in 2007.

Elevated levels of E.coli were detected in March and September 2008 which exceeded the PV. Overall

these results were consistent with previous monitoring rounds. However, there was a significant deterioration

in water quality with levels of E.coli increasing from 1,986 cfu/100ml in September 2007 to 21,430 cfu/100ml in

September 2008. Total coliforms were detected in both sampling rounds in 2008 which exceeded the IGV and

PV. Minor improvements were evident in 2008 but results remain significantly high. These results were

generally consistent with historical data.

The results for electrical conductivity were above the IGV limit in the September 2008 round. This was

similar to previous monitoring rounds and indicated a slight improvement from the 2007 round as there was

only one exceedance in 2008.

The groundwater temperature at BH-10 was recorded at 14.25oC in September 2008, which was above

average groundwater temperatures in Ireland (9oC to 12oC). Temperature readings have improved slightly since

the 2007 monitoring round as levels averaged at 15.35oC. Levels of pH for March and September 2008 were

within the current IGV and PV range (6.5 – 9.5). This was consistent with previous monitoring rounds.




21

5.3.3 Borehole 11

The results from the groundwater monitoring in March and September 2008 indicated that ten of the

twenty nine parameters were found to exceed the comparison standards. Table 5.3.3 below presents a




Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 16.77 8.514

Chloride mg/l 30 250 185 100


Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.176 0.149

Iron mg/l 0.2 0.2 1.878 <

Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 1.178 0.756


E.coli Cfu/100ml - 0 < 33

Total

Coliforms Cfu/100ml 0 0 194 770

Electrical

Conductivity µS/cm 1,000 2,500 1,198 <

Notes:







22

Similar to the 2007 monitoring results, significantly elevated levels of ammonium were detected in the March

and September 2008 sampling rounds which exceeded both the IGV and PV. Chloride and manganese

concentrations in 2008 indicated some improvement since the 2007 monitoring rounds. Overall the results were

consistent with historical data. Aluminium and iron concentrations exceeded the IGV and PV in March 2008

which was inconsistent with historical data. Barium concentrations marginally exceeded the IGV in March and

September 2008 which were relatively consistent with previous monitoring rounds. Potassium concentrations

exceeded the IGV in both monitoring rounds in 2008. This was generally consistent with historical data.

Elevated levels of E.coli were detected in September 2008 which exceeded the PV. Overall these results

were consistent with previous monitoring rounds. Total coliforms were detected in both sampling rounds in

2008 which exceeded the IGV and PV. Levels of total coliforms increased from 194 cfu/100ml in March 2008 to

770 cfu/100ml in September 2008 indicating a decline in water quality. These results were generally consistent

with historical data.

The results for electrical conductivity were slightly above the IGV limit in the March 2008 round. These

results were similar to previous monitoring rounds and indicated a slight improvement from the 2007 round as

there was only one exceedance in 2008.

The groundwater temperature at BH-11 was recorded at 16oC in September 2008, which was above

average groundwater temperatures in Ireland (9oC to 12oC). Temperature readings have improved slightly since

the 2007 monitoring round as levels averaged at 19.3oC. Levels of pH for March and September 2008 were

within the current IGV and PV range (6.5 – 9.5). This was generally consistent with previous monitoring

rounds.

5.3.4 Borehole 12

The results from the groundwater monitoring in March and September 2008 indicated that seven of the






23



Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08

Chloride mg/l 30 250 554 682


Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.621 0.77

Sodium mg/l 150 200 162.2 169.7

E.coli cfu/100ml - 0 < 6

Total

Coliforms cfu/100ml 0 0 2 10

Electrical

conductivity µS/cm 1,000 2,500 1,500 1,986

Notes:


Results are shaded and underlined where they exceed the EPA IGV and the PV - = No comparison standard available < = Indicates the result was below the comparison standards

The overall results for chloride, manganese and sodium in March and September 2008 were consistent

with previous monitoring rounds.

Elevated levels of E.coli were detected in September 2008 which exceeded the PV. These results were

inconsistent with previous monitoring rounds. Total coliforms were detected in both sampling rounds in 2008

which exceeded the IGV and PV. These results were generally consistent with historical data.

The results for electrical conductivity in 2008 were above the IGV limit in both monitoring rounds. This

was similar to previous monitoring rounds.




24


average groundwater temperatures in Ireland (9oC to 12oC). These readings are consistent with the 2007

monitoring round as levels averaged at 15.6oC. Levels of pH for March and September 2008 were within the

current IGV and PV range (6.5 – 9.5). This was generally consistent with previous monitoring rounds.

5.3.5 Borehole 13






Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 0.516 <

Chloride mg/l 30 250 64.0 63


Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.882 <


E. coli cfu/100mls - 0 < 579

Total


Notes:



Concentration of ammonium exceeded the IGV and PV in March 2008 only. Overall concentrations of

chloride improved over time with a decrease in levels from 116mg/l in March 2007 to 63mg/l in September




25

2008. Concentrations of aluminium marginally exceeded the IGV and PV in March 2008. This result was

inconsistent with historical data as concentrations of aluminium in this borehole were previously below the

comparison standards. In March 2008 concentrations of manganese exceeded the IGV and PV of 0.05mg/l.

This was generally consistent with historical data although the December 2006 and March 2007 results were

below the comparison standards. As a result this represented an increase in concentrations of this parameter.

The potassium concentrations recorded during the March and September 2008 monitoring round were

relatively consistent with previous monitoring rounds.

Elevated levels of E.coli were detected in September 2008 which exceeded the PV. These results were

inconsistent with previous monitoring rounds (<1 in March 2007 and March 2008) and indicated a significant

increase from 18cfu/100ml in December 2006 to 579cfu/100ml in September 2008. Total coliforms were

detected in both sampling rounds in 2008 which exceeded the IGV and PV. These results were generally

consistent with historical data. However it should be noted that there was a significant increase in levels from

3cfu/100ml in March 2008 to 6,630cfu/100ml in September 2008.

The results for electrical conductivity in 2008 were below the IGV limit in both monitoring rounds.


average groundwater temperatures in Ireland (9oC to 12oC). This represented a slight decrease in temperature

from the 2007 reading (15.6oC). Levels of pH for March and September 2008 were within the current IGV and

PV range (6.5 – 9.5). This was generally consistent with previous monitoring rounds.




26

5.3.6 Borehole 14

The results from the groundwater monitoring in March and September 2008 indicated that nine of the





Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 4.515 2.709

Chloride mg/l 30 250 522 237


Iron mg/l 0.2 0.2 2.252 0.722

Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.906 1.069

Sodium mg/l 150 200 252 151.5

E.coli cfu/100mls - 0 1 206

Total


Electrical

conductivity µS/cm 1,000 2,500 1,746 1,269

Notes:







27

Concentrations of ammonium and chloride in March and September 2008 were relatively consistent

with previous monitoring rounds and indicated minor improvements in the levels of these parameters.

Concentrations of aluminium and iron were inconsistent with historical data as the last reported exceedances of

these parameters were in September 2004 and December 2004 respectively. Results for manganese and

sodium indicated that concentrations detected in this borehole were generally consistent with previous years.

Sodium concentrations detected indicated a slight decline in this borehole as the IGV was exceeded in both

sampling rounds in 2008 compared with only one exceedance last year.

The microbiological groundwater quality at BH-14 analysed in 2008 indicated an increase in the levels

of total coliforms and e.coli from March to September 2008. Overall these were relatively consistent with

previous monitoring rounds.

The results for electrical conductivity exceeded the IGV limit in both monitoring rounds in 2008 which

was consistent with previous monitoring rounds.


average groundwater temperatures in Ireland (9oC to 12oC). This represented a decrease in temperature from

the 2007 average reading (17.8oC). Levels of pH for March and September 2008 were within the current IGV

and PV range (6.5 – 9.5). This was inconsistent with the 2007 monitoring rounds as the levels of pH were both

below the range last year.

5.3.7 Borehole 15






Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08




28

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 4.386 3.87

Chloride mg/l 30 250 32.0 114


Fluoride mg/l 1 1.5 1.2 1.2

Iron mg/l 0.2 0.2 3.319 <

Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 1.175 2.245

E.coli cfu/100mls - 0 7.0 179

Total


Electrical

Conductivity µS/cm 1,000 2,500 < 1,232

Notes:




Concentrations of ammonium in March and September 2008 were relatively consistent with previous

monitoring rounds. The levels detected in the 2008 monitoring rounds indicated minor improvements since the

2007 monitoring rounds. Chloride concentrations were relatively consistent with historical data. Aluminium

concentrations were only marginally above the comparison standards in March 2008. This was inconsistent with

previous monitoring rounds as the last exceedance was detected in December 2003. Concentrations of fluoride

were detected slightly above the IGV. These groundwater monitoring results were comparable to historical

analytical data. Iron concentrations exceeded the IGV and PV in March 2008. This was inconsistent with

previous monitoring rounds as the last exceedance of iron was detected in February 2006. Concentrations of

manganese were generally comparable with historical data. Overall a slight decline was evident since the 2007

monitoring round.




29

The microbiological groundwater quality at BH-15 analysed in 2008 indicated an increase in the levels

of total coliforms and e.coli from March to September 2008. Overall these were relatively consistent with

previous monitoring rounds with some improvement evident in the levels of total coliforms since the 2007

monitoring round.

The results for electrical conductivity in 2008 exceeded the IGV limit in September 2008 which

indicated an improvement, as the IGV was exceeded in March and September of 2007.




and PV range (6.5 – 9.5). This was inconsistent with the 2007 monitoring rounds as the levels of pH were both

below the range last year.

5.3.8 Borehole 16







30



Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 37.41 19.35



Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.167 <

Iron mg/l 0.2 0.2 1.007 <

Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 3.539 4.369

Potassium mg/l 5 - 6.3 <

E.coli cfu/100ml - 0 < 1,553

Total

Coliforms cfu/100ml 0 0 3,270 198,630

Notes:




Consistently elevated concentrations of ammonium, chloride and manganese were detected in both monitoring

rounds in 2008. Ammonium concentrations were particularly elevated which was similar to the 2007 monitoring

round. The concentrations of aluminium detected in the 2008 monitoring rounds were inconsistent with the

2007 monitoring rounds which were below the comparison standards. The levels of barium were only slightly

above the threshold limit in the March 2008 results. The concentrations of iron improved from March to

September 2008 and from 2007 as there was only one exceedances in 2008 compared with two exceedances in

2007. Potassium levels exceeded the IGV in March 2008 only which indicated an improvement since the 2007

monitoring round.




31

Significantly elevated levels of E.coli were detected in September 2008 while levels of total coliforms were

elevated in both sampling rounds and were considerably high in September (198,630cfu/100ml). This shows

deterioration in groundwater quality in this monitoring location.

Conductivity levels were below the comparison standards which was inconsistent with the 2007

monitoring round. Levels of pH were within the IGV and PV range in March and September 2008 which was

consistent with last years results. The groundwater temperature at BH-16 was recorded at 16oC in September

2008, which was above average groundwater temperatures in Ireland (9oC to 12oC). This represented a

decrease in temperature from the 2007 average reading (18.42oC).

5.3.9 Borehole 24






Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 2.709 0.232

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.17



Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.183 <

Iron mg/l 0.2 0.2 0.202 <

Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 1.313 <

E.coli cfu/100ml - 0 15 11

Total cfu/100ml 0 0 172 250




32

Coliforms

Notes:



Ammonium and nitrite concentrations in March and September 2008 were relatively consistent with

previous monitoring rounds. Concentrations of chloride increased from below the IGV in 2007 to

above the IGV in both rounds in 2008. However this was relatively similar to historical data.

Aluminium, barium and iron concentrations marginally exceeded the comparison standards in March

2008 which were inconsistent with the results from the 2007 monitoring round as these were below

standards. Concentrations of manganese exceeded the IGV and PV in March 2008 which was

generally consistent with historical data.

The microbiological groundwater quality at BH-24 analysed in 2008 indicated exceedances of the IGV

and PV in both monitoring rounds. There was an increase in the levels of total coliforms from March to

September 2008 which also represents an overall increase in total coliform concentrations since 2007.

The results for electrical conductivity exceeded the IGV limit in September 2008 which indicated an

improvement, as the IGV was exceeded in March and September of 2007.




and PV range (6.5 – 9.5). This was consistent with the historical data for this location.

5.3.10 Borehole 25




33

The results from the groundwater monitoring in March and September 2008 indicated that eight of the





Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 0.4 0.5

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 < 0.32

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 29.3 <



Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.082 <

E.coli cfu/100ml - 0 < 488

Total

Coliforms cfu/100ml 0 0 36 5,980

Notes:






34

Although concentrations of ammonium, chloride and manganese were detected above the thresholds it

should be noted that these results have improved since the 2007 monitoring round. Nitrite, nitrate and

aluminium concentrations increased during 2008 which were inconsistent with the previous monitoring rounds.

The microbiological groundwater quality at BH-25 analysed in March and September 2008 indicated an

increase in the levels of e.coli and total coliforms since the 2007 monitoring rounds. It should be noted that the

levels of total coliforms were significantly high in September 2008.

The results for electrical conductivity in 2008 were below the IGV limit in both rounds which indicated

an improvement since the 2007 monitoring round. The groundwater temperature at BH-25 was recorded at

16.5oC in September 2008, which was above average groundwater temperatures in Ireland (9oC to 12oC). This

represented a slight decrease in temperature from the 2007 average reading (17.4oC). Levels of pH for March

and September 2008 were within the current IGV and PV range (6.5 – 9.5). This was consistent with the

historical data for this location.

5.3.11 Borehole 26

The results from the groundwater monitoring in March and September 2008 indicated that six of the





Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 0.2 0.21

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 27.5 25.7





35

Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.066 <

E.coli cfu/100ml - 0 < 40

Total

Coliforms cfu/100ml 0 0 13 1,300

Notes:



Ammonium, aluminium and manganese concentrations marginally exceeded the threshold limits. The

aluminium and manganese results were inconsistent with the 2007 monitoring round as these results were

below the limits. Groundwater at BH-26 analysed in 2008 indicated an increase in the concentrations of nitrate

which was inconsistent with historical data for this borehole.

Levels of E.coli and total coliforms increased from March to September 2008 but overall a decrease in levels

was evident compared to the 2007 monitoring round.

The results for electrical conductivity in 2008 were below the IGV limit in both rounds which was

consistent with the 2007 monitoring round.

The groundwater temperature at BH-26 was recorded at 13.5oC in September 2008, which was slightly

above average groundwater temperatures in Ireland (9oC to 12oC). This represented a slight decrease in

temperature from the 2007 average reading (16.8oC). Levels of pH for March and September 2008 were within

the current IGV and PV range (6.5 – 9.5). This was consistent with the historical data for this location.

5.3.12 Borehole 27







36



Date

03/03/08

Sampling

Date

09/09/08

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 3.5 2.6

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 < 1.86

Chloride mg/l 30 250 199 243


Manganese mg/l 0.05 0.05 2.112 1.492

Total

Coliforms cfu/100ml 0 0 < 2

Electrical

Conductivity

µS/c

m 1,000 2,500 < 1,232

Notes:



Concentrations of ammonium and manganese were consistently above the comparison standards in 2008 which

was consistent with the 2007 results. Concentrations of nitrite increased from March to September 2008. These

results were inconsistent with the 2007 monitoring round as results were below the standards in 2007. Chloride

concentrations increased from March to September 2008 and were generally consistent with previous

monitoring rounds. Concentrations of aluminium marginally exceeded the comparison standards which was

inconsistent with historical data for this location as previous results were below the laboratory detection limit.

The microbiological groundwater quality at BH-27 analysed in 2008 indicated a slight increase in the

levels of total coliforms from <1cfu/100ml in the 2007 monitoring rounds and in March 2008 to 2cfu/100ml in

September 2008.




37

The results for electrical conductivity in 2008 were above the IGV limit in September which indicated an

improvement since the 2007 monitoring round as these results were both above the IGV limit.




and PV range (6.5 – 9.5). This was consistent with the historical data for this location.




38

5.3.13 Summary

The results of the biannual groundwater inorganic chemistry analyses carried out in March and

September 2008 indicated low quality groundwater beneath the site. Principally aluminium,

ammonium, chloride, iron, manganese, potassium and sodium were detected at elevated

concentrations across the site. This corresponds with analysis from previous years.

Certain impurities occur naturally and the most common of these is elevated concentrations of iron

and manganese. This is especially the case in groundwater located in limestone areas such as Little

Island. However elevated levels of iron may also indicate pollution by organic wastes. Similarly

sodium and chloride exist naturally in groundwater however; the concentrations at Janssen are well

above typical natural levels. Concentrations of ammonium recorded at the site during the 2008

monitoring rounds ranged from 0.11mg/l (BH-12) to 37.41mg/l (BH-16). These elevations indicate

pollution from sewage or industrial effluents.

The microbiological quality of the groundwater was also very poor with all boreholes impacted by elevations in

E.coli and total coliforms. The most significantly impacted boreholes were borehole 10 which had

concentrations of 51,720cfu/100ml of total coliforms and 21,430cfu/100ml of E.coli and borehole 16 which had

concentrations of 198,630cfu/100ml of total coliforms and 1,553cfu/100ml of E.coli in September 2008.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

Organic Parameters

The analytical results from the groundwater monitoring programme conducted in 2008 indicated a

continuation of the trend of low quality groundwater at the site.

Elevated concentrations of a number of organic parameters including toluene, xylene, chlorobenzene,

and MTBE were detected in a number of boreholes (BH-8, BH-11, BH-16 and BH-25). The concentrations of

toluene and xylene (BH-11) were only marginally above the laboratory limit of detection. The concentrations of




39

chlorobenzene (BH-11) and MTBE (BH-8, BH-11, BH-16 and BH-25) were generally consistent with previous

groundwater monitoring rounds. It should be noted that neither xylene nor chlorobenzene are used at the

facility.

Concentrations of MTBE detected above the IGV and PV of 30µg/l in borehole 11 were greater than

2,349µg/l in March 2008 but dropped to below 1µg/l in September 2008. A review of all the available data for

this borehole indicated a period from September 2006 to July 2008 where elevations of this parameter were

detected. However, MTBE monitoring undertaken in December 2008 indicated a significant increase in

concentrations with particularly high concentrations in borehole 11. Further monitoring of this parameter is

recommended in order to identify potential trends. It is also recommended to undertake an inventory of all raw

materials at the site and a review of processes to determine the cause of these elevations.

MTBE is a volatile, flammable and colourless liquid which has the following properties:

• It has high solubility and therefore moves easily through soil, polluting both surface and groundwater.

• It quickly evaporates from open containers and surface water, so it is commonly found as a vapour in the

air

• MTBE is miscible and mobile in groundwater

• MTBE does not build up significantly in plants and animals (ATSDR, 2008).

Overall, the acid, alcohol and acetate concentrations were below their respective laboratory detection

limits during 2007 with a few exceptions. Borehole 11 indicated elevations of n-butyric acid in September 2008

which was inconsistent with historical data. N-butyric acid is a saturated four-carbon carboxylic acid which is a

clear liquid. It is soluble in water, ethanol and ether. If released to soil, butyric acid is expected to be relatively

mobile, although adsorption may occur by attractive interactions with active sites in the soil. If released to

water, butyric acid will exist predominately in the dissociated form under environmental conditions and is

expected to biodegrade rapidly under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions.

VOC Tentatively Identified Compounds propene, hexadiene, propane, methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK),

ketone and alcohol derivatives were detected in BH-10, BH-11 and BH-16.




40

Propene is an unsaturated organic compound and is the second simplest member of the alkene class of

hydrocarbons. It is not expected to persist in the environment or bioaccumulate. Hexadiene consists of a group

of unsaturated hydrocarbons with two double bonds; some members of the group are 1,4-hexadiene, 1,5-

hexadiene, and 2,4-hexadiene. Propane is an odourless, colourless, three-carbon alkane gas or compressed

liquefied gas. It is derived from other petroleum products during oil or natural gas processing. Propane is less

dense than water and will not sink in water.

MEK is a colourless liquid which has the following properties:

• It dissolves in water and is broken down more slowly to a simpler chemical form in approximately two

weeks.

• It does not stick to soil and will travel through the soil to the groundwater.

• Some of the chemical in soil or water will evaporate into the air.

• It does not deposit in the bottom of rivers or lakes.

• It is not expected to concentrate in fish or increase in the tissues of animals further up the food chain.

A ketone is either the functional group characterized by a carbonyl group (O=C) linked to two other

carbon atoms or a chemical compound that contains a carbonyl group. Examples of ketones are acetone,

acetophenone and MEK.

Inorganic Parameters

Elevated and high concentrations of a number of inorganic parameters, predominantly aluminium,

ammonium, chloride, iron, manganese, potassium and sodium, among others, were consistently detected in

the groundwater samples from beneath the site. Conductivity levels were also high throughout the site.

Elevated levels of ammonium and chloride are typical of sewage contamination but may also indicate an

industrial-type contamination.

Elevated concentrations of total coliforms, above the EPA IGV of 0cfu/100mls, were detected in the

groundwater in all the IPPC monitoring boreholes. The highest concentrations were detected in the

September round in borehole 16 and borehole 10 with a recorded level of 198,630cfu/100ml and




41

51,720cfu/100ml respectively. These boreholes are located to the west of the site. Borehole 10 is

located in the car park of the facility and borehole 16 is located south of borehole 10 between the

logistics building and the administration building. This was similar to last years monitoring round.

Elevated concentrations of E.coli, above the PV of 0cfu/100mls, were detected in the groundwater in

all boreholes except borehole 27. Of these, the highest concentrations were found in boreholes 10

and 16 with levels of 21,430cfu/100ml and 1,553cfu/100ml respectively. Where E.coli concentrations

are present in large numbers the inference is that heavy pollution by human or animal wastes has

occurred. These high levels indicate a possible leak from foul drains, the wastewater treatment plant

or the County Council sewer which is impacting on the groundwater at the site. All drainage lines at

Janssen are tested on a three year schedule as per the IPPC licence. The process and foul drains

were tested in 2007. One process drain and 10 foul drains required repairs which were completed in

the same year. Storm water drains and all bunds on site were tested in 2008 and no issues were

encountered there.

Temperature values remain elevated at the site with measurements recorded above the typical Irish

average temperature of 12oC. Temperatures have been recorded at the site between 13.5oC (BH-26)

and 16.5oC (BH-25) in 2008.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Sampling of groundwater should continue as per Janssen’s current IPPC schedule of monitoring.

Monitoring wells with historical trends of MTBE contamination should be further assessed. This is

currently being undertaken as part of the diesel spill remediation works. It is also recommended that a site

audit is undertaken to account for the various raw materials and by-products associated with production at the

facility in order to rule out any site activity that may be contributing to these organic compound elevations.

Microbiological groundwater quality on site is poor with significantly elevated levels of faecal

contamination detected during the bi-annual groundwater monitoring rounds in 2008. It is

recommended that Janssen continue to test the integrity of all underground pipework on site, in




42

particular the foul drains, in order to eliminate sources of contamination. It is also recommended to

sample the three remediation pumping wells for bacteriological parameters and major ions in order to

eliminate the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) as a potential source of contamination. Pending

the outcome of the sampling, it may be recommended to undertake integrity testing of the WWTP.

8.0 REFERENCES

ATSDR, 2008. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. www.atsdr.cdc.gov. Accessed

8/12/2008

www.dow.com. Accessed 10/12/2008.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

http://www.dow.com/

Figures

Appendix 1A Volatile Organic Compounds

Trace Organics (VOCs) Units

S-Value I-Value

Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Chloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Vinylchloride µg/l - 0.7 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Bromomethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Chloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

Trifluoromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1 Dichloroethene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

Dichloromethane µg/l 0.01 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l - - 3.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,1-Dichloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l - - 3.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

2,2-Dichloropropane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,2-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.01 400 30.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/l - - 500.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,1-Dichloropropene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Carbon Tetrachloride µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Dibromomethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3


Bromodichloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Trichloroethene µg/l 0.01 500 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 363 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Dibromochloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

1,2-Dibromoethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2.5 <2.5

Tetrachloroethene µg/l 0.01 40 40.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.4 <0.4

Chlorobenzene µg/l - - 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 19 <1 <1 21 <1 <1 <1

Ethylbenzene µg/l 0.2 150 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 1

Xylenes (meta & para) µg/l 0.2 70 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 2

Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

1,2,3 - Trichloropropane µg/l - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 2


Isopropylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Bromobenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

2-Chlorotoluene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

n-Propylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1


1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-Isopropyltoluene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5

1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 50# 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 50# - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 <1 <2 <2

sec-Butylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

tert-Butylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <5

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 10# 0.4 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4 <4

Hexachlorobutadiene µg/l - - 0.1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 10# - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 50# - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Bromochloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

n-Butylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

tert-butyl methyl ether µg/l - - 30.0 30.0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 13 328 175 <1

Carbon Disulphide µg/l - - - - <1 <1

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1

Total Other Volatiles µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LEGEND PV = Parametric Value under S.I. No 278 of 2007 applies for 2007 results onwards

PV = Parametric value under S.I. No. 439 of 2000 - = Not Analysed

Dutch S-Value: Target Value * = Tentatively Identified Compounds

Values are shaded where they exceed the Dutch I-Level, Drinking Water PV or EPA IGV # PV refers to 'total' eg total dichlorobenzene

IGV = EPA Interim Guideline Value Dutch I-Value: Intervention Value

09/09/200803/03/200804/09/200706/06/2006 04/12/2006

Dutch

PVIGV

BH8

27/03/200701/09/200802/03/2005 20/09/200606/12/200514/06/2005 23/02/2006


S-Value I-Value












Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

2,2-Dichloropropane µg/l - - - - A <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2




Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1









Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 6 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1




Chlorobenzene µg/l - - 1.0 - 782 302 206 228 40 <1 37 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Ethylbenzene µg/l 0.2 150 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Xylenes (meta & para) µg/l 0.2 70 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5










1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 50# 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2







Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2





tert-butyl methyl ether µg/l - - 30.0 30.0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1









04/12/200620/09/200606/06/200606/12/200514/06/2005

Dutch

IGV PV27/03/2007 09/09/2008

BH10

03/03/200804/09/200701/09/2005 23/02/200602/03/2005


S-Value I-Value












Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1





Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1









Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - 297 <1 16 150 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 <1 5 5




Chlorobenzene µg/l - - 1.0 - 25 <1 50 198 272 <1 232 277 517 <1 139 <1


Xylenes (meta & para) µg/l 0.2 70 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 2

Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5

















Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2





tert-butyl methyl ether µg/l - - 30.0 30.0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 9 7 67 324 >2349^ <1





PV = Parametric value under S.I. No. 439 of 2000 - = Not Analysed ^ = Sample concentrations were above the laboratory calibration limits for the compound




09/09/2008

BH11

03/03/200806/12/200501/09/200514/06/2005 05/09/2007

Dutch

IGV PV04/12/2006 27/03/200720/09/200606/06/200623/02/200602/03/2005


S-Value I-Value












Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1





Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1









Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1




Chlorobenzene µg/l - - 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5

















Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2








Total Other Volatiles µg/l - - - - <1 - - - - - <1 <1 - - - -






09/09/2008

BH12Dutch

IGV PV03/03/200827/03/200719/09/200623/02/2006 05/09/200706/06/2006 04/12/200606/12/200502/03/2005 01/09/200514/06/2005


S-Value I-Value

Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <3 <3

Chloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

Vinylchloride µg/l - 0.7 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <3 <3

Bromomethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <3 <3

Chloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 93 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

Trifluoromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

1,1 Dichloroethene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

Dichloromethane µg/l 0.01 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 14037 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l - - 3.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

1,1-Dichloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l - - 3.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

2,2-Dichloropropane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

1,2-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.01 400 30.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/l - - 500.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

1,1-Dichloropropene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

Carbon Tetrachloride µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

Dibromomethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <3 <3


Bromodichloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <3 <3

Trichloroethene µg/l 0.01 500 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1.5 <1.5

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <3 <3

Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 17,335 2,194 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

Dibromochloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <3 <3

1,2-Dibromoethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2.5 <2.5

Tetrachloroethene µg/l 0.01 40 40.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <0.4 <0.4

Chlorobenzene µg/l - - 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 15 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

Ethylbenzene µg/l 0.2 150 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

Xylenes (meta & para) µg/l 0.2 70 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <3 <3

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <3 <3

1,2,3 - Trichloropropane µg/l - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1.5 <1.5


Isopropylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

Bromobenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

2-Chlorotoluene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

n-Propylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

4-Chlorotoluene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

4-Isopropyltoluene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1.5 <1.5

1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 50# 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 50# - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

sec-Butylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

tert-Butylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <5 <5

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 10# 0.4 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <4 <4

Hexachlorobutadiene µg/l - - 0.1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 10# - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 50# - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <3 <3

Bromochloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <2 <2

n-Butylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1

tert-butyl methyl ether µg/l - - 30.0 30.0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Note 1 <1 <1



Total Other Volatiles µg/l - - - - <1 - - - - - <1 <1 - Note 1 - -





Note 1: Not possible to sample during this round due to a blockage in the well Dutch I-Value: Intervention ValueIGV = EPA Interim Guideline Value

09/09/2008

BH13

03/03/200805/09/200701/09/2005 06/12/200514/06/200502/03/2005

Dutch

IGV PV27/03/200704/12/200623/02/2006 06/06/2006 19/09/2006


S-Value I-Value












Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1





Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1





Trichloroethene µg/l 0.01 500 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1




Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - 35 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1


1,2-Dibromoethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2.5 <1

Tetrachloroethene µg/l 0.01 40 40.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.4 <1




Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <1

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1









1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1








Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1








Total Other Volatiles µg/l - - - - - - - - - - <1 <1 - - - -






09/09/2008

BH14

03/03/200806/12/200518/05/200502/03/2005 05/09/200704/12/200623/02/200601/09/2005

Dutch

27/03/200706/06/2006 19/09/2006IGV PV


S-Value I-Value












Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1





Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1









Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1







Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5

















Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2














09/09/2008

BH15

03/03/200806/12/200514/06/200502/03/2005 05/09/200704/12/200623/02/200601/09/2005

Dutch

27/03/200706/06/2006 19/09/2006IGV PV


S-Value I-Value


Chloromethane µg/l - - - - 120 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1






Dichloromethane µg/l 0.01 1,000 10.0 - 6413 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1




Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1





Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1





Trichloroethene µg/l 0.01 500 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1




Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - 13 <1 <1 911 6057 <1 37 126 275 4 <1 <1


1,2-Dibromoethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2.5 <1

Tetrachloroethene µg/l 0.01 40 40.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.4 <1

Chlorobenzene µg/l - - 1.0 - 227 81 312 318 399 28 38 33 79 5 <1 <1



Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <1

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1









1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1








Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1





tert-butyl methyl ether µg/l - - 30.0 30.0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 48 103 18 285 116









09/09/2008

BH16

03/03/2008

Dutch

IGV PV06/06/200623/02/200605/09/2005 04/09/200704/12/200619/09/200606/12/2005 27/03/200702/03/2005 14/06/2005


S-Value I-Value












Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 12 4 <1 <1





Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1









Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 36 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1







Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5

1,3-Dichloropropane µg/l - - - - 35 <1 23 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2
















Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2














09/09/2008

BH24

03/03/200806/12/200514/06/200502/03/2005 04/09/200705/12/200623/02/200601/09/2005

Dutch

27/03/200706/06/2006 20/09/2006IGV PV


S-Value I-Value












Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1





Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1









Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1







Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5

















Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2





tert-butyl methyl ether µg/l - - 30.0 30.0 555 475 122 993 439 314 143 53 19 33 208 106

Carbon Disulphide µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1







09/09/2008

BH25

03/03/200806/12/200514/06/200502/03/2005 05/09/200705/12/200623/02/200601/09/2005

Dutch

27/03/200706/06/2006 20/09/2006IGV PV


S-Value I-Value






Trifluoromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1





<1 <2 <2

2 <1 <1

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l - - 3.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

2,2-Dichloropropane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.01 400 30.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/l - - 500.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1


Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1









Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1







Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5







1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/l - - - - 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1










Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2





tert-butyl methyl ether µg/l - 30.0 30.0 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1




LEGEND

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

PV = Parametric Value under S.I. No 278 of 2007 applies for 2007 results onwards





09/09/2008

BH26

03/03/2008

Dutch

PVIGV23/02/2006 04/09/200706/06/2006 27/03/200705/12/200614/06/2005 20/09/200603/02/2005 01/09/2005 06/12/2005


S-Value I-Value

Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Chloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Vinylchloride µg/l - 0.7 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Bromomethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Chloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

Trifluoromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1 Dichloroethene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

Dichloromethane µg/l 0.01 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l - - 3.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,1-Dichloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l - - 3.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

Chloroform µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

2,2-Dichloropropane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,2-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.01 400 30.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/l - - 500.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,1-Dichloropropene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

Benzene µg/l 0.2 30 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Carbon Tetrachloride µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Dibromomethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3


Bromodichloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Trichloroethene µg/l 0.01 500 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Toluene µg/l 0.2 1,000 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Dibromochloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

1,2-Dibromoethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2.5 <2.5

Tetrachloroethene µg/l 0.01 40 40.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.4 <0.4

Chlorobenzene µg/l - - 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Ethylbenzene µg/l 0.2 150 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Xylenes (meta & para) µg/l 0.2 70 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Bromoform µg/l 0.2 70 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Styrene µg/l 0.5 300 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

1,2,3 - Trichloropropane µg/l - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

0-Xylene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5


Isopropylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Bromobenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

2-Chlorotoluene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

n-Propylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-Chlorotoluene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-Isopropyltoluene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1.5 <1.5

1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 50# 10.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 50# - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

sec-Butylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

tert-Butylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <5

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 10# 0.4 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4 <4

Hexachlorobutadiene µg/l - - 0.1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Naphthalene µg/l 0.1 70 1.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 10# - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.01# 50# - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3

Bromochloromethane µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2

n-Butylbenzene µg/l - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

tert-butyl methyl ether µg/l - - 30.0 30.0 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1



Total Other Volatiles µg/l - - - - - - - - - - <1 <1 - - - - -






19/09/200603/02/2005 04/09/200706/12/2005 05/12/200614/06/2005 01/09/2005 09/09/2008

BH27

03/03/2008

Dutch

PVIGV27/03/200726/02/2006 06/06/2006 05/12/2006

Appendix 1BAcids, Alcohols, Acetates

Propanoic Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <10 <10

n-Valeric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 11 <10 <10 <5 <5 <10 <10

n-Butyric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 58 <10 <10 <5 <5 <10 <10

Isovaleric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 9 <10 <10 <5 <5 <10 <10

Isobutyric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <10 <10

Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 <10 16 <10 <10 302 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 700 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethyl Acetate µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

n-Heptyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

n-Hexyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

n-Pentyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

n-Butyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

n-Propyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

I-Propyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 5900 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

n-Butyl Acetate µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

n-Proply Acetate µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

I-Propyl Acetate µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Methyl Acetate µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Legend

LoD = Limit of Detection

- = Not Analysed

* = Analysed as Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC)

09/09/200806/06/200623/02/200606/12/2005 03/03/200804/09/200727/03/200704/12/200620/09/2006

BOREHOLE 8

Parameter Unit LoD 01/09/200514/06/200502/03/2005


n-Valeric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <10 <10

n-Butyric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <10 <10

Isovaleric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <10 <10


Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 <10 12 <10 <10 36 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100







I-Propyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100





Legend


- = Not Analysed


06/06/200623/02/200606/12/200501/09/2005LoD 14/06/200502/03/2005 09/09/2008

BOREHOLE 10

03/03/200804/09/200727/03/200704/12/200620/09/2006Parameter Unit



n-Butyric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <10 17



Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 48 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 600 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100







I-Propyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 5100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100





Legend


- = Not Analysed


14/06/2005 06/06/200623/02/200606/12/200501/09/200502/03/2005Parameter Unit

BOREHOLE 11

03/03/2008 09/09/200805/09/200727/03/200704/12/2006LoD 20/09/2006






Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100












Legend


- = Not Analysed


03/03/2008

BOREHOLE 12

14/06/2005 27/03/200706/06/200601/09/2005 04/12/200619/09/200606/12/200502/03/2005 23/02/2006 09/09/200805/09/2007Parameter Unit LoD

Propanoic Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 Note 1 <10 <10

n-Valeric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 Note 1 <10 <10

n-Butyric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 Note 1 <10 <10

Isovaleric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 Note 1 <10 <10

Isobutyric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 Note 1 <10 <10

Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 14 Note 1 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

Ethyl Acetate µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

n-Heptyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

n-Hexyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

n-Pentyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

n-Butyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

n-Propyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

I-Propyl Alcohol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

n-Butyl Acetate µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

n-Proply Acetate µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

I-Propyl Acetate µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

Methyl Acetate µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 Note 1 <100 <100

Legend


- = Not Analysed


Note 1: Not possible to sample during this round due to a blockage in the well

09/09/2008

BOREHOLE 13

27/03/2007Parameter 14/06/2005Unit LoD 04/12/200602/03/2005 03/03/200806/06/200623/02/2006 05/09/200706/12/200501/09/2005 19/09/2006






Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100












Legend


- = Not Analysed


09/09/2008

BOREHOLE 14

04/12/200619/09/200602/03/2005Unit 06/12/2005 03/03/200805/09/200727/03/200706/06/2006Parameter 23/02/200601/09/200514/06/2005LoD


<10 <10

<10 <10

n-Valeric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5

n-Butyric Acid mg/l <5 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5



Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100












Legend


- = Not Analysed


BOREHOLE 15

04/12/200619/09/200602/03/2005Unit 06/12/2005 27/03/200706/06/2006Parameter 23/02/200601/09/200514/06/2005LoD 09/09/200803/03/200805/09/2007

Propanoic Acid mg/l <5 60 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <10 <10





Acetic Acid mg/l <10 206 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 143 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100












Legend


- = Not Analysed


09/09/2008

BOREHOLE 16







Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 95 63 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100












Legend


- = Not Analysed


09/09/2008

BOREHOLE 24







Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100












Legend


- = Not Analysed


09/09/2008

BOREHOLE 25

Unit 06/06/2006 05/12/2006 27/03/200701/09/2005 20/09/200602/03/2005 23/02/2006 03/03/200805/09/2007Parameter 14/06/2005LoD 06/12/2005






Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100












Legend


- = Not Analysed


09/09/2008

BOREHOLE 26

14/06/2005 06/06/200623/02/200606/12/200501/09/2005 03/03/200804/09/2007Parameter Unit 27/03/2007LoD 02/03/2005 05/12/200620/09/2006






Acetic Acid mg/l <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Methanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Ethanol µg/l <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100












Legend


- = Not Analysed


Parameter Unit 27/03/2007LoD 02/03/2005 05/12/200619/09/2006 09/09/2008

BOREHOLE 27

14/06/2005 06/06/200623/02/200606/12/200501/09/2005 03/03/200804/09/2007

Appendix 2A Inorganics

06/06/2006 20/09/2006 04/12/2006 27/03/2007 04/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 8.14 6.99 6.51 7.35 6.51 6.72 6.72 7.34 6.29 6.25 6.71 6.99

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 1757 1974 1461 1097 1541 1853 966 863 1406 1104 1021 1,016

Temperature °C - - 12.30 - 15.4 13.2 12.8 13 13.2 13.2 19.7 18 - 15.5

Total Alkalinity mg/lno abnormal

change - 610.0 530.0 620.0 530.0 730 810 500 460 525 570 560 340

C.O.D. mg/l - - 39.0 22.0 21.0 16.0 158 481 <15 28 30 34 33 <15

Tot organic Carbon mg/l no abnormal change - 11.0 13.0 9.0 7.0 83 137 4 7 7 6 5 4

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 11.9 11.7 9.3 3.7 8.7 9.5 3.5 <0.2 9.1 8.3 9.2 2.9

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 11.739 10.707 11.868 3.741

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.13 <0.05 <0.05 0.28 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.300 <0.05 0.07 <0.05 0.52

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 0.9 <0.3 <0.3 11.6 <0.3 0.4 <0.3 3.1 2.7 <0.3 <0.3 2.7

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 213 161 116 33 83 153 29 80 114 154 147 121

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 15 12 8 23 <3 <3 3 208 8 6 20 22

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.028 0.016 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.016 <0.002 <0.002 0.201 <0.002

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.06 0.093 0.062 0.071 0.069 0.061 0.048 0.081 0.079 0.074 0.05 0.042

Boron mg/l 1 1 0.18 0.049 0.185 0.077 0.153 0.181 0.064 0.093 0.091 0.101 0.110 0.008

Bromide mg/l - - 1.60 0.90 1.00 <0.5 <0.5 10.2 1.2 3.4 2.1 1.30 0.7 0.3

Calcium mg/l 200 - 250.8 130.000 229.200 225.900 274 180.5 79.56 202.7 214.2 165.8 148.0 131.3

Copper mg/l 0.03 2 <0.005 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Fluoride mg/l 1 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6

Iron* mg/l 0.2 0.2 0.023 0.007 <0.005 0.029 3.994 0.231 0.032 <0.002 0.064 <0.002 1.248 0.065

Magnesium mg/l 50 - 7.2 16.000 6.838 5.525 6.948 7.866 3.807 5.841 5.514 4.213 4.274 3.735

Manganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 2.624 0.012 2.714 2.237 6.039 2.646 9.337 3.224 1.084 3.323 1.622 0.999

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.006 0.004 0.014 0.007 <0.01 0.004 0.007 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002

Potassium mg/l 5 - 12.2 10.6 9.4 6.9 7.8 18 7.7 10.1 10.4 9.7 7.9 6.2

Sodium* mg/l 150 200 100 78 57.5 22 53.5 110 22.5 53 35 105 109.7 74.6

Zinc mg/l 0.1 - <0.005 0.022 0.025 0.018 0.014 0.044 0.02 0.017 0.014 <0.001 0.009 <0.001

Faecal Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

E.Coli cfu/100mls - 0 - - - <1 24 548 1 17 5 3 <1 16

Total Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - 411 2,420 27,550 66 816 308 29 116 921

Legend

PV = Parametric Value under S.I. No 439 of 2000



Results are shaded and underlined where they exceed the EPA IGV and the PV

* = Indicator Parameter (S.I. 439 of 2000)

- = Not Analysed

In order to compare ammonia levels with the threshold limits they must first be converted to ammonium.

Temperature measured with mercury thermometer from 04/09/2007

23/02/200606/12/2005Parameter 01/09/200514/06/2005Unit

BOREHOLE 8

02/03/2005PVIGV

01/09/2005 06/06/2006 20/09/2006 04/12/2006 04/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 8.16 7.55 7.23 7.86 7.33 6.99 7.22 7.72 6.87 6.82 7.38 7.16

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 2212.00 2988 2418 2343 1856 1951 1988 1252 1461 1647 648 2,121

Temperature °C - - 12.1 - 15.3 12.8 10.6 13.3 13.5 13.4 15.7 15 - 14.25


change - 450.00 280.0 630.0 260.0 350 390 440 370 300 490 330 280

C.O.D. mg/l - - <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 31 35 <15 <15 16 <15 <15

Tot organic Carbon mg/lno abnormal

change- 6.00 15.0 5.0 6.0 5 11 4 2 5 3 <2 3

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 6.90 6.4 5.3 3.2 3.5 4.7 4.1 <0.2 1.9 4.5 1.6 2.4

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 2.451 5.805 2.064 3.096

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.12 0.060 0.090 <0.05 0.34 0.06 0.1 0.08 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 0.34

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 2.30 3.9 4.0 3.1 <0.3 0.9 <0.3 1.2 1.1 <0.3 3.2 0.5

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 483.00 673 577 613 429 485 487 277 245 470 76 583

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 25.00 24 23 26 12 8 6 11 15 6 17 16

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.006 0.013 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.007 <0.002 0.016 <0.002 0.175 0.015

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.56 0.65 0.404 0.529 0.366 0.433 0.384 0.309 0.193 0.463 0.173 0.398

Boron mg/l 1 1 0.37 0.264 0.293 0.305 0.314 0.352 0.338 0.213 0.215 0.342 0.195 0.164

Bromide mg/l - - 3.30 2.10 3.10 2.10 <0.5 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.1 0.5 2

Calcium mg/l 200 - 134.00 153.200 140.100 157.100 98.87 92.7 136 106.3 107.4 115.8 68.84 142.8

Copper mg/l 0.03 2 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.006 <0.001 1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.001

Fluoride mg/l 1 1.5 0.20 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Iron* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.002 <0.002 0.029 0.031 <0.002 0.016 <0.002 0.458 0.059

Magnesium mg/l 50 - 11.00 12.020 12.930 15.220 8.877 10.49 11.92 8.805 8.131 9.121 5.259 13.3

Manganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 2.17 2.153 1.455 1.856 1.09 1.016 1.971 0.366 0.008 2.367 0.825 1.622

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.007 0.002 0.006 0.003 0.006 0.004 0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.002 0.004

Potassium mg/l 5 - 9 6 6.6 7.1 5.8 6.4 7 6.8 6.8 10.4 4.3 8.6

Sodium* mg/l 150 200 290 300 325 35 255 290 290 235 150 305 94 278.6

Zinc mg/l 0.1 - <0.005 0.013 0.026 0.018 0.012 0.067 0.023 0.013 0.021 <0.001 0.004 0.011


E.Coli cfu/100mls - 0 - - - 86 <1 <1 21,430 1 <1 1,986 1 21,430

Total Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - 5,880 196 1,986 124 13,960 613 141,360 172 51,720

Legend






- = Not Analysed



23/02/200603/02/05 14/06/2005

BOREHOLE 10

06/12/2005 27/03/2007Parameter Unit PVIGV

01/09/2005 06/06/2006 20/09/2006 05/12/2006 05/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 7.74 7.13 7.5 7.7 6.82 6.96 7.17 6.65 6.54 6.24 6.84 6.97

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 1846 527 1394 1426 1796 229 1,273 1,551 1,760 1,172 1,198 907

Temperature °C - - 16.8 - 18.3 14.7 11.9 14.5 14.5 14 21.7 17 - 16

Total Alkalinity mg/lno

abnormal change

- 510.0 410.0 480.0 430.0 590 710 410 640 538 490 550 320

C.O.D. mg/l - - 65.0 16.0 34.0 43.0 <15 474 54 61 82 53 45 127

Tot organic Carbon mg/lno

abnormal change

- 12.0 16.0 10.0 11.0 12 157 7 10 11 7 10 6

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 8.1 1.7 7.5 8.6 10 10.8 6.2 <0.2 16.7 8.5 13 6.6

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 21.543 10.965 16.77 8.514

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.09 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.14 <0.05 0.08 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.07

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.4 <0.3 0.5 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 282 37 185 200 267 369 165 304 248 212 185 100

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 7 4 <3 <3 13 6 14

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.047 0.015 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <2 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.339 0.01

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.17 0.059 0.125 0.146 0.141 0.217 123 0.232 0.201 0.116 0.176 0.149

Boron mg/l 1 1 0.27 0.032 0.212 0.316 0.323 0.288 184 0.346 0.248 0.106 0.365 0.124

Bromide mg/l - - 8.00 <0.5 3.20 4.20 5 13.1 7 17.8 15 1.8 6.3 3

Calcium mg/l 200 - 178.3 73.810 156.500 171.900 193.1 224.1 129.2 186.4 179.7 140.6 146.40 105.8

Copper mg/l 0.03 2 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Fluoride mg/l 1 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 1 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2

Iron* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 0.003 0.017 0.215 0.017 <0.002 0.039 <0.002 1.878 0.010

Magnesium mg/l 50 - 8.6 2.323 7.093 9.343 9.616 9.878 6.134 9.93 8.647 4.882 6.727 4.952

Manganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 2.118 1.382 1.631 1.711 1.614 5.255 1.668 1.677 1.616 1.708 1.178 0.756

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.010 0.006

Potassium mg/l 5 - 8.2 2.8 5.5 6 7.1 23 7.8 11.8 10.5 8.4 11.6 6.9

Sodium* mg/l 150 200 170 35 120 120 115 235 140 260 175 145 149.2 72.3

Zinc mg/l 0.1 - 0.065 0.019 0.038 0.042 0.017 0.042 0.032 0.019 0.022 <0.001 0.013 <0.001

Faecal Coliforms - 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

E.Coli - - 0 - - - 1 1 26 23 <1 - 30 <1 33

Total Coliforms - 0 0 - - - 41,100 579 4,200 349 71 - 435 194 770

Legend






- = Not Analysed



Parameter PVIGV 27/03/200706/12/2005

BOREHOLE 11

Unit 23/02/200614/06/200502/03/2005

01/09/2005 06/06/2006 04/12/2006 05/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 6.9 7.49 6.9 7.82 7.06 7.1 6.71 7.25 6.87 6.65 7.16 7.17

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 2455 2756 2088 2161 2125 2088 1,295 2,117 1,999 1,548 1,500 1,986

Temperature °C - - 12.4 - 16.5 - 11.8 14.3 14.3 13.4 16.2 15 - 15.9

otal Alkalinity mg/lno abnormal

change - 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 170 170 170 180 163 200 200 150

O.D. mg/l - - <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 15 48 31 <15 92

t organic Carbon mg/lno abnormal

change - <2 14.0 6.0 5.0 4 8 2 <2 4 <0.002 <2 <2

monia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.08 0.11 0.09

monium mg/l 0.15 0.3 <0.2 0.1032 0.1419 0.1161

rite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

ate mg/l 25 50 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.6 <0.3 0.8 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

loride* mg/l 30 250 670

T

C.

To

Am

Am

Nit

Nitr

Ch 638 540 624 603 634 533 589 577 209 554 682

Su

Al

lphate* mg/l 200 250 50 44 42 39 35 41 38 37 40 15 40 40

uminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.027 0.013 <0.002 <0.007 <0.002 0.022 <0.002 <0.002 0.123 0.911 <0.002

rium mg/l 0.1 - 0.06 0.25Ba 0.056 0.057 0.049 0.05 0.038 0.053 0.046 0.051 0.052 0.053

ron mg/l 1 1 <0.05 0.125 0.016 0.026 0.033 0.045 0.03 0.029 0.03 0.012 0.083 <0.003

omide mg/l - - 1.90 1.40 2.40 1.60 <0.5 1.4 2.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5

lcium mg/l 200 - 222.1

Bo

Br

Ca 153.000 206.300 225.000 206.9 212.5 249.3 198.6 193.9 202.9 181.3 192.9

opper mg/l 0.03 2 <0.005 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001

uoride mg/l 1 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 <0.1 0.6 0.1 <0.1

on* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 0.006 0.01 0.115 0.039 <0.002 0.025 <0.002 0.115 0.063

agnesium mg/l 50 - 21.6 6.742 24.950 25.670 24.14 25.64 26.19 23.03 21.43 23.05 21.34 23.21

anganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 1.101

C

Fl

Ir

M

M 4.224 0.948 1.001 0.971 0.95 1.068 0.991 0.83 1.094 0.621 0.77

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.010 0.014 0.008 0.007 0.018 0.013 0.021 0.029 0.021 0.01 0.019

tassium mg/l 5 - 4.6 4.4 3.5 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.2 4.1 3.5 4.4 3.6 3.2

dium* mg/l 150 200 230

Po

So 110 150 465 150 170 150 190 155 155 162.2 169.7

Zi

Fa

nc mg/l 0.1 - 0.007 0.018 0.031 0.018 0.012 0.046 0.034 0.033 0.038 0.002 0.019 0.015

ecal Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Coli cfu/100mls - 0 - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 6

tal Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - 4

E.

To 36 <1 5 <1 12 8 2 10

Legend


= Parametric Value under S.I. No 439 of 2000

sults are underlined where they exceed the EPA IGV

PV

Re


*

In

= Indicator Parameter (S.I. 439 of 2000)

order to compare ammonia levels with the threshold limits they must first be converted to ammonium.

mperature measured with mercury thermometer from 04/09/2007

BOREHOLE 12

27/03/2007rameter Unit PVIGV 19/09/200614/06/2005 06/12/200502/03/2005 23/02/2006Pa

Te

01/09/2005 06/06/2006 19/09/2006 04/12/2006 27/03/2007 05/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 7.63 7.38 6.07 7.4 7.02 7.36 7.1 7.03 7.38 Note 1 7.39 7.4

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 1930 2065 2589 4032 4041 1,760 2,542 1,111 877 Note 1 817 802

Temperature °C - - 11.5 - 13.3 11.8 13.3 14 13.7 12.5 15.5 Note 1 - 14.5


change - 410.0 210.0 470.0 840.0 300 350 450 250 160 Note 1 360.0 180

C.O.D. mg/l - - <15 <15 <15 22.0 81 18 21 <15 <15 Note 1 <15 <15

Tot organic Carbon mg/l no abnormal change - 6.0 10.0 5.0 492.0 11 10 9 3 8 Note 1 5.0 4

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.9 1.5 4.7 1.4 0.85 <0.2 <0.2 Note 1 0.40 0.11

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 <0.2 Note 1 0.516 0.142

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.49 0.18 0.35 <0.05 <0.05 0.37 <0.05 0.13 0.23 Note 1 0.09 0.07

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 45.1 11.8 3.8 <0.3 <0.3 1.3 <0.3 21.5 25.8 Note 1 3.6 19.4

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 277 296 603 854 1095 342 493 139 116 Note 1 64 63

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 69 83 71 12 6 67 174 36 31 Note 1 96 86

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.007 0.015 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.013 <0.002 0.018 Note 1 0.228 0.084

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.14 0.108 0.177 0.753 0.347 0.143 0.095 0.085 0.046 Note 1 0.087 0.042

Boron mg/l 1 1 0.19 0.188 0.206 0.219 0.171 0.163 0.0138 0.094 0.059 Note 1 0.156 0.018

Bromide mg/l - - <0.5 <0.5 1.80 0.60 <0.5 <0.5 1.0 23.1 <0.1 Note 1 0.50 0.2

Calcium mg/l 200 - 183.3 176.000 181.400 284.100 99.77 101.8 201.6 115.2 84.75 Note 1 136.50 107.4

Copper mg/l 0.03 2 <0.005 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Note 1 <0.001 0.004

Fluoride mg/l 1 1.5 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.8 Note 1 0.40 0.4

Iron* mg/l 0.2 0.2 0.012 0.010 <0.005 0.097 <0.002 0.057 0.058 <0.002 0.035 Note 1 0.021 0.077

Magnesium mg/l 50 - 5.7 5.241 6.316 11.51 5.502 5.441 5.121 3.7 1.879 Note 1 4.477 3.89

Manganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 2.096 1.103 0.633 32.740 5.395 0.412 7.959 <0.001 <0.001 Note 1 0.882 0.001

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.007 0.004 0.015 0.009 0.009 0.011 <0.001 <0.001 Note 1 0.005 0.001

Potassium mg/l 5 - 6.4 5.4 2.8 43 38 16 17 11.3 7.9 Note 1 9.0 6.5

Sodium* mg/l 150 200 210 210 340 300 600 230 335 130 80 Note 1 78.90 66.7

Zinc mg/l 0.1 - <0.005 0.012 24.000 0.016 0.014 0.033 0.023 0.013 0.013 Note 1 0.009 0.001

Faecal Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - - - - - - - Note 1 - -

E.Coli cfu/100mls - 0 - - - <1 <1 <1 104 18 <1 Note 1 <1 579

Total Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - 18,500 152 1 5,200 2,280 2,530 Note 1 3 6,630

Legend





* =

In or

Indicator Parameter (S.I. 439 of 2000)

der to compare ammonia levels with the threshold limits they must first be converted to ammonium.

te 1: Not possible to sample during this round due to a blockage in the wellmperature measured with mercury thermometer from 04/09/2007

BOREHOLE 13

02/03/2005 14/06/2005 06/12/2005 23/02/2006Parameter Unit IGV PV

NoTe

01/09/2005 06/06/2006 19/09/2006 04/12/2006 27/03/2007 05/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 7.11 6.69 6.49 7.22 6.44 7.14 6.54 6.42 6.4 6.42 6.88 6.81

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 2845 3426 2444 1808 1901 1358 1,686 1,380 1,510 1,737 1,746 1,269

Temperature °C - - 14.1 - 16.7 15 13.8 14.1 16.2 14.4 17.7 18 - 15.5


change - 610.0 610.0 610.0 610.0 700 470 570 520 400 420 360 310

C.O.D. mg/l - - 37.0 15.0 23.0 21.0 23 23 <15 20 18 <15 17 48

Tot organic Carbon mg/l no abnormal change - 12.0 12.0 9.0 9.0 12 16 6 8 5 5 4 7

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 12.2 15.4 10.4 8.3 8.8 6 5.1 <0.2 5.6 3.1 3.5 2.1

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 7.224 3.999 4.515 2.709

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.150 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 0.5 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.5 4.2 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 513 519 443 257 229 273 4 162 309 574 522 237

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 8 <3 4 <3 <3 4 237 4 8 10 17 32

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.036 0.014 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.024 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.314 0.043

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.07 0.069 0.078 0.057 0.055 0.047 0.036 0.04 0.037 0.048 0.05 0.038

Boron mg/l 1 1 0.09 0.104 0.101 0.095 0.109 0.096 0.054 0.051 0.038 0.018 0.065 <0.003

Bromide mg/l - - 2.60 1.10 1.20 1.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 0.7

Calcium mg/l 200 - 238.30 245.100 209.900 224.300 180.5 132.8 223.2 163.1 153.4 160.7 126.5 120.4

Copper mg/l 0.03 2 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Fluoride mg/l 1 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.7 1.5 1.2 1.1 1 1

Iron* mg/l 0.2 0.2 0.098 0.081 0.059 0.163 0.125 0.069 0.107 0.01 0.037 0.013 2.252 0.722

Magnesium mg/l 50 - 14.66 16.710 16.710 19.590 13.33 9.715 9.971 8.306 7.305 11.33 12.51 9.205

Manganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 1.816 1.924 1.544 1.550 1.248 0.686 1.51 1.237 1.047 1.067 0.906 1.069

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 0.002

Potassium mg/l 5 - 90.00 8.6 6.5 5.7 5.7 4.2 3.5 4 4.2 4.6 4.7 3.4

Sodium* mg/l 150 200 280.00 360 247.5 135 220 185 170 140 140 285 252 151.5

Zinc mg/l 0.1 - <0.005 0.009 0.028 0.017 0.013 0.038 0.03 0.022 0.021 <0.001 0.024 0.016


E.Coli cfu/100mls - 0 4,640 517 4 246 79 <1 - 1 206

Total Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - 816,400 241,960 365 5,560 1,750 8 - 50 2,130

Legend


PV rametric Value under S.I. No 278 of 2007 applies for 2007 results onwards

Re are underlined where they exceed the EPA IGV

= Pa

sults


- = Not Analysed



14/06/2005 06/12/2005

Indicator Parameter (S.I. 439 of 2000)

Parameter Unit IGV

BOREHOLE 14

23/02/2006PV 02/03/2005

* =

IGV 01/09/2005 05/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 7.4 7.16 6.86 7.86 6.67 6.76 6.83 6.52 6.49 6.37 7.0 6.84

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 2036 2082 1566 1543 1654 1,464 1,379 1,257 1,129 1,027 684.0 1,232

Temperature °C - - 13.2 - 13.9 13.4 14.1 16.3 15.5 14.5 16.9 15.5 - 14.5

Total Alkalinity mg/l no abnormal change - 550.0 620.0 510.0 550.0 690 690 690 610 513 700 430.0 480

C.O.D. mg/l - - 24.0 31.0 42.0 20.0 39 23 19 <15 16 16 <15 <15

Tot organic Carbon mg/l no abnormal change - 9.0 17.0 15.0 20.0 17 10 9 5 7 6 3.0 5

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 4.6 5.4 5.2 6.7 6.1 7.7 6.6 <0.2 6.6 5.6 3.40 3

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 8.514 7.224 4.386 3.87

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 6 0.4 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 348 239 213 188 139 97 61 53 68 48 32.0 114

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 14 16 <3 30.0 18

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.018 0.014 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.015 0.004 <0.002 <0.002 0.233 <0.002

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.11 0.088 0.097 0.115 0.079 0.08 0.069 0.084 0.08 0.075 0.046 0.061

Boron mg/l 1 1 0.07 0.048 0.056 0.072 0.068 0.127 0.059 0.061 0.046 0.035 0.076 <0.003

Bromide mg/l - - 1.30 <0.5 2.40 1.20 <0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.4 <0.5 1.9

Calcium mg/l 200 - 276.50 190.200 184.900 205.900 157.2 175.1 233.4 190.2 199.6 174.4 128.20 162.0

Co

Fl

pper mg/l 0.03 2 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

uoride mg/l 1 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 1 1.2 1.2

Iron* mg/l 0.2 0.2 0.050 0.022 0.196 0.066 0.364 0.163 0.156 <0.002 0.074 0.003 3.319 0.004

agnesium mg/l 50 - 12.33 9.421 11.490 13.180 9.927 13.52 13.33 11.43 12.41 10.4 7.013 8.781

anganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 2.626

M

M 1.607 1.592 1.867 1.493 1.747 2.199 2.095 1.505 1.987 1.175 2.245

Nicke

otassiu

l mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.008 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.002

P m mg/l 5 - 5.00 4.4 4.1 5.1 3.9 4.2 4.3 5.5 3.7 4 2.90 3.5

dium* mg/l 150 200 130.00 205So 115 630 190 130 90 65 44.5 75 32.70 118

nc mg/l 0.1 - <0.005 0.004 0.023 0.016 0.01 0.041 0.028 0.017 0.016 <0.001 0.011 <0.001

ecal Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

E.Coli cfu/100mls - 0 630 548 5 99 47 1 <1 7.0 179

Total Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - 64,800

Zi

Fa

238,200 136 4,350 8,420 3,130 111 488.0 1,553

Legend






- = Not Analysed



BOREHOLE 15

UnitParameter 27/03/200706/06/2006 19/09/200602/03/2005 14/06/2005PV 04/12/200606/12/2005 23/02/2006

01/09/2005 06/06/2006 19/09/2006 04/12/2006 27/03/2007 04/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 7.4 7.38 6.36 7.7 6.64 7.23 6.92 7.25 6.65 6.63 6.9 6.87

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 2533 2589 2912 2122 3489 943 1,289 834 1,272 1,280 774 674

Temperature °C - - 13.2 - 14.4 13.8 13.3 14.1 14.6 14.8 19.2 17.5 - 16


C.O.D. mg/l - - 580.0 <15 21.0 136.0 214 62 180 18 113 175 144.0 28

Tot organic Carbon mg/l no abnormal change - 161.0 18.0 8.0 37.0 15 13 6 5 34 23 32.0 6

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 9.8 8.2 8.7 5.9 8.6 6.4 17.88 <0.2 14.4 46 29.0 15

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 18.576 59.34 37.41 19.35

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 <0.3 <0.3 0.4 <0.3 <0.3 0.4 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 523 587 731 494 868 637 114 79 147 58 45.0 46

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 <3 11 20 <3 <3 10 4 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.029 0.013 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.408 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.218 0.008

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.24 0.032 0.212 0.158 0.282 0.189 0.114 0.077 0.137 0.212 0.167 0.092

Boron mg/l 1 1 0.27 0.023 0.468 0.461 0.561 0.403 0.11 0.119 0.173 0.117 0.107 0.003

omide mg/l - - <0.5 2.10 3.60 2.00 <0.5 1.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 0.2 <0.5 <0.1

m mg/l 200 - 195.60 151.200 134.000 134.000 140 99.94 201.1

Br

Calciu 91.13 143.1 183.1 120.2 95.08

er mg/l 0.03 2 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

uoride mg/l 1 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2

on* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.001 0.012 <0.005 <0.002 0.003 0.049 0.035 <0.002 0.892

Co

Fl

pp

Ir 11.78 1.007 0.047

nesium mg/l 50 - 7.06 18.670 6.099 5.798 7.181 5.482 6.059 2.83 4.189 5.381 5.921 3.814

Manganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 4.151

Mag

0.688 1.902 3.094 5.385 2.541 8.093 6.239 2.988 5.958 3.539 4.369

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.005 0.003 <0.005 0.007 0.008 0.005 0.003 <0.001 0.002 0.009 0.002

Potassium mg/l 5 - 9.00 8.4 8.9 7.9 16.5 15 6.7 6.7 6.8 8.8 6.3 3.8

Sodium* mg/l 150 200 270.00 320 495 325 520 405 70 60 95 35 23.7 12

Zinc mg/l 0.1 - <0.005 0.017 0.024 0.016 0.014 0.033 0.022 0.018 0.015 <0.001 0.011 <0.001


E.Coli cfu/100mls - 0 8 <1 12 47 2 3 6 <1 1,553

Total Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - 1,600 1,986 2,420 13,740 1,733 579 52,980 3,270 198,630

Legend






- = Not Analysed



BOREHOLE 16

06/12/2005Parameter 23/02/200614/06/200502/03/2005Unit PVIGV

06/06/2006 20/09/2006 05/12/2006 27/03/2007 04/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 8.0 7.44 8 7.19 6.97

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 1743

8.18 7.02 7.91 7.08 7.27 7.7 7.64

1615 1482 1442 1655 1154 1014 1260 293 362 438 433

Temperature °C - - 11.5 - 11.5 11.2 10.8 13.9 13.7 12.1 14.6 17 - 14.5


C.O.D. mg/l - - 22.0 68.0 44.0 133.0 29 100 96 <15 16 <15 <15 <15

Tot organic Carbon mg/l no abnormal change - 6.0 33.0 11.0 50.0 13 30 20 3 7 <2 4.0 <2

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 7.0 7.0 7.1 5.0 7 3.1 5.4 <0.2 0.3 0.4 2.1 0.18

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 0.387 0.516 2.709 0.232

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.150 <0.05 <0.05 0.080 <0.05 0.6 0.19 0.09 0.11 0.23 0.2 0.17

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 0.4 <0.3 <0.3 1.1 <0.3 <0.05 2.4 8.6 9.1 15.2 0.5 20.2

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 246 193 207 232 277 108 93 38 24 26 34 36

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 <3 13 <3 5 <3 8 19 45 23 26 32.0 31

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.023 0.013 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 2.321 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.217 <0.002

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.78 0.001 0.774 0.12 0.676 0.108 0.157 0.099 0.01 0.03 0.183 0.042

Boron mg/l 1 1 0.13 0.029 0.175 0.102 0.156 0.103 0.075 0.04 0.029 0.02 0.073 <0.003

Bromide mg/l - - 4.60 1.50 3.80 0.80 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1

Calcium mg/l 200 - 153.00 7.535 148.100 155.200 158.5 98.09 139.2 51.93 43.63 60.7 65.050 57.45

Copper mg/l 0.03 2 <0.005 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Fluoride mg/l 1 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.6

Iron* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 0.008 0.003 0.455 0.02 <0.002 0.014 <0.002 0.202 0.059

Magnesium mg/l 50 - 7.73 3.182 8.860 8.010 9.37 5.224 5.867 2.394 3.117 4.588 1.502 5.391

Manganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 6.282 0.005 5.410 4.070 6.242 1.267 2.93 0.594 <0.001 0.293 1.313 <0.001

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.004 0.010 0.004 0.01 0.009 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001

Potassium mg/l 5 - 14.00 10.8 10.4 9.8 10.5 7.7 10.1 4.4 2.6 3.8 4.3 4.1

Sodium* mg/l 150 200 170.00 135 150 140 235 80 70 25 12 18 24.9 23.7

Zinc mg/l 0.1 - <0.005 0.018 0.025 0.015 0.01 0.044 0.026 0.015 0.014 <0.001 0.009 <0.001

Faecal Coliforms cfu/100mls - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E.Coli cfu/100mls - 0 15 <1 42 <1 <1 <1 1 15 11

Total Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - 2,990 1 308 5 9 11 10 172 250

Legend

PV = Parametric Value under S.I. No 4 IGV = EPA Interim Guideline Value





- = Not Analysed



23/02/2006

BOREHOLE 24

Parameter Unit IGV 01/09/2005 06/12/2005PV 14/06/200502/03/2005

01/09/2005 06/06/2006 20/09/2006 04/12/2006 27/03/2007 05/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 7.59 OR 7.85 6.91 7.56 7.65 7.52 7.28 7.03 7.6 7.33

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 1673 1270 2134 1569 2127 2132 2137 2064 1280 1138 640 346

Temperature °C - - 11.1 - 11.1 13.7 11.1 13.7 - 15.5 16.8 18 - 16.5


C.O.D. mg/l - - <15 <15 <15 <15 159 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15

Tot organic Carbon mg/l no abnormal change - 3.0 17.0 5.0 7.0 83 10 2 3 4 2 <2 <2

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 2.9 2.4 0.9 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 0.487 1 0.8 0.3 0.4

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 1.29 1.032 0.4 0.5

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.32

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.4 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.4 29.3 4.9

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 431 267 561 391 578 644 583 297 324 313 131.0 43

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 19 21 7 11 133 17 24 26 27 34 39.0 13

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.041 0.021 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.019 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.257 0.121

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.12 0.077 0.146 0.126 0.195 0.161 0.121 0.059 0.085 0.091 0.026 0.027

Boron mg/l 1 1 <0.05 0.025 0.031 0.050 0.057 0.061 0.05 0.046 0.033 0.031 0.060 <0.003

Bromide mg/l - - 0.60 <0.5 <0.5 0.70 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.7 <0.5 0.3

Calcium mg/l 200 - 50.9 42.880 74.280 59.760 86.61 69.07 72.42 30.61 35.62 39.53 31.190 33.99

Copper mg/l 0.03 0 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002

Fluoride mg/l 1 1.5 0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.700 0.5

Iron* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.002 0.062 0.141 0.029 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 0.088 0.073

Magnesium mg/l 50 - 4.6 3.161 6.403 5.230 6.725 5.974 5.723 2.181 2.727 3.278 2.807 2.157

Manganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 <0.001 3.069 6.156 4.201 7.122 5.475 6.803 0.696 1.65 2.725 0.082 0.019

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.007 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.005 0.002

Potassium mg/l 5 - 4.40 3.4 5.6 4.1 4.3 3.2 3.4 2.8 2.5 3.1 2.6 2.7

Sodium* mg/l 150 200 360.00 800 305 250 345 360 340 215 165 225 128.6 38.2

Zinc mg/l 0.1 - <0.005 0.034 0.028 0.018 0.012 0.034 0.024 0.014 0.013 <0.001 0.033 0.007

Faecal Coliforms cfu/100mls - - - - - - - - - - - - -

E.Coli cfu/100mls - 0 1 1 <1 24 71 <1 1 <1 488

Total Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - 45 11,120 43 24 2,590 5 16 36.0 5,980

Legend






- = Not Analysed



23/02/200614/06/2005 06/12/200502/03/2005Parameter PVIGV

BOREHOLE 25

Unit

01/09/2005 06/06/2006 20/09/2006 05/12/2006 27/03/2007 04/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 8.95 7.33 8.95 7.65 7.29 7.7 7.09 7.8 7.54 7.26 7.9 7.8

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 1,918 1787 1479 1289 881 633 503 397 378 376 312 398

Temperature °C - - 11.4 - 11.4 11.2 10.2 13.9 - 13.2 17.5 16 - 13.5

Total Alkalinity mg/l no abnormal change - 360 560.0 340.0 300.0 270 200 220 120 167 150 140 140

C.O.D. mg/l - - <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 42 <15 <15 <15

Tot organic Carbon mg/l no abnormal change - 3 9.0 6.0 7.0 5 7 2 <2 4 <2 <2 <2

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 2 2.6 4.4 2.1 2 1.6 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.14 0.1 0.16

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 <0.2 0.1806 0.2 0.21

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.42 <0.05 0.18 0.060 0.12 0.44 0.09 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 0.7 <0.3 3.8 <0.3 <0.3 1.8 2.1 8.3 17.3 24 27.5 25.7

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 327 292 254 234 108 78 17 16 26 24 24 25

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 60 18 12 16 23 23 4 27 27 30 26 35

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 <0.003 0.018 <0.002 <0.002 0.111 0.018 0.009 <0.002 0.051 0.3 0.189

Barium mg/l 0.1 - <0.05 0.071 0.204 0.189 0.108 0.059 0.026 0.016 0.012 0.012 0.020 0.017

Boron mg/l 1 1 <0.05 0.055 0.054 0.059 0.055 0.059 0.039 0.03 0.028 0.013 0.051 <0.003

Bromide mg/l - - 0.8 0.60 0.60 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1

Calcium mg/l 200 - 65.89 114.500 106.100 109.700 82.29 77.02 102 56.39 58.13 56.95 53.020 55.42

Copper mg/l 0.03 0 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Fluoride mg/l 1 1.5 <0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6

Iron* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.002 0.002 0.126 0.033 <0.002 0.015 <0.002 0.096 0.062

Magnesium mg/l 50 - 6.73 8.096 10.890 7.987 4.855 4.29 2.566 1.501 2.051 3.647 4.431 4.938

Manganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.442 1.653 8.356 4.292 2.212 0.831 2.349 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.066 <0.001

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.005 0.008 0.007 0.002 0.005 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001

Potassium mg/l 5 - 50 17.2 12.4 16 11.7 8.5 6.5 6.6 5.1 4.6 3.5 4

Sodium* mg/l 150 200 330 20 180 145 75 40 13 11.5 11.5 14 16 17.7

Zinc mg/l 0.1 - 0.021 0.008 0.653 0.021 0.017 34 0.023 0.014 0.012 <0.001 0.007 <0.001


E.Coli cfu/100mls - 0 <1 <1 1,986 548 2 1 228 <1 40

Total Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - 1,340 7 12 18,500 613 15,390 17,850 13 1,300

Legend

PV = Parametric Value under S.I. No 439 of 2000 IGV = EPA Interim Guideline Value





- = Not Analysed



BOREHOLE 26

06/12/200514/06/2005 23/02/200602/03/2005Unit PVIGVParameter

01/09/2005 06/06/2006 19/09/2006 05/12/2006 27/03/2007 04/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

pH* units 6.5 - 9.5 6.5 - 9.5 8.4 7.31 8.44 7.65 7.14 7.18 7.24 7.25 6.78 6.67 7.2 7.21

Conductivity* µS/cm 1000 2,500 1,444 1601 1741 1226 1368 2504 1320 1183 1031 1077 953 1,232

Temperature °C - - 10.5 - 10.5 11.1 11.1 - - 13.3 16.2 16.5 - 14.5

Total Alkalinity mg/l no abnormal change - 340 400.0 490.0 330.0 350 400 410 330 233 390 310.0 220

C.O.D. mg/l - - <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15 <15

Tot organic Carbon mg/l no abnormal change - 2 9.0 6.0 7.0 7 7 3 44 5 2 <2 <2

Ammonia* mg/l 0.15 0.3 1 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.825 2.8 2.6 2.7 2

Ammonium mg/l 0.15 0.3 3.612 3.354 3.5 2.6

Nitrite mg/l 0.1 0.5 0.87 0.1 <0.05 0.060 0.28 0.18 0.21 0.09 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.86

Nitrate mg/l 25 50 4.4 6.4 0.7 1.7 0.3 1.8 0.8 6.9 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 5.3

Chloride* mg/l 30 250 220 225 334 206 208 215 180 167 143 563 199 243

Sulphate* mg/l 200 250 25 34 17 25 27 24 30 15 10 40 21.0 22

Aluminium* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.05 0.004 0.015 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.023 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.240 <0.002

Barium mg/l 0.1 - 0.06 0.063 0.099 0.067 0.06 0.055 0.054 0.057 0.052 0.067 0.061 0.089

Boron mg/l 1 1 <0.05 0.045 0.070 0.051 0.06 0.08 0.052 0.048 0.043 0.031 0.059 <0.003

Bromide mg/l - - 0.7 0.60 1.70 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.05 1.7 0.3 <0.5 <0.5 0.3

Calcium mg/l 200 - 122.3 140.400 142.000 143.100 137.20 103.6 170.9 126.2 100.4 123.8 103.6 119.9

Copper mg/l 0.03 0 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001

Fluoride mg/l 1 1.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1

Iron* mg/l 0.2 0.2 <0.001 0.010 <0.005 0.006 <0.002 0.07 0.036 <0.002 0.015 <0.002 0.129 0.042

Magnesium mg/l 50 - 7.53 7.318 12.600 8.063 7.56 7.495 7.501 5.163 4.011 5.357 4.469 6.635

Manganese* mg/l 0.05 0.05 2.705 4.340 4.353 3.184 3.80 1.062 2.362 2.662 1.17 2.793 2.112 1.492

Nickel mg/l 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.004 0.009 0.005 0.002 <0.001 0.002 0.005 0.003

Potassium mg/l 5 - 5 4.8 5.4 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.5 4 4.5 5.1 4.8 3.8

Sodium* mg/l 150 200 170 154 175 140 13 150 1150 125 10 130 139.9 144.3

Zinc mg/l 0.1 - <0.005 0.021 0.030 0.023 0.01 0.033 0.025 0.014 0.015 0.001 0.011 <0.001


E.Coli cfu/100mls - 0 - - - <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total Coliforms cfu/100mls 0 0 - - - 41 1 - 72 9 <1 <1 <1 2

Legend

PV = Parametric Value under S.I. No 439 of 2000 IGV = EPA Interim Guideline Value





- = Not Analysed



BOREHOLE 27

14/06/2005 23/02/200606/12/2005Parameter 02/03/2005Unit PVIGV

Appendix 2B VOC Tentatively Identified Compounds

Parameter Unit I-Value

Thiobismethane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Butanal µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Methyl-ethyl-ketone µg/l - 39 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Methyl-iso-butyl-ketone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2 - butanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tetrahydrofuran µg/l 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ethylene Glycol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1-chloropropane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Isopropyl acetate µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thietane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2-hexanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Trimethyl disulphide µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bromochloropropane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1-Bromo-3-chloropropane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pentanone Isomer* µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Propane Isomer* µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sec Butanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Butanol Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 51 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown§ µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 224 23 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pentanol Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Butanone Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 78 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Propanol Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 43 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4-methyl-2-pentanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Trimethylsilanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4-methyl-2-pentanone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hexafluorobenzene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Silanol Derivate µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 27 ~ 16 ~ ~ ~ ~

Silanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hydrocarbon Derivative µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 20 ~ ~ ~

Legend

I-Value=Dutch Groundwater Intervention Value

*=Unable to be isomer specific

§= Unidentified

~ = No compounds detected

Values are shaded where they exceed the Dutch I-Level

03/03/200804/12/200606/12/200514/06/2005 06/06/2006 19/09/200601/09/2005 04/09/2007 09/09/2008

BH8

27/03/200723/02/200602/03/2005

Methyl-ethyl-ketone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Propene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 94

Hexadiene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 25

Ethylene Glycol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 52 ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown compound µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 143 65 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Legend



§= Unidentified



Parameter 04/09/200701/09/200502/03/2005 27/03/200719/09/2006 09/09/2008

BH10

Unit I-Value 26/06/200623/02/200606/12/200514/06/2005 03/03/200804/12/2006

Methyl-ethyl-ketone µg/l - 203 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thietane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Chloroflurobenzene isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pentanol Isomer µg/l - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pentanone Isomer* µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Propane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 162


Silanol Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Silanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Butanone Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 102 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2-Butanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Butanol Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 61 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Propanol Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 38 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4-Methyl-2-pentanone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4-Methyl-2-pentanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ethylene Glycol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 297 ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown compound µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 194 157 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Legend



§= Unidentified



03/03/200804/12/200606/06/200623/02/200606/12/200502/03/2005 05/09/2007Parameter Unit I-Value 09/09/2008

BH11

27/03/200701/09/200514/06/2005 19/09/2006



Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



Legend



§= Unidentified



03/03/200806/06/2006 19/09/200602/03/2005Parameter Unit I-Value 09/09/2008

BH12

05/09/200727/03/200704/12/200623/02/200606/12/200501/09/200514/06/2005


Methyl-ethyl-ketone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note 1 ~ ~

Methyl-iso-butyl-ketone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note 1 ~ ~

Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note 1 ~ ~

Tetrahydrofuran µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note 1 ~ ~

Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note 1 ~ ~

2-Pentanone, 4-methyl- µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note 1 ~ ~

Ethylene Glycol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note 1 ~ ~

1-Bromo-3-chloropropane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note 1 ~ ~

2-Propanol* µg/l - ~ ~ ~ 310 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note 1 ~ ~

2-Butanone* µg/l - ~ ~ ~ 247 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note 1 ~ ~

Legend



§= Unidentified



Note 1: Not possible to sample during this round due to a blockage in the well

BH13

09/09/200814/06/2005 06/12/2005 23/02/200601/09/2005 04/12/2006 27/03/200706/06/200606/12/2005 03/03/200805/09/200719/09/200602/03/2005

Methyl-ethyl-ketone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Methyl-iso-butyl-ketone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tetrahydrofuran µg/l 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ethylene Glycol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1-Bromo-3-chloropropane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1-chloropropane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2-butanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thietane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2-hexanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thiobismethane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown§ µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown§ µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sec-butanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Butanone Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pentanone Isomer* µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Propane Isomer* µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

C4-C5 Hydrocarbon fraction µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Trimethylsilanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Silanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Silanol Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hexafluorobenzene g/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Methylthiomethane g/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

3-Methylene-pentane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Legend



§= Unidentified



03/03/2008Parameter Unit I-Value 19/09/200602/03/2005 14/06/2005 06/06/200623/02/200601/09/2005 06/12/2005 09/09/2008

BH14

04/12/200606/12/2005 05/09/200727/03/2007

Methyl-ethyl-ketone µg/l - 47 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Methyl-iso-butyl-ketone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tetrahydrofuran µg/l 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ethylene Glycol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1-chloropropane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Silanol Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Silanol µg/l - 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Butanone Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Butanal µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2-Butanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sec-Butanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown§ µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown§ µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pentanone Isomer* µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pentanol Isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hexafluorobenzene µg/l - 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1-Bromo-3-chloropropane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Legend



§= Unidentified



03/03/200806/06/2006 19/09/200602/03/2005 23/02/200601/09/200514/06/2005 05/09/200701/12/200408/09/200414/06/2004 09/09/2008

BH15

27/03/200704/12/200606/12/2005Parameter Unit I-Value 11/03/2004


Methyl-ethyl-ketone µg/l - 455 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 67


Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Butanal µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hexanal µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Octanal µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ethanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Propanol isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2-Butanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Diazoethane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Propanal µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown§ µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 352 16 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown§ µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown§ µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 37 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown§ µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 24 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown§ µg/l - - - - - - - 182 - - - - -



C4-C6 Hydrocarbon fraction µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Buhanol isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Propene isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proplyene oxide isomer µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 39 ~ ~ ~ ~

1-Hexene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Alcohol Derivative µg/l - 18 ~

Ketone Derivative µg/l - 68 ~

Legend



§= Unidentified



03/03/200804/12/200623/03/200606/12//2005 19/09/2006 04/09/200701/09/200514/06/200502/03/2005 09/09/2008

BH16

27/03/200706/06/2006



Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Thietane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Sec-butanol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Butanal µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unknown µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


1-bromo-3-chloropropane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

C4-C5 Hydrocarbon fraction µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 18 ~ ~ ~ ~

3-Methylene-pentane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Legend



§= Unidentified



03/03/200806/06/2006 19/09/200623/02/2006 04/09/200705/12/2006Parameter 09/09/2008

BH24

06/12/2005Unit I-Value 01/09/200514/06/200502/03/2005 27/03/2007

Methyl-ethyl-ketone µg/l - ~ ~ 874 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Methyl-iso-butyl-ketone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tetrahydrofuran µg/l 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

MTBE µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ethylene Glycol µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1-Bromo-3-chloropropane µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Legend



§= Unidentified



03/03/200823/02/200606/12/200501/09/200514/06/200502/03/200515/06/2004 02/12/200409/09/200411/03/2004 09/09/2008

BH25

05/09/200727/03/200705/12/200606/06/2006 19/09/2006Parameter Unit I-Value



Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


MTBE µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



Legend



§= Unidentified



02/03/2005 03/03/200814/06/2005 05/09/2005 05/12/200606/06/2006 09/09/2008

BH26

19/09/200623/02/200606/12/2005 04/09/2007Parameter 27/03/2007Unit I-Value




Acetone µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


MTBE µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Limonene µg/l - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



Legend



§= Unidentified



19/09/200623/02/200606/12/2005 04/09/2007 03/03/2008 09/09/2008

BH27

27/03/200702/03/2005 14/06/2005 01/09/2005 05/12/200623/02/2006

Appendix 3 Groundwater Monitoring Logs

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

pH: 6.71

Temperature ( o C): 15 Conductivity ( µS): 1021

Observed Colour: clear with suspended silt Odour: Mild odour

Janssen Pharmaceutical

Date: 03/03/2008 Sampler: A. Geary & D. Horgan

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:

Project No.: CE06524 Location:

Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):

-

Top of internal casing

1 litre plastic, I 500ml glas, 4 x Vials, 1 H2SO4

Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

4.44 -

Bailer Type:

Comments

Analysis Required

8.88

Dedicated Bailer Plastic

27

Monitoring Well Sampling Log

Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-8

Well No.: BH-8

-

11.356.91

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 43

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-10

Well No.: BH-10

-

11.626.37

-

Bailer Type:

Comments

Analysis Required

10.5


32

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

5.25

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):



Observed Colour: Clear with some suspended solids Odour: No odour

Temperature ( o C): 13.7 Conductivity ( µS): 648

pH: 7.38

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 44

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-11

Well No.: BH-11

-

18.55.77

-

Bailer Type:

Comments

Analysis Required

25.46


77

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

12.73

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):



Observed Colour: Clear with black suspended solids Odour: Moderate odour


pH: 6.84

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 45

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

pH: 7.16


Observed Colour: Cloudy, brown suspended solids Odour: No odour



Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

20.61 -

Bailer Type:

CommentsWell ran dry after 40L

Analysis Required

41.22


40


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-12

Well No.: BH-12

-

26.475.86

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 46

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-13

Well No.: BH-13

-

8.077.26

-

Bailer Type:

Comments

Analysis Required

1.62


5

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

0.81

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):



Observed Colour: Brown cloudy with suspended silt. Mildly fizzy Odour: No odour


pH: 7.39

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 47

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

pH: 6.88


Observed Colour: Greyish colour & mildly effervescing Odour: Moderate odour



Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

9.95 -

Bailer Type:

Comments

Analysis Required

19.9


60


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-14

Well No.: BH-14

-

15.685.73

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 48

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-15

Well No.: BH-15

-

15.716.85

-

Bailer Type:

Comments

Analysis Required

17.72


53

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

8.86

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):



Observed Colour: Clear with some suspended solids Odour: Moderate odour


pH: 7

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 49

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

pH: 6.93


Observed Colour: Clear with black suspended solids Odour: No odour



Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

4.86 -

Bailer Type:

Comments

Analysis Required

9.72


30


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-16

Well No.: BH-16

-

11.877.01

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 50

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

pH: 7.7


Observed Colour: Cloudy grey, some silt, mildly effervescing Odour: none



Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

10.56 -

Bailer Type:

Comments

Analysis Required

21.12


64


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-24

Well No.: BH-24

-

16.475.91

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 51

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-25

Well No.: BH-25

-

15.655.91

-

Bailer Type:

Comments

Analysis Required

19.48


59

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

9.74

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):



Observed Colour: Brown with some silt Odour: Mild chemical odour


pH: 7.58

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 52

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

pH: 7.9


Observed Colour: Milky brown colour & silty Odour: None



Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

5.69 -

Bailer Type:

Comments

Analysis Required

11.38


35


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-26

Well No.: BH-26

-

11.465.77

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 53

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.:BH-27

Well No.: BH-27

-

14.745.13

-

Bailer Type:

CommentsIncorrect label on manhole cover.

Analysis Required

19.22


58

-



Measurement Point:

TOC Elevation:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

9.61

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:


Stick up:

Water Level:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):



Observed Colour: Brown & cloudy with suspended silt Odour: None


pH: 7.22

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 54

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Supervisor: Aoife GearyDate: 09/09/2008

Suspected fault in pH meter


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.: BH-8

Well No.: BH-8

11.356.13

-

Comments

Analysis Required

10.44

Dedicated Waterra Tubing

Plastic

31

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:

Observed Colour:

1 litre plastic, 1 500ml glass, 4 x Vials, 1 H2SO4

Measurement Point:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

CE06524

Location: Janssen Pharmaceutical

Note Book Ref: 21 / Cork Project No.:

Water Level:


Clear with some brown particles Odour: Very very mild odour

5.22

Bailer Type:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):


pH: 6.28

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 55

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Suspected fault in pH

Temperature ( Conductivity ( µS): 1749

Water Level:


ur: Very mild odour

3.67

Bailer Type:

Head:

Volume in Well (L

CE06524Note Book Ref: 21 / Cork Project No.:

ment Point:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

Comments

Analysis Required

7.34


Plastic

22

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:

Ob



Project Details

ails

Field Parameters

Well No.: BH-10

11.627.95

-


Measure

Well Det

Well No.: BH-10

):

Odoserved Colour:o C): 14.25

pH: 6.51

meter

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 56

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________




Project Details

Well No.: BH-11

CE06524Note Book Ref: 21 / Cork Project No.:

Well Details

Field Parameters

Well No.: BH-11

18.505.00

-

Analys Required

27.00


Plastic

81

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:

Observed Colour:


Measurement Point:

Well Depth:

W ll Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):


Water Level:


Black brown silty particles Odour: Mild chemical odour

13.50

B iler Type:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):

Temperature ( o C): 16 C nductivity ( µS): 735.5

pH: 6.21

e

a

o

is

Comments

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 57

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________



pH: 6.51


Water Level: 5.60


Milky brown silty Odour: None

20.87He d:

Vo

CE06524

Location: nssen

No Re 21 / Cork oject No.:

Measurement Point:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

Comments

Analysis Required

Plastic

125

Dec

Co ainers Used:

Observed Colour:

0ml glass, 4 x Vials, 1 H2SO4


Project Details

Well Details

Field Parameters

BH-12

We BH-12

26.47

-

Bailer Type:Dedicated Waterra on. Procedure:

a

lume in Well (L): 41.74

JaPharmaceutical

te Book f: Pr

Tubing1 litre plastic, 1 50

nt

Well No.:

ll No.:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 58

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________




Project Details

Field Parameters

Well N

-

Comments

Analysis Required


Plastic Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:

Observed Colour:


Measurement Point:

Well Diameter:

CE06524

Locat Janssen

Note Project No.:

Wate


Milky brown silty Odour: None

Bailer Type:

Head

Volum

Temperature ( o C): 14.5 Conductivity ( µS): 643.5

pH: 6.65

Well No.: BH-13

ion: Pharmaceutical

Book Ref: 21 / Cork

Well Details

o.: BH-13

8.076.30 Well Depth:r Level:

1.77:

3.54 11Volume Purged (L):e in Well (L):

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 59

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Suspected fault in pH mComments

eter

pH:

p Conductivity ( µS): 969.5

e


Head:

Volum

CE06524

Location:

te Book Project No.:

Measurement Point:

Well Depth:

equired

Decon

a

Obser

1 litre plastic, 1 500ml

Well Sampling Log

Well N .: BH-14

15.68

Monitoring

Project Details

Well No.: BH-14

Janssen

No Ref: 21 / Cork

Pharmaceutical

Well Details

o

Wat r Level: 4.74

10.94

Bailer Type:

e in Well (L):

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):21.88


Plastic

66

. Procedure:

-

Cont iners Used: glass, 4 x Vials, 1 H2SO4

Dark brown black Odour: Rotten egg smelled Colour:

Field Parameters

v

Tem erature ( o C): 15.5

6.08

Analysis R

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 60

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Monitoring Well Sampling


Log

t Details

Well Details

rameters

Analysis Required

Plastic

60

Procedure:

Containers Used:

Obser d C lo

glass, 4 x Vials, 1

Volume Purged (L):

Bailer Type:

Temperature ( Conductivity ( µS): 979.5

pH:

Projec

Well No.: BH-15

CE06524



Well No.: BH-15

15.715.69

-

Measurement Point:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Water Level:


10.02Head:

20.04

Dedicated Waterra

Volume in Well (L):

Decon. Tubing1 litre plastic, 1 500ml

Field Pa

H2SO4

ve o ur: Clear Odour: Mild chemical odour

o C): 14.5

6.33

Suspected fault in pH meterComments

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 61

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________



Water Level:


Odour: Mild chemical odour

Volume in Well (L):

surement Point:

Well Depth:

Volume Purged (L):11.92

Dedicated Waterra Plastic

36

Decon. P edure:

Containers Used:

Observed Colour:

astic, 1 500ml glass, 4 x Vials, 1 H2SO4

S p g g

F P me s

11.875.91

Mon in Witor g ell am lin Lo

Project Details

Well No.: BH-16

CE06524



Well Details

MeaWell No.: BH-16

5.96Head: Well Diameter: -

Bailer Type:Tubing1 litre pl

roc

ield ara terClear with some black

pH: 6.54

Temperature ( o C): 16 Conductivity ( µS): 557.5

particles

Analysis Required

Comments

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 62

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Supervisor: Aoife G

Monitoring Well Sampli

earyDate: 09/09/2008

ng Log

Project Details

ell Detai

Well N

l e

Observed Colour:

H2SO4

asurement Point:

CE06524

Location: Pharmaceutical

Note Book Ref: 21 / Cork


Clear brown particles Odour: None

Temperature ( o C): 14.5 346.5

pH:

Well No.: BH-24

Janssen

Project No.:

W ls

o.: BH-24 Me

16.474.72

-

23.50


Plastic

71

Decon. Procedure:

Containers Used:1 litre plastic, 1 500ml glass, 4 x Vials, 1

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Volume Purged (L):

Water Level:

11.75

Bailer Type:

Head:

Volume in Well (L):

Field Parameters

Conductivity ( µS):

6.41

Ana ysis R quired


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 63

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


pH: 6.27

Temper 16.5 u ti 3.5

Milky brown O Mild chemical odour

iler Type:

urged (L):

Analysis Required

TubingPlastic

64

Observed Colour:

H2SO4

Monitoring We g Log

t Details

Well Details

Field Par

Well N B 25

ll Samplin

o.: H-Projec

CE06524



Water Level:


10.65Head:

Measurement Point:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Well No.: BH-25

15.655.00

-

Ba

Volume in Well (L): Volume P21.30

Dedicated Waterra Decon. Procedure:


ameters

dour:

ature ( o C): Cond c vity ( µS): 27


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 64

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Monitoring Well Samplin


g Log

Well No.: BH-26

11.464.79

-

omments

H2SO4

Measurement Point:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:


6.67Head:

nductivity ( µS): 313.5

6.55

Project Details

Well Details

Well No.: BH-26

CE06524



Water Level:

13.34


Plastic

40

Decon. Procedure:


Volume Purged (L):

Bailer Type:

Volume in Well (L):

Field Parameters

Observed Colour: Milky brown silty Odour: None

Temperature ( o C): 13.5 Co

pH:

Analysis Required

CSuspected fault in pH meter

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 65

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Suspected fault in pH meter. Slight iridescence on surface.


pH: 6.61

Temperature ( o C):

Slighty brown in colour and cloudy Odour: NoneObserved Colour:

Field Parameters

14.5 Conductivity ( µS): 967

Water Level:

10.50

CE06524

Janssen maceutical

Project No.:

Well Depth:

Well Diameter:

Comments


2SO4

Well No.: BH-27

14.744.24

-

Note Book Ref: 21 / Cork

Project Details

Location: Phar

Top of internal casingMeasurement Point:

Well Details

Well No.: BH-27

Head:

Bailer Type:

Volume in Well (L): Volume Purged (L):21.00


Plastic

63

Decon. Procedure:

H

Analysis Required

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 66

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

dix B : Site Survey Noise Report Appen

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 67

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

009 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IPPC NOISE SURVEY AT

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICAL TD, LITTLE ISLAND, CO. CORK

_______________________________________________ echnical Report Prepared For

td.

Little Island

__ared By

__

__

2

L

T

Janssen Pharmaceutical L

Co. Cork _____________________________________________

Technical Report Prep

Niall Vaughan, B.Sc., AMIOA _____________________________________________

Our Reference

NV/09/5124NR01 _____________________________________________

Date of Issue

2 March 2009

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 68

__

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AWN con be ione ansse rmac l Ltd ittle , Co. to co their annual environmental noise monito rvey purp this survey is to s com ce wnoise criteria stipulat Janss ntegra Pollution Prevent Control (IPPC) licence (ref. no. P0016-02) issued by the mental tection Agency (EPA). The noise sur s carri out at r locations with e facil three n sensit location hich ar tside t acility. se loca s are detailed within this rep

uring t h of Jan he designated noise onitori i s. For be operating under

ld tal

Protectio

NIALL VAUGHAN BRIAN JOHNSON Senior Acoustic Consultant Senior Acoustic Consultant

sulting has en commiss d by J n Pha eutica ., in L Island Cork nductring su . The ose of asses plian ith the

as ed in the Environ

en I Pro

ted ion vey i ed fou

in th ity and at ort.

oise ive s w e ou he f The tion

D he mont 09 an environmental noise survey was carried out at tm ng locat on the duration of the survey periods the facility was reported to

uary 20

normal conditions. The survey data has been analysed and it may be concluded that the Janssen facility woucomply with the noise sections of their IPPC Licence (ref. no. P0016-02) as set out by the Environmen

n Agency.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 69

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS Page

Executive Summary 2

1.0 Introduction 4

2.0 Survey Details 5

2.1 Choice of Measurement Locations 5

2.2 Survey periods 6

2.3 Personnel and Instrumentation 6

2.4 Procedure 6

2.5 Measurement Parameters 6

2.6 Results 7

3.0 Sources 10

4.0 Discussion and Conclusions 14

Figure 1 Measurement Locations

Appendix A – Measurement Results (1/3 Octave Band Data)

Appendix B – Section 16 Tables

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 70

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Janssen Pharmaceutical facility in Little Island, Co. Cork is an extensive facility

and includes process, warehouse and wastewater facilities. The facility operates on a

24hr basis. AWN Consulting has been commissioned t easure environmental noise levels in order to establish the noise climate in the vicinity of the Janssen Pharmaceuticals site. The noise requirements of the Janssen Pharmaceuticals IPPC Licence No P0016-02 as laid down by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are as follows:

• Activities on-site shall not give ris noise levels off site at noise-sensitive locatio hat are

in excess of the following limits: Daytime (08:00hrs to 22:00hrs) – 55dB LAeq, 30minNight-time (22:00hrs to 08:00hrs) – 45dB LAeq, 30min

• There shall be no clearly audible tonal component in the noise emissions from the act ty at

any noise sensitive location.

• There shall be no clearly audible impulsive component in the noise emissions from the activity at any noise sensitive location.

• A noise survey of site operations shall be carried out on an annual basis.

o m

e to ns t

ivi

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 71

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.0 SURVEY ET Two environm l no uantify the existing noise

environment. The surveys were conducted in accordance with ISO 1996: 1982: Acoustics – Description and m ental noise and the EPA guidan ote o Scheduled Activities: Specific details are set out below.

2.1 Choice of Measurement Locations

ure ree noise sensitive locations in the ity of the Janssen Pharm ear of this document, details ppro

2.1.1 ition

D AILS

enta ise surveys were conducted in order to q

easurement of environmce n – Guidance Note For Noise In Relation T

Measvicin

ments were conducted aaceu

t fotical facility. Figure 1, at the r

ur boundary and th

the a ximate locations of the measurement positions.

Pos 1: West Boundary – B1

wes to as B1. The boundary is alongside the slip roadway used to access a small number of facilities from the main roadway.

roa ith additional buildings located to the south and east of Janssen.

tion 2:

The tern boundary location for all measurements is referred

This dway is also the access route to the Janssen facility w

Posi North Boundary – B2 2.1.2

2.1.3

The the c

nort o as B2. This boundary is losest o i c located some 50 meters further to

north cess roadway to Little Island, with the sensitive areas are located along or adjacent

e no

tion

hern boundary

boundary t

lo any

cati resi

on dent

for all mal l

eocat

asuions, whi

rements is referred th are

the heavy com

. Tm

he uter and industrial traffic. All of

northern boundary is along the main ac

to th rthern boundary.

Posi 3: East Boundary – B3

2.1.4

The east erred to as B3. Since the 2005 noise survey, this boundary has been pushed further east due to the expansion of the Janssen

ity. rn end of the Janssen facility.

tion

ern boundary location for all measurements is ref

facil Location B3 is now adjacent to a slip road at the easte

Posi 4: South Boundary – B4

The Sou eferred to as B4. The boundary is mon

2.1.5 ition

th boundary location for all measurements is rcom

with a neighbouring facility.

Pos 5: Noise Sensitive Location S1

loca nity centre. It is located opposite the north west corner of the Janssen facility at Lappin’s Terrace.

2.1.6 Position 6: Noise Sensitive Location S2

This tion is near to the private residences and commu

s loc h boundary backing onto the way


Thiroad

ation.

is at the private residences opposite Janssen’s Nort

S3 is adjacent the local school-house and residences.

2.2 Survey riod Measurements were conducted over the course of two survey periods as follows:

Pe s

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 72

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

• 11:00hrs to 15:15hrs on 27.01.09; • 22:00hrs to 02:15hrs on 27/28.01.09.

The facility was reported to be operating under normal conditions for the duration of the

daytime an igh The weather throughout both survey periods was dry and calm. 2.3 Personnel and Niall Vaughan (AWN) conducted the noise level measurements during both the

daytime a h The measurements were conducted using a Brüel & Kjær Type 2260 Investigator

Sound Level Meter. Before and after the survey the measurement apparatus was check calibrated using a Brüel & Kjær Type 4231 Sound Level Calibrator.

2.4 Procedure Measuremen w sis for both measurement periods.

Sample periods were 30 minutes long during the daytime and night-time survey periods. The results were saved to the instrument memory for later analysis. Survey personnel noted all primary noise sources contributing to noise build-up.

2.5 Measure

urvey resu ing five parameters:

LAeq nd level. It is a type of average and is

LAmax

LAmin e und level measured during the

sample period.

LA10 the sound level that is exceeded for 10% of the sample period. It is typically used as a descriptor for traffic noise.

L ed for 90% of the sample period. It is

The “A” suffix denotes the fact that the sound levels have been “A-weighted” in order to

account for the non-linear nature of human hearing. All sound levels in this report are expressed in terms of decibels (dB) relative to 2x10-5 Pa. 2.6 Results 2.6.1 1: W t

d n t-ti

Ins

me

tru

su

me

rv

n

ey

tati

pe

on

rio

ds.

nd nig t-time survey periods.

ts ere conducted on a cyclical ba

e s

me

lts a

nt Parameters Th

re presented in terms of the follow

is the equivalent continuous souused to describe a fluctuating noise in terms of a single noise level over the sample period.

is the instantaneous maximum sound level measured during the sample period.

is the instantan ous minimum so

is

A90 istypically used as a descriptor for background noise.

the sound level that is exceed

Position es Boundary – B1 The results of survey measurements conducted at Position 1 are summarised in Table 1.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 73

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Measured Noise Levels

(dB re. 2x10-5 Pa) Time eriod

0

Noise Sources

eq max min 10 9

13:0 3 D 6 52 Road traffic. 0 – 1 :30 ay 5 75 49 6600:05 – 00:35 Night 52 73 46 51 47 Road traffic. Facility.

Tab Summary of results for Position 1 (B1). The ambient daytime noise environment was dominated by traffic movements from the

nearby Little Island access road and also from the Little Island main road. Cars entering and exiting the Janssen car park were noted as occasional contributors to the noise environment. Noise levels were of the order of 65dB LAeq and 52dB LA90.

For the duration of the night-time monitoring period road traffic was again noted as the

dominant source of noise at this location. Due to a reduction in the volume of traffic the noise levels were less than the daytime period. The Janssen facility was perceptible as a background noise source. Noise levels were of the order of 52dB LAeq and 47dB LA90. 2.6.2

le 1

Position 2: North Boundary – B2 The results of survey measurements conducted at Position 2 are summarised in Table 2.



eq max min 10 90

Noise Sources

12:2 2 D 6 50 Traffic. Facility. 6 – 1 :56 ay 1 76 48 6122:01 – 22:31 Night 53 71 49 53 50 Facility. Road traffic.

Table 2 Summary of results for Position 2 (B2).

Traffic movements from the Little Island main road were the most audible noise source during the daytime period. The Janssen plant operations were perceptible as a steady state background noise source. Noise levels were of the order of 61dB LAeq and 50dB LA90.

As the volume of road traffic had reduced significantly for the night-time period the Janssen

facility was now more audible. Noise emissions from the facility were broadband and ady state in characteristic. Noise levels were of the order of 53dB LAeq and 50dB .

2.6.3 sition 3: E B n r B

steLA90

Po ast ou da y – 3 The results of survey measurements conducted at Position 3 are summarised in Table 3.



eq max min 10 90

Noise Sources

11:53 – 12:23 Day 52 49 52 49 67

22:35 – 23:05 Night 49 68 47 49 47 Road traffic. Neighbouring

facilities. Facility.

Table 3 Summary of results for Position 3 (B3).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 74

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The daytime and night-time noise environment at this location were dominated by traffic

movements and noise emissions from neighbouring facilities. As the production buildings P2 and P3, which are in close proximity to this location, were not operating the Janssen facility was generally regarded as a background noise source. Noise levels were of the order of 52dB LAeq and 49dB LA90 and 49dB LAeq and 47dB LA90 for both the daytime and night-time periods respectively.

2.6.4 Position 4: South Boundary – B4 The results of survey measurements conducted at Position 4 are summarised in Table 4.



0

Noise Sources

eq max min 10 9

11:20 – 11:50 Day 62 66 60 62 61 23:08 – 23:38 Night 63 72 61 63 62

Facility. Neighbouring facility. Internal traffic.

Table 4 Summary of results for Position 4 (B4). The Janssen facility and a neighbouring facility were both considered to be equally dominant

for the daytime and night-time periods. The noise from Janssen consisted of general plant noise and emissions from the waste water treatment plant. Janssen forklift movements were also recorded as an occasional contributor during the daytime period. The noise was generally steady state and broadband in characteristic. Noise levels were of the order of 62dB LAeq and 61dB LA90 and 63dB LAeq and 62dB LA90 for both the daytime and night-time periods respectively.


The results of survey measurements conducted at Position 5 are summarised in Table 5.



0

Noise Sources

eq max min 10 9

09:34 – 10:04 Day 64 77 46 66 60 Road traffic.

00:52 – 01:22 Night 53 71 42 51 50 Road traffic. Local facilities.

Table 5 Summary of results for Position 5 (S1). Road traffic noise was noted as the primary noise source during the daytime period. This

location is in close proximity to the Little Island main road and therefore is largely influenced by traffic movements. The Janssen facility was not audible at any point during the monitoring period. Noise levels were of the order of 64dB LAeq and 60dB LA90.

For the duration of the night-time period noise emanating from traffic movements were again

regarded as the dominant noise source but to a lesser extent than the daytime monitoring period due to a reduction in the volume of traffic. Noise from the neighbouring industrial facilities was audible as a background noise source. Noise levels were of the order of 53dB LAeq and 50dB LA90.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 75

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________




0

Noise Sources

eq max min 10 9

10:09 – 10:39 Day 63 74 47 61 55 Road traffic. Pedestrian traffic.

01:28 – 01:58 Night 51 69 40 50 44 Local facilities. Occasional traffic.

Table 6 Summary of results for Position 6 (S2). The dominant noise source at S2 for the daytime period was road traffic noise. There were

occasional contributions from people talking as they passed the monitoring location. These noise contributions were considered as background noise. The Janssen facility was not audible during this monitoring period. Noise levels were of the order of 63dB LAeq and 55dB LA90.

The neighbouring industrial facilities were the most audible noise sources during the night-

time period. Occasional traffic passing the monitoring location had a significant impact on the ambient noise levels. Noise levels were of the order of 51dB LAeq and

B LA90. 2.6.7 ition 7: Noise Sensitive Location S3

44d

Pos




0

Noise Sources

eq max min 10 9

08:57 – 09:27 Day 64 77 49 65 55 Road traffic. Dog barking.

02:06 – 02:36 Night 49 71 44 49 47 Local facilities. Road traffic.

Table 7 Summary of results for Position 7 (S3). In common with locations S1 and S2 noise emissions from passing traffic dominated the

ient noise environment. A dog barking continuously in the distance was noted as ckground source of noise. Noise levels were of the order of 64dB LAeq and 55dB .

The night-time noise environment was primarily influenced by broadband plant noise from

neighbouring industrial facilities. However occasional contributions from road ic did have an impact on the ambient noise levels. Noise levels were of the order 9dB LAeq and 47dB LA90.

3.0 SOURCES

ough no longer a licence requirement under the IPPC licence, the noise sources, which e addressed under the original programme, were reviewed during this study in order to rmine their current status relative to previous studies. Many of the sources have been mmissioned, relocated or treated acoustically. Each of the sources addressed in the

inal programmes will be addressed and a current status outlined for each.

amba baLA90

the traffof 4

Althwerdetedecoorig

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 76

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Each sources that rrently active were measured and their respective levels recorded at the appropriate reference distance. The reference distance was chosen as that distance used in the original report rder to ensur omparison with previous reports and measurements. The current locati he sources a d in Figure 1. The sources are referred to by the references used in the previous studies, i.e. A, D, G, K, N, O, R, S and T e su ow and the source data is recorded in Table 16A (Appendix B). A gener cript of the sources is as follows: A - C o

The cooling tower is located towards the south west of the facility. The cooling tower is 127m from the northernorthern boundary; it is shielded from the west boundary by the production 1 building with no line of sight. The cooling tower outlet has been redirected from a northern aspect to a vertical aspect. In addition, an acoustic barrier was fitted to the base of the cooling tower during 1997. The unit is not currently discernible from the background and no measurement is noted in this report for the unit.

B – Drier Exhaust

The Drier exhaust (see F below) was originally located on the north east corner of the dryer building. The building has been significantly upgraded and the unit has been relocated along the east side of the building, where it is partly shielded. The dryer fan has been enclosed in an acoustic enclosure, which exhausts into a silencer. The exhaust is located at high level along the east side of the dryer building. A measurement has been conducted for the unit in this report.

C – Boiler Penthouse The boiler penthouse is located on the roof of the boiler house. In previous years noise from the boilers was emanating from the penthouse; the boilers have since been fitted with inlet attenuators on the blowers /burners thus making the penthouse not discernible above the background; no measurement is noted in this report for the unit.

D - York Condenser The York Condenser is located on the roof of the administration building. It is partly shielded by a parapet. An acoustic barrier was fitted during 1996 which yielded up to 9dB direct attenuation in the direction of the northern boundary. The unit is not currently discernible from the background and therefore no measurement relating to this unit has been conducted during this survey. The condenser is now a low energy source and presents no immediate source of noise impact at the north boundary. The unit was not operational during the current survey and therefore no measurement is noted in this report.

E – Flues – NE corner, General Building The boiler flues are located centrally within the general building. The flues exhibited low frequency tones and were treated in 1996 with flue attenuation. Noise from the flues are no longer discernible above the background; therefore no measurement is noted in this report.

F – Drier Extract Fan The Drier exhaust fan (see B above) was originally located on the north east corner of the dryer building. The building has been significantly upgraded and the unit has been relocated to the east side of the building where it is partly shielded. During the relocation in 1999, the dryer fan was enclosed in

of the

in oons of t

, in thal des

ooling T

are cu

e direct cre detaile

ables belurrent status

n boundary and has a direct line of sight to the

mmary tion and c

wer

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 77

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

an acoustic enclosure, which exhausts into a silencer (see B above). The exhaust is located at high level along the east side of the dryer building. No measurement is noted for F in this report.

G - Exhaust on Hydrogenation Building This exhaust is located at the south west corner of the Hydrogenation building. The unit is not currently operational due to discontinued product line, therefore the exhaust was not operational during the survey. The exhaust and its associated scrubber unit below are shielded from the north and west boundaries by the general maintenance building and Process plant no. 1 respectively. During 1996, an attenuator was fitted to this unit and, when operational, did not present any noise impact on any of the boundaries.

The unit was not discernible from the background during previous studies and was not

operational during the current survey; therefore no measurement has been conducted during this survey. H – Waste Water Agitator The wastewater facilities are located centrally on the site. The agitators are shielded from the northern boundary by the warehouse building and from the west boundaries by the dryer and process 1 buildings. No attenuation has been applied to the drive units. A measurement has been conducted during the current survey at the appropriate distance.

I – P2 Cooling Tower The P2 cooling tower is located at high level within a parapet area at the north west corner of the P2 facility. The tower is shielded entirely by the parapet surrounding the unit. No attenuation has been applied to the unit. A measurement has been conducted during the current survey at the appropriate distance.

J – Louver, East side P2 This louver is located at high level on the east face of P2; the louver is inlet to a compressor unit located in the P2 plant room. It was fitted with an inlet attenuator during 1996 and is no longer dominant above the local ambient. A measurement has been conducted during the current survey at the appropriate distance. K - Fan on NW corner of P2 This is a vertically discharging axial type fan, which is hidden behind the parapet on the roof of P2. The fan is a low energy source and during 1996 was fitted with a deflector duct that redirected the outlet away from the northern boundary. The unit is not currently dominant above the local ambient. A measurement has been conducted during the current survey at the appropriate distance. L – East Exhaust Stack on P2 This is a vertically discharging stack located on the east side of the roof of P2. The fan is a relatively low energy source. A measurement has been conducted during the current survey at the appropriate distance.

M – West Exhaust Stack on P2 This is a vertically discharging stack located on the west side of the roof of P2. The fan is a relatively low energy source. A measurement has been conducted during the current survey at the appropriate distance.

N - Vent on East Side of P2

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 78

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The vent units are located on the roof of the P2 building along the east wall; the units are low level extract fans that are shielded by the roof parapet. The fans are a relatively low energy source. A measurement has been conducted during the current survey at the appropriate distance.

O - Fans at P2 Tank Farm There are two scrubber type fans located on the mezzanine of the P2 tank farm. The units have been partially screened from the northern boundary with an acoustic barrier, which reduced the local level by 6dB and therefore the potential for noise impact at the northern boundary. During 1998, the CCB (central cleaning building) has added additional shielding to the units. They are located adjacent the east boundary (27m), from which they are not screened. The units exhibit moderate tones at 500 and 2kHz. A measurement was conducted for these units. R - Vacuum Pumps The vacuum pumps are located in a bank at the south side of the new dryer Building. During the recent construction works, the pumps have been enclosed within the extended dryer building plant room. The units will no longer be a significant source on the site and therefore no measurement was conducted during the survey.

S - Vara Exhaust

The Vara exhaust located adjacent the south boundary – 140m from the North boundary. The Vara exhaust had a direct line of sight to the northern boundary and exhibited modest drive tones at 500Hz. The extended dryer building now offers additional screening to this unit and effectively blocks the line of sight to the north boundary. A measurement was conducted during this survey.

T - Base of Cooling Tower

The base of the cooling tower is a complex series of components consisting of circulating pumps, cooling tower blower, etc. The area originally exhibited moderate tones at 1.6kHz. During 1997, the pumps were replaced and an acoustic barrier was fitted to the base of the cooling tower to shield both the pumps and cooling tower from the sensitive Northern boundary. In addition, the extended dryer building offers additional screening to the base of the tower. A measurement relating to this unit was conducted during this survey.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 79

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION At the noise sensitive locations the ambient daytime noise environment was dominated by

road traffic movements and it was noted that the Janssen facility was not audible during the daytime period.

The night-time measurements at the noise sensitive locations were subject to noise

emissions from road traffic. Therefore the LA90 parameter is a more suitable parameter of possible noise emissions from the Janssen facility. However for the sake of completeness we have also included the LAeq values.

The LA90 parameter is indicative of steady state background noise levels when other intermittent noise sources such as road traffic are contributing to noise levels. The LAeq is an equivalent continuous steady sound level and is therefore affected by contributions from noisy events of short duration, such as a car driving by. At Janssen Pharmaceuticals, where the noise environment is generally steady state, the LA90 is a more indicative parameter of the noise emissions emanating from e facility. Tables 8 and 9 below compare the night-time LAeq and LA90 levels monitored at sensitive surveys.

Reference Description LAeq (dB) 2009

LAeq (dB) 2008

LAeq (dB) 2007

LAeq (dB) 2006

LAeq(dB) 2005 2004 2003

thlocations with previous

LAeq (dB)

LAeq (dB)

S1 Area 1 53 49 Sensitive 52 55 49 53 47

S2 Sensitive Area 2 41 42 44 47 47 48 47

S3 Sensitive 49 44 44 47 46 47 48

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 80

N ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 81

Area 3

_

Table 8 t time levels with previous surveys

erence DLA90 LA90 LA90 LA90 LA90 A90

03

Comparison of Measured LAeq nigh

Ref escription (dB) 2009

(dB) 2008

(dB) 2007

(dB) 2006

(dB) 2005

LA90 L(dB) 2004

(dB) 20

S1 Sensitive Area 1 50 44 45 42 44 44 45

S2 nsitive Area 2 44 39 42 45 46 43 45 Se

S3 Sensitive Area 3 47 42 42 45 45 43 44

Tab n of s

For the duration of the night-time monitoring periods at the noise sensitive locations noise emissions from other neighbouring facilities were noted as significant contributors. With regard to this and the night-time values recorded at the noise sensitive locations it could theref conclu e Janssen meet cothe relevant noise section of their IPPC licence.

le 9 Compariso Measured LA90 night time levels with previous survey

ore be ded that th facility would mpliance with

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

___ ____ ____ ____ ____ _______________ _____ ____

Page 83

_______ ____ ______________ _______ _______ ___ __________

______

Noise Monitori2

ng Location B

Noise MonB3

itoring Location

Nois ing ion B1

e Monitor Locat Noise MoB4

nitoring Location

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A

1/3 Octave Band Centre Frequency Data (Hz)

Description Reference

50

63

80

100

125

160

200

250

315

400

500

630

800

1k

1.25k

1.6k

2k

2.5k

3.15k

4k

5k

6.3k

8k

10k

A

B1 Daytime 48 47 48 45 39 41 37 35 34 33 33 34 34 35 33 32 31 31 31 29 27 24 21 5 16 6B2 Daytime 57 57 56 53 49 45 43 43 40 38 39 39 40 39 39 37 36 35 35 33 32 31 28 1 25 6B3 Daytime 59 63 59 56 57 51 50 48 47 47 47 47 48 49 48 46 43 40 37 35 32 28 26 2 22 5B4 Daytime 59 58 57 52 47 48 47 43 44 40 40 40 41 42 41 39 36 34 33 32 30 28 25 2 22 6S1 Daytime 23 26 27 29 30 32 32 31 34 38 37 37 37 38 37 36 34 34 33 32 30 26 22 4 17 6S2 Daytime 30 33 35 35 32 33 35 38 38 38 40 42 44 44 44 42 41 40 40 39 38 35 32 3 29 6S3 Daytime 31 36 38 39 38 37 39 40 41 41 44 45 48 50 50 49 47 44 42 40 37 35 33 4 29 6B1 Night-time 46 46 44 45 41 43 41 42 42 41 42 42 42 41 40 37 35 33 31 28 25 21 19 2 18 5B2 Night-time 53 53 53 52 44 43 41 40 36 35 34 33 34 34 33 31 28 26 25 23 24 21 19 3 17 5B3 Night-time 55 53 55 57 49 46 45 43 44 45 45 43 44 44 44 42 39 35 31 27 24 20 17 9 15 4B4 Night-time 49 50 47 46 45 44 42 39 40 33 31 32 32 35 34 32 29 25 23 20 18 15 13 3 /// 6S1 Night-time 25 28 32 34 33 34 35 35 35 34 34 36 40 41 40 37 35 34 33 32 30 28 25 3 22 5S2 Night-time 26 30 37 40 33 34 37 35 34 35 38 41 43 45 45 44 41 37 34 31 28 25 22 1 19 4S3 Night-time 23 28 31 30 30 33 32 31 31 30 30 32 35 38 38 36 34 32 31 30 28 25 23 9 19 4

/// Represents Under Range Values

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 84

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX B Section 16 Tables

Tabl ne 16A - Noise Emissio s Noise Sources Summary Sheet Janss .Jan. '

en P09

harmaceutical Ltd Little Island, Cork

Measurement Detail Octave Bands (Hz)

8k

Iq mpulsive

ualities Emissi

Perioon d Comments Locatio

Ref. n SPL LAeq

Ref.(

Dist m) dB W 63

250

2k

4k

gt 125

500

1k

Description

Drier Exhaust LAeq 7 76 76 76 7B 75 1 6 76 76 6 76 None 24 hr Unchanged since '07 Waste Water Agitator LAeq 7 75 75 75 7H 77 1 5 75 75 5 75 None 24 hr Unchanged since '05

Cooling Tower P2 LAeq 7 75 75 75 7I 77 2 5 75 75 5 75 None 24 hr Unchanged since '07 Louver East Side P2 LAeq 7 70 70 70 7J 67 1 0 70 70 0 70 None 24 hr Unchanged since '07

Extract Fan, NW corner P LAeq 6 68 68 68 6 No2 K 70 1 8 68 68 8 68 ne 24 hr Unchanged since '07 East Stack, P2 Roof L 70 1 LAeq 68 68 68 68 68 6 No68 8 68 ne 24 hr Up 1 dB since '08 West Stack, P2 Roof 7 LAeq 68 68 68 68 68 6 NoM 1 1 68 8 68 ne 24 hr Unchanged since '07

Vents, Roof P2, East side 7 LAeq 78 78 78 78 78 7 NoN 7 1 78 8 78 ne 24 hr Unchanged since '07 Fans P2, Tank farm 6 LAeq 70 70 70 70 70 70 7 No sinO 7 1 0 70 ne 24 hr Unchanged ce '05

Vara Exhaust 7 LAeq 78 78 78 78 78 78 7 No sinS 6 1 8 78 ne 24 hr Unchanged ce '07 Base of Cooling Tower 7 LAeq 73 73 73 73 73 73 7 No sincT 6 1 3 73 ne 24 hr Up 1 dB e '08

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 85

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 16C - Noise Impact Predicted Boundary Impact

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd, Little Island, Cork Jan. '09Distance to Boundary (m) Predicted Levels – dB(A) Map Ref. Description

Nth South East West Nth South East West

B Drier Exhaust 102 72 135 95 38 41 35 38

H Waste Water Agitator 130 37 115 117 35 46 36 36

I Cooling Tower P2 85 85 45 170 35 35 41 29

J Louver East Side P2 90 90 22 195 27 27 39 20

K Extract Fan, NW corner P2 92 77 50 167 33 34 38 28

L East Stack, P2 Roof 95 80 32 182 30 32 40 25

M West Stack, P2 Roof 92 75 47 172 31 32 37 25

N Vents, Roof P2, East side 107 67 37 185 33 37 43 29

O Fans P2, Tank farm 107 67 27 195 26 30 38 21

S Vara Exhaust 140 33 150 85 35 48 34 39

T Base of Cooling Tower 127 45 162 65 34 43 32 40

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 86

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________ ____ ____ ___

Page 87

_______ _________________ _________________

________

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________ ____ _____ _______________ ____

Page 88

Appendix C : Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan

____ __________ _____________ _______ ____________

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________ ________ _______________ ____

Page 89

[User Note1]

Janssen Ltd.

Pharmaceutical

IPPC LicRequire

ence ments

Closure, AftercarePlan 200

ISSUE 1

Resto Mana9

ration andgement

____________ ______________ ______________ __________ _____________

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________ ____ ___________________ __________

Page 90

_______ ________________ __________ __________

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 91

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________


IPPC Licence Requirements

Closure, Restoration and

s

partyArup Co

15 OliveTel +353www.aru

Aftercare Management Plan 2009

March 2009

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirementof our client. It is not intended for and should not berelied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third

nsulting Engineers

r Plunkett Street, Cork 21 4277670 Fax +353 21 4272345 p.ie Job number C1147.18

N _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Document Verification[User Note2]

Page 1 of 1

Job numberJob title

C1147.18

IPPC Licence Requirements

File referenceDocument title

Document ref

Revision

Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan 2009

Date Filename RMP 2009 - CRAMP - Draft 2 C1147.18.docDescription First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Ria Lyden Don Menzies Eoghan Lynch

Draft 1

nature

07/01/09

Sig

Filename RMP 2009 - CRAMP – Issue 1 C1147.18.doc Description First Issue

Issue 1 26/03/09



Signature

Filename Description

L:\SHAREDDATA\DATA\ENVIRON\2008AER\AER 2008VS4.DOC

Arup Consulting Engineers

Issue 1 26 March 2009


Name

Signature



Name

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. IPPC Licence RequirementsClosure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan 2009




C

1 2 3 SIT3.1 Description of Site and Surroundings ...................................................................................................6 3.2 Facility Description and History.............................................................................................................8 3.3 Facility Compliance Status..................................................................................................................12 3.4 Facili3.5 Inven3.6 Raw 4 CLOSURE CONSIDERATIONS 18 4.1 Asse4.2 Clean4.3 Plant4.4 Wast4.5 Soil o5 CRAMP COSTING 5.1 Plant5.2 Ongo5.3 Facili ..26 5.4 Internal Resource Requirements 5.5 Total5.6 Fund ...................................................................................................27 5.7 Cramp plan update and review ...........................................................................................................28 6 6.1 EPA 6.2 Local7 CRA7.1 Closu ...........................................................................................29 7.2 Closure Validation Audit Report ..........................................................................................................29 7.3 Closure Validation Certificate..............................................................................................................29

Figu Site L App

Site LayoutAppendix AScreening

ontents[User Note3]

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

INTRODUCTION 5BACKGROUND 5

E EVALUATION 6

ty Process and Operations .........................................................................................................13 tory of Site Buildings and Plant, Raw Materials and Wastes .....................................................17 Materials 18

ssment of Potential Risks............................................................................................................18 or Non-clean Closure Declaration ............................................................................................21

and Equipment Decontamination and Disposal or Recovery Requirements ............................21 e Disposal or Recovery...............................................................................................................24 r Spoil Removal ..........................................................................................................................24

26 Decommissioning and Waste Disposal Costs ...........................................................................26 ing Monitoring .............................................................................................................................26 ty Security and Staffing.............................................................................................................

........................................................................................................26 Cost 27 ing of CRAMP ..........................

CRAMP IMPLEMENTATION 29 Notification 29 Authority Notification..................................................................................................................29 MP VALIDATION 29

re Validation Audit ...........................

res

ayout

endices

and Operational Risk Assessment



Page i Arup Consulting Engineers


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ja P ittle Island, Co. Cork manufactures Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) for human use. Production is by organic synthesis using batch processing. The bulk pharm

Someweek.associ

This CsatisfyLicenfollowing sub-clauses 14.2.1 and 14.2.2 of Condition 14.

14.2.1 “Thecosteshall s of the date of g

14.2.2 “The plan shall be reviewed annually and pragenwitho cy”. The 2 on in the plan to determine if there have been any chathat the

As part ofJanssen’s reshould be environmen

Janssen has ite. Two possible scenarios in the event of

• Do-Not

• Do-Som

The do- himplementin AMP was implem

It should be & Johnson, something scenario

The scosite acti eenvisaged for the site. The basis of the plan isfacility public healt

It is nwill be distributed to sister plants in the event of a shut down.

Janssesupple

nssen harmaceutical Ltd., located at L

product is exported throughout the world for formulation and packaging as finished aceutical products.

215 people are employed at the plant, which operates twenty-four hours per day, five days per It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, the US healthcare company, and is an ate company of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, in Belgium.

losure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP) has been updated in 2009 to Condition 14 of the Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control

ce (IPPC), Licence number P0016-02. In particular, this Plan has been updated to satisfy the

licensee shall prepare, to the satisfaction of the Agency, a fully detailed and d plan for the decommissioning or closure of the site or part thereof. This plan

be submitted to the Agency for agreement within six monthrant of this licence”.

oposed revisions thereto notified to the cy for agreement as part of the AER. No amendments shall be implemented ut the written agreement of the Agen009 update comprises a review of the informati

nces in site conditions or infrastructure and a review of the financial provisions to ensure provisions remain adequate.

Johnson & Johnson Sustainability Practices Environmental Planning Policy, it is sponsibility to ensure that any business transaction involving the divestiture of a facility, preceded by an environmental due diligence to assess and quantify potential

tal liabilities associated with the transaction.

no current plans to decommission part, or all, of the s a shutdown of the facility were considered.

hing

ething

not ing scenario describes the situation of potential risks if the facility was vacated without g the CRAMP. The do-something scenario describes the potential risks if the CRented.

noted that a do-nothing scenario is not consistent with the divestiture policy of Johnson and hence Janssen. Consequently, Janssen propose to implement the do-

, i.e., implement the CRAMP.

pe of this Plan addresses the key issues, which would occur in an orderly shutdown of all the viti s on a phased basis over an estimated time period of 3-6 months. Clean closure is

to ensure that, upon completion of the Plan, the would be in a suitable state for future industrial use and its condition would not pose a risk to

h and safety or the environment.

ot intended to remove all structures or systems from the site. In general, specialist equipment

n intends to utilise existing staff resources to form a team to manage and execute the plan, mented where appropriate by outside resources. This CRAMP Team would be responsible



Page ii Arup Consulting Engineers


for mdispos ctivities would be fully approved and licensed.

anaging and executing the complete plan. Outside contractors required for cleaning, waste al, incineration or recycling a



Page iii Arup Consulting Engineers


It is eEnvir following the comProtection Aprogramme and of the status of the plan.

Particul a CRAMP. In general, care and sure that the potential risks associated with the Plan are avoided. In the event of a spillage, leak or fire during decomm d in order to minimis h

The cequipwill bclosur 7 Plan have been revised in line with t ex.

It is elist of

Table

Item Estimated

stimated that the duration of decommissioning and decontaminating would be 3 to 6 months. onmental monitoring would continue while the plan is in operation and for a period

pletion of the plan to be determined by the EPA and/or local authority. The Environmental gency (EPA) and the local authority would be informed of the results of the monitoring

ar ctions are required for specific areas of the facility as part of the attention will be given during the implementation of the Plan to en

issioning, Janssen’s Emergency Response Plan would be fully implementee t e risk to health and the environment.

osts associated with decommissioning are generally related to the disposal and recycling of ment and the use of external resources to implement the CRAMP. In certain instances, costs e recouped through the sale of equipment or materials. The expected costs associated with site e are outlined in this section. The costs presented in the 200he consumer price ind

xpected that external resources will be required in order to implement the CRAMP in full. A these resources and associated costs is shown in Table 1 below.

1: Decommissioning and Waste Disposal Costs

Cost (€)

Transportation of tanks off site 391,550Transportation of other goods 130,544Decontamination 78,310Incineration 65,841Recycling 19,578Disposal costs 65,841Civiand

l and structural, mechanical, electrical instrumentation contractors

1,174,906

Subtotal 1,926,570 Contin ency (25%) g 481,642 Total 2,408,212

Note:Nove

http:/

It is e t a cost of approximately €2.41m would be incurred to decommission the site, includin ex

It is est onitoring.

A num uld be required to remain on site for a period of 3-6 months to successfully P.

These a e llows:

2 Security Labor rAdministOther staf

The cost of

The Central Statistics Office website gives the annual consumer price index to the end of mber 2008 as 2.5%, for all sectors. Refer to:

/www.cso.ie/releasespublications/pr_prices.htm) (accessed in January 2009).

stimated thag ternal resources costs.

imated that a cost of €52,214 would be incurred during ongoing m

ber of staff members wo implement the CRAM

re stimated as fo

Management 4

ato y 3 ration 2 f 5 continuing to employ these staff members is expected to be in the region of €567,594.



Page iv Arup Consulting Engineers


The total cregion of ition, to maintain an on-going security, safety and environmental monitoring presence at the site would cost approxim

Janssen, a than adeqManageme

ost associated with executing a CRAMP at the Little Island site is estimated to be in the €3.02m. In add

ately €45,408 per annum.

subsidiary of the Johnson & Johnson Corporation, confirms that the company has more uate resources from operations to fund the Closure Restoration and Aftercare nt Plan.



Page 5 Arup Consulting Engineers


1. INTRODUCTION ental

r 2005. The

revised

14.2.1 The plan shall be reviewed annually and proposed revisions thereto notified to agreement as part of the AER. No amendments shall be

ssment, Residuals Management Plans and

re, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan or an Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment,

a and and

as determined from the site specific risk category determined sessment.

The Screening and Operational Risk Assessment determined that the Janssen plant falls within Risk Category 3 facilities the Guidance document suggests that a C u t Plan is required. The contents of the 2007 revision of the Residuals Managem followed that of a Closure Restoration and A rc nt Plan in the Guidance document. A copy of the Screening and O ra provided in Appendix 1.

T d re Restoration and Aftercare M areference to the cost examples given in Appendix E of the Guidance document.

2. BACKGROUND Janssen Pharm Little Island, Co. Cork manufactures Active P m nts (APIs) for human use. Production is by organic synthesis using batch processing. The bulk product is exported throughout the world for formulation and pa a roducts.

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd submitted a Residuals Management Plan to the EnvironmAgency in July 2005 and the plan was approved by the Agency in OctobeResiduals Management Plan was prepared to satisfy Condition 14 of the revised Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control (IPPC) Licence, issued in January 2005. (Note: The licence has been re-numbered P0016-02 under the EPA’s numbering system. The original number was 732.)

In particular, the plan was prepared to satisfy the sub-clause 14.2.1 of Condition 14.

“14.2.1 The licensee shall prepare, to the satisfaction of the Agency, a fully detailed and costed plan for the decommissioning or closure of the site or part thereof. This plan shall be submitted to the Agency for agreement within six months of the date of grant of this licence”.

Sub clause 14.2.2 requires the plan to be reviewed annually.

the agency for implemented without the written agreement of the Agency.

Since the preparation of the original Residuals Management Plan, the Agency has published Guidance on Environmental Liability Risk AsseFinancial Provision (EPA 2006). For the 2007 review of the Residuals Management Plan, Janssen obtained the Agency’s agreement to amend the plan to follow more closely the recommended format of a Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan, as outlined in the Guidance document.

The first step recommended in the Guidance document, in the preparation of a Closu

is Screening and Operational Risk Assessment. Janssen undertook a ScreeningOperational Risk Assessment of its plant. The requirement for a Closure, Restoration Aftercare Management Plan wfrom the Screening and Operational Risk As

Category 3. For Risk los re, Restoration and Aftercare Managemen

ent Plan fte are Managemepe tional Risk Assessment was

his ocument presents the 2009 review and update of the Closuan gement Plan. Janssen has revised the Plan’s costings in line with inflation and with

aceutical Ltd., located at har aceutical Ingredie

ck ging as finished pharmaceutical p





n Johnson purchased a small manufacturing plant from Pilmar

eerse, in Belgium.

the requirements under the IPPC licence, as part of the Johnson & Johnson

th the transaction.

3. SITE EVALUATION

3.1

3.1.1

T imately 8km east of Cork City. It is bounded to the north by to the north of which is located a residential area. To the south, the site is bounded by two industrial plants, FMC Biopolymers and Corden PharmM s is the site of an

igure 1.0

3.1.

in general is an industrial location, but it also has a long established residential element. Recreational facilities on the island include two golf courses. Carrigrenan, at the south-eastern part of the island, is the location of Cork City Cork City municipal sewage treatment plant.

f the River Lee and Blackrock and Mahon, which are residential suburbs of Cork City. To the south there is the West Passage, which

f Passage West. Fota Island, which is the location is situated to the east of Little Island.

of Little Island is delineated by the N25 Cork to Rosslare national

3.1.3 S

There are no streams or drainage ditches within the site or at the site boundaries. The nearest surface water is Lough Mahon, in the upper part of Cork Harbour. Lough Mahon is approximately 800m to the south of the Janssen plant.

I 1981, Johnson & Pharmachemicals Ltd., which had been built in 1979, in the Little Island IDA Industrial Estate. Janssen has upgraded and added facilities over the years. Initially the site was 1.6 hectares (4 acres) and it now covers 5.7 hectares (14 acres). Some 215 people are employed at the plant, which operates twenty-four hours per day, five days per week. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, the US healthcare company, and is an associate company of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, B

In addition to Sustainability Practices Environmental Planning Policy, it is Janssen’s responsibility to ensure that any business transaction involving the divestiture of a facility, should be preceded by an environmental due diligence to assess and quantify potential environmental liabilities associated wi

Description of Site and Surroundings

Janssen Site

he Janssen facility is located approx the Little Island road (the R623)

achem, while to the east another industrial plant, Cork Plastics, borders the site. The iddle Road forms the western boundary of the Janssen site and beyond thi

industrial plant, which has been demolished.

The site topography is generally quite flat at a level of approximately 12m Ordnance Datum. Apart from isolated undulations there is an average height differential across the site of only 1 to 2 metres.

The site layout is shown in F

2 Local Area

Little Island forms a peninsula which projects into Lough Mahon in the upper part of Cork Harbour. Little Island

To the west of Little Island there is the mouth o

leads to the Lower Harbour and the village oof Fota Wildlife Park and Fota Island Golf Course,

The northern extentprimary road. Beyond this is the largely residential area of Glounthaune.

urface Water





r to discharge

hamber outlet valve closes if contamination is detected by the (TOC or pH outside the preset action limits). Contaminated

retention tank where it is stored and later sampled to determine the appropriate m

3.1.4 S

3.1.4.1

rown Earth Group of soils, which are mature, well-drained aterial is for the most part a glacial till composed of stony,

ness from zero (rock outcrop south of the tank farm) to

Steep shelving of the rockhead was also reported in the south and south-ea rTheresite. phy may be locations of ancient rivers or infilled karstic features such as dolines.

The slargel ded lime-mudstones, wackestones and packstones, many of them containing original cavities filled with internalce

3.1.

Overburden

uch of the ere are thick

Groundwater flow in the overburde

Groun ate within the rock. This in turn is dependent on the the amlogs of som a relatively high degree of fracturing and jointing indicating high transm

A report by of Ireland (Geology of South Cork, 1994) indicates that the

uifer.

Surface water from the Janssen facility consists of storm water runoff from roads, hardstanding and roof surfaces. The storm water from the site is collected in a drainage system, which drains to a Storm water Monitoring Chamber for monitoring prioto the offsite drainage system.

The TOC and pH of the storm water discharge are monitored continuously and there is a visual inspection on a weekly basis.

The Storm water Monitoring Ccontinuous monitoring systemwater will then overflow from the surface water monitoring chamber to the inlet sump of the firewater

ethod of disposal.

oil and Groundwater Conditions

Soil and Bedrock

The site is underlain by the Bmineral soils. The overburden msometimes sandy clays with boulders.

The overburden ranges in thickapproximately 3m over much of the site. However, steep shelving of the rockhead was recorded in the south-eastern part of the site where a borehole was drilled to 31 m without intersecting bedrock.

ste n parts of the site when excavations were carried out for the septic tank installation. was also a steep depression in the bedrock topography at the central western part of the These hollows in the bedrock topogra

ite is underlain by Waulsortian limestones from the Lower Carboniferous. These are y massive unbed

sediments and fibrous and blocky sparry ments.

4.2 Groundwater

The overburden deposits provide a very thin mantle (generally less than 2m) over msite and play a minor role in terms of the hydrogeology of the site. Where thdeposits they are composed chiefly of sands, silts and clays, which directly overlie the rock.

n deposits is by primary porosity and it is highly likely that groundwater is in hydraulic continuity with the bedrock.

Bedrock

dw r flow in Irish limestones is controlled by fissure flow mechanisms amount of faulting and fracturing present and also on

ount of solutional development that has taken place in the fissures. The geotechnical e boreholes indicated issivity values for the limestone.

the Geological SurveyWaulsortian limestones in the South Cork region are considered to be a major or regionally important aq





w d is surrounded on three sides by the Lough Mahon estuary and the

uth from the eastern part of the

e

3.1.4.3 nd S c

a Special Area of Conservation. This end of Little Island. The proposed

form d on Little Island. A part of the proposed National Heritage Area no. 1082, inder of the proposed National rth west corner of Little Island.

2. 1054 Glanmire Wood

rea of Conservation

le Shore and number 1074, Rockfarm Quarry, are proposed as Special Protection Areas.

3.1.5 Archaeological Features

No archaeological sites are recorded within the Janssen site boundary. However, a number of sites were found in very close proximity. These included Wallingstown graveyard, church, and castle (SMR 075:020/01/02; 075:021) and the site of two early medieval water mills (SMR075:052).

3.2 Facility Description and History

3.2.1 General

Since 1981 the original facilities have been greatly extended and upgraded. Two additional process plants, waste water treatment plant, solvent tank farm, new drum storage building, warehouse, cleaning building, hydrogenation building (currently decommissioned), carbon adsorption plant, utilities for the provision of steam, cooling water, process water, and an administration building, offices and logistics/laboratories building have been added. The site layout is shown in Figure 1.0.

Multipurpose production facilities have been provided so that the plant has the flexibility to produce a range of products. Production is by batch processing and there are no continuous processes.

3.2.2 Summary of the Main Elements of the Facility

There are three organic synthesis processing plants at Janssen. In addition to the production facilities, there are various ancillary facilities, for example, solvent storage and provision of

Ho ever, as Little Islanarea of the entire Island is only some 7 km2, then the aquifer status of Little Island in its entirety can at best be classified as Locally Important. Any saline intrusion would further limit the significance of this potential local aquifer.

Groundwater flows radially outwards to the west, north and sosite.

Th re is no tidal influence on the water table at the Janssen site.

Proximity to Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) ape ial Protection Areas (SPAs)

The Great Island Channel number 1058 is proposed as covers the tidal shallows and mudflats at the easternNational Heritage Area (NHA) number 1074, Rockfarm Quarry, which is a geological

ation, is locateDunkettle Shore, is also located in Little Island. The remaHeritage Area No. 1082, Dunkettle Shore, is adjacent to the noThere are two proposed National Heritage Areas close to Little Island. These are:

1. 1046 Douglas River Estuary

The North Channel part of the Great Island Channel proposed Special Aand all of the Douglas River Estuary proposed National Heritage Area are also designated as a Special Protection Areas for birds. The remainder of the Great Island Channel proposed Special Area of Conservation, and the proposed National Heritage Areas no. 1082, Dunkett





3.2.

ided into two sections, a two storey wet production

section, the processing design is a vertical, gravity flow arrangement. Solids charging of the

or. The four reaction vessels, the centrifuges and the dryers can be

incorporating three modules and

e receiver, a filtrate receiver and waste receiver. These receivers are 2000 litre 316L Stainless S lso function as a

M ill be carried out us cilitate solids charging using IBCs. Vessel heating and cjaliquor

Module 3 has a 0.5m reactor dissolution vessel and a 0.5m crystalliser. The isolation gn centrifuge dryer. Discharge from the centrifuge dryer will go to

ack-off.

3.2.

The m

3.2.3.1 A

The western ² of offices and locker rooms on two floors. The Admiand F

The estores

utilities. The processing plants and ancillary services are briefly described in the following sections.

2.1 Plant 1

The ground floor houses four centrifuges and a centrifuge dryer. The first mezzanine floor is the main chemical reaction vessel floor and houses eleven reaction vessels along with their associated addition and reflux vessels. On the second mezzanine floor, the primary condensers and secondary condensers for the individual reaction vessels are located.

3.2.2.2 Plant 2

Process Plant 2 was constructed in 1992-93. It is divpowder handling unit and a four storey wet production section. In the Plant 2

reaction vessels takes place on the top floor. Four reaction vessels are located on the second floor. Two centrifuges are located underneath on the first floor and the two dryers are located at the ground flointerconnected via a manifold to provide a wide range of alternative configurations ensuring the maximum flexibility in production operations.

The powder handling unit of Plant 2 is also based on a vertical gravity flow arrangement. The section houses two mills and equipment for sieving, blending and packing. Each major item is contained within its own cell to prevent cross contamination of products.

3.2.2.3 Plant 3

The Plant 3 facility comprises a Production Buildingancillary support facilities.

Module 1 has two 4m3 glass lined reactors/crystallisers and three receivers – a distillat

teel tanks. Product isolation will be carried out using a centrifuge, which can adryer when required.

odule 2 has three 4m3 glass lined reaction vessels. Product isolation wing a centrifuge dryer. The reaction vessels will be equipped with glove-boxes to fa

ooling will be achieved by use of dedicated cket heating/cooling skids. Module 2 has three receivers, a distillate receiver, a mother

receiver and waste receiver. 3 3

equipment is a sterile desian agitated hopper prior to discharging to a continuous liner p

3 Ancillary Facilities

ain ancillary facilities are briefly detailed below.

dministration Buildings

part houses approximately 340mnistration Building houses personnel from the Human Resources, Information Services inance departments.

astern part is single storey and is divided into three sections, the boiler house, the general area (note: process materials are not stored here) and an electrical substation.





The bBoiler blow-down is discharged to the effluent plant.

3.2.3.2 D

The maintenance engineering workshop and the drying room are on the ground floor of the

to solids processing. Currently, all drying

end of the dryer building, added in 1999. This contains two dryers and a mill, each the third floor of

The Process Development laboratories and offices are on the first floor of the Dryer Building.

3.2.3.3

Prwastewater treatm

The waste discharged to the plant is initiallypucausti tream is then pumped into the aeration carousel. The w the final clarifier, where the sl

Tvia an ul sewer, which has been taken in charge for licensing puthicke echanical dewatering. The dewatered sludge is sent off-site for di

3.2.3.4 C

t 2 are provided with scrubbers to which process vessel vent gases are ducted, d to a central carbon adsorption system

3.2.

k (2m³ capacity), is currently unused. The total installed capacity is

oiler house contains three steam boilers (fired by natural gas). They are separately flued.

ryer Building

Dryer Building.

The south end of the building is dedicated operations for Plant 1 product including loading and unloading are carried out in this area.

There is an open drying room containing two dryers. There is a four storey extension on the south located in a dedicated processing suite. There is a common plant room onthis extension, housing AHUs, a CIP system and air compressors. There are also dedicated plant rooms for the processing equipment located within the extension.

The maintenance workshop and offices are located at the north end of the building. There is also a small store for lubricating and hydraulic oils.

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)

ocess sewers, containing water from phase separation processes, are discharged to the ent plant. The Treatment Plant is an Activated Sludge Plant.

equalised in the equalisation basin prior to be mped into the neutralisation tanks. Here the wastewater is neutralised by the addition of

c and carbonic acid . The waste saste is aerated and biologically degraded and transferred toudge solids settle out.

he clarified or final wastewater is discharged over an outfall weir and flows from the plant underground pipe to the fo

rposes by Cork County Council. The sludge removed from the clarifier is treated by ning, conditioning and m

sposal.

arbon Adsorption System for Abatement of Emissions to Air

Plant 1 and Planas appropriate. From the scrubbers the gases are ductefor treatment.

The control of air emissions is guided by the philosophy of reduction at source and by the use of appropriate end of line treatment.

3.5 Solvent Tank Farms

The Plant 1 tank farm installation is divided into five bunded areas. Twenty stainless steel tanks for storage of solvents are installed in four of these areas. The fifth bunded area is the manifold area. Nine tanks are used for waste solvent and mother liquor storage and ten for virgin solvent. One tanapproximately 500m³.

The Plant 2 tank farm is adjacent to Plant 2. It comprises six mother liquor and centrifuge liquor storage tanks and a waste solvent bulk tank. These tanks are located within a concrete bund. The total installed capacity is approximately 85m³.





met vel gauges are used for stock

For ents are supplied in a 50m³ solvent storage tank. Waste liquids are capacity of 30m³). There is the facility to transfer he tanks (and the loading/unloading areas) are

bu

tem our space of the vessel thus preventing the development of a

3.2.

the drum store, warehouse and staging areas.

The drum store is a single storey building, with a roof and is enclosed on three sides. The u o sections house liquid raw materials in 200 litre drums

sed to store containers (e.g. ec ery or incineration.The

t 1 and for the storage of interm

Ware

Tthe st the storage of finished product, which is also held in drums , IBCs, and FIBC’s.

down area for

3.2.3.7 L

The Qualityraw mclassi are analysed prior to their dispatch and accepted on site on the basis of certificates of analysis.

r site is monitored on a weekly basis by the Quality Control and is also

responsible for the analythorgan ng.

nology Department of Janssen operates a small process development lab to

Pla

The tank farms are connected to Plants 1 and 2 with piping installed on a piperack. Flow ers are installed to measure the pumped quantities, whilst le

control.

Plant 3, bulk solvcollected locally in two tanks (each with a the waste to the existing storage tanks. T

nded.

A nitrogen blanket is maintained on all storage vessels. The purpose of the blanketing sysis to exclude air from the vapflammable atmosphere. In addition the system prevents the creation of a vacuum in the tank. Breathing losses are vented to the carbon adsorption system.

3.6 Storage Areas

The main storage areas at the facility include

Drum Store

fo rth side has five large openings. Twand 1m³ intermediate bulk containers (IBCs). Two sections are u drums, IBCs and FIBCs) of liquid and solid waste for recycling, r ovremaining section , known as the staging area , is used as a laydown area for Plan

ediates awaiting further processing .

house

he warehouse is a single storey building divided into two sections. One section is used for orage of solid raw materials in drums, IBCs etc. The second section is used for

Staging Area

The work-in-progress store building known as the Staging Area, is used as a layPlant 1 and for the storage of intermediates waiting further processing.

aboratories

Control laboratories (including microbiology) are responsible for the testing of all aterials, intermediate, and APIs on-site. All incoming process materials are tested and

fied as appropriate. Some materials originating from other Janssen companies

Pu ified water produced onMicrobiology laboratories for chemical and microbial properties. Quality Control

tical testing of Intermediate and API products. Tests carried out on ese materials may include infra-red assay, loss on drying, chromatographic purity and

ic volatile residues. Laboratory personnel also carry out in-process testi

The Chemical Techprovide a backup service to production to enable the smooth running of all chemical processes.

lant 3 has a microbiological laboratory to support the aseptic suite in particular. The boratory is located in the Headblock.





3.2.3.8 L

T e facility (off Middle Road). The ground floor contains the . Site security is also located he of the Logistics building.

3.2.3.9

The Cfor Pl

3.2.4

Phenitrog

Ncoolin ich enables a temperature range from -6°C to + 160°C to be provided. The re i ting and cooling system that S

Plant 3 has all the services that Plants 1 and 2 have currently. The following utilities are generated in the Central Utilities Building (CUB), remote from the Plant 3 Production Building: Plant Steam; Chilled Water; Heat Transfer Medium; Compressed/Breathing Air.

is generated local to

3.2.

nd associated with contractor companies who are onsite for

3.3.

t. Approximately 16 tonnes of contaminated soil was

n of groundwater is ongoing.

3.3.

ogistics Building

he Logistics building is located to the south of the main entrance to thcanteen and a first aid room

re. The QC laboratories (chemical) are located on the first floor

Plant 3 Central Utilities Building (CUB)

entral Utilities Building houses the plant steam boiler and refrigerant chilling capacity ant 3.

Utilities

lants 1 and 2 and other process areas are supplied with warm and cold water, electricity, ating and ventilation, steam, cooling water, chilled water, deionised water, compressed air,

en and vacuum.

ine of the eleven Plant 1 reaction vessel installations are provided with a direct heating and g system wh

ma ning two reactors are provided with an indirect glycol/water heaoperates between -6ºC and 140ºC. The Plant 2 reactors are provided with an indirect

yltherm heating and cooling system that operates between -20ºC and 140ºC.

Water For Injection (WFI); Clean Steam; Purified Water and Sterile Air the Plant 3 process building:

5 Contractor Compound

There is a contractor compouextended periods of time. The contractors will be required to decommission and remove all equipment, materials and waste, storage units and temporary offices from the site, as part of the site decommissioning process.

3.3 Facility Compliance Status

1 IPPC Licence Compliance

Historically, Janssen has been in full compliance with emission limits. Groundwater monitoring has indicated that the groundwater entering and under the site has low levels of contamination, with substances which are not in use in the Janssen plant.

On 16 April 2007 Janssen notified the EPA of a diesel spill at Janssen resulting in the release of up to 6,000 litres of diesel onto the ground and into the groundwater. The ground contamination is regarded as significanremoved from the site on the 19 April and incinerated. There is a large area of contaminated ground around the area already excavated that sits under a generator, roads etc. It is not planned to excavate this area but remediate it insitu.

Localised contamination of the groundwater with diesel has been detected in the vicinity of the spill. Three groundwater wells were installed and groundwater is pumped via a hydrocarbon interceptor to the WWTP. Pumping and remediatio

2 Ongoing Compliance

The plant has been in full compliance with its licence since the incident in 2007.





3.4

3.4.

3.4.

involves the processing of raw materials with input of solvent and utilities, such as steam, nitrogen, cooling water, and the generation of intermediates (which are processed further), final product and wastes. In accordance with the Master Formula for the particular product, two powdered materials are added to an organic solvent in a reaction vessel and a controlled chemical reaction takes place. The reaction is allowed to continue to completion. Then the desired product is separated from the reaction vessel liquid contents, using various separation methods, and dried. The dried product is milled and sieved resulting in a fine powder, which is packed and sent to the customer.

The production facilities are multifunctional and may be modified in the future, in response to changes in the Janssen product mix and market requirements and to take advantage of improvements in production technology and environmental management.

3.4.1.2 Organic Synthesis

A typical synthesis production process involves an initial condensation reaction followed by a series of crystallisation purification steps.

A typical sequence of operations is as follows:

1. Materials, which can be either raw materials, or intermediate products supplied by another Janssen plant, are added to solvent in a reaction vessel and a controlled chemical reaction takes place. The methods of controlling the rate of reaction may differ. Methods include the addition of a liquid at a controlled rate, the maintenance of a specific temperature, reflux (which is the maintenance of a liquid at its boiling point where the vapour given off is condensed and returned to the reaction vessel), and the maintenance of a specific pH in the reaction mixture.

2. When the reaction has continued for the required length of time, inorganic salts may be removed. This is achieved by adding water to dissolve the inorganic salts. As the product is dissolved in solvent and the two phases are immiscible, the water phase is separated and removed.

3. The reaction vessel is cooled to crystallise the desired product or the reaction mixture is transferred through a filter to another reaction vessel to be cooled and crystallised.

4. The mixture of crystals and liquid is sent to a centrifuge to isolate the desired crystalline material. The mother liquor is centrifuged off, through a filter cloth, to a local tank and pumped to bulk storage, for off-site solvent recovery or off-site incineration.

5. The crystalline material is dried.

6. If the crystalline material is an intermediate product it is processed further or sold. If the material is a final product it is milled, sieved, blended and packed.

7. All vessels are inerted before being charged with liquid or powder, to prevent the formation of potentially flammable or explosive atmospheres.

The reaction vessels in the plant areas are general purpose. The existing production modules in Plant 1, Plant 2 and Plant 3 are similar in nature.

The product from Plant 1 is dried in the Drying Room and the product from Plant 2 is dried in Plant 2. There is a single mill for low-bioburden/high potency products in the Drying Room.

Facility Process and Operations

1 The Manufacturing Process

1.1 General

The active ingredients are produced by organic synthesis in batch processes. The production operation





Otherwise, all powder processing, i.e. milling, sieving, blending and packing, is carried out in

3.4.

The sources of energy utilised at the Janssen plant are electricity, diesel oil and natural gas. ber of energy usage

ck up power in event of incoming power failure. The facility is equipped with an un-interruptible power supply (UPS). The UPS sy e gap betwee and the start up of the g stems operatio

3.4.3 issions

3.4.3. Air

B

Ja perate a number of steam

As a general rule, gas boilers with a thermal capacity e points. There are two boilers that are 5MW threshold. The steam and hot

ilers with a thermal capacity under 5MW are classed as minor emissions. Refer to

g Room Dust Filtration, Plant 2 Dust Filtration, Plant 2 Powder Handling Unit.

VARA Carbon Adsorption System are limited by the IPPC

• TA Luft Organics Class I

•

•

Minor Emissions

Em e site’s three emergency are generators classified as minor emissions. The generators are used only in instances where the mains electricity supply is interrupted. Other mi two steam boilers and four hot water boilers.

Potential Emissions

oints, such as pressure relief valves and vessel or tank bursting disks, from which there is no emission during normal operations but emissions to atmosphere may result in the

the Powder Handling Unit.

2 Energy Sources

Boilers are run on natural gas for steam and hot water generation. A numreduction programmes have been implemented at the facility.

Emergency power is provided by generators to give ba

stem is designed to bridge th n a power outage enerators, to keep emergency sy nal.

Summary of Em

1 Emissions to

oiler Emissions

nssen is licenced by the EPA to o and hot water boilers on site.

above 5MW are regarded as significant missionater bo

above the wSection 3.5.1.3. The IPPC licence limits emissions of nitrogen oxides from the boilers above the 5MW threshold.

Main Emissions

There are currently four licensed main emission points from the Janssen site – the VARA Carbon Adsorption System Stack, Dryin

The following emissions from the licence:

TA Luft Organics Class II

• TA Luft Organics Class III

• Hydrogen Chloride

Ammonia

For the remaining main emission points, the Drying Room Dust Filtration, Plant 2 Dust Filtration and the Plant 2 Powder Handling Unit, the licensed substance is pharmaceutical dust.

issions from th

nor emissions are

There are numerous potential emission points in the production areas of the Janssen site. These are p





alfunctions or accidents. A high degree of containment has been

terials, storage, handling, processing and transfer within a suitable

return systems.

Eveequ

FugCom ocess fluids escape from plant

A F nducted at Janssen in 1995, using USEPA methodology.

gthes

3.4.3.2

The potential for off-site nuisance due to odours emitting from Janssen Pharmaceutical has

3.4.4

3.4.4.1

P00

•

3.4.

and issions to the atmosphere, for

example, scrubbers and carbon adsorption systems. These wastewater streams contain

event of equipment mprovided throughout the site. Some of the containment measures employed include:

• enclosure of mabuilding.

• minimisation of tank filling losses by, e.g. vapour

• secondary containment of bursting disk discharges from reactors.

• vent collection and ducting from tank farms to central abatement systems.

• vent collection and ducting from reactors to central abatement systems.

A spillage of solvent could occur within the site resulting in an emission to the atmosphere. ry precaution is taken to avoid such an occurrence by the provision of the most suitable ipment, staff training and standard operating procedures.

Fugitive Emissions

itive emissions are defined as low-level diffuse emissions, mainly of Volatile Organic pounds (VOCs), that occur when either gaseous or liquid pr

equipment. Sources of fugitive emissions include equipment such as valves, pumps, compressors, and sampling points.

ugitive Emission Survey was coFugitive emission losses were calculated to be 0.1% of throughput. The survey concluded that fu itive emissions were at a very low level and that no further actions were required to reduce

e emissions.

Odour Emissions

No particularly odorous materials are used or produced on-site currently.

been considered and found to be negligible.

Emissions to Sewer

General

Janssen currently discharges treated effluent in accordance with the IPPC Licence (Reg. No. 16-02).

Wastewater arises from several sources in the Janssen facility. These can be grouped into four categories:

• Process wastewater - arising directly and indirectly from manufacturing

• Utility wastewater

Sanitary wastewater

• Stormwater

4.2 Process Wastewater

• Process wastewater arises directly from reaction vessels due to a number of processing operations, which are mainly concerned with isolation and purification of products. The sources of indirect process wastewater include equipment cleaning, floor washing some of the abatement systems employed to control em





ty control laboratory wastewater is included also in this category.

• directed to the on-site wastewater treatment plant

Toluene to the wastewater treatment plant as these materials are difficult to treat.

3.4.

generation, purified water production and cooling systems. The wastewater streams arising from these activities are characterised mainly by inorganic dissolved solids as well as residues of proprietary chemical formulations used to treat boiler and cooling tower water. In the case of boilers and cooling towers, the wastewater is the blowdown, which is necessary to prevent excessive concentrations of dissolved solids. These dissolved solids could give rise to scale formation on heat exchanger surfaces. The wastewater from water purification is the wastewater that arises from regeneration of ion exchange resins and filter back-washing.

Utility wastewater streams are directed to the on-site wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for treatment. The clarified or final wastewater is discharged over an outfall weir and flows from the plant via an underground pipe to the foul sewer, which has been taken in charge for licensing purposes by Cork County Council.

3.4.4.4 Sanitary Wastewater

Sanitary wastewater arises from the canteen, washrooms and toilets and is similar in composition to normal domestic sewage. Sanitary waste arising on the site is discharged to a sewer from where it is pumped to the Wastewater Treatment Plant at Carrigrenan.

3.4.4.5 Stormwater

The storage area adjacent to Plant 1, used for the storage or temporary lay-down of potential contaminants, is covered with a concrete slab laid to falls to gulleys/gratings which are connected to the stormwater drainage.

The concrete paving of the Warehouse and the Staging Area loading forecourts drains to the storm sewer. A full length cut-off drain is provided at the entrance to these areas. The concrete paving of the Drum Store loading forecourt drains to the process sewer. A full length cut-off drain is provided at the entrance to this area which drains to a sump. The contents of the sump can be sampled for contamination and then pumped to either the stormwater sewer or the process sewer as appropriate. The sump is provided with an overflow to the stormwater drainage system in the event of sprinkler system activation.

All roads on-site are paved with bitumen macadam and are drained to the stormwater system.

Stormwater arising on the site drains to a Stormwater Monitoring Chamber. The chamber is equipped for the continuous monitoring of the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and pH of the stormwater being discharged.

The Stormwater Monitoring Chamber outlet valve will close automatically when contamination is detected by the continuous monitoring system (if the TOC or pH strays outside the preset action limits). Contaminated water then overflows from the stormwater monitoring chamber to the inlet sump of the firewater retention tank where it can be sampled for contamination and then pumped into the Firewater Retention Tank. Based on the sample results a decision can be made in relation to the most appropriate means of disposal.

traces of products and solvents. Quali

Process wastewater streams are(WWTP) for treatment. Particular precautions are taken to prevent discharge of chlorinated solvents and

4.3 Utility Wastewater

The utilities include steam and hot water





3.4.5 Emissions to Ground

he posed emissions to ground from the Janssen facility.

tions of a number of inorganic parameters, predominantly conductivity, aluminium, ammonium, iron, manganese, chloride, potassium and sodium. There are also elevated levels

f a ding toluene, xylene, chlorobenzene, and tert-butyl

3.4.6 Noise Emissions

Janssen carries out annual noise survey monitoring as required by the conditions of its IPPC itted to the EPA. The northern boundary of the Janssen

site is in closest proximity to sensitive receptors.

re employed to ensure that noise from process plant

3.5

3.5. Buildings and Plant

The site buildings and plant are as follows:

•

• wastewater treatment plant

• issions to air

• warehouse

• laboratories

• logistics building

• plant 3 central utilities building

• utilities

• contractor compound

3.4.5.1 General

T re are no existing or pro

Groundwater quality has been monitored at the Janssen site at six monthly intervals since February 1996, with the results being submitted to the EPA.

The results from the groundwater monitoring programme conducted in 2008 indicated relatively low quality groundwater beneath the site. This is represented by elevated or high concentra

o number of organic parameters inclumethyl ether (MTBE). Neither xylene or chlorobenzene are used at the facility. Generally, the groundwater quality remains relatively consistent with previous monitoring rounds

In April 2007 there was a spill of of diesel oil which resulted in localised contamination of the groundwater. Refer to section 3.3 above.

Licence, with the results being subm

Practicable noise control measures acomplies with the daytime and night-time criteria stipulated by the EPA.

The noise climate in the area is made up of numerous elements, which include contributions from traffic and noise associated with industrial plant from various neighbouring facilities.

Inventory of Site Buildings and Plant, Raw Materials and Wastes

1 Site

administration building

• three organic synthesis processing plants

• dryer building

carbon adsorption system for abatement of em

• solvent tank farms

• drum store





3.6 Raw Materials Raw materials are as listed in Table 10 of the 2004 IPPC Licence application. These consist primarily of commercial grade materials along with Janssen specific starting materials ex Belgium and bulk solvents. Raw Materials (powder) are stored in the Warehouse. Drummed liquid materials are stored in the main drumstore with bulk liquids being stored either in the Plant 1 or Plant 3 tankfarms.

3.6.1 Waste

Wastes generated at Janssen are categorised as either “Hazardous Waste” or “Non-Hazardous Waste” in accordance with the EU EWC and Hazardous Waste List and Criteria and the Basle Convention.

3.6.1.1 Hazardous Waste

Hazardous wastes generated or used on site include the following:

1. Organic solvents

2. Product samples from the laboratory

3. General laboratory hazardous waste

4. Packing materials and protective clothing contaminated with materials of production

5. Obsolete chemicals and stock

6. Contaminated water

7. Other (prior consent from the Agency must be obtained for disposal)

Janssen has identified and quantified all hazardous waste streams, and their compositions, from on-site production processes. As part of Janssen’s on-going waste management plan, each waste stream has been designated an appropriate recovery or disposal route. The current disposal routes are recovery off-site, energy recovery off-site and incineration off-site.

3.6.1.2 Non-Hazardous Waste

Non-hazardous waste is made up of the materials as wastewater treatment plant sludge, general site refuse, wooden pallets, scrap metal etc. Any waste generated on site is recycled, where possible. Waste that cannot be recycled is collected and disposed of off site by approved contractors.

4. CLOSURE CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Assessment of Potential Risks

4.1.1 Introduction

Janssen has no current plans to decommission part, or all, of the site. Two possible scenarios in the event of a shutdown of the facility are described below.

• Do-Nothing

• Do-Something





The do-nothing scenario describes the situation of potential risks if the facility was vacated without implementing the closure restoration and aftercare management plan (CRAMP). The do-something scenario describes the potential risks if the plan is implemented.

It should be noted that a do-nothing scenario is not consistent with the divestiture policy of Johnson & Johnson, and hence Janssen. Consequently, Janssen ment the do-something scenario, i.e., implement the CRAMP.

4.1.2 Do-Nothing Scenario

In the event of a shutdown of the plant, the following risks are associated with the do-nothing scenario:

1. Leaks from raw materials left on site resulting in contamination of the groundwater and/or impairment of air quality and/or the commencement of a fire.

2. Vandalism of the site resulting in emissions to ground and/or air, or causing a fire.

Soil contaminated with diesel would remain in the ground and present a source of contamination to groundwater.

The above risks are probable if the CRAMP is not implemented.

4.1.3 Do-Something Scenario

A number of risks are associated with the implementation of the CRAMP. They can be assessed as follows:

1. During the removal of raw materials off-site, there is a potential that a leak or fire could occur, resulting in contamination of the groundwater and/or emissions of smoke or products of incomplete combustion.

2. While removing materials that cannot be returned, recycled or sold-on from the site, there is the potential for inappropriate disposal, resulting in the generation of litter and/or pollution.

3. Once vacated, there is the potential for a break-in at the facility that could result in a fire or vandalism of the building or equipment.

The above risks would be greatly reduced, when the CRAMP is implemented.

4.1.4 Criteria for Successful Closure

The principal criteria against which successful closure is gauged are as follows:

• All buildings and facilities will be uncontaminated and secured from unauthorised access.

• There will be no constraints on future land due to residual contamination or structures.

• Materials will be treated in such a manner that:

− equipment or uncontaminated materials can be resold or sold for scrap;

− uncontaminated rubble can be removed offsite and reused where possible as fill, or will be landfilled;

− contaminated materials will be disposed of using authorised hazardous waste contractors.

The overall objective is to achieve clean closure of the site with no residual liabilities or constraints.

proposes to imple





4.1.5 Scope of CRAMP

The scope of this plan addresses the key issues, which would occur in an orderly shutdown of all the site activities on a phased basis over an estimated time period of 3-6 months.

The scope of the plan includes the following major activities:

• cessation of all production activities,

• setting up a management structure to oversee the CRAMP,

• removal of all remaining raw materials, intermediates and final products from the site,

• cleaning and decontamination of all equipment and buildings,

• shutting down of all abatement and utility systems,

• completion of report on all aspects of the site within 60 days of completion of plan activities, and

• maintaining an on-going security and monitoring service.

The basis of the plan is to ensure that, upon completion of the plan, the facility would be in a suitable state for future industrial use and its condition would not pose a risk to public health and safety or the environment.

It is not intended to remove all structures or systems from the site. In general, specialist equipment will be distributed to sister plants in the event of a shut down.

Janssen intends to utilise existing staff resources to form a team to manage and execute the plan, supplemented where appropriate by outside resources. This Closure, Restoration and





Aftercare Management Team would be responsible for managing and executing the complete plan. Outside contractors required for cleaning, waste disposal, incineration or recycling activities would be fully approved and licensed.

It is estimated that the duration of decommissioning and decontaminating would be 3 to 6 months. Environmental monitoring would continue while the plan is in operation and for a period following the completion of the plan to be determined by the EPA and/or local authority. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the local authority would be informed of the results of the monitoring programme and of the status of the plan.

4.2 Clean or Non-clean Closure Declaration Clean Closure is the current policy in line with Johnson & Johnson practices.

4.3 Plant and Equipment Decontamination and Disposal or Recovery Requirements Particular actions are listed below for specific areas of the facility as part of the Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP). In general, care and attention will be given during the implementation of the plan to ensure that the potential risks associated with the plan are avoided. In the event of a spillage, leak or fire during decommissioning, Janssen’s Emergency Response Plan would be fully implemented in order to minimise the risk to health and the environment.

4.3.1 Storage Areas

The storage areas have been described in Section 3.2.3.6.

The CRAMP for all storage areas and the warehouse would consist of the following actions:

1. Cancellation of all orders for incoming materials to the site.

2. Negotiate with sister plants with a view to distribution of unused materials.

1. Negotiate with relevant suppliers to return unused materials to supplier.

2. Send opened containers and non-returnable or out-of-date goods for incineration.

3. Clean and decontaminate the storage areas. Existing procedures would be sufficient for these operations. Specific procedures would be developed, if required. The state of cleanliness would be verified either analytically or through a visual inspection.

4.3.2 Production Areas

The production plants have been described in Section 3.2.2.

The CRAMP for all production areas would consist of the following actions:

• Cessation of all production other than completion of work in progress.

• Removal of all products to the relevant area of the warehouse for transfer to other facilities or for disposal if necessary.

• Cleaning and decontamination of all process vessels, condensers, centrifuges, dryers, sieves, blenders and any other equipment with product contact. Existing procedures would be sufficient for these operations. Specific procedures would be developed, if required. The state of cleanliness would be verified either analytically or through a visual inspection.





• Shutting of all supply lines to the buildings, cleaning out all pipe work through regular cleaning methods.

• Shutting off unnecessary services to the building. Heating and ventilation capability would be maintained.

Removal and destruction by incineration of all filters or any ducting or enclosure that would have product or other material contact.

Maintenance of key instrumentation and computer systems required for on-going monitoring of the status of the equipment, the remaining instrumentation to be disconnected and rendered safe.

Cleaning and decontamination of all floor drains, sumps and bunded areas.

Specialist equipment, once decontaminated, to be sent to sister Janssen facility for use in similar or other processes.

4.3.3 Laboratory Areas

The laboratories have been described in Section 3.2.3.7.

The CRAMP for laboratory areas would consist of the following actions:

1. Completion of all necessary analytical work on production in progress and all final products before removal from site.

2. Return to vendor or sell on all unopened and in-date laboratory chemicals.

3. Remove all opened chemical containers and out of date chemicals for recycling or for disposal by a licensed contractor.

4. Cleaning and decontamination of laboratory instruments

5. Cleaning and decontamination of all glassware, storage areas, waste systems and any other equipment or systems.

6. Shutting down of all computer systems other than those deemed necessary for ongoing monitoring of the area.

7. Transfer of specialised equipment to a sister plant or sale to similar facility. Recycle of obsolete equipment, if possible, otherwise disposal by licensed contractor.

4.3.4 Utilities

Plant utilities have been described in Section 3.2.4.

The CRAMP for the utilities areas would consist of shutting down of the following systems on a phased basis, depending on plant status and requirements:

Boilers

It is likely that only one or two of the boilers would be required during decommissioning and subsequently for ongoing heating requirements. The remaining units would be shut down and disconnected from the steam distribution system. The boilers would be cleared of residues and the fuel lines cleaned and blanked off. Condensate systems would be drained and cleaned and left in a safe state.

Liquid Nitrogen/Laboratory Gases

These units would be shut down and disconnected at an appropriate time. The liquid nitrogen storage tanks would be emptied and returned to the distributor.





1. Removal of any associated chemicals, oils or any other materials used in the utilities area for redistribution, return to vendor or disposal, if required.

2. The water supply system would be maintained due to the needs for fire protection and sanitary services.

Waste Oils, Diesel and Hazardous Waste

Removal of waste oils, diesel and hazardous waste used in the utilities area for disposal. Hazardous waste will be removed from site and disposed of to a suitably licensed facility.

Wastewater Treatment Plant

The wastewater treatment plant would be shutdown and disconnected at the appropriate time. The plant and associated pipe work would be cleaned and decontaminated through normal cleaning methods.

Central Carbon Adsorption System

This unit will be shutdown in a safe manner as per existing site procedures and all activated carbon removed and sent for recovery to a suitably licensed facility.

4.3.5 Maintenance and Engineering

The Administration building has been detailed in Section 3.2.3.1.

The CRAMP for the Administration building would include the following actions:

1. Removal of administration equipment for distribution to a sister facility or sale to interested party, where possible, otherwise for disposal by a licensed contractor.

2. The maintenance of a security presence on site on a 24-hour basis for ongoing monitoring of the site from a safety, fire prevention and environmental perspective.

4.3.6 Offices, Administration, Reception and Security

The Administration building has been detailed in Section 3.2.3.1.

The CRAMP for the Administration building would include the following actions:

• Removal of administration equipment for distribution to sister facility or sale to interested party, where possible, otherwise for disposal by a licensed contractor.

• The maintenance of a security presence on site on a 24-hour basis for ongoing monitoring of the site from a safety, fire prevention and environmental perspective.

4.3.7 Canteen and Kitchen

The Logistics building, which houses the canteen, has been detailed in Section 3.2.3.8.

1. Removal of canteen equipment for distribution to sister facility or sale to interested party, where possible, otherwise for disposal by a licensed contractor.

4.3.8 Other Areas

The following other actions would be required to ensure the implementation of the CRAMP on a site-wide basis.

1. Cessation of any construction project work on site so that the site is left in a safe and orderly condition. Contractors will be required to decommission any construction compounds and remove all construction equipment, construction materials and waste, storage units and temporary offices from the site at the completion of construction projects.





2. Disbandment of contract personnel, facilities and equipment.

3. Termination of all non-essential maintenance and other contracts.

4. Removal from site any temporary offices or storage areas.

5. Continuation of ongoing programmes to insure the integrity of the groundwater and Rationalisation of the site electricity supply. This would involve removing transformers from service, allowing remaining site operations to run from one transformer. Oils would be removed from redundant transformers.

6. Testing of soils and groundwater at the time of decommissioning would be performed and remediation carried out, if necessary.

7. Retention of all necessary fire alarms and fire protection systems (including the firewater retention tank).

8. Retention of standard security patrols, video monitoring and defined site access procedures.

9. Cleaning of all petrol/oil interceptors as per normal procedure.

10. Removal of all items that may contain mercury (for example fluorescent lights) or any other controlled compounds for recycling or disposal if necessary.

11. Surface waters on site.

4.4 Waste Disposal or Recovery During closure the disposal routes for hazardous wastes will be similar to current disposal routes for hazardous wastes, namely recovery off-site, energy recovery off-site and incineration off-site. Disposal will be by authorised hazardous waste contractors. Hazardous wastes will comprise those wastes listed in section 3.5.3.1.

Non hazardous waste will be recycled, where possible. If recycling is not feasible it will be disposed of off site by approved contractors.

4.5 Soil or Spoil Removal Some soil, contaminated by a diesel spill in April 2007, was removed from the site and incinerated. Soil containing residual contamination, in the area surrounding the area excavated, is located beneath a generator, roads etc and could not be excavated. In situ remediation of this area of soil was undertaken using enhanced in-situ bioremediation (EISB) techniques. EISB is a relatively non-disruptive technique, which involves the injection of bio-remediation solution into the affected area, in order to accelerate the breakdown of the contamination within the subsurface soils. Although not specifically designed to do so the remediation can treat any contamination that may have migrated away from the main affected area such as in the underlying bedrock.

The EISB injection probes were installed in the diesel spill area at depths up to 5mBGL in December 2007. Following the installation of the treatment probes, a series of treatments were carried out in January and February 2008 where bioremediation fluids were injected into the soil contamination plume through the perforated pipes under an air pressurised system. The bioremediation fluids provide and nourish bacteria in the soil that accelerate the natural degradation process of the diesel contamination in the subsoils.

To monitor the effectiveness of the bioremediation activities, interim soil samples were collected from boreholes in the contamination plume in March 2008. The five soil samples were collected from three boreholes in the diesel spill area with one of the samples detecting





ghtly elevated hydrocarbon concentrations at a depth of 1.2 – 1.8mBGL. Overall the interim ults sho EISB programme was working effectively in reducing the hydrocarbon ncentrati e shallow subsoils in the diesel spill area. Further validation soil sampling s carried April 2008 from four boreholes in the diesel spill area. The results of the

il sampli detected trace hydrocarbons indicating successful treatment of the subsoils the diesel spill area which allowed the EISB treatment infrastructure to be decommissioned -sit

slirescowasoin on

wed theons in th out in

ng only

e.





5. CRAMP COSTING The expected costs associated with site closure are outlined in this section. The costs presented in the 2007 Plan have been revised in line with the consumer price index.

5.1 Plant Decommissioning and Waste Disposal Costs Table 1: Decommissioning and Waste Disposal Costs

Item Estimated Cost (€) Transportation of tanks off site 391,550 Transportation of other goods 130,544 Decontamination 78,310 Incineration 65,841 Recycling 19,578 Disposal costs 65,841 Civil and structural, mechanical, electrical and instrumentation contractors

1,174,906

Subtotal 1,926,570 Contingency (25%) 481,642 Total 2,408,212

Note: The Central Statistics Office website gives the annual consumer price index to the end of November 2008 as 2.5%, for all sectors. Refer to :

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/pr_prices.htm) (accessed in January 2009).

It is estimated that a cost of approximately €2.41m would be incurred to decommission the site, including external resources costs.

5.2 Ongoing Monitoring It is estimated that a cost of €52,214 would be incurred during ongoing monitoring.

5.3 Facility Security and Staffing It is estimated that 4 security staff will be required to remain on site for a period of 3-6 months during the implementation of the CRAMP.

5.4 Internal Resource Requirements A number of staff members would be required to remain on site for a period of 3-6 months to successfully implement the Residuals Management Plan.

These are estimated as follows:

Management 2 Security Staff 4 Laboratory 3 Administration 2 Other staff 5

The cost of continuing to employ these staff members is expected to be in the region of €567,594.





5.5 Total Cost The total cost associated with executing a CRAMP at the Little Island site is estimated to be in the region of €3.02m.

In addition, to maintain an on-going security, safety and environmental monitoring presence at the site would cost approximately €45,408 per annum.

Although, the EPA has a requirement that post-operational monitoring of groundwater is maintained typically for three years, the duration may be reduced, or the monitoring might be completely eliminated, if no evidence is found of general degradation in groundwater quality.

The following assumptions were made in estimating the likely costs involved:

• Site remediation in the form of groundwater ‘pump and treat’ is a likely requirement as a result of the diesel spill in April 2007, if this work has not been completed prior to closure.

• The site would be left in a clean condition, i.e. decontaminated and certified as being free of any biological or chemical hazard. All buildings would be retained. All bulk materials and process intermediates and products would be removed.

• No liabilities would be incurred due to activities of contractors storing and disposing of materials removed from the Janssen site, as Janssen will continue to apply its current waste management principles.

• No civil liability would be incurred as a result of third parties alleging environmental damage arising from the operational phase or closure.

• The maximum asset value of the facility would be maintained, but no action would be taken to prepare the site for a trade sale as a going concern or otherwise.

• Normal practice would be applied to minimise ongoing liabilities and to fulfil insurance requirements.

• It is assumed that the planning authority would not take any action to prevent site dereliction, as the existing facilities would be maintained in a condition suitable for future beneficial use. The planning authority will be notified of the plans to decommission and will be consulted in relation to the isolation of facilities and services on site.

• In addition, no factors have been identified that would indicate an unusual liability for the site in comparison with other process industry sites.

As required by the IPPC licence “a final validation report to include a certificate of completion for the residuals management plan, for all or part of the site as necessary, shall be submitted to the Agency within three months of execution of the plan”. In addition, Janssen shall “carry out such tests, investigations or submit certification, as requested by the Agency, to confirm that there is no continuing risk to the environment.”

5.6 Funding of CRAMP Janssen, a subsidiary of the Johnson & Johnson Corporation, confirms that the company has more than adequate resources from operations to fund the Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan, as set out above.

Further details on the financial status of Johnson & Johnson can be found in the 2007 Annual Report available via the following web link (accessed in January 2009):

http://www.jnj.com/connect/about-jnj/publications/index.htm





5.7 Cramp plan update and review

5.7.1 Proposed Frequency of Review

The CRAMP will be reviewed and updated annually as part Annual Environmental Report submission to the EPA.

5.7.2 Proposed Scope of Review

The updated and reviewed CRAMP will take account of technology changes and costing changes.

of the

any site or process changes,

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management P

IPPC Licence Requirementslan 2009




6 CRAMP TATION

EPA Janssen has no current plans to decommission part, or all, of the site. However, should the site be decomm the EPA will be given 3 months notice and 6 months notice of any partial or full closures, respectively The form of notice will be in accordance with prevailing

ance a expec discussions with the EPA as part of the

6.2 Local Authority Notification Should th site be deco d Cork Cou il will be gi ths and 6 months no f any partial or full closures, he form of notice will be in accordance with prevailing guidance and it is expect with the Cork C unci s part of the process.

7. CRAMP TIO

7.1 Closure Validation Audit An Enviro al Exit site will be llowing of closure and r to actu sioning and ons take place. The audit will devise an accurate inventory of all plant, equipment and wastes on the site. This inventory will be used as a benchm k against which succe ful decommissioning will be assessed.

onitoring with respect to surface water, effluent, groundwater, soil, waste manageme no e will remain in effect over the course of the decommissioning phase.

7.2 Closure Validation Audit Report As require licence, a final vali ation report for all or part of the site as necessary, will be submitted to the Agency within three months of execution of the plan. In addition, Janssen shall carry out such tests, investigations or submit certification, as requested by the Agency, to confirm that there is no continuing risk to the environment.

7.3 Closure Validation Certificate As required by the IPPC licence the final validation report will include a certificate of completion for the CRAMP.

. IMPLEMEN

6.1 Notification

issioned,

guid nd it is ted that there will also beprocess.

e mmissione nty Counc ven 3 montice o respectively. T

ed that there will also be discussions ounty Co l a

VALIDA N

nment prio

Audit of theal decommis

carried out fo closure operati

the announcement

ar ss

All IPPC licence mnt, air and is

d by the IPPC d

[User Note4]

FIGURES Site Layout

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. IPPC Licence Requirements Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan 2009


Arup Consulting Engineers Issue 1 26 March 2009

Figure 1.0

[User Note5]

APPENDIX A Screening and Operational Risk Assessment

A1. APPENDIX D : ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES RISK ASSESSMENT

[User Note6]


ELRA 2009

EnvirRisk Upda

ISSU

onmental Assessmete

1

Liabilities nt 2009

E

Janssen PharmaceuticaLtd.

l

ELRA 2009

Environmental LiabilitiesRisk Assessment 2009

This report takes into account the

t intended for and should not be any third party and no

d

Arup Co15 OliveTel +353 21 4277670 Faxww

Update

March 2009

particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is norelied upon byresponsibility is undertaken to any thirpartynsulting Engineers

r Plunkett Street, Cork +353 21 4272345

w.arup.ie Job number C1147.18

Document Verification[User Note7]

Page 1 of 1

Job numberJob title

C1147.18

File reference

ELRA 2009

Document title l Liabilities Risk Assessment 2009 Update

Document ref

Revision Da

Environmenta

te Filename ELRA 2009 - Draft 1.doc



issue 1 26 March 2009

Description First draft Draft 1 X 1X/0 /09



Signature

Filename ELRA 2009 – issue 1 C1147.18.docDescription First Issue

Issue 1 26/03/09

Prepared by


Signature



Na

me

Signature



Name

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. ELRA 2009Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment 2009 Update



issue 1 26 March 2009

Con

Page

1 INT1.1 Gene2 2003 RIS3.1 Introd3.2 Methodology 3.3 Identification of Environmental Receptors ............................................................................................2 3.4 Ident ...4 3.5 Energ3.6 Summ ........................................................................................................5 3.7 Description of Abatement Systems and Monitoring Programme..........................................................9 3.8 Engin3.9 Ident4 ASS4.1 Meth4.2 Risk 4.3 Risk 4.4 Risk 5 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION ACTIONS 17 6 RIS6.1 Gene7 FINANCIAL PROVISION 19 8

App

Appendix ARisk and LAppendix BScenarios w

tents[User Note8]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iRODUCTION 1 ral 1 9 REVIEW AND UPDATE 1 K IDENTIFICATION 1 uction 1

1

ification of Operations on Site ....................................................................................................y Sources 5 ary of Emissions..................

eering and Operational Controls ................................................................................................10 ification of Risk from Operations on Site.....................................................................................13

ESSMENT OF RISK 15 odology 15 Classification Table .....................................................................................................................15 Ranking 16 Matrix 16

K MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME 17 ral 17

CONCLUSIONS 19

endices

iabilities Spreadsheets hich Pose Significant Risk of Off-Site Pollution



Page i Arup Consulting Engineers


EXECUTIJansseingredoperaP0016-02.

A coEnvir ssue 1 of the Environmental Liabilities Risk AssesRisk amendMana

In this docum sk Assessment has been reviewed and updated for 2009.

The pprovision for unknown environmental liabilities or environmental liabilities occurring due to unexpected events (e.g. leaking chemical storage tank resulting in groundwater contamination).

D anssen Plant there is little potential for any significant emissions to ground, ental protection and abatement measures installed on sit s to arise lead t

Of themight

• de

• be itude that facilities or systems might not completely prevent an off site significant effect, or

• oc

The 1

• F

• C

• Fire in tank bund

• Fire in drum store

• L house

• F

• G

• Loss of containment of ammonia

• F nte

• R

The aeach w

VE SUMMARY n Pharmaceutical Ltd., located at Little Island, Co. Cork, manufactures active pharmaceutical ients (APIs) for human use. The production process is by organic synthesis. Janssen’s

tions are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under IPPC Licence number

ndition of the IPPC Licence specifies that Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd shall prepare an onmental Liabilities Risk Assessment. Isment was submitted to the Agency on 16th December 2005. The Environmental Liabilities Assessment was been reviewed and updated for 2007. The format of the assessment was ed to have regard to the Guidance on Environmental Liability Risk Assessment, Residuals

gement Plans and Financial Provision, published by the Agency in 2006.

ent the Environmental Liabilities Ri

urpose of an Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment is to quantify and make financial

uring normal operations at the Jsurface water or air due to the environm

e. Operations on site were examined to determine the potential for environmental liabilitiefrom abnormal operations. A total of 37 plausible scenarios were identified that might directly o a risk of significant pollution off site. A number of these scenarios are examined in detail.

37 possible scenarios, with specific mitigation measures in place, only 10 pose a threat that

feat either a primary and /or secondary containment system, or

of such magn

cur over such an area as to preclude complete containment.

0 scenarios are as follows:

ire in production area

onfined vapour explosion in production area

oss of containment in ware

ire in utility area

as explosion in boiler

ire in mai nance area

oad Tanker fire

ssessment determined that each of the 10 scenarios has a low likelihood of occurrence and ould have a significant effect if it did occur. Thus they were classified as low risks.



Page ii Arup Consulting Engineers


Jansse

• P

• Work permit

• Em r

• Em ee tr

• C

The HEnvirimprothe co

In all cases considered in the risk assessment the potential environmental liabilities are not significant and will be covered by Janssen’s public liability insurance, which is US$2 million per occurrence to an annual limit of US$4 million. Potential damage to property on site is covered by Janssen’s property insurance of €300 million.

n has a risk management programme in place which is comprised of the following elements:

rocedures for the management of changes to plant or operations

system

ergency esponse

ploy aining

alibration and preventative maintenance

ealth, Safety and Environment Steering Committee ensures that the Health, Safety and onment policies and objectives are implemented effectively to ensure Janssen continuously ves in order to minimise the risk to the environment and the health and safety of personnel and mmunity.



Page 1 Arup Consulting Engineersissue 1 26 March 2009

8. INTRODUCTION

8.1 Ja Co. Cork, manufactures active ph se. The production process is by organic sy

T isted as Class 5.16 in the First Schedule of the Protection of s op under IPPC Licence number

0016-02.

Condition 15.3.1 of the IPPC Licence specifies that Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. “….shall priately qualified consultant, of a

s from past and present activities. A report on this assessment is to

rmat of the assessment was amended to have regard to the Guidance on

9.

h would change the potential for environmental liabilities to ere reviewed to

of

ios examined previously.

10. RISK

10.Risk Assessment is to quantify and make

ental liabilities or environmental liabilities c (e.g. leaking chemical storage tank resulting in

gro w

10.2 Rissome w

General nssen Pharmaceutical Ltd., located at Little Island, armaceutical ingredients (APIs) for human unthesis.

he use of a chemical process for the production of basic pharmaceutical products is lthe Environment Act, 2003. Janssen’

erations are regulated by the Environmental Protection AgencyP

arrange for the completion, by an independent and approcomprehensive and fully costed Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment for the operation, which will address liabilitiebe submitted to the Agency for agreement within twelve months of date of grant of this licence.”

Issue 1 of Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment was prepared in December 2005 and submitted to the Agency on 16th December 2005, in compliance with the requirements of Condition 15.3.1. The Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment was reviewed and updated for 2007 and the foEnvironmental Liability Risk Assessment, Residuals Management Plans and Financial Provision, published by the Agency in 2006.

This document presents the Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment updated for 2009.

2009 REVIEW AND UPDATE For the 2009 Review and Update, operations on site were examined to determine if circumstances had changed whicarise from abnormal operations. In particular, the operations on site wdetermine if there were any additional plausible scenarios, which might lead to a risksignificant pollution off site, or if mitigation or control measures had changed in a manner which would lead to an increased risk from the scenar

IDENTIFICATION

1 Introduction The purpose of an Environmental Liabilities financial provision for unknown environmoc urring due to unexpected events

und ater contamination).

Methodology k can be defined as a measure of the likelihood and severity of an occurrence that is in

ay harmful.




The k l receptors at or adjacent to the site; the identification of operations in the Janssen plant that posed

10.

10.3.1

The nerally quite flat at a level of approximately 12m Ordnance Datum. tial across the site of only 1

10.3

ula, which projects into Lough Mahon, in the upper part of Cork Harbour. Little Island in general is an industrial location, but it also has a long established

the island include two golf courses. r uth eastern part of the island, is the location of the Cork City municipal

t.

sland there is the mouth of the River Lee and Blackrock and Mahon, i City. To the south there is the West Passage, which

Passage West. Fota Island, which is the location F d Fota Island Golf Course, is situated to the east of Little Island.

e tle Island is delineated by the N25 Cork to Rosslare national residential area of Glounthaune.

10.3

e area, St Lappan’s Terrace, located on the northern side of the Little of the site’s

eastern side of St Lappan’s Terrace,

yond this there is the site Denman) which has ceased operations and been

10.3

n

The overburden deposits provide a very thin mantle (generally less than 2m) over much of the site and play a minor role in terms of the hydrogeology of the site. Where there are thick deposits they are composed chiefly of sands, silts and clays, which directly overlie the rock. Groundwater flow in the overburden deposits is by primary porosity and it is highly likely that the groundwater is in hydraulic continuity with the bedrock.

Bedrock

Groundwater flow in Irish limestones is controlled by fissure flow mechanisms within the rock. This in turn is dependent on the amount of faulting and fracturing present and also on the amount of solutional development that has taken place in the fissures. The geotechnical

ris identification process involves the identification of potential environmenta

potential hazards to the environmental receptors and the identification of the risks associated with the potential hazards.

3 Identification of Environmental Receptors

Background to Janssen Site

The Janssen facility is located approximately 8km east of Cork City.

site topography is geApart from isolated undulations there is an average height differento 2 metres.

.2 Local Area

Little Island forms a penins

residential element. Recreational facilities on Ca rigrennan, at the sosewage treatment plan

To the west of Little Iwh ch are residential suburbs of Corkleads to the Lower Harbour and the village of of ota Wildlife Park an

Th northern extent of Litprimary road. Beyond this there is the

.3 Human Beings

Th re is a residential Island Road close to the Janssen site. The closest dwellings are within 50mnorthern boundary. Little Island Primary School, is on the to the north east of the Janssen plant.

To the south, the site is bounded by two industrial plants, (FMC Biopolymers and Corden Pharmachem), while to the east another industrial plant (Cork Plastics), borders the site. The Middle Road forms the western boundary of the Janssen site and beof another industrial plant (Mitsui demolished.

.4 Soil and Groundwater

Overburde




logs of some boreholes indicated a relatively high degree of fracturing and jointing indicating limestone.

A report by the Geological Survey of Ireland (Geology of South Cork, 1994) indicates that the in the South Cork region are considered to be a major or regionally

ly Important. Any saline intrusion would further limit the

G n the eastern part of the site to the west, north and so h

There is no tidal influence on the water table at the Janssen site.

10.3.5 Surface water

Th re r drainage ditches within the site or at the site boundaries. The nearest

ds, hard-standing and roof surfaces, is collected in a drainage system and monitored prior to discharge

site drainage system has an outfall in Lough Mahon.

10.3.6 a

The air is a potential receptor for activities or incidents at the Janssen site. The EPA has air quality onitoring stations in the Cork City Harbour area. The closest stations to the site are t the north of the site. The EPA website, http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/monitoring/air/data/gl/, gives real time information on air quali In l 8 the air t the Glashaboy monitoring station was good, with asur rs well below t espective limits.

10.3.7 Proximity to Special Areas of Conservations (SACs), Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) a

nd. The proposed National Heritage Area (NHA) number 1074, Rockfarm which is a geological fo i on Little Islan A part of the proposed National Heritage Area no. 1082, Dunkettle Shore, is also located in Little Island. The rem National Heritage Area No. 1082, Dunkettle Shore, is adjacent to the north west corner of Little Island. There are two proposed National Heritage Areas close to Little Island. These are:

1. 46 uary

2. 54

The th C t of the Grend all of the Douglas River Estuary proposed National Heritage Area are also designated as a

ainder of the Great Island Channel proposed pecial Area of Conservation, and the proposed National Heritage Areas no. 1082, Dunkettle

Shore and number 1074, Rockfarm Quarry, are proposed as Special Protection Areas.

10.3.8 Archaeological Features

No archaeological sites are recorded within the Janssen site boundary. However, a number of sites were found in very close proximity. These included Wallingstown graveyard, church,

high transmissivity values for the

Waulsortian limestones important aquifer.

However, as Little Island is surrounded on three sides by the Lough Mahon estuary and the area of the entire Island is only some 7 km2, the aquifer status of Little Island in its entirety can at best be classified as Localsignificance of this potential local aquifer.

rou dwater flows radially outwards fromut .

e are no streams osurface water is Lough Mahon, in the upper part of Cork Harbour. Lough Mahon is approximately 800m to the south of the Janssen plant.

Surface water from the Janssen facility, comprising storm water runoff from roa

to the offsite drainage system. The off

Air Qu lity

m and a Glashaboy, to

ty. ate December 200 quality ame ed paramete heir r

nd Special Protection Areas for Birds (SPAs)

The Great Island Channel number 1058 is proposed as a Special Area of Conservation. This covers the tidal shallows and mudflats at the eastern end of Little Isla

Quarry, rmation, s located d.

ainder of the proposed

10 Douglas River Est

10 Glanmire Wood

Nor hannel par at Island Channel proposed Special Area of Conservation aSpecial Protection Areas for birds. The remS




and castle (SMR 075:020/01/02; 075:021) and the site of two early medieval water mills

10.4 entificatio Site

10.4.1 oducts Man

The oducts curre at the Little Island facility are detailed in the following table.

Name Brand Name Benefit

(SMR075:052).

Id n of Operations on

Pr ufactured on Site

pr ntly manufactured

B mperidol nd neuroleptic. ro Impromen Antipsychotic aDomperidone

Treatment of nausea and vomitin ssociated with use of cytostatic drugs, radiotherapy, di ders of the

intestinal tract and paediatric pathology.

Motilium g asor

gastroFl zine of the prophylaxis of migraine. unari Sibelium Oral treatmentLoperamide H oride

ent of acute diarrhoea. ydrochl

Imodium Oral managem

Oxatamide ent of allergic conditions and reactions. Tinset ManagemR ridone Management of schizophrenia and behavioural disorders. ispe Risperdal Itraconazole Sporanox The treatment of fungal infections of the esophagus or the

mouth. Paliperidone - Management of schizophrenia and behavioural disorders. TMC 125 - Treatment of HIV TMC 114 - Treatment of HIV Paliperidone Palmitate

- Management of schizophrenia and behavioural disorders.

TMC 278 - The treatment of HIV

10.4.2

10.4

involves the processing of raw materials with input of solvent and utilities, such as

o facilities are multifunctional and may be modified in the future, in response to changes in the Janssen product mix and market requirements and to take advantage of improvements in production technology and environmental m nagement.

10.4. s

A t synthesis production process involves an initial condensation reaction followed by a series of crystallis n pu ification steps.

A quence of operations is as follows:

1 erials, which can be either raw materials, or in iate p ducts supplied by anoth r Janssen p schem al reaction h n r tion may

The Manufacturing Process

.2.1 General

The active ingredients are produced by organic synthesis in batch processes. The production operation steam, nitrogen, cooling water, and the generation of intermediates which are processed further, final product and wastes.

In accordance with the Master Formula for the particular product, two powdered materials are added to an organic solvent in a reaction vessel and a controlled chemical reaction takes place. The reaction is allowed to continue to completion. Then the desired product is separated from the reaction vessel liquid contents, using various separation methods, and dried. The dried product is milled and sieved resulting in a fine powder, which is packed and sent to the customer.

The producti n

a

2.2 Organic Synthesi

ypical atio r

typical se

. Mat termed roeic

lant, are addedtakes place. T

to solvent in ae methods of co

reaction vestrolling the

el and a controlled ate of reac




differ. Methods include th ddition of a liq d at a control rate, the intenance of a specific temperature, reflux (which is the m its boiling point where the vapour given off is condensed a d to the reaction vessel), and the maintenance of a specific pH in the reaction mixture.

lts may be

3. The reaction vessel is cooled to crystallise the desired product or the reaction mixture is transferred through a filter to another reaction vessel to be cooled and crystallised.

to a centrifuge to isolate the desired crystalline

ulk storage, for off-site solvent recovery or off-site incineration.

a final product it is milled, sieved, blended and packed.

owder, to prevent the formation of potentially flammable or explosive atmospheres.

The reaction vessels in the plant areas are general purpose. The existing production modules in e r in nature.

T p is dried in the Drying Room and the product from Plant 2 and Plant 3 are dried within their respective Plants. There is a single mill for low-bioburden/high po n ise, all powder processing for Plant 2, i.e.

l arried out in the Powder Handling Unit.

10.

is equipped with an un-interruptible power supply (UPS). The UPS idge the gap between a power outage and the start up of the

10.6 Summary of Emissions

10.6

10.6

10.6

r licensed main emission points from the Janssen site – the VARA

e a ui led maaintenance of a liquid at

nd returne

2. When the reaction has continued for the required length of time, inorganic saremoved. This is achieved by adding water to dissolve the inorganic salts. As the product is dissolved in solvent and the two phases are immiscible, the water phase is separated and removed.

4. The mixture of crystals and liquid is sent material. The mother liquor is centrifuged off, through a filter cloth, to a local tank and pumped to b

5. The crystalline material is dried.

6. If the crystalline material is an intermediate product it is processed further or sold. If the material is

7. All vessels are inert-ed before being charged with liquid or p

th three plants are simila

he roduct from Plant 1

te cy products in the Drying Room. Otherwmil ing, sieving, blending and packing, is c

5 Energy Sources The sources of energy utilised at the Janssen plant are electricity, diesel oil and natural gas. Boilers are run on natural gas for steam and hot water generation.

Emergency power is provided by generators to give back up power in event of incoming power failure. The facilitysystem is designed to brgenerators, to keep emergency systems operational.

.1 Emissions to Air

.1.1 Boiler Emissions

Janssen is licensed by the EPA to operate a number of steam and hot water boilers on site.

There are two boilers with a thermal capacity above the 5MW threshold. The IPPC licence limits emissions of nitrogen oxides from the boilers with a thermal capacity above the 5MW threshold. The steam and hot water boilers with a thermal capacity under 5MW are classed as minor emissions. Refer to Section 3.6.1.3 below.

.1.2 Main Emissions

There are currently fouCarbon Adsorption System Stack, Drying Room Dust Filtration, Plant 2 Dust Filtration, Plant 2 Powder Handling Unit.




ission points, the Drying Room Dust Filtration, Plant 2 Dust

10.6

es from reactors.

nd ducting from tank farms to central abatement systems

d ducting from reactors to central abatement systems.

A spillage of solvent could occur within the site resulting in an emission to the atmosphere. Every taken to avoid such an occurrence by the provision of the most suitable eq p ining and standard operating procedures.

10.6.1 F

as low-level diffuse emissions, mainly of volatile organic

10.6.1.6 Odour Emissions

No particularly odorous materials are used or produced on-site currently and this will also be the case with Plant 3. There are no specific odour control measures.

The following emissions from the VARA Carbon Adsorption System are limited by the IPPC licence:

• TA Luft Organics Class I

• TA Luft Organics Class II

• TA Luft Organics Class III

• Hydrogen Chloride

• Ammonia

For the remaining main emFiltration and the Plant 2 Powder Handling Unit, the licensed substance is pharmaceutical dust.

.1.3 Minor Emissions

Emissions from the site’s three emergency generators are classified as minor emissions. It is envisaged that the generators will be used only in instances where the mains electricity supply is interrupted. Two of the steam boilers and four hot water boilers are also classified as minor emissions.

10.6.1.4 Potential Emissions

There are numerous potential emission points in the production areas of the Janssen site. These are points, such as pressure relief valves and vessel or tank bursting disks, from which there is no emission during normal operations but emissions to atmosphere may result in the event of equipment malfunctions or accidents. A high degree of containment has been provided throughout the site. Some of the containment measures employed include:

• enclosure of materials, storage, handling, processing and transfer within a suitable building.

• minimisation of tank filling losses by, e.g. vapour return systems

• secondary containment of bursting disk discharg

• vent collection a

• vent collection an

precaution isui ment, staff tra

.5 ugitive Emissions

Fugitive emissions are defined compounds, that occur when either gaseous or liquid process fluids escape from plant equipment. Sources of fugitive emissions include equipment such as valves, pumps, compressors, and sampling points.

A fugitive emission survey was conducted at Janssen in 1995, using USEPA methodology. Fugitive emission losses were calculated to be 0.1% of throughput. The survey concluded that fugitive emissions were at a very low level and that no further actions were required to reduce these emissions.




ce due to odours being emitted from Janssen Pharmaceutical

10.6

10.6

nssen currently discharges treated effluent in accordance with the IPPC Licence No. P0016-2.

astewater arises from several sources in the Janssen facility. These can be grouped into four ategories:

rising directly and indirectly from manufacturing

10.6.2.2 Process

ms employed to control emissions to the atmosphere, for example, scrubbers and carbon adsorption systems. These wastewater streams contain traces of products and solvents. Quality control laboratory wastewater is included also in this category.

Process wastewater streams are directed to the on-site wastewater treatment plant for treatment. Particular precautions are taken to prevent discharge of chlorinated solvents and Toluene to the wastewater treatment plant as these materials are difficult to treat.

10.6.2.3 Utility Wastewater

The utilities include steam and hot water generation, purified water production and cooling systems. The wastewater streams arising from these activities are characterised mainly by inorganic dissolved solids as well as residues of proprietary chemical formulations used to treat boiler and cooling tower water. In the case of boilers and cooling towers, the wastewater is the blowdown, which is necessary to prevent excessive concentrations of dissolved solids. These dissolved solids could give rise to scale formation on heat exchanger surfaces. The wastewater from water purification is the wastewater that arises from regeneration of ion exchange resins and filter back-washing.

Utility wastewater streams are directed to the on-site wastewater treatment plant for treatment. The clarified or final wastewater is discharged over an outfall weir and flows from the plant via an underground pipe to the foul sewer, which has been taken in charge for licensing purposes by Cork County Council.

10.6.2.4 Sanitary Wastewater

Sanitary wastewater arises from the canteen, washrooms and toilets and is similar in composition to normal domestic sewage. Sanitary waste arising on the site is discharged to a sewer from which it is pumped to the municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant at Carrigrennan.

10.6.2.5 Storm water

The storage area adjacent to Plant 1, used for the storage or temporary lay-down of potential contaminants, is covered with a concrete slab, laid to falls to gullies/gratings which are connected to the storm water drainage.

The potential for off-site nuisanhas been considered and found to be negligible.

.2 Emissions to Sewer

.2.1 General

Ja0

Wc

• Process wastewater - a

• Utility wastewater

• Sanitary wastewater

• Storm water

Wastewater

Process wastewater arises directly from reaction vessels due to a number of processing operations, which are mainly concerned with isolation and purification of products. The sources of indirect process wastewater include equipment cleaning, floor washing and some of the abatement syste




The surface water run off from the concrete paving of the Warehouse loading forecourt drains to the storm sewer. A full length cut-off drain is provided at the entrance to these areas. The concrete paving of the Drum Store loading forecourt drains to the process sewer. A full length cut-off drain, which drains to a sump, is provided at the entrance to this area. The contents of the sump can be sampled for contamination and then pumped to either the storm water sewer or the process sewer as appropriate. The sump is provided with an overflow to the storm water drainage system in the event of sprinkler system activation.

All roads on-site are paved with bitumen macadam and are drained to the storm water system.

Storm water arising on the site drains to Storm water Monitoring Chamber No. 3 (located in the eastern part of the site. The chamber is equipped for the continuous monitoring of the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and pH of the storm water being discharged.

The Storm water Monitoring Chamber No. 3 outlet valve closes automatically when contamination is detected by the continuous monitoring system (if the TOC or pH strays outside the preset action limits). Contaminated water then overflows from the storm water monitoring chamber to the inlet sump of the firewater retention tank where it can be sampled for contamination and then pumped automatically into the Firewater Retention Tank. Based on the sample results a decision can be made in relation to the most appropriate means of disposal.

10.6.3 Emissions to Ground

10.6.3.1 General

There are no existing or proposed emissions to ground from the Janssen facility.

Groundwater quality has been monitored at the Janssen site at six monthly intervals since February 1996, with the results being submitted to the EPA.

The results from the groundwater monitoring programme conducted in 2008 indicated relatively low quality groundwater beneath the site. This is represented by elevated or high concentrations of a number of inorganic parameters, predominantly conductivity, aluminium, ammonium, iron, manganese, chloride, potassium and sodium. There are also elevated levels of a number of organic parameters including toluene, xylene, chlorobenzene, and tert-butyl methyl ether (MTBE). Neither xylene or chlorobenzene are used at the facility. Generally, the groundwater quality remains relatively consistent with previous monitoring rounds

In April 2007 there was a spill of approximately 6m3 of diesel oil which resulted in localised contamination of the groundwater. Contaminated soil was removed and incinerated. Contaminated groundwater is being extracted and treated in a hydrocarbon interceptor, from which it is discharged to the wastewater treatment plant.

10.6.4 Noise Emissions

Janssen carries out annual noise survey monitoring as required by the conditions of its IPC Licence, with the results being submitted to the EPA. The northern boundary of the Janssen site is in closest proximity to sensitive receptors.

Practicable noise control measures are employed to ensure that noise from process plant complies with the daytime and night-time criteria stipulated by the EPA.

The noise climate in the area is made up of numerous elements, which include contributions from traffic and noise associated with industrial plant from various neighbouring facilities.

10.6.5 Waste

Wastes generated at Janssen are categorised as either “Hazardous Waste” or “Non-Hazardous Waste” in accordance with the EU EWC and Hazardous Waste List and Criteria and the Basle Convention.




10.6.5.1 Hazardous Waste

Hazardous wastes generated or used on site include the following:

• Organic solvents

• Product samples from the laboratory

• General laboratory hazardous waste

• Packing materials and protective clothing contaminated with materials of production

• Obsolete chemicals and stock

• Contaminated water

• Other (prior consent from the Agency must be obtained for disposal)

Janssen has identified and quantified all hazardous waste streams, and their compositions, from on-site production processes. As part of Janssen’s on-going waste management plan, each waste stream has been designated an appropriate recovery or disposal route. The current disposal routes are recovery off-site, energy recovery off-site and incineration off-site.

10.6.5.2 Non-Hazardous Waste

Non-hazardous waste is made up of the materials such as wastewater treatment plant sludge, general site refuse, wooden pallets, scrap metal etc. Any waste generated on site is recycled, where possible. Waste that cannot be recycled is collected and disposed of off site by approved contractors.

10.7 Description of Abatement Systems and Monitoring Programme

10.7.1 Description of Abatement Systems

10.7.1.1 General

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd employs BAT at the Little Island facility. Where possible it avoids the generation of waste streams at source. Where this is not achievable, suitable abatement, treatment and recovery systems are in place. These systems are described below.

10.7.1.2 Effluent

The Waste Water Treatment Plant is a biological aerobic activated sludge plant with neutralisation and equalisation, aeration in an aeration carousel, and clarification.

As with municipal treatment plants, the Janssen waste water treatment plant is designed to treat biologically oxidisable compounds. The design load is the equivalent of 7,000 people. An efficiency of greater than 90% BOD reduction is achieved. The settled sludge from the clarifier is thickened, conditioned and mechanically dewatered. It is then sent off-site for composting prior to being disposed of to a licensed local authority landfill site.

10.7.1.3 Air Emissions

Condensers on Vessels

Condensers are used to keep solvent vapours within reaction vessels. The vapours are cooled and the condensate is returned to the vessels. All major process vessels have two condensers, one supplied with cooling tower water, the second with chilled medium, to minimise vapours emitted to the treatment unit. The dryers have a single chilled medium cooled condenser.

Separate area vent condensers are installed for Modules 1, 2 and 3 of Plant 3. These are additional to the local condensers on vessels. Typically the condensed liquid is collected and




returned to the vessel. The vent gases from the condensers are directed to th rubbers and then the VARA Carbon Adsorption System for treatment.

crubb nd De-duster

are used in the first instance to orb ammonia, acid or caustic vapours for ent on e. The waste gase om the scrubbers are treated in the Carbon

stem. De-dusters are used to rem e dust from dust-laden air prior to discharge osphere from Plant 2, the Drying Room and the Powder Handling Unit. There are

equipment specific containment systems which are HEPA filtered prior to discharge to sphere.

In 20 en er w alled in Pl to control s from reactor charging.

Carb

he RA at ent gases from condensers and n a carbon p an ent vapours. e m e ond o the s and are

reat

te the C e in 2008 increase limit on air flow thro blo c

Nois si

Noise attenuation is used extensively on-site uppre ny equipment noise, which could cause a nuisance at the Janssen boundary.

10.7.2 E sion or

T e n ri gr w im are if th li no 6- Th

d i) io tm re at

S d iii to E ns t re,

Schedule 2(ii) Effluent Treatme ontr

Sched 2(iii nito of E ions to Se

Schedule 3(iii) Waste Analysis,

Contr

so Johnson poli rohibits the use of erground tan

ent in accordance with the best industry practice to prevent stored materials, which could contaminate the groundwater.

aterials are stored in above ground bulk storage tanks with bunding, overfill and over ground pipelines and transfer lines. The bunding provides containment of

at least 110% of the volume of the largest tank. The bulk tanks are inspected on a regular basis

e sc

S

Scrubbers subsequent treatmAdsorption Sy

er a

-sitabss frov

to the atmalso a

Venturi Scrubber

tmo

08 a V

on Adso

Carbon A

equentlyed on-site

chnical amugh the V

e Emis

turi Scrubb as inst

rption System

dsorption System (VA utilising the adsorptio these solvent vapours ar or off-site.

endment was made toARA when the cooling

ons

ant 1

s the vcity of stripp

licencomes on during the cooling phase.

dust

which to traensed t

to

Tscrubbers bySt

A

) trecap

stea

IPPwer

they solv liquid

the

ubs d, c tate

to s

Janssenese are

ement/

mosphe

wer,

ss a

armacted be

atmen

mis

missioied in

ule 1(i

ule 1(

ule

Monit

monitoe IPPC

Emiss

) Moni

) Mo

ing

ng procence

ns to A

ring of

ring

he pec

che

che

ammes. P001

osphe

missio

nt C

miss

hich02.

: Ab

to A

ol,

Ph lis

Tre

eulow

t C

tical Ltd:

ontrol,

must plement s

S

Schedule 4(i) Surface Water Discharge Monitoring,

Schedule 4(ii) Groundwater Monitoring.

0.81

10.8.1 Engineering

1

Engineering and Operational Controls

ol

0.8.

J

Janssen has levels of containm

1.1 Bunding of Storage Tanks

ohn n & cy p und ks.

spills or leaks from

All bulk mprotection

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. ELRA 2009vironmental Liabilities Risk Assessment 2009 UpdateEn



to ensure they are free of leaks and signs of corrosion and to ensure valves are operational. Rainwater collected in the bunds is sampled and tested prior to a decision on the discharge route. Normally the rainwater is discharged to surface water system. However, if conta ated, the contents c e pumped to the tewater treatment plant. Also in the event of a tank rupturing, or a significant spill from ank, the bund contents can be pumped to dru or a tanker as approp e.

Bulk solvents are pumped to the appropriate tank farm from road tankers standing at designated bunded tanker unloading bays.

There are four bunded diesel tanks on site. The f or the emergency generators, the fire fighting water pumps and the firewater retention system pumps is stored in these tanks. One of the diesel tanks has a contained area for re-fuelling the diesel fork trucks. Normally, any

d spected prior to discharge to the surface water system or r

he er, the Pla 3 ammonia scrubber and the Carbon a . The cooling tower and scrubbers drain to the process

te

f rms is above ground for easy access and inspection.

a or in th ouse are of aded from or loaded onto road transport at the

s and IBCs are transported around the site ing lift trucks. The design of the tainless steel IB b s y lift trucks.

eline tra ther liquors are m stainless steel. Solvents and ther ors d e p cks to facilitate preventive intenance.

pour harg ti nt n in continuously welded high-sity p ethy e i s

ludge is conve tr o e

rocess drainage n pro tion labo ry areas discharges via an underground double con p ne k to where it is pumped

over ground on the site pipe rack system to the waste water treatment plant.

10.8.2 Operational Control

10.8.2.1 General

The Master Formula and Ba cord, prepared for each production process, detail the unit operations required, the quantities of materials, tem ratures, pressures and process durations. Standard operating procedures specify the procedures to be followed by the operator to operate each item of equipment and to carry out each operation.

10.8.2 Control Philosophy for Plant 1 and the Dryer Building

Syste and operations in P 1 and the Dryer Building are controlled by a networked computerised control system referred to as the Sattline control system.

Staff interface with the Sattline system via workstations. Each workstation is equipped with a display monitor and keyboard. The workstations are located in the process areas and in the plant control room. Workstations allow the status of the plant to be displayed and instructions to be issued to the Sattline system.

thewas a t

min

ms

an b

riat

uel f

rainfall in these bunprocess sewer as app

The glycol tank, tAdsorption Plant aresewer.

10.8.1.2 Transport of Ma

All pipe work to and

ateri ls st ed

s is viopriat

cau are a

rials

rom t

e Wa

sually ine.

stic scrubblso in bunds

he tank fa

nt

MWarehouse loading forecourt. The DrumDrums

Pipmoma

Vaden

S

Pgravity

reh

that th

lvent are co

rbon Apiping

from

t 3 ipe

flo Store al

e lifted

in ov

on Plarhead p

ifuge t

and a double contained tank from

so has a loading forecourt for this function. usecurel

rhead

are cope rack

a sludg

rato

forkby fork

ade ofipe ra

veyed .

skip.

Cs is

nsportpipel

es to lene /

yed di

fromtai

such

ing soines

the Ca steel

rectly

Planed

ey can

and monveye

dsorp, on ov

the cen

ductwor

s forliqu

discoly

tch Repe

.2

ms lant




The S ine s controls the ration of the plan referring to ba A recipe contains the complete set of instructions for the production of a specific product. In particular,

the quantity of raw ma al required

• the equipment require

• the utilities required.

d n sta the control ro can initiate a batch at a workstation. Upon initiation the u d int ty of the plant is checked by the Sattline system. All requirements as

ust be met before the Sattline system will allow production to proceed. During production the status of the plant is continuously o the Sattline system. Should any mee equi s he re is generated which disp d stations and corrective action is taken by the

stem

10.8.2. Control P

All systems and ope t 2 trol c al co ntrol system referred to a he d b control stem C All operati w in Plant 2 are auto

The ction cess soc equip rolled direc the DCS. All othe ocess t ns contro mable logic controllers which

ely o CS

fac t oper ons le is equ d with a display d ar s a ted eas and he plant control

nso o of nt to d instruc s to be issued to

The DCS controls the operation of the plant by ch recipes. e recipe contains the complete set of instructions similar to the Plant 1 batch recipes. The DCS functions in a sim anner to the Sattline system

10.8.2.4 Control Philosophy for Plant 3

th sociated Centr Building (CUB) is controlled and monitored by a ntr ystem (PCS) e PCS provides nitoring and functions for ip t. Control of t utomated production process is under a batch sequence

provides for two separate control rooms (one for production Modules 1 and 2 and one for Module 3) in the Plant 3 production building. These control rooms contain

ain operator consoles, which interface with the process equipm and ru stem architecture also provides for local operator consoles in the key s he pr s, including th B, for maximum ibility of operations and visibility.

maximize puter control ant 3 has a high vel of process rumentation for easuring pressures, flows, temperatures, levels etc. Instrumentation is drawn from the latest

art technologies to com unicate to the PCS. system has a proven track record ent.

attl ystem ope t by tch recipes.

the recipe specifies the following:

• teri

d

Prostat

uctios an

ff inegri

om

specified in the recipe m monit red bycipe an alarm

mputerised coons ith

parameter not t the rat the appropriate work

hilosophy for Plant 2

rations in Plan are conistri sy

rement of t

led by entr

is

3

laye. Sattline sy

s t

pro and u contr

e withkeyboles all

utive

and asperatio the D

S by onsole status

(D

mentlled b

oles. in the be d

referr

S).

are cy pro

Each procisplay

ing to

mated.

rear pr

ultimat

f interitor an

m. CoDCS.

ilar m

step ility olled by

he DCd. Cw the

iatedare .

ating cre locathe pla

.

ontgram

consoess ared an

bat

tly by

ippein ttion

Th

are

Stafmonroothe

PlaProproreg

nt 3 andcess Cocess equime.

e asol Smen

stem

al Utility. Thhe a

mo control

The control sy

the m

To

ent packages

inst

instarea

mentation. The sy of t oces

com

e CU

, Pl

flex

lemproven smin the production of bulk APIs in a validated batch environm

m The




The PCS for Plant 3 interfaces with the existing plant control system, through systems gateway technology.

The system has the following key functions:

• provide secure and reliable site-wide plant interface controls, • provide interfaces for operations and maintenance personnel, • accurately record and log parameters and events, • provide site-wide monitoring and alarming, • ensure reliable and secure automatic and remote manual control, • enable the systematic and comprehensive display of plant conditions and major operating parameters to plant personnel, and • ensure the safety of plant, environment and personnel at all times.

1 ti o p

r

p l significant emissions to ground, i ro abatement measures installed on n e en or environmental liabilities

a r scen were identified, that might d n . A ber of these scenarios are

ine detail.

new ma hav e ded to th aterials stored and used on site, since the ious ELR p , the conse ce of a leak or spill of these materials have conside L The two terials are Phosphorous Oxychloride and rogen Bro t Acetic . Both ma will be stored in 200 litre

Specif rtaken o consequ f a release of Phosphorous loride. lease of gen Bro cetic Acid was assessed tively and it was decide that the risks were low and did not merit quantitative ent. T t chang isk scen ease the off site risks

the oper n

scenarios R and Liabili preadsheet pendix A.

conseque lik o f these sce s was asse ased on the following:

• Relevant as-constructed Process Flow Diagrams

• Control logic

• HAZOP reports

• Standard Operating Procedures

• Critical spares policy

• Discussions with the relevant site personnel

• Review of previous relevant reports:

− Environmental Risk Assessment Report for Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd., Don Menzies & Associates, 1996

− Report for Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. on Modelling of Releases of Hydrogen Chloride Gas, Don Menzies & Associates, 2000

− Evaluation of Use and Effectiveness of Remote Bunding, Arup Consulting Engineers, 2003

− Modelling of Loss of Containment of Ammonia Arup Menzies, 2004

Identifica

10.9.1 G

During normasurface water site. Operatioto arise fromdirectly leaexam d in

0.9 on

ene

l oor a

ns obnoto a

f Risk from O

al

erations there is r due to the envi site were examinmal operations. A risk of significa

erations on Site

ittle potential for anynmental protection andd to determine the pottotal of 37 plausiblet pollution off site

tial fariosnum

TwoprevbeenHyddrums.Oxychqualitaassessmfrom

All

The

teriA wred midic mThe

he nation

are

nces

als as for e 33odel

cons

ew ms of

listed

and

e bereparedthis E% soluling wasequence

aterialsthe pla

in the

elih

n ad andRA.ion in unde

of a re

do not.

isk

od o

e mquen maAcidf the Hydro

e the r

ty S

nario

terialsence omide in A

arios or incr

in Ap

ssed b




− odelling o osphorous Oxychloride, Arup Consulting Engineers 2009

should be noted that, following these earlier assessments, site operations were modified to inate entirely so d. The discussion below relates to the residual .

10 posed a threat that might

defeat either a primary and /or secondary containment system, or

be of such magnitude that facilities or systems might not completely prevent an off site significant effect, or

• occur over such an area as to preclude complete containment.

F n p

Confined vapour explosion in production area

F n ta

• F n d

• Loss of con m rehouse

• in y are

• exp in

• of nm ia

a a

ir

All of these scenarios have been anticipated in the facilities design, the process control and auto vertheless, they are considered in detail as they stit an e ted over and above routine operational considerations and they have been recognised by Janssen as requiring exceptional attention.

Attack

as considered that a terrorist attack could be a use of som f the scenarios considered previously rather than resulting in a new

M f Ph

It elimr

Of these 37 possible scenarios only

me of the risks identifieisks

•

•

The 10 scenarios are as follows:

•

•

•

ire i

ire i

ire i

roduction area

nk bund

rum store

tain ent in wa

Fire

Gas

Loss

Fire in

Road T

mation, and standard operating procedures. Ne con

utilit

losion

contai

mainten

anker f

ute

a

boiler

ent of

nce are

e

leva

ammon

risk

•

•

These 10 scenarios are discussed in detail in Appendix B.

10.9.2 Terrorist

In relation to the risk of a terrorist attack, it wps

osscen

ible caario.

e o

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. ELRA 2009Environmental ilities Risk Assess 2009 Update Liab ment



11. ASSESSMENT OF RISK

11.1 Methodology l liabilities for plant area are discussed in the following

ent m res already in place, as described in Section it the potential for certain emissions and these measures are considered

ent of risk c rises the following steps:

• hazard identification,

• frequency/likelihood assessment,

• consequenc ent, an

• ris alua

likelihood of each hazard occurring is assessed based on professional opinion, and

he various level a haza ing ca s fo

11.2 Risk Classification Table Rat Lik ood %

The potential environmsection. It should be noted that abatem

enta eacheasu

3.7, are predicted to limwhen assessing the potential risk.

The assessm omp

e/Impact assessm

tion.

s of possibility of

d

ilar facility.

rd occurr

k ev

The historical experience at the plant or a sim

T n be described, a llows:

ing elih Probability

1 Lo w 0 - 10

2 o ed 20 L w to M ium 10 -

3 e o 50 M dium t High 20 -

4 e V ry high >50

Following the assessment of the likelihood of the envir tal inc t, the si icance of the consequence associated with the incident is assessed. The significance is assessed in line with E crite or th ess t of iro ntal im ts as follo

Rating Impact Severity

Fi cial Cost (€

onmen

pac

iden

ws:

gnif

PA ria f e ass men env nme

nan 000)

1 Low Imperc 0 -eptible 10

2 Low to Med Slight/ 10ium moderate - 50

3 Medium to High Signifi 50 - 100 cant

4 Very high Profound 100 - 1000




11.3 Risk Ranking Risk Potential Incident Risk Score

1 Fir oduction ar 3

2 Confined vapour explosion in production area 3

3 Fire in tank bund 3

4 Fire in drum store 3

5 Loss of containment in warehouse 3

6 rea 3

7 in bo 3

8 ment monia 3

9 ce 3

10 3

Risk Mahe Risk Mat ped to the risks to be easily displayed and prioritised.

The severity and occurrence ratings are used in the matrix; with the level of severity forming the x-axis and the likelihood of occurrence forming the y-axis. This matrix will provide a visual tool for regular risk reviews since itigation can be easily identified. The risk matrix is displayed low. The risk atrix to provide a broad indication of the hierarchy of risk.

The colour-code is as follows:

Red (deep red and light red) – These are considered to be high-level risks requiring priority attention. These risks have the pot catastrophic and as such should be addressed quickly.

Amber / Yellow – These are medium-level risks requiring action, but are not as critical as a red coded risk.

Green (light and dark green) – These are lowest-level risks and indicate a need for continuing awareness and monitoring on a regular basis. Whilst they are currently low or minor risks, some have the potential to increase to m m or even high-level risks and must therefore be regularly monitored effective igation can be carried out to reduce the risk even further this should b

Occurrence

e in pr ea

Fire in utility a

Gas explosion

Loss of contain

Fire in maintenan

Road Tanker fire

trix rix has been develo

iler

of am

area

allow

11.4 T

the success of ms h

to

be ave been colour-coded in the m

be ential

ediu mit and if cost

e pursued.

High 4

Medium to High

3

Low to Medium

2

Low 1 1 - 10

Imperceptible Slight/Moderate Significant Profound

Janssen Pharmaceutical L ELRA 2009Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment 2009 Update

td.



1 2 3 4

Severity

12. easures in place in plant are described in section 3.7 above. These measures

have been implemented over the years and have had the effect of reducing to a low level the ental incident.

13. RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

1 G rp ent programme to minimise the risk of an unplanned

e r on the site. The risk management programme has the w el

• ed ment of changes to plant or operations

• k

• Emerg

• Emplo train

• Calibration and preventative maintenance

13.1.

p ts c edure to manage proposed changes to operations or m o . n uest is initiated for all proposed changes to systems,

sed change undergoes a health, safety and environment lu A uired a more detailed risk assessment is undertaken. HAZOPs and additional studies are also completed for projects and process changes/ introduction

13.1.2 Work permit system

All contractors on site work under a permit system. Risk assessments are undertaken prior to

Response

prevention of accidental emission or spillage is achieved by paying particular attention to nd by ensuring the highest standards of equipment and facilities.

Janss hilosophy is based upon accident prevention coupled with appropriate emergency respons deal effectively with an accidental emission or spillage both during and outside

a orking hou Safety and environmental training (refer to 5.1.4), incident and llow through, safe systems of work and safe

in vironment are the fundamentals of this prevention approach and are documented in ansse ealth and ty Manual.

is a fully equipped and competent emergency response team on site at all times during uc operations

Safety and environmental protection has been the prime consideration in developing and implementing standard operating procedures and batch record books for site operations.

IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION ACTIONS The risk control m

likelihood of an environm

3.1Janssen imif

ene

nt oing

Proc

Wor

al lements a risk managemabnormal operation

ements:

ures for the manage

permit system

ency response

ncidollo

yee

lemenn site

al eva

s

ing

a striA cha

ation.

1 Management of Change Procedure

quipJanssen imeprocesses, procedures and operations. The propo

t procge req

s req

ent

the work being carried out as part of this process.

Ts

13.1.3 Emergency

he ite safety a

en’s pe to

normaccident investigation and corrective action fowJ

l w

g enn’s H

rs.

Safeork

There prod tion .




All applicable personnel are trained in chemical handling and spill response procedures. The site emergency response teams in association with the Safety and Environmental sections train

simulating a number of incident scenarios, such as responding to a spill from a solvent ear.

erg esponse standard operating procedures define the actions to be taken for ergency response outside the normal working hours and when the plant is shut down.

Since the risk of accidental emissions or an emergency situation arises primarily from is significantly reduced at weekends and holiday periods

ee Training

Janssen em time Training Manager. Each year a training plan is prepared and reviewe sis for each employee. At a minimum the training plan includes raining specific duties and the site’s health, safety and environment and

e standards and procedures.

ing issues assists in increasing employee/contractor awareness of the rem cence and any environmental issues specific to their job function.

his he all employees the importance of the environmental aspects of the ite ope

Cal ntative Maintenance System

Janssen has a computerised calibration and preventive maintenance system. The system contains a database for all plant equipment from which the calibration schedules and preventive maintenance schedules are generated and to which confirmation of schedule execution is recorded and confirmed. The system is referred to as the SAP PM System.

The Engineering Manager has overall responsibility for this system, which is operated on a basis by th h and electrical supervisors.

M em a es the operation of the system in detail. The system is password o

The sy c e e distinct components:

• P eg

• Schedule Tasks,

• Job Control,

History, and

Inventory date.

iew

and Environment (HSE) Steering Committee ensures that the HSE policies and objectives are implemented effectively to ensure Janssen continuously improves in order to minimise the risk to the environment and the health and safety of personnel and the

unity. The Steering Committee is comprised of the members of the site leadership team the Enviro Managers. The effectiveness of these HSE policies are

continua eviewed through the Internal and External Audit Program and by the ent Review.

bytanker, throughout the y

The site emem

ency r

production related activities the risk when the plant is shut down.

13.1.4 Employ

13.1.5

1

ploys a full d on a 6-montly ba in the employee’s anufacturing practic

in environmental ents of the IPPC li

lps to emphasise to rations.

ibration and Preve

tgood m

TrTs

rainequi

daily

Tc

e mec

Manu

ompris

ister,

anical

l defin

d of fiv

he Pontr

Systlled.

stem is

lant R

•

•

6 Risk Management Rev

Up

3.1.

The Health, Safety

cabeing Annual Managem

ommnd nmental and Safety

lly r

Janssen Pharm ELRA 2009Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment 2009 Update

aceutical Ltd.



14. FINANCIAL PROVISION all cases considered the potential environmental liabilities are not significant and will be

ssen’s public liability insurance, which is US$2 million per occurrence to an it of US$4 million. Potential damage to property on site is covered by Janssen’s

insurance of €440 m n .

15. CON S The a cinit n e onmentally sensitive,

contains no sites with environm i measures have been ncorp d o vironmental impacts.

in ati ant environmental li

s wi ia o le for environmental iabili g s urring is low and the

risk a t u ly the environmental liabili cov sen l iability insurance or prope .

In covered byannual limproperty

Jan

illio

CLUSIONrea in the vi

orated into theg normal operty.

th any industrties to occur. Inssociated withty costs arerty insurance

y of the Jansse

esign of the planons the facility i

l process, during eneral, the proba

hem is considereered by Jans

site isental t to ms not

abnorbilityd to Pha

not considdesignatioinimise theexpected t

mal opera of abnormbe acceptarmaceutica

ered to be ns. Mitigat potential f

o have any s

tions it is pal operationble. Conseqls Ltd. pub

nviron r enignific

ssib occentic l

and iDl

Al

uriabi

[User Note9]

APPENDIX B Risk and Liabilities Spreadsheets

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. ELRA 2009 Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment 2009 Update


Page A1 Arup Consulting Engineers Issue 1 26 March 2009

B1 PR. ODUCTION AREAS Item No. Operations What If Scenario Impact Control/ Response Likelihood Consequence Risk

1 es No emissions N/A N/A None N/A Normal No incidenc

2 Noections

issions to atmosphere of process fluids

Training to minimise risk of spillage, minimising use of flanged joints,

maintenance of pumps Low Imperceptible Acceptable rmal

Fugitive emissions from pipelines and piping Insignificant em

conn

Air: Emission of vapours and combustion products to the atmosphere

Effluent: Possibly contaminated firewater that will require treatment. 3 production area

Waste: Fire damaged material that will require treatment

Sprinkler system to quench fires as early as possible. Operators will be

stationed in the production area at all times during production operations.

Alarm system will notify the Emergency Response Team.

Emergency fire abatement procedures are in place. Fire water retention

system.

Low Significant Acceptable Abnormal Fire in

Air: Emission of vapours Localised extraction system.

Effluent: Quantity of material that will require treatment.

Training provided on methods for dealing with spills.

4

Waste: N/A

Low Slight/Moderate Acceptable Abnormal Piping rupture

Air: Emissions of vapours and gases from catch tank vent

Effluent: no emission 5 Process vessel over-

treatment

table Abnormal pressure resulting in rupture of bursting disk Waste: some or all of vessel contents

retained in catch tank may require

Monitoring of process vessel key parameters Medium Slight/Moderate Accep

Air: Emission of vapours to the atmosphere by leaks through building General and local extraction ducted to

fabric scrubber

Effluent: N/A 6 Abnormal Release of HCl in a

ction building

Waste: N/A

Low Imperceptible Acceptable produ




Item No. Operations What If Scenario Impact Control/ Response Likelihood Consequence Risk

Air: Emission of dust and products of incomplete combustion to the atmosphere,

possible projectiles

Effluent: N/A 7 b plosion

Waste: damaged equipment and explosion relief panels to be disposed of

Inerting vessel headspaces and powder dryers with nitrogen. Use of antistatic

A normal Dust ex

bags. Electrical bonding and earthing ofall vessels and pipes. The provision of

conducting floors and conducting footwear. Prevention of accumulations

of dust deposits. Specification of electrical equipment for use in areas in which combustible dusts are present.

Low Slight/Moderate Acceptable

Air: Emission of vapours and combustion tmosphere products to the a

Effluent: Possibly contaminated firewater that will require treatment. 8 b

Waste: Fire damaged material that will require treatment or disposal

The use of remote actuated valves. The provision of a computer control system,

maintenance and inspection of all pipelines and process vessels. High

level detection and alarm facilities on process vessels.

Low Significant Acceptable A normal Confined vapour explosion (in equipment)


Effluent: Possibly contaminated firewater that will require treatment. 9 Abnormal Confined explosion (in

building)

Waste: Fire damaged material that will require treatment or disposal

Explosion relief provided in buildings Low Significant Acceptable




B2. TS ORAGE AREAS Item No. Operations What If Scenario Impact Control/ Response Likelihood Consequence Risk

1 No incidences No emissions N/A N/A None N/A rmal No

2 Ns from Insignificant emissions to atmosphere of

process fluids Localised extraction

N2 blanket and vapour return High Imperceptible Acceptable ormal tanks and fugitive emissions

Breathing losse

3 Release of contents of tanks, evaporation from surface of pool All bulk tanks are bunded. Low Imperceptible Acceptable Abnormal Leak from a bulk tank


Effluent: Possibly contaminated firewater that will require treatment.

4 Abnormal Fire in bulk tank

vessels and pipes. Specification of electrical equipment for use in

potentially explosive atmospheres. Alarm system will notify the Emergency Response Team.

batement procedures are in place. Fire water retention

system.

Low Significant Acceptable

Waste: Fire damaged material that will require treatment Emergency fire a

Inerting tank headspaces with nitrogen. Electrical bonding and earthing of all


Effluent: Possibly contaminated firewater that will require treatment. 5

Electrical bonding and earthing of all

y explosive atmospheres.

Acceptable Abnormal Fire in tank farm bund vessels and pipes. Specification of electrical equipment for use in Low Significant


potentiall

6 b

special training on the procedure for dealing with spills.

Acceptable A normal Leak from storage drum(s) Air: evaporation from surface of pool times during production operations.

Emergency Response Team receives Low Imperceptible

Staff will be stationed in the storage areas or the vicinity of the areas at all





Effluent: Release of contents of the drum or container

linear cut-off drain outside the front of the drum store building. This drains to a sump, the contents of

which can be sampled and dealt with

Liquid leaking from a drum in the drum store, which was not seen and addressed, would be collected in the

as appropriate.

Waste: Materials used to absorb leak Disposal by licensed contractor Air: Emission of vapours and combustion

products to the atmosphere Effluent: Quantity of possibly

contaminated firewater that will require treatment.


flammable atmospheres. Alarm system will notify the Emergency

Response Team. Sprinkler systems in

Specification of electrical equipment for use in potentially explosive or

place. Fire water retention system.

Effluent: Rel

Liquid leaking from a drum in the drum store, which was not seen and addressed, would be collected in the

ease of contents of the drum linear cut-off drain outside the front

which can be sampled and dealt with

or container of the drum store building. This drains to a sump, the contents of

as appropriate.

7

Waste: Materials used to absorb leak, waste raw materials, intermediates or Disposal by licensed contractor

table Abnormal Fire in Drum Store Low Significant Accep

products




B3. LABORATORY AREA Item No. Operations What If Scenario Impact Control/ Response Likelihood Consequence Risk

1 N/A Normal No incidences No emissions N/A N/A None

2 le Acceptable Abnormal Accidental spillage of material or chemicals.

Possible release of materials or chemicals to the drain Sewage system monitored Low Imperceptib

Air: Emission of vapours and combustion ducts to the atmosphere pro


3 b

at will

Staff will be stationed in the laboratories or the vicinity of the laboratories at all times during

A normal Fire

Waste: Fire damaged material threquire treatment

production operations. Alarm system will notify the ERT. Emergency fire abatement procedures are in place.

Fire water retention system.

Low Slight/moderate Acceptable




B4. UTILITY AREA Item No. Operations What If Scenario Impact Control/ Response Likelihood Consequence Risk

1 Normal No incidences No emissions N/A N/A None N/A

2 Abnormal Loss of steam containment – PSV valve fails open or

line ruptures

the atmosphere. ume. nance Low Imperceptible Acceptable Release of steam to

le plVisib Mainte

Air: Emis f vapours and combustion pro s to the atmosphere

sion oduct


3 Abnormal Fire

Waste: F amaged material that will re treatment

Staff will be in the utility area or the vi f it at all times during

ire drequi

cinity oprod operations. Alarm system will n e ERT. Emergency fire aba procedures are in place.

Fire water retention system in place.

Low Significant Acceptable uction otify th

tement

Air: surface of pool evaporation from

Effluent: Release of contents of the tank4 Abnormal Loss of containment of storage vessel(s) in the

area

aste: N/A

e stationed in the utility area o icinity of it at all times.

ERT receive special training on spillages

Low Imperceptible Acceptable

W

Staff will br the v

Air: Emi of gas and combustion pro o the atmosphere

ssion ducts t

Effluent: none 5 Abnormal Natural gas explosion in boiler house

Waste: Damaged equipment that will

Sla alves on the gas supply. Gas detectors, set to alarm if the

concentration of gas reaches 25% of the plosive limit. Automatic

fail-safe controls on the boiler. Vents in the roof of the boiler house


require disposal

m-shut v

lower ex

6 Abnormal ammonia (refrigerant in chiller)

Air: ammonia vapour to air of containment of ammonia. Standard operating procedures for

Low Significant Acceptable Loss of containment of The site emergency plan takes account

of the possible consequences of loss





Effluent: N/A handling of ammonia.

t is inspected and h the

Waste: N/A

The refrigeration unimaintained in accordance wit

manufacturers specification.

Air: N/A

Effluent: polluted water

Emergency Response Team trained in spill remediation measures, 2 x 105m3

capacity equalisation tanks (each of which can be taken off line) in first

stage of WWTP followed by continuous pH neutralisation in 2

tanks (each of which can be taken off line )

7 Abnormal

Spill of utility materials (waste water treatment

plant treatment chemicals) drai ng to

Waste: N/A

Low Imperceptible/ Slight

Acceptable

ni WWTP

Air: N/A Effluent: polluted groundwater 8 Abnormal Leak from fuel storage

Waste: contaminated soil

Inspection and maintenance of installations, and testing of pipelines, Low Slight/

Moderate Acceptable




B5. MAINTENANCE AREA Item No. Operations What If Scenario Impact Control/ Response Likelihood Consequence Risk


2 Abnormal Accidental spillage of Localised maintenance fluids e.g. oils Contained within the area Low Imperceptible Acceptable

Air: Emission of vaproducts to t

pours and combustion he atmosphere


3 Abnormal Fire

Staff will b ance areas or the vi tenance

s at all uring production rations. system will notify

he Emer sponse Team. Emergency fire abatement procedures

in pla water retention m.


Waste: Fire damaged material that will arerequire treatment

e in the maintencinity of the main

areaope

times dAlarm

t gency Re

ce. Fire syste




B6. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, TECHNICAL SERVICES BUILDING, SECURITY AND CANTEEN AREAS Item No. Operations What If Scenario Impact Control/ Response Likelihood Consequence Risk




2

Fire damaged material that will require treatment

vicinity of the areas at all times

Fire water retention system.

eptable Abnormal Fire

Waste:

during production operations. Alarm system will notify the Emergency Response Team. Emergency fire

abatement procedures are in place.

Low Slight / moderate Acc

Staff will be in the areas or the




B7. OTHER AREAS Item No. Operations What If Scenario Impact Control/ Response Likelihood Consequence Risk


Air: Short term emission of vapours

Effluent: Run off material to storm water 2

cial training on spills. Continuous ceptable Abnormal tanker outside the loading

bay Waste: N/A

monitoring of storm water drainage and automatic diversion to containment if

preset limits exceeded.

Low Slight/Moderate AcAccidental leakage from road

Emergency Response Team receive spe

Air: N/A

Run off of oil to storm water drainage system 3

Roadways and car parks are paved. Oil

automatic diversion to containment if preset limits exceeded.

Imperceptible Acceptable Abnormal Fuel or lubricant oil leakage from vehicle on site

water inceptors are installed in the storm water drainage system. Continuous

monitoring of storm water drainage and Low

Waste: N/A

Air: Short term emission of vapours and combustion products to the

atmosphere Effluent: Run off material to storm

water

4 Abnormal Road tanker fire

All electrical equipment is specified for use in potentially explosive atmospheres.All plant and equipment, including road tankers discharging at the tank farm, is electrically bonded and grounded, to

prevent accumulation of static electricity.Safety Rules prohibit mobile sources of Low Significant Acceptable

Waste: N/A electronic equipment that is not suitably rated.

Close supervision during unloading/ loading.

ignition in the tank farm, such as naked flames, and portable electrical or

3.1

Note10][User

APPENDIX C Scenarios which Pose Significant Risk of Off-Site Pollution

C1. SCENARIOS WHICH POSE SIGNIFICANT RISK OF OFF-SITE POLLUTION

nk bund

rehouse

• Loss of containment of ammonia

uch wider range of ould be present in the fire and in the plume.

nd ignition. Loss of containment could be caused by any of the following events, if

Ten scenarios were assessed to pose a risk of significant off-site consequences. These were as follows:

• Fire in production area

• Confined vapour explosion in production area

• Fire in ta

• Fire in drum store

• Loss of containment in wa

• Fire in utility area

• Gas explosion in boiler

• Fire in maintenance area

• Road Tanker fire

They are discussed in this Appendix.

C1.1 Fire in Production Plant

C1.1.1 Background

A fire in one of the production buildings would involve quantities of organic chemicals, solid and liquid, as well as building materials and furnishings. A plume of smoke would result, as in the case of a fire in the tank farm. It would however differ in that a mmaterials w

A fire would require a loss of containment of flammable liquid ait was not isolated:

• leaking gasket,

• leaking pump seal,

• leaking agitator seal,

• overfilling of tank,

• failure of diaphragm valve,

• drum rupture,

• accidental discharge -

• vessel rupture,

• mechanical damage t

• failure of bottom disc

pipe fracture.

• rupture of flexible hose,

• drum tipping over,

operator error,

o vessel or pipe from explosion,

harge valve, and

•

Vessels within the production building range in size from 150 litres to 6,000 litres. Most of the production processes are based on organic solvents.

S rc

• uncontrolled hot work,

• hot surfaces (e.g. overheating pump),

• metal/metal spark,

• explosion giving rise to projectiles.

A fire in a production plant could escalate, and the heat could cause rupture of pipes carrying other flammable liquids, and rupture of vessels. Apart from flammable liquids and some organic powders, there is very little fire load within a production plant. The roof however would be combustible.

C1.1.2 Precautions

Precautions against fire and means of detection and suppression include:

• the provision of automatic water sprinklers over each floor of the production building,

• manually initiated water drenching on reaction vessels,

• automatic fire detection system,

• all vessels are inerted with a nitrogen blanket when handling flammable liquids, so that combustion cannot be sustained within the vessel,

• all electrical equipment is specified for use in potentially explosive atmospheres,

• velocities in pipes are kept below 2 m/s so that the generation of static electricity is minimised,

• all plant and equipment is electrically bonded and grounded, to prevent accumulation of static electricity,

• safety rules prohibit mobile sources of ignition in the production plants, such as naked flames, and portable electrical or electronic equipment that is not suitably rated.

ou es of ignition could include:

• electrical equipment,

• static electricity,

C1.1.3 Co

re. However, crude oil contains materials of a much more complex molecular structure than the solvents used at Janssen, and the results of this analysis do not apply. There are no reliable results of analysis of smoke

nt fire.

oke would result if the roof caught fire. The plume would rise in a manner similar to that from a tank farm fire, and eventually impact on the ground some distance from the plant. The distance would depend on the scale of the fire, and on the

itions (wind speed and atmospheric stability).

s are principally carbon dioxide and water vapour. If there is a shortage of air, carbon monoxide will be produced. Nitrogen oxides may also be generated. If there are elements other than carbon, hydrogen and oxygen present, for example nitrogen

ssen would be expected to be mainly carbon dioxide, water vapour and carbon The quantities present in the production building are smaller than those in

oke plume would be smaller than in the case of a tank farm fire, provided that

or products, would be expected to give rise to some products nature of these cannot be predicted.

would be no different from the smoke plume from any other building of similar construction.

he fire damaged part of the building would have to be demolished, which would generate waste, and there e extent of the environmental remediation required would be not be significant. The

c s

mbustion

In the event of an unextinguished fire in a production building, smoke, products of incomplete combustion and vaporized flammable liquids will issue through roof vents and broken glazing.

The smoke from the burning Kuwaiti oil fires in 1991 was sampled and analyzed both at ground level and by aerial sampling. This showed the presence of a range of products of incomplete combustion of a complex natu

from a chemical pla

Hence the composition of smoke from a burning production building cannot be predicted. It is likely however, because of the use of synthetic materials in the roof, that a plume of dense black sm

prevailing weather cond

The products of combustion of organic liquid

or sulphur, then nitrogen oxides or sulphur oxides could be generated. The products of combustion of the flammable liquids used at Janmonoxide. This is because of the relatively simple molecular structure. the storage tanks in the tank farm, and hence the volume of the smonly the flammable liquids are involved in the fire.

Involvement of powdered combustible materials, whether raw materials, intermediatesof incomplete combustion. The

If the roof caught fire, the smoke plume from this

C1.1.4 Financial Provision

Following a fire in a production plant, tmay be contaminated fire water to be disposed off. However thost would be more than adequately covered by Janssen’s property insurance.

C1.2 Con e

C1.2.1 Background

xplosion would require the presence of a flammable vapour/air mixture and a source of ignition. A flammable vapour/air mixture could diate ignition.

processes are based on organic solvents.

C1.2.2 Pre

utions against loss of containment include:

nst ignition have been described in the previous section.

C1.2.3

vapour cloud e o

1 action of distance from the centre of the cloud. For a mass, m, of flammable m terial an equivalent m TNT, of TNT is calculated using the expression:

fin d Vapour Explosion in Production Plant

A vapour ebe caused by loss of containment of a flammable liquid, provided that there was no imme

Vessels within the production buildings range in size from 150 litres to 6,000 litres. Most of the

cautions

Preca

• the use of remote actuated valves,

• the provision of a computer control system,

• maintenance and inspection of all pipelines and process vessels,

• high level detection and alarm facilities on process vessels.

Precautions agai

Vapour Cloud Explosions

Two alternative correlation models for (unconfined) vapour cloud explosions are used within WHAZAN to calculate the effects of xpl sions. . The explosion overpressure can be expressed as a continuous fr

a ass, m

⎟⎟⎠

⎜⎜⎝

= CTNT H

mm ⎞⎛

TN

H η

where η = i

HC = heat of combustion of the material

HTNT = yield of TNT (4.76 x 106 J/kg)

T

eld explosive y

The peak overpressure is then correlated with a istanc a Table in Lees (19 scaled d e, from 80):

mr = r*

1/3TNT

Scaled Distance r* 1/3) (m/kg

Peak Overpressure PX (bar)

1.12 6.803

1.53 3.401

2.32 1.361

3.28 0.680

4.87 0.340

8.62 0.236

14.0 0.068

24.7 0.034

40.3 0.020

57.0 0.0136

103.0 0.0068

298.9 0.0021

2. The Dutch State Mines (DSM) Company has derived a correlation between defined levels of damage to buildings and the distance from an

explosion of known energy (TNO, 1980). This correlation uses a measure of distance from the cloud centre which is scaled by the cube root of the available combustion energy. Four damage levels are defined, which have characteristic scaled radii as follows:

n C(n) Description of damage

1 s equipment 0.03 Heavy damage to buildings and to proces

2 0.06 Repairable dama ge to dwellings ge to buildings, and facade dama

3 e causing injury 0.15 Glass damag

4 0.4 Gl mage to 0% of s ass da about 1 pane

The maximum radius at w dama vel n e expe is thehich ge at le will b rience n

)E( C(n) = r(n) 3 1

η

E = theoretically available energy

= ficienc explos

where

η ef y of ion

For both models the efficiency of the explosion can be considered as the simple product of two factors. One is the mechanical yield of the combustion and is usually assigned a value of 0.33. The other is the proportion of yield loss due to the continuous nature of development of fuel concentration. If combustion is isochoric then this second factor would have a value of 0.33, if isobaric then 0.18. The former is usually taken,

as a basis for calculations. If this contains acetone (4,800 kg), and this liquid is the characteristics of a vapour cloud explosion would be:

giving an overall value of η = 0.109.

The contents of one of the larger vessels, 6,000 litres is usedentirely vaporised,

Total Energy Available 1.37 x 1011 J

Maximum distance to heavy plant damage - C[1] 72 m

Maximum distance to repairable damage - C[2] 143 m

Maximum distance to major glass damage - C[3] 359 m

Maximum distance to 10% glass damage - C[4] 957 m

have the capacity to generate a flammable vapour-air mixture.

Effects of Confined Vapour Explosion However, a vapour explosion in a production building would be a confined

Dilute aqueous solutions do not generally

C1.2.4

explosion, rather than an unconfined vapour cloud explosion. A

C1.2.5 Fina

a vapour cloud explosion in a production building. While there may be some property damage, the environmental damage would be

insignificant. The costs would be more than adequately covered by Janssen’s public liability insurance.

confined explosion would result in projectiles and a blast wave. Although the scope for projectiles travelling beyond the site perimeter is limited, the blast wave could have off site implications, mainly in the form of glass damage in neighbouring properties. Secondary fires could be started. Assessment of consequences comprised calculation of blast overpressures at distances from the source, using the TNT equivalent method, and relating blast overpressure to damage level.

ncial Provision

There are no environmental receptors in the vicinity of the Janssen plant which would be damaged by the blast overpressure resulting fromconfined

C1.3 Tan

C1.3.1 Backgro

rincom

are bunded. There are four bunds for tanks containing flammable liquids. The capacity of each bund is at least 110% of t tank within it.

the entire inventory of the flammable liquids stored in the tank. The total area of Bund D is 133 m2. The diameter of a circular bund with

C1.3.2 Preca tio fire in the tank farm include the following:

• water drenching facilities (in the event of fire, water drenching would cool tanks and assist in extinguishing fires) ted with a nitrogen blanket, so that combustion cannot be sustained within the tank

C1.3.3 Bur

C1.3.4 Products of Combustion In the event of fire, the flammable liquids stored in bulk would generate the products of combustion. The liquids all have relatively simple molecular structures, and the potential for forming products of incomplete combustion is limited. Pool fires are uncontrolled, and hence there will be an oxygen deficiency over much of the pool. This will result in smoke and products of incomplete combustion. Finally, there may be emissions

k Farm Fire

und A fi e in the tank farm would produce a plume of smoke containing carbon particles, organic vapours and products of combustion and of

plete combustion.

The tanks in the tank farmthe larges

Because of the tanks are of the fixed roof type, a tank fire is not credible. The worst case scenario is a fire in a bund. In the event of a fire, pipes and tanks could be damaged and their contents shed into the bund, fuelling the fire. Hence one scenario modelled is a tank fire in the bund, involving the same area was used in the modelling (13 m).

u ns

Facilities for prevention, detection and suppression of

• all tanks are iner• all electrical equipment is specified for use in potentially explosive atmospheres • velocities in pipes are kept below 2 m/s so that the generation of static electricity is minimised • all plant and equipment, including road tankers discharging at the tank farm, is electrically bonded and grounded, to prevent accumulation of

static electricity • Safety Rules prohibit mobile sources of ignition in the tank farm, such as naked flames, and portable electrical or electronic equipment that is

not suitably rated ning Rate

It was assumed that the entire contents of one of the tanks within a bund were lost into the bund and ignited, giving rise to a pool fire. The properties of the fire were calculated using the computer package WHAZAN. This model has now been superseded by PHAST. The models used was the pool fire model.

of unburned material, which is merely vaporised. The composition of the plume of emissions will depend on a number of factors including the size of the pool, the ambient temperature and the wind velocity.

The dispersion of emissions from a pool fire involving acetone, under a range of meteorological conditions, was modelled using the computer

t dispersion of often occurs with Stability F and a wind speed of 0.5 m/s.

air quality guideline figures for these pollutants, but the concentrations drop off rapidly downstream of the plume impaction p t

g/m3) occurs at a distance of 4.09 km and with Stability F and a wind speed of 0.5 m ost common meteorological conditions at Roches Point are:

wind speed of 5 m/s : 107 mg/m3 at 6.27 km

1.3.5 Organic Vapours

Thermal radiation from a fire in the adjoining flammable liquids bund area would heat the contents of storage vessels and raise the vapour pressure.

The NFPA Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code (NFPA30) recommends providing emergency venting facilities for storage vessels containing flammable liquids. The venting requirements are based on the wetted surface area of the storage tank. In the case of vertical cylindrical vessels, which are the type used at Janssen, the wetted area is the area of the cylindrical shell up to a height of 9 m. The rate of heat absorption is a function of the wetted area, and from this the rate of emission of vapours can be calculated. The emission rates were determined on the basis of NFPA venting requirements, and the time it would take to vaporise the contents of a full storage vessel at these emission rates were calculated.

If the fire causing vaporisation of the vessel contents is close enough, or if the wind blows the plume towards the fire, then the plume would ignite, flash back and burn as a jet fire, perhaps intermittently, as the emergency relief valve opens and closes.

package HOT SPILLS. This package identifies the components of a plume from a pool fire, estimates plume rise due to thermal lift, and calculates the ground level concentrations at various distances from the source under different weather conditions.

The most common meteorological conditions are usually taken as Stability D and a wind speed of 5 m/s, and Stability F, wind speed 2 m/s. The poores

The maximum concentration of smoke and other pollutants occurs where the plume impacts on the ground. This happens some distance from the site, the actual distance depending on the weather conditions. The maximum concentrations of carbon (smoke) and carbon monoxide are in some cases in excess of

oin .

For a acetone fire, the highest concentration of carbon (4,995 m/s. The maximum concentrations and the distances for the m

• Stability D, a • Stability F, wind speed 2 m/s: 3,577 mg/m3 at 2.66 km.

C

However the plume might disperse without igniting. The computer package WHAZAN was used to predict the dispersion of plumes of methyl iso butyl ketone and methyl ethyl ketone vapours from two of the storage vessels. The distance for dispersion of the methyl iso butyl ketone vapour to the Immediate Danger to Life and Health (IDLH) value (3,000 ppm) for was calculated.

ethyl iso butyl ketone vapours under the most common weather conditions are:

• Stability D, a wind speed of 5 m/s: 88 m

• Stability F, wind speed 2 m/s: 167 m.

The distances for dispersion of methyl ethyl ketone vapours under the most common weather conditions are:

• Stability D, a wind speed of 5 m/s: 115 m

• Stability F, wind speed 2 m/s: 201 m.


Following a fire in a bulk tank, the fire damaged equipment would have to be removed, which would generate waste, and there may be contaminated fire water to be disposed off. However the extent of the environmental remediation required would be not be significant. The costs would be more than adequately covered by Janssen’s property

C1.4 Storage Areas (incl. Warehouse) During normal operations the potential for emissions to surface water or air would only occur during the delivery of materials to the storage areas.

Abnormal occurrences would include a fire in the storage areas or an accidental spillage of hazardous material. This may also occur when materials are being delivered. A fire in the storage areas or in a tanker aterials would result in short-term emissions of combustion vapours and solvents. Any accidental leak from the storage areas would result in negligible emissions to air.

C1.4.1 Drum Fire in Drum Store

A fire in the Drum Store could involve several different materials. The consequences would be a substantial plume of smoke and noxious gases. There would also be intense heat, but the separation of the Drum Store from other buildings would minimise the risk of fire spread.

The distances for dispersion of m

insurance.

delivering m

C1.4.1.1 Precautions

The controls in place to minimise the risk of fire include:

• automatic water sprinklers,

• design and specification of electrical installations and equipment.

C1.4.2 Drum Leak in Drum Store

C1.4.2.1 Background

The Drum Store consists of 5 bays. Several different liquid raw materials are stored in the drum store. The and corrosive liquids.

A spill of a drum of toluene (200 litres, or 173 kg) was examined, as being typical of other liquids.

C1.4.3 Spill

First, the pool spread and evaporation was modelled. The maximum pool diameter was predicted to be 3.56 m. ow and vapours are highly unlikely to reach a source of ignition before they disperse to a safe level.

C1.4.4 Vapour Cloud Explosion

A vapour cloud explosion (unconfined) was also modelled, and the results are shown in the following table:

se include flammable liquids

The evaporation is very l

Parameter Predicted Value

Total Energy Available (J) 7.3317 x 109

Maximum Distance to Heavy Plant Damage (m) 27

Maximum Distance to Repairable Damage (m) 54

Maximum Distance to Major Glass Damage (m) 135

Maximum Distance to 10% Glass Damage (m) 361


A spill of the contents of a drum would not result in a significant environmental liability.

There are no environmental receptors in the vicinity of the Janssen plant which would be damaged by the blast overpressure resulting from an unconfined vapour cloud explosion from a drum. While there may be some property damage, the environmental damage would be insignificant. The costs would be more than adequately covered by Janssen’s public liability insurance.

C1.5 Utility Areas During normal operations there is little potential for any emissions to surface water or air due to the environmental protection and abatement measures incorporated on site.

Abnormal occurrences would include a fire in the utility areas or an accidental spillage of hazardous material. A fire in the utility areas would result in short-term emissions of combustion vapours and solvent vapours depending on where the fire occurred. Any accidental leak from the utility areas would result in slight emissions to air.


Following a fire in a utility area, the fire damaged buildings or equipment would have to be removed, which would generate waste, and there may be contaminated fire water to be disposed off. However the extent of the environmental remediation required would be not be significant. The costs would be more than adequately covered by Janssen’s property insurance.

C1.6 Gas Explosion in Boiler House

C1.6.1 Background

Natural gas is used to fire the two steam boilers in the boiler house. Natural gas is a flammable gas, and explosions in buildings have been documented. Most of these have been due to accidental loss of containment, i.e. leaks, followed by accidental ignition.

C1.6.2 Precautions

Precautions against a gas explosion in the boiler house include:

• slam-shut valves on the gas supply,

• gas detectors, set to alarm if the concentration of gas reaches 25% of the lower explosive limit,

• automatic fail-safe controls on the boiler,

• vents in the roof of the boiler house.

C1.6.3 Vapour Cloud Explosion

The computer package WHAZAN was used to predict the effects of a vapour cloud explosion involving a volume of natural gas (methane) equal to the volume of the boiler house, 2,500 m3 (1,913 kg). The characteristics of a vapour cloud explosion would be:

Total Energy Available 9.565 x 1010 J

Maximum distance to heavy plant damage 65 m

Maximum distance to repairable damage 130 m

Maximum distance to major glass damage 320 m

Maximum distance to 10% glass damage 850 m

C1.6.4 Confined Explosion

In the event of ignition of a natural gas-air mixture which is in stoichiometric proportions, the pressure, if totally contained, would reach 8 bar abs. This is clearly greatly in excess of the pressure resistance of the building envelope. There is little glazing in the boiler house, and, in the event of an explosion, the steel cladding would be blown off. This would occur at a pressure of 1-2 psig (0.0707 – 0.133 bar) expected in this case.


There are no environmental receptors in the vicinity of the Janssen plant which would be damaged by the blast overpressure resulting from a vapour cloud explosion or confined explosion in the boiler house. While there may be some property damage, the environmental damage would be insignificant. The costs would be more than adequately covered by Janssen’s public liability insurance.

C1.7 Loss of Containment of Ammonia

C1.7.1 Background

Anhydrous ammonia is to be used at Janssen as follows:

• As a raw material in P2

• As a refrigerant in the P3 Utilities

Ammonia for use as a raw material in P2 will be supplied to Janssen in pressurised cylinders. Amm the P3 chillers will be charged by the vendor.

onia used as a refrigerant in

Chilled water and chilled Shellsol heat transfer fluid will be generated at the CUB and pumped to the Plant 3 process building. The plant will consist of chillers using ammonia as a refrigerant. The heat extracted from the chilled fluid will be rejected to the ambient air by evaporative condensers located on the roof of the CUB.

In order to assess the risk to human health arising from a possible loss of containment of ammonia and the dispersion of the resulting vapour cloud in the atmosphere, various release scenarios were modelled as outlined below.

7.2 Scenarios modelled

Release scenarios studied were based on those recommended in the TNO Purple Book. Janssen requested that the simultaneous release of the contents of three and six cylinders be modelled also.

C1.7.3 Releases from Cylinders

The scenarios to be modelled are as follows:

C1.7.4 Catastrophic (Instantaneous) Release of the Entire Contents of 1 Cylinder

Catastrophic (instantaneous) release of the entire contents of 3 cylinders

Catastrophic (instantaneous) release of the entire contents of 6 cylinders

Continuous release of the entire contents of 1 cylinder in 10 minutes at a constant rate of release

Continuous release from 1 cylinder from a hole with an effective diameter of 10 mm

Capacity of Type BE cylinder: 59 kg:

Pressure @ 15°C 6.2bar (@ 20°C approx 7.2bar)

C1.7.5 Releases from Refrigeration System

The scenarios modelled are as follows:

Instantaneous (catastrophic) release of the complete inventory (entire contents of sy m, 1500

Full bore rupture of the largest pipeline (150 mm discharge side, 200 mm suction si connect e

Leak with an effective diameter of 10% of the nominal diameter (150 mm discharge side, 2 ges necting pipeline, subject to a maximum effective diameter of 50 mm.

C1.

ste

de)

kg)

ed to pump (3.1 kg

00 mm suction sid

•

•

•

/s at pressur

e) of the lar

of 11 barG)

t con

• Discharge of pressure relief device with maximum discharge rate (The discharge capacity at 23 bar is 1,399 kg/h of ammonia. This relief valve (dual) will be on the liquid receiver, which would be on the roof of the CUB near the evaporative condensers).

C1.7.6 Precautions

The site emergency plan should take account of the eventualities predicted in this report.

The procedure for handling of ammonia and perhaps other gases should be reviewed regularly.

The refrigeration unit should be inspected and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers specification.

C1.7.7 Hazard

The hazard of ammonia can be assessed from occupational exposure limits, emergency response planning guideline concentrations a he concentration which poses an immediate danger to life and health (IDLH).

The Health and Safety Authority has published occupational exposure limits, which are set out in the table below.

The American Industrial Hygiene Association publishes a series Emergency Response Planning Guidelines. An ERPG is the maximumconcentration below which, it is believed, nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing certain defined effects.

Three ERPGs are used, the defined effects being as follows:

• ERPG-1 Effects other than mild transient adverse health effects or perception of a clearly defined objectionable odour.

• ERPG-2 Irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms that could impair an individual's ability to take protective action.

• ERPG-3 Life threatening health effects

C1.7.8 Modelling results

The releases were modelled to determine the distance to reach the concentrations shown in the table below:

Source Parameter Averaging Time1

Concentration (ppm)

nd t

airborne

1 The Averaging Time is to take into account the effects of changes in the wind direction over the course of the release. These changes cause the plume to meander from side to side, and reduce the concentration experienced at a given point below the full, centreline concentration.

AIHA ERPG3 1 hour 750



HSA OEL-STEL 15 mins 35

NIOSH IDLH 30 mins 300

Various Odour Threshold

1 hour Reported values vary widely; 0.6 to 53 ppm; geometric mean: 17 ppm (detection)

C1.7.9 Results

The scenarios modelled for the release of ammonia from cylinders are detailed in above. The distance to dispersion to the concentration of interest was measured from the proposed location of the ammonia dosing skid by the solvent tank farm. The distance is measured in all directions from the point of release, to allow for changing wind directions.

The three cylinder scenarios were modelled using a “vessel/pipe source model”. This model tracks the release of material from its storage or process conditions in a vessel (or pipe), through all the stages in its dispersion to a harmless concentration. The modelling includes toxic effect calculations to obtain representative effect zones for the dispersing cloud. In all cases, the release was assumed to occur outdoors.

The table below summarises the modelling results for each of the scenarios outlined in Section 1.7.9 above. The worst-case results for each scenario (i.e. the weather condition which produced the furthest distance to the concentration of interest) are presented.

The average concentration you received at a given point over, say, 5 minutes will be much less than the peak concentration; at the same location for 30 minutes, the average would be lower still. This factoring down of the peak concentration is carried out in the model by the Averaging Time Adjustment—the longer the time window, or Averaging Time, the lower the calculated average concentration will be.

Distance (m) to Specified Concentrations

Scenario ERPG3 ERPG2 ERPG1 OEL-STEL

IDLH OT

Cylinder Releases

Catastrophic rupture 1 cylinder

380 929 2280 2443 720 2722

Catastrophic rupture 3 cylinders

578 1429 3631 3853 1100 4242

Catastrophic rupture 6 cylinders

741 1899 4767 5121 1452 5653

10-min release 112 220 460 405 176 552

10 mm hole leak 113 222 467 410 179 559

Refrigerant System Releases

Catastrophic rupture

20ºC 777 2720 8333 8426 1786 10300

-17ºC 951 2833 7383 6884 1447 7633

Pressure relief device Not reached

Not reached

280 593 Not reached

372


A loss of containment of ammonia would not result in a significant environmental liability.

C1.8 Maintenance Areas Normal operations in the Maintenance Areas do not generate an environmental risk.

However, like all others, these areas are at risk from fire. A fire could generate combustion gases and other atmospheric emissions. Water used to suppress or control a fire could be contaminated.

Spillage of fluids (mainly lubricating and cutting oils) used in maintenance operations would involve only small quantities, which would be contained within the immediate area, and would not enter drains.


Following a fire in a maintenance area, the fire damaged buildings or equipment would have to be removed, which would generate waste, and there may be contaminated fire water to be disposed off. However the extent of the environmental remediation required would be not be significant. The costs would be more than adequately covered by Janssen’s property insurance.

C1.9 Other Areas Other areas include the site roads and hard standings, tanker loading bay, powder handling unit and wastewater treatment plant building se.

Normal operations in these areas do not generate an environmental risk.

However, like all others, these areas are at risk from fire. A fire could generate combustion gases and other atmospheric emissions. Water used to suppress or control a fire could be contaminated.

C1.9.1 Road Tanker Fire

C1.9.1.1 Background

Solvents are delivered to the tank farm in road tankers. Waste solvent is removed from the site in road tankers. Potential sources of release include flexible hoses and connections which are made and broken. Whilst loading or unloading is in progress, the road tanker stands in a dedicated loading bay, which drains to a sump which drains to the process sewer. The process sewer drains to the effluent treatment plant. If a leak of solvent is ignited, there would be a fire which could engulf the road tanker. There are no fixed sources of ignition in the area, but potential sources of ignition include static electricity, hot work, friction sparks, etc.

A fire would produce a plume of smoke containing carbon particles, organic vapours and products of combustion and of incomplete combustion.

C1.9.1.2 Precautions

Facilities for prevention, detection and suppression of fire at the road tanker include the following:

• all electrical equipment is specified for use in potentially explosive atmospheres,

• all plant and equipment, including road tankers discharging at the tank farm, is electrically bonded and grounded, to prevent accumulation of static electricity,

• Safety Rules prohibit mobile sources of ignition in the tank farm, such as naked flames, and portable electrical or electronic equipment that is not suitably rated, and

• close supervision during unloading.

C1.9.1.3 Burning Rate

For the purposes of the assessment, it was assumed that the entire contents of a road tanker containing 20,000 kg of solvent was lost, giving rise to a pool fire.

The properties of the fire were calculated using the computer package WHAZAN. WHAZAN stands for World Bank Hazard Analysis, and is a suite of modelling programmes prepared by DNV-Technica for the World Bank. The models used were:

• pool spread and evaporation, and

• pool fire.

C1.9.1.4 Products of Combustion

The products of combustion of organic liquids are principally carbon dioxide and water vapour. If there is a shortage of air, carbon monoxide will be produced. Nitrogen oxides may also be generated. If there are elements other than carbon, hydrogen and oxygen present, for example nitrogen or sulphur, then nitrogen oxides or sulphur oxides could be generated. Pool fires are uncontrolled, and hence there will be an oxygen deficiency over much of the pool. This will result in smoke and products of incomplete combustion. Finally, there may be emissions of unburned material, which is merely vaporised. The composition of the plume of emissions will depend on a number of factors including the size of the pool, the ambient temperature and the wind velocity. The liquids all have relatively simple molecular structures, and the potential for forming products of incomplete combustion is limited.

The dispersion of emissions from a pool fire involving acetone was modelled using the computer package HOT SPILLS. This package identifies the components of a plume from a pool fire, estimates plume rise due to thermal lift, and calculates the ground level concentrations at various distances from the source under different weather conditions.

Modelling for acetone, ethanol, ethyl acetate, isopropyl alcohol, methyl ethyl ketone and methyl iso butyl ketone under a range of meteorological was undertaken. The most common meteorological conditions are usually taken as Stability D and a wind speed of 5 m/s, and Stability F, wind speed 2 m/s. The poorest dispersion of often occurs with Stability F and a wind speed of 0.5 m/s.

The maximum concentration of smoke and other pollutants occurs where the plume impacts on the ground. This happens some distance from the site, the actual distance depending on the weather conditions. The maximum concentrations of carbon (smoke) and carbon monoxide are in some cases in excess of air quality guideline figures for these pollutants, but the concentrations drop off rapidly downstream of the plume impaction point.

A range of tanker fires were modelled. For an acetone fire, the highest concentration of carbon (4,161 mg/m3) occurs at a distance of 3.56 km and with Stability F and a wind speed of 0.5 m/s. The maximum concentrations and the distances for the most common meteorological conditions at Roches Point are:

• Stability D, a wind speed of 5 m/s : 89 mg/m3 at 5.34 km

• Stability F, wind speed 2 m/s: 2,947 mg/m3 at 2.33 km.


Following a fire in road tanker, the fire damaged equipment would have to be removed, which would generate waste, and there may be contaminated fire water to be disposed off. However the extent of the environmental remediation required would be not be significant. The costs would be more than adequately covered by Janssen’s property insurance.

Appendix E : Toxicity Report


Evaluation of Toxicity Analyses for Specified Target Species 2008

Evaluation of Toxicity Analyses for Target Species for Treated Effluent at Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd

Issue 1


Evaluation of Toxicity Analyses for Specified Target Species 2008

Evaluation of Toxicity Analyses for Target Species for Treated Effluent at Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd

TMarch 2009T

T T

TThis report takes into account the particular

instructions and requirements of our client. TIt is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third partyT

TArup Consulting Engineers T15 Oliver Plunkett Street, Cork TTel +353 21 4277670 Fax +353 21 4272345 Twww.arup.ieT TJob number C1147/18T

L:\SharedData\DATA\ENVIRON\2008AER\AER 2008vs4.doc

Arup Consulting EngineersIssue 1 25 March 2009

TDocument Verification Page 1 of 1

Job T numberT Job title Toxicity Target Species Review

C1147/18

File T reference T Document title Evaluation of Toxicity Analyses for Target Species for Treated Effluent at Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd

Document ref

Revision Date Filename C1147 18 Evaluation of Toxicity Analyses for Target Species 2008Description First Issue

TPrepared byT TChecked byT TApproved byT

Name Tadg O'Flaherty Ria Lyden Eoghan Lynch

Issue 1 25/03/09

Signature



Name

Signature



Name

Signature



Name

Signature

TIssue Document Verification with Document T

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd Evaluation of Toxicity Analyses for Target Species for Treated Effluent at Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd



CONTENTS TPage

T1.T ..................................................................................................................................... TIntroductionT

......................................................................................................................................................................3 T2.T ........................................................................................................... TResults of the testing in 2008 T

......................................................................................................................................................................4

Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. Annual Environmental Report 2008.



16. INTRODUCTION This represents the third successive annual report in this format with respect to the annual toxicity data for post treated effluent generated at Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. Little Island and discharged to the Cork County Council sewer to Carrigrennan MWWTP under IPPPC licence and in accordance with a Section 99E agreement. As previously remarked ,Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd. have had a long history of biologically treating and both pre-screening and post treatment toxicity testing the effluent at this site. These data preceded the licensing of the site under IPC (Licence 016), under the Water Pollution Act licence granted to the site by Cork County Council. The type of effluent being treated has remained relatively constant over the years being pre-assessed by physico chemical, respirometry and toxicity to only comprise highly biodegradable organic effluents and utility water. The discharges in 2008 remain substantially unchanged from preceding years and the overall biological treatment performance on site was within the norms expected and within the mass emission limits as granted.

Conventional conservative treatability tests and treatment plant performance show that the effluent is very biodegradable with BOD degradation in excess of 95% and COD up to 90% plus.

This level of treatment equates to BAT and is already at the performance levels anticipated by the Organic Fine Chemicals BRef Recommendations even prior to discharge to the Municipal Plant at Carrigrennan.

The original discharge arrangements were changed in 2005 with the full scale commissioning of the Carrigrennan municipal waste water treatment plant (MWWTP). This meant that the effluent would, in accordance with agreements in principle reached with the Sanitary Authority in 2001, now be discharged to the MWWTP rather than directly to sea.

This had been anticipated by the revised IPPC licence No. 732 issued on 11P

thP January,

2005.

The related conditions specified in that licence are:

6.3 Monitoring and analyses of each emission shall be carried out as specified in Schedule 2(iii) Monitoring of Emissions to Sewer of this licence. A report on the results of this monitoring shall be submitted to the Agency annually as part of the AER.

6.4 The acute toxicity of the undiluted final effluent to at least four aquatic species from different trophic levels shall be determined by standardised and internationally accepted procedures and carried out by a competent laboratory. The name of the laboratory and the scope of testing to be undertaken shall be submitted, in writing, to the Agency, within three months of the date of grant of this licence. Once the testing laboratory and the scope of testing have been agreed by the Agency, the Agency shall decide when this testing is to be carried out and copies of the complete reports shall be submitted by the licensee to the Agency within six weeks of completion of the testing.

6.5 Having identified the most sensitive species outlined in Condition 6.4, subsequent compliance toxicity monitoring on the two most sensitive species shall be carried out by the laboratory identified in Condition 6.4 as per Schedule 2(iii) Monitoring of Emissions to Sewer. The Agency shall decide when this testing is to be carried out and copies of complete reports shall be submitted by the licensee to the Agency within six weeks of completion of the testing.




Subsequent to the submission of an evaluation report on suitable species for toxicity testing appropriate to the discharge of pre-treated effluent to the MWWTP at Carrigrennan in January 2006 , it was confirmed that the species to be tested would be:

• Crangon crangon -96 h LC 50

• Vibrio fischeri - 5 min EC50

• Vibrio fischeri -15 min EC50

• Respirometry test: against activated sludge

These tests coupled with the on-site bioplant ensure that no adverse impact to the downstream MWWTP or the external environment could occur. The heterotrophic carbonaceous COD and BOD removal coupled with the autotrophic nitrification performance on site when coupled with the respirometry tests against Carrigrennan MWWTP activated sludge give a very accurate and real world appraisal of both performance and actual adverse impact ( if any were so noted) on the systems.

17. RESULTS OF THE TESTING IN 2008 The circumstances of the discharge in terms of comparative volumes of Janssen’s discharge relative to the design capacity of the Carrigrennan MWWTP remain in the same range as previously noted and are a contribution of between 0.3 -0.5 % of the flow through the Carrigrennan treatment plant (190 -300 mP

3P/d out of a design maximum of

59,500 mP

3P/day) and containing less than 0.1% of the organic design loading in terms of

BOD or COD.

Therefore , these values can be used to evaluate the comparative contribution of residual toxicity to the MWWTP influent.

The appended results carried out by the EI Aquatic Toxicity laboratory , Shannon , Co. Clare may be summarised as being:

96 h LC 50 Crangon crangon 2.2 TU 5 min EC50 Vibrio fischeri 2.2 TU 15 min EC50 Vibrio fischeri 2.2 TU

Respirometric Analysis was carried out by Mr. Joe McNamee of Enterprise Environment

as follows Respirometry test: Less than 2 TU Against Carrigrennan activated sludge The on site nitrification results indicate a typical nitrification range of between – not less than approximately 50% and up to 96% depending on basin loading . These results are in pratical terms identical to those of 2007 and indicate a very high level of biodegradability and actual biological destruction performance on site well below the licensed values.




No adverse toxicological impact could result from such discharges to sewer .

Prior to the commencement of the Carrigrennan plant the Janssen effluent had been successfully pretreated to the requisite standards and demonstrated a consistent residual toxicity profile of less than 10 TU suitable for direct discharge to the receiving water – Lough Mahon.

These results show that this level of pre-treatment and residual toxicity has been maintained and the values obtained are at least two orders of magnitude lower that the main incoming component to the Carrigrennan MWWTP, i.e. raw domestic sewage .

Therefore the results show that the Janssen effluent will continue to have a marginally beneficial impact on the MWWTP in reducing the average incoming toxicity particularly in dry weather flow conditions and in providing contact stabilisation and anoxic denitrification BOD removal in the sewer for other wastes.

In practice the discharge will have no discernable impact on the treatment plant or the receiving water.

The results also confirm that no recalcitrant compounds with either poor treatability profiles or residual toxicity are being discharged to the Janssen on-site bioplant. The data confirms that the plant is performing biologically to BAT standards.

Tadg O' Flaherty

for





Date post:	11-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

New Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd · 2014. 12. 16. · Janssen were recipients of a Johnson & Johnson...

Documents