Pfizer Ringaskiddy IEL Groundwater Monitoring · • The acetone concentration decreased slightly...

Pfizer Ringaskiddy IEL Groundwater Monitoring Round 2 (November) 2015

23 February 2016

47093026/CKRP0003

Issue No. 2 Final

Prepared for: Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals

Prepared by: AECOM Infrastructure & Environment Ireland Limited

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals IEL Groundwater Monitoring Round 2 (November) 2015

47093026/CKRP0003 ISSUE 2 FINAL

February 2016 Page i

DOCUMENT PRODUCTION / APPROVAL RECORD

Issue No.2 Name Signature Date Position

Prepared by

David Horgan

23 February 2016 Environmental Scientist

Checked by Edel O’Hannelly 23 February 2016

Principal Hydrogeologist

Approved by Kevin Forde 23 February 2016

Technical Director

Project Name:

Pfizer Ringaskiddy IEL

Groundwater Monitoring

Sub Title:

Round 2 (November) 2015

Project No.

47093026/CKRP0003

Status:

Issue 2 Final

Client Contact Name:

Geraldine Rooney

Client Company Name:

Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals

Issued by:

AECOM Infrastructure &

Environment Ireland Limited

Douglas Business Centre

Carrigaline Road

Douglas

Cork

Ireland

www.aecom.com

DOCUMENT ISSUE RECORD

Issue No. Date Details

1 25 January 2016 Draft issue for client review

2 23 February 2016 Minor edits

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02



February 2016 Page ii

Limitations

AECOM Infrastructure & Environment Ireland Limited1 (hereafter referred to as “AECOM”) has prepared this Report for

the sole use of Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by AECOM. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client or relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. The information contained in this Report is based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by AECOM has not been independently verified by AECOM, unless otherwise stated in the Report. The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by AECOM in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances. AECOM disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to AECOM’s attention after the date of the Report. Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. AECOM specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report. Unless otherwise stated in this Report, the assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant changes.

Copyright

© This Report is the copyright of AECOM Infrastructure & Environment Ireland Limited a wholly owned subsidiary of AECOM. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.

1 On 16 March 2015 the name of URS Ireland Limited changed to AECOM Infrastructure & Environment Ireland Limited

to reflect the company’s status as a wholly owned subsidiary through which AECOM operates in Ireland.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02



February 2016 Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 4

1.1 Project Contractual Basis and Personnel Involved ...... 4

1.2 Background Information ................................................. 4

1.2.1 Site History ....................................................................... 4

1.2.2 Site Description and Setting ........................................... 5

1.2.3 Hydrology .......................................................................... 5

1.2.4 Bedrock Geology and Subsoils ...................................... 5

1.2.5 Hydrogeology ................................................................... 6

1.2.6 Groundwater Flow ............................................................ 6

1.2.7 Groundwater Redox Chemistry ...................................... 6

1.2.8 Chemicals of Potential Concern in Groundwater ......... 7

1.2.9 Source-Pathway-Receptor Linkages .............................. 7

1.2.10 Monitoring Network.......................................................... 8

1.3 Project Objectives ............................................................ 8

1.4 Scope of Works ................................................................ 8

1.4.1 Sampling Methodology .................................................... 8

1.4.2 Laboratory Analyses ........................................................ 9

2. RESULTS & DISCUSSION OF MONITORING PROGRAMME.......................................................................................... 10

2.1 Site Hydrogeology and Groundwater Flow ................. 10

2.1.1 Water Quality Parameters ............................................. 10

2.1.2 Groundwater Flow Pattern ............................................ 10

2.1.3 Field Observations ......................................................... 10

2.2 Laboratory Results......................................................... 11

2.2.1 Assessment Guidelines ................................................. 11

2.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) .......................... 11

2.2.3 Alcohols and Other Dissolved Organics ..................... 12

2.2.4 Dissolved Heavy Metals ................................................ 13

2.2.5 Major Ions ....................................................................... 13

2.3 Temporal Trends of Chemical of Potential Concern .. 15

2.4 Review of Solvent Mass Recovery ............................... 15

2.5 Conceptual Site Model ................................................... 15

2.5.1 Hydraulic Containment .................................................. 16

2.5.2 Potential Pollutant Linkages ......................................... 17

3. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED WAY FORWARD ....................................................................... 19

3.1 Summary and Conclusion ............................................. 19

3.2 Recommended Way Forward ........................................ 20

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02



February 2016 Page iv

FIGURES

TABLES

APPENDIX A – Historical Data and Concentration Plots with Time for Key Compounds (Figures A1 – A11)

APPENDIX B – Laboratory Certificates

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02



February 2016 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The second groundwater monitoring round for 2015 was conducted by AECOM between 16 and 18 November 2015 at Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals API plant (Pfizer Ringaskiddy), Ballintaggart, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork. The monitoring was completed in accordance with requirements of the site’s Industrial Emissions Licence (IEL) and is reported in accordance with Stage 1 – Stage 3 of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Guidance on the Management of Contaminated Land and Groundwater at EPA Licensed Sites, July 2013.

Groundwater was sampled from the seven monitoring wells recorded in the IEL and analysed for the following parameters:

• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

• Alcohols

• Dissolved heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury)

• Ammoniacal-nitrogen

• Major ions (chloride, potassium, sodium, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate, nitrate, nitrite, magnesium and calcium)

• Carbonate, bicarbonate and total alkalinity

• Ionic balance

In general, the groundwater flow pattern and long term declining solvent trends have remained consistent at Pfizer Ringaskiddy and can be summarised as follows:

• Groundwater flow direction in both the subsoil and bedrock aquifers is in an eastward direction across the western portion of the site. Moving further east, groundwater in the bedrock aquifer is contained in an area north of the nature pond by groundwater abstraction from two containment wells, C1 and C2. It is understood from historical data that under natural gradient conditions groundwater flow was northward in this area towards Monkstown Creek.

• A general overall declining trend in solvent concentrations has been evident in groundwater from the IEL monitored wells at Pfizer Ringaskiddy since the mid-1990s.

• Solvent mass recovery, as a result of groundwater abstraction from wells C1 and C2 (and historically from other wells), has followed an overall trend of decreasing mass loads over time. This is attributed to a combination of engineering up-grades, removal of source contaminants and groundwater abstraction itself. Ongoing natural attenuation of dissolved solvent concentrations along the groundwater pathway down-gradient of the source area has also reduced the overall mass recovered.

Conclusions from Round 2 November 2015 monitoring round are:

• No floating/sinking non-aqueous phase liquid layer was detected in any of the monitoring wells dipped.

• Total VOC concentrations in November 2015 increased in groundwater from five of the seven wells sampled compared to May 2015; however, overall concentration trends remain downward for all wells.

• The highest concentration of total VOCs was detected in groundwater from well 501, 88 mg/L; consisting mostly of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) compounds. Total VOCs concentrations in the remaining wells did not exceed 0.6 mg/L.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




• BTEX concentrations increased in groundwater from wells 205, 501 and C1, remained stable in well 404, and remained below the method detection limit (MDL) in wells 7, 409 and 702 monitored in Round 2 (November) 2015.

• Iso-propanol (IPA) was the only alcohol detected in groundwater sampled in November 2015 and only from well 501. Prior to May 2015, IPA was last detected in groundwater from well 501 in November 2011. IPA is mobile and readily biodegradable. Methanol was also detected in groundwater from well 501 in May 2015, but declined below the MDL in November 2015. Following May 2015 monitoring, Pfizer subsequently conducted detailed investigation into the increased alcohol concentrations in well 501. The investigation identified leaks in two weak effluent manholes CS116 and CS124, which are located in close proximity up-stream of well 501. The repair work to the aforementioned manholes was successfully completed on 05 February 2016. Both manholes were pressure tested to EN1610 and passed.

• The acetone concentration decreased slightly in groundwater from well 501 in November 2015. Prior to November 2014, acetone was last detected at this well in 2011.

• THF concentrations increased in groundwater from wells 501, 404 and C1 in November 2015. THF remained below the MDL for wells 7, 205, 409 and 702.

• The cyclohexane concentration increased slightly in source area well 501. Cyclohexane was not detected above the MDL in remaining wells.

• All licensed monitoring wells appeared to be in good condition during fieldwork and do not require repair or maintenance.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




Ireland Contaminated Land/Groundwater Framework

Stage 1: Site Characterisation and Assessment

Framework Stage AECOM Report Reference Report Date Status

1.1 Preliminary Site Assessment

Groundwater Monitoring URS, Report Reference 17717-013-401

December 1993

Unknown

1.2 Site Characterisation Phase II Soil and Groundwater Investigation, Report Reference 17717-015-401

August 1994 Final

1.2 Site Characterisation Phase III Groundwater Investigation, Report Reference 17717-018-401

May 1995 Final

1.2 Site Characterisation Additional Site Investigation (OSP 1 Plant), Report Reference 17717-028-401

1997 Unknown

1.2 Site Characterisation Trial Pit Soil Investigation (OSP 4 Plant), Report Reference 17717-040

March 1998 Final

1.2 Site Characterisation OSP 4 Groundwater Investigation, Report Reference 17717-041

April 1998 Final

1.2 Site Characterisation UST Tank Farm Investigation, Report Reference 17717-044

August 1998 Final

1.3 Quantitative Risk Assessment

Controlled Water Quantitative Risk Assessment, Report Reference 45078513

October 2006

Final

Stage 2: Corrective Action Feasibility and Outline Design


2.1 Outline Corrective Action Strategy

Proposal Reference PRP328 May 1998 Final

2.2 Feasibility Study & Outline Design

Remedial Investigation and Product Recovery, Report Reference 17717-045

November 1998

Final

2.3.1 Detailed Design Remedial Investigation and Product Recovery, Report Reference 17717-045

November 1998

Final

2.3.2 Detailed Design Shallow Limestone Characterisation Programme and Product Recovery System Design, Report Reference 17717-075

July 2000

(RC area)

Draft

2.4 Final Strategy and Implementation Plan

Phase III Groundwater Investigation, Report Reference 17717-018-401 (Containment Wells)

May 1995 Final

2.2 Feasibility Study & Outline Design

Remediation Assessment 2014, Reference 47092735/CKRP0001

February 2015

Final

Stage 3: Corrective Action Implementation and Aftercare


3.1 Enabling Works - - -

3.2 Corrective Action Implementation & Verification

Remedial Investigation and Product Recovery, Report Reference 17717-045

November 1998

Unknown

3.3 Aftercare

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Contractual Basis and Personnel Involved

AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Ireland Limited (AECOM) was engaged by Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals (Pfizer Ringaskiddy) to conduct groundwater monitoring at their API plant, Ballintaggart, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork (the site) in November 2015. The work was undertaken in accordance with AECOM Proposal 03152322, dated 09 March 2015 and authorised by Pfizer under their purchase order number 8500830160.

The AECOM team for Round 2 November 2015 comprised the following:

• Project Director: Kevin Forde, Technical Director

• Project Manager: Edel O’Hannelly, Principal Hydrogeologist

• Field Scientists: David Horgan and Fergus O’Regan, Environmental Scientists

Laboratory analysis of samples was subcontracted to Jones Environmental Limited, Deeside, U.K., an AECOM-approved laboratory with UKAS accreditation.

1.2 Background Information

The site is located in Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork. A site location map is presented in Figure 1.

Pfizer Ringaskiddy is a large, multipurpose manufacturer of new and existing active pharmaceutical ingredients and their intermediates. The plant in Ringaskiddy comprises three main production buildings, one active pharmaceutical ingredient milling plant, associated site utilities and storage facilities. A site plan is presented in Figure 2.

The site operates under an Industrial Emissions Licence (IEL) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), IEL number P0013-04 (originally issued as an IPC licence in May 1995).

Under Condition 6 and Schedule C.6 of the licence, biannual groundwater monitoring is required from monitoring wells: 7, 205, 404, 409, 501, 702 and hydraulic containment well C1. Well 3 was originally part of the site’s groundwater monitoring requirements, but was decommissioned in 2007 with EPA approval.

1.2.1 Site History

The parcel of land which includes the current Pfizer Ringaskiddy facility was a greenfield site until 1969, when construction work on the Pfizer Ringaskiddy citric acid plant began. Pfizer Ringaskiddy began citric acid production at the site in 1971 (the citric acid plant was later sold to Archer Daniels Midlands (ADM) in 1990 and continued operating until 2005).

Pharmaceutical production at Ringaskiddy commenced in 1972. Since then, there has been on-going development of the plant, with the construction of new buildings and expansion of existing buildings, up-grading of facilities and addition of new facilities. Three major expansion projects, completed in 1984, 1994, and 2001, added significantly to pharmaceutical production capacity at the site.

Towards the end of 2007, Pfizer Ringaskiddy ceased manufacturing activities in Organic Synthesis Plant (OSP) 2, as part of a business rationalisation plan to eliminate excess production capacity. The physical building infrastructure has been retained and a section of it has been refurbished as the New Product Technology Laboratory, NPTL, which was officially opened in May 2014.

The former ADM facility was located immediately to the west of the Pfizer Ringaskiddy plant and was decommissioned and dismantled by Corrin MDA in 2006-2007. The IPPC licence for the ADM site (P0053-01, which was held by Corrin MDA) was surrendered in September 2007, following completion of the site decommissioning and a successful exit audit carried out by the EPA.

Pfizer (Pfizer Biotechnology Ireland, PBI) subsequently constructed a small scale biologics facility in the undeveloped western portion of the former ADM facility. The PBI facility was separate from the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




existing Pfizer Ringaskiddy site and operated under a separate IEL, P0864-01. In 2011; the PBI facility was sold to BioMarin Manufacturing Ireland, now known as BioMarin International Limited.

1.2.2 Site Description and Setting

The Pfizer Ringaskiddy landholding comprises approximately 21 hectares on the southern shore of Monkstown Creek in Cork Harbour, approximately 11 km southeast of Cork City, see Figure 1.

The site has a relatively steep topographic gradient, with ground on the western portion of the site (OSP 1) at approximately 15 meters above Ordnance Datum (m OD) sloping towards Monkstown Creek and the greater Cork Harbour area (~400 – 500 m away) to the north and east.

Land use in the vicinity of the site is a mix of industrial and agricultural, as summarised below:

North and East – Monkstown Creek (an inlet of Cork Harbour and a proposed national heritage area (pNHA)) and the greater Cork Harbour area (a designated special protection area (SPA)) are located north and east of the site. Ringaskiddy Deep Water Terminal borders the site to the east, with Ringaskiddy village some 800 m southeast of the site.

South – The N28 national primary road runs east-west along the southern site boundary. IDA-owned land, currently in agricultural use, is present to the south of the N28, with Janssen Biologics (formerly Centocor) located 470 m to the south of the Pfizer OSP4 building and with the Novartis Ringaskiddy Limited active pharmaceutical ingredient facility 750 m to the south.

West – BioMarin International Limited, with the Raffeen Creek Sports Club lands (owned by Pfizer) further to the west. Shanbally village is located 750 m west of the site boundary.

1.2.3 Hydrology

The site is bounded to the north and east by an estuary known as Monkstown Creek, which is a tidal inlet located on the western side of Cork Harbour. Coastal and estuarine water quality in Cork Harbour is classified as ‘unpolluted’ by the EPA

2.

There are no other surface water features in the vicinity of the site.

1.2.4 Bedrock Geology and Subsoils

Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) data3 indicate that the bedrock geology underlying the site

consists of Waulsortian Limestone. This massive, fine grained, unbedded limestone is Carboniferous in age

4. Two major fault lines traverse the site, the first runs almost parallel with the site’s southern

boundary and the second, in the eastern section of the site, runs in a north to south orientation.

Older Carboniferous marine interbedded grey/brown sandstone, siltstone and mudstones, referred to as the Cuskinny Formation of the Kinsale Group (Lower Carboniferous age), occur to the south of the southern fault.

According to the GSI, subsoil consists of made ground across the majority of the site with bedrock outcropping in places. Previous URS (now AECOM) field studies have identified two separate geological units beneath the Pfizer Ringaskiddy site, which include relatively low permeability subsoil deposits (comprising of soft, grey to greenish brown silts, with some fine sand and gravel) overlying Carboniferous Limestone.

Subsoil thickness varies considerably across the site, with a thickness east of OSP1 of 4.3 m and increasing to 11.8 m north of the wastewater treatment plant. These silty subsoils thicken in an inferred infilled glacial channel (roughly co-incident with the mapped north-south fault line), in the area north of the nature pond. Eastward from this point the subsoils decrease in thickness again until limestone bedrock outcrops on the site’s eastern boundary.

2 www.epa.ie – accessed 06 January 2016

3 www.gsi.ie

4 Geological Survey of Ireland – Geology of the South Cork, Sheet 25, 1994

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




Pale grey to bluish grey, fine grained, crystalline limestone, often weathered to varying depths, lies beneath the subsoils. This fractured rock is considered to have a relatively high hydraulic conductivity. Geological logging of the bedrock

5, indicated the limestone aquifer is complex, with a

characteristic upper-weathered zone, the lower horizons of which are brecciated or fractured to the point of being gravelly in nature, and with three distinct joint orientations (one vertical). The bedrock porosity was found to be between 1 and 3%, with weathered bedrock porosity estimated to be an average value of 15% (estimations due to variability of weathered limestone).

Depths to the top of competent bedrock range between 3.3 m (east of the containment wells) and 16.7 m bgl (north of the containment wells).

1.2.5 Hydrogeology

According to the GSI website, the bedrock aquifer beneath the site is classified as a “Locally important aquifer – karstified (Lk)”. Due to the fractured nature of bedrock beneath the Pfizer Ringaskiddy site identified in previous investigations, the aquifer is considered to be relatively productive in this area. The GSI’s interim classification of vulnerability of the underlying aquifer is ‘High’ to ‘Extreme’ vulnerability, with bedrock locally exposed at the surface.

1.2.6 Groundwater Flow

Hydrogeological conditions at the site (groundwater flow direction, dilution, and degradation of contaminants) have been examined by AECOM (previously URS) in several investigations since 1993. A summary of the early investigations is presented in an AECOM quantitative risk assessment report from 2006

6.

General depths to groundwater range from 1 m to 11 m below casing top (m bct) across the site.

Ultimately, groundwater in the limestone is interpreted to flow in an easterly direction under normal groundwater conditions (natural gradient). However, when this flow reaches the glacial channel in the western portion of the site, it swings northward to discharge to Monkstown Creek on the site’s northern boundary.

A hydraulic containment system has been in operation since February 1996, comprising two active abstraction wells, C1 and C2. This system contains groundwater within an area north of the nature pond (see Figure 2) and is designed to prevent groundwater with low concentrations of volatile organic compounds from reaching the northern site boundary.

In previous site investigations, an upward hydraulic gradient was identified between the subsoil and bedrock aquifers, suggesting groundwater confined in the bedrock aquifer is being forced up into the subsoils above.

1.2.7 Groundwater Redox Chemistry

Previous field measurements of low redox potential and relatively high concentrations of dissolved manganese and iron, together with low to non-detectable nitrate concentrations, indicate strongly reducing groundwater conditions beneath the site.

While health and safety procedures on site currently prevent the field measurement of dissolved oxygen and redox potential (water quality meter is not intrinsically safe), the low nitrate concentrations reported in many wells indicate that redox conditions in groundwater remain reducing. In addition, hydrogen sulphide odours were noted from groundwater from two of the seven wells, which is also an indication of reducing conditions.

5 URS, Phase III Groundwater Investigation and February 1995 Groundwater Monitoring Results for the Ringaskiddy,

Cork Facility on behalf of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, URS report reference 17717-018-401/MF/pl, dated 15 May 1995

6 URS, Pfizer Ringaskiddy Controlled Water Quantitative Risk Assessment, URS report reference 45078513, dated 12

October 2006

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




1.2.8 Chemicals of Potential Concern in Groundwater

Groundwater monitoring data is available for the Ringaskiddy site dating back twenty years (to 1994/5). Historically, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected in groundwater from the site, most notably: BTEX hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene), alcohols and tetrahydrofuran (THF). Alcohol detections are intermittent, but for the most part undetected in recent years; while BTEX and THF tend to persist, though with long-term decreasing concentration trends becoming apparent.

In 1996, a hydraulic containment system was installed (wells C1 and C2) to reduce the mass of dissolved phase VOCs migrating off-site via groundwater flow toward Cork Harbour. Since 1996 groundwater has been abstracted from wells C1 and C2 on a continuous basis. The mass of solvent recovered through operation of the hydraulic containment system is estimated from pumping rates and analytical data from biannual monitoring. Assessment of containment system efficiency and the need for rehabilitation works is incorporated in biannual monitoring reports.

In 1998, following two solvent loss incidents relating to underground storage tanks (USTs), the down-gradient hydraulic containment system was augmented by the installation of free-phase product recovery wells R1, R3 and R4 in the underground storage tank (UST) source areas. Pumping from the R-series wells ceased in 1998/1999 in advance of removal of the northern and southern UST tank farms.

Following UST removal from the solvent recovery area, additional recovery wells, RC1-RC6, were installed in the former southern UST tank farm footprint in 2000. Pumping from the RC wells ceased in May 2005 and the RC-series were decommissioned in May 2007 with EPA consent.

Since the hydraulic containment system was commissioned, dissolved phase concentrations of BTEX and THF have reduced. More recently (between 2009 and 2011), methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE) concentrations peaked down-gradient of the solvent recovery area and subsequently declined (data available up to November 2015).

Most of the chemicals used on site are prone to degradation under aerobic and, in many cases, anaerobic conditions. The main exception is THF, which has been found to be relatively persistent in groundwater samples collected from on-site monitoring wells, compared to the other volatile chemicals used on site.

1.2.9 Source-Pathway-Receptor Linkages

A summary of potential Source-Pathway-Receptor (SPR) linkages is outlined in the table below.

Potential SPR Linkages

Sources Pathways Receptor

S1 Residual contamination remaining beneath the former southern underground storage tank (UST) farm area – BTEX, alcohols and THF

S2 Residual contamination remaining below ground in the area north of the containment wells – BTEX, THF and cyclohexane

S3 Residual contamination remaining below ground in the area north-west of the containment wells –MTBE

Human Health

P1 Ingestion of soil/dust, groundwater and/or surface water

P2 Dermal contact with soil/ dust, groundwater and/or surface water

P3 Inhalation of indoor and outdoor contaminant vapours which can arise directly from residual contaminants in the unsaturated overburden itself and indirectly via the dissolved phase in groundwater

Human Health

S1 On-site workers

S2 Off-site workers

S3 Workers on-site undertaking subsurface works

Controlled Waters

P4 Lateral migration of contaminants through the bedrock aquifer

Controlled Waters

S4 Monkstown Creek (pNHA 001979)

S5 Cork Harbour (SPA 004030)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




1.2.10 Monitoring Network

Over many years of site investigation, Pfizer Ringaskiddy has installed a large number of monitoring wells on the site. Monitoring wells are screened at various depths, with the majority of wells installed in the bedrock aquifer. Known construction details for the IEL monitoring wells are summarised in Table 2.

Under the terms of Condition 6 and Schedule C.6 of the site’s IEL (P0013-04), Pfizer Ringaskiddy is required to undertake biannual groundwater monitoring from eight groundwater wells installed on site (monitoring wells: 3, 7, 205, 404, 409, 501, 702 and hydraulic containment well C1). However, well 3 was decommissioned in 2007, with EPA approval.

1.3 Project Objectives

The objectives of groundwater monitoring for 2015 are as follows:

• To sample groundwater from seven wells and analyse for the parameters required by the site’s IEL

• To assess the direction of groundwater flow

• To assess changes in contaminant concentration trends over time

1.4 Scope of Works

For the November 2015 groundwater monitoring round, the following scope of work was completed:

• Measurement of depths to groundwater and total well depths in all accessible monitoring wells across the site

• Groundwater purging and sampling

• Recording of groundwater temperature in the field

• Laboratory analysis

• Data assessment and reporting

1.4.1 Sampling Methodology

Prior to sampling, a round of depth the groundwater level measurements (‘dip round’) from the wells was completed. Water level (‘dip’) measurements were taken using an interface probe which is capable of distinguishing between water and light/dense non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). Light NAPLs (such as BTEX compounds in their pure phase) can form a floating later on the water table, while dense NAPLs can pool at the base of wells.

The total measured depth of each well was also gauged using the interface probe.

Groundwater was sampled in accordance with standard AECOM procedures, based on ISO 5667-18:2001 and US EPA methods.

The total volume of standing water in each monitoring well to be sampled was calculated. Between three and five times this volume was purged by hand from the monitoring well before sampling. This was to ensure that a groundwater sample representative of that in the aquifer was collected. Each monitoring well is equipped with dedicated in-situ purging and sampling HDPE inertial-lift tubing to minimise the risk of cross-contamination.

Containment wells C1 and C2 are equipped with pumps which operate to provide hydraulic containment along the site’s down-gradient boundary. When these wells are pumping, purging is not required and groundwater samples are normally collected directly from the sampling tap at the wellhead. During Round 2 groundwater sampling in November 2015, it was noted that during the dip round that well C2 was not pumping. Pfizer maintenance personnel were informed of the issue and pump at C2 was put back into operation soon after.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




Pfizer Ringaskiddy has a number of EX-rated areas across the site and, for safety reasons; the use of petrol-powered motorised pumps or battery-powered field meters is not permitted. Therefore, unstable water quality parameters (pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation-reduction potential) were not recorded in November 2015, as the water quality meter is not intrinsically safe. Measurements of pH and electrical conductivity (EC) are required by the site’s IEL and were measured in the laboratory. Field temperature readings for all sampling points were measured using a spirit thermometer.

In accordance with AECOM sampling protocols, sampling was conducted while wearing single use disposable nitrile gloves, which were changed between sampling events to reduce the risk of cross-contamination between wells. Groundwater samples were collected in sequence from wells with historically low concentrations to wells with historically higher concentrations, to minimise the risk of cross-contamination.

Groundwater samples, filtered and preserved where appropriate, were collected into laboratory-supplied sample containers and were labelled on-site. Samples were stored in a chilled cool-box on site and during overnight transit to the contract laboratory.

1.4.2 Laboratory Analyses

Groundwater samples were sent for analysis to Jones Environmental, Flintshire, UK; an AECOM approved laboratory with UKAS accreditation.

Groundwater samples were analysed for the following suites of parameters:

• Volatile organic compounds

• Alcohols

• Dissolved heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury)

• Ammoniacal nitrogen as N

• Major ions (chloride, potassium, sodium, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate, nitrate, nitrite, magnesium and calcium)

• Carbonate, bicarbonate and total alkalinity

• Ionic balance

A sample inventory is provided in Table 1, with a well inventory in Table 2, field observations in Table 3 and a record of groundwater elevations in Table 4. Analytical results are presented in Tables 5 – 8. Long-term concentration trends for key wells and parameters are provided in Appendix A, with laboratory certificates in Appendix B.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




2. RESULTS & DISCUSSION OF MONITORING PROGRAMME

2.1 Site Hydrogeology and Groundwater Flow

2.1.1 Water Quality Parameters

Unstable water quality parameters consisting of pH, electrical conductivity (both measured in the laboratory) and temperature (which was measured in the field) are given in Table 3 and summarised below.

Groundwater temperature from monitoring wells ranged from 13.0°C (well C1) to 15.5°C (well 501). All groundwater temperatures recorded were slightly above the normal range for Irish groundwater (10°C – 12°C).

The majority of groundwater pH values were at or near neutral, with values ranging between 6.7 (well 501) and 7.5 (well C1). The typical pH range for Irish groundwater is 6 – 9 pH units. These results are comparable to those of previous monitoring rounds for the site.

Groundwater EC results in November 2015 indicated conditions ranging from fresh to brackish, with a range from 526 µS/cm (well 409) to 1,322 µS/cm (well 702). The higher EC results (>1,000 µS/cm) for wells 205, 702 and C1 reflect their proximity to the coast and slight influence of saline water. The results recorded here are similar to previous monitoring rounds. Groundwater abstraction from containment wells C1 and C2 is understood to draw groundwater of a more brackish quality from Monkstown Creek, giving rise to elevated EC readings in groundwater from some wells. All EC results for the monitoring wells were below the upper GTV limit of 1,875 µS/cm in November 2015.

Hydrogen sulphide odours were noted from monitoring wells 205, 404 and C1 in November 2015. Solvent odours were also noted from purged groundwater from well 501. Hydrogen sulphide odours are indicative of reducing (anaerobic) groundwater conditions.

2.1.2 Groundwater Flow Pattern

Groundwater elevations in the bedrock wells have been contoured (see Figure 3). Water level measurements for the IEL wells are presented in Table 4.

Groundwater elevations from the network of monitoring wells indicate that the general direction of groundwater flow in November 2015 is to the east, consistent with previous dip rounds (see Figures 3 and 4). Groundwater abstraction from hydraulic containment wells C1 and C2 has been designed to limit the migration of groundwater off-site to Monkstown Creek to the north and east of the site. Groundwater contours for the bedrock aquifer (Figure 3) show that in November 2015 eastward and northward groundwater flow is being prevented in the area of the infilled glacial channel and that groundwater is being drawn back toward the containment well C1. It was noted during the dip round in November 2015 that well C2 had stopped pumping. The issue was raised with Pfizer Ringaskiddy maintenance staff who quickly rectified the pump malfunction and normal operation resumed.

In the south-eastern corner of the site (OSP4 area) northward groundwater flow is apparent, as this area is some distance from the containment wells and it appears that groundwater flow under natural gradient conditions to Monkstown Creek is occurring.

Water level measurements from across the monitored wells show that the highest groundwater elevation is within the source area at well 501 (6.08 m OD), adjacent to OSP1. The lowest elevation across the site was downgradient of OSP4 at well 702 (1.24 m OD), with the lowest groundwater elevation immediately downgradient of the source area at containment well C1 (1.49 m OD).

2.1.3 Field Observations

During the water level measurement round, no light/dense NAPL layers were identified in any of the wells.

The total depth of each well was measured on 16 November 2015 and has been compared to the recorded well depths on installation; see Table 4.

Some siltation is recorded to have occurred in well 409, with a thickness of silt in the base at its base of 0.36 m, this is consistent with the thickness measured in May 2015 and indicates that the well

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




condition is not deteriorating. Measured well depths will continue to be recorded in future monitoring rounds and the degree of siltation in the wells will be kept under review.

Current details of well conditions are presented in Table 2 and measurements of siltation presented in Table 4.

2.2 Laboratory Results

2.2.1 Assessment Guidelines

Results of laboratory analysis of groundwater samples are presented in Tables 5 – 8 and are compared with a range of generic groundwater assessment criteria, specifically the EPA Draft Interim Guideline Values (IGVs), the Groundwater Threshold Values (GTVs) and the Dutch Intervention Values (DIVs).

Draft IGVs were developed by the EPA using a number of existing water quality guidelines in use in Ireland, including existing national environmental quality standards, proposed common indicators for the new groundwater directive, drinking water standards and Geological Survey of Ireland trigger values.

GTVs are defined in Irish law in Statutory Instrument No. 9 of 2010, European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations, 2010. The GTVs are regulatory guidelines, which were developed to give effect to the EU Groundwater Directive. Exceedance of a threshold value triggers further investigation to confirm whether a ‘Poor’ groundwater chemical status for the groundwater body as a whole is indicated.

The DIVs represent concentrations, above which there may be a risk to human receptors, and above which more detailed site-specific risk assessment or remediation may be required in The Netherlands. These guidelines have no legal standing in Ireland but are included as they have historically been used as a screening tool for contaminants at the Ringaskiddy site since 1994/5.

2.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

VOC results for Round 2 November 2015 are presented in Table 5, with historic data and time-series trends in Appendix A.

The highest concentration of total VOCs was detected in groundwater from well 501. VOCs detected in groundwater from well 501 (adjacent to OSP1 building in the source area) in Round 2 2015 were predominantly BTEX compounds:

• Benzene: 0.02 mg/L

• Toluene: 23.0 mg/L

• Ethyl benzene: 2.79 mg/L

• Total Xylene: 52.6 mg/L

Concentrations of BTEX compounds increased compared with May 2015 results, in particular in groundwater from well 501 where BTEX increased from 63 mg/L to 78 mg/L. In addition, MTBE (4.77 mg/L), dichloromethane (0.048 mg/L), isopropylbenzene (0.068 mg/L), propylbenzene (0.012 mg/L), 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (0.011 mg/L) and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (0.014 mg/L) were detected in groundwater from well 501 in November 2015; concentrations were similar to those reported for May 2015 monitoring. Only BTEX, MTBE and dichloromethane results exceeded relevant screening criteria for the sample taken from well 501 in November 2015.

Benzene was detected in groundwater from two of the other six licensed monitoring wells on site in November 2015. Wells 404 and C1, both located down-gradient of the source area, had concentrations of 0.012 mg/L and 0.092 mg/L respectively. Both concentrations exceeded the GTV (0.00075 mg/L) and IGV (0.001 mg/L) screening criteria for benzene in groundwater, with the result for C1 also exceeding the DIV (0.03 mg/L).

There were no other BTEX-related compounds detected in groundwater from wells 404 and C1 in November 2015.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




BTEX compounds were below method detection limits (MDLs) in groundwater from wells 7, 409 and 702; while m,p-xylene was detected in groundwater from well 205 at 0.005 mg/L. Wells 7 and 205 are located down-gradient of the source area, well 409 is adjacent to OSP3 and south of the source area, while well 702 is located near OSP4 in the south-eastern part of the site.

BTEX concentration trends since May 2005 are presented in Appendix A, Figures A1 to A4.

MTBE was detected above the IGV (0.03 mg/L) in groundwater from three wells (205, 404 and 501), with reported concentrations ranging from 0.289 mg/L (well 205) to 4.77 mg/L (well 501). MTBE results are broadly consistent with those of previous monitoring rounds, with the exception of well 501. The MTBE concentration for well 501 increased from 0.036 mg/L in May 2015 to 4.77 mg/L in November 2015, the highest recorded concentration for MTBE detected at this well since monitoring began, which may be related to the identification of the two compromised manholes in this area following the May 2015 sampling.

Total VOC concentrations in groundwater in November 2015 increased compared to May 2015. The main changes in concentrations detected between the monitoring events are as follows:

• Well 7 – all VOCs remained below their MDLs between May 2015 and November 2015.

• Well 205 – total VOC concentration increased from 0.058 mg/L in May 2015 to 0.29 mg/L in November 2015, with only m,p-xylene and MTBE detected.

• Well 404 – total VOC concentration increased from 0.078 mg/L in May 2015 to 0.57 mg/L in November 2015. Isopropylbenzene, benzene and MTBE were the only VOCs detected in Round 2 2015.

• Well 409 – total VOCs increased from below their MDLs in May 2015 to 0.002 mg/L in November 2015, with chloroform the only VOC detected.

• Well 501 – total VOC concentration increased from 72 mg/L in May 2015 to 88 mg/L in November 2015, predominantly due to BTEX and MTBE detections.

• Well 702 – all VOCs remained below their MDLs between May and November 2015.

• Well C1 – total VOCs increased from 0.074 mg/L in May 2015 to 0.13 mg/L in November 2015, only benzene and MTBE were detected in both rounds, all other VOCs were below their MDLs.

A trend diagram for total VOC concentrations from May 2005 to November 2015 for wells 501 (source area) and 205 (down-gradient of the source area) is presented in Figure 4. In addition, a trend diagram over the same period for total BTEX concentrations for wells 501 and 205 is presented in Figure 5.

The total VOC and BTEX concentrations follow decreasing trends in groundwater from well 501 from May 2005 to November 2015, while the total VOC concentration increased up to 16 mg/L in groundwater from well 205 in November 2009 and have subsequently declined to below the MDL.

2.2.3 Alcohols and Other Dissolved Organics

Results for alcohols and other dissolved organics in Round 2 November 2015 are presented in Table 6.

Iso-propanol (IPA) was the only alcohol detected in groundwater in November 2015 and was only detected from well 501. All other alcohol related compounds remained below their respective detection limits in November 2015.

IPA decreased from 2.23 mg/L in May 2015 to 1.90 mg/L in November 2015. Prior to May 2015, IPA was last detected in groundwater from well 501 in November 2011. IPA is mobile and readily biodegradable, so does not tend to persist in groundwater. Methanol was also detected in groundwater from well 501 in May 2015, but declined below the MDL in November 2015.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




Following May 2015 monitoring, Pfizer subsequently conducted detailed investigation into the increased alcohol concentrations in well 501. The investigation identified leaks in two weak effluent manholes CS116 and CS124 which are located in close proximity up-stream of well 501. The repair work to the aforementioned manholes was successfully completed on 05 February 2016. Both manholes were pressure tested to EN1610 and passed. The issues with these manholes may also be related to the increases noted in BTEX, THF and MTBE concentrations in and downgradient of this area of the site.

Trend diagrams for THF and cyclohexane concentrations for all licensed wells are presented in Appendix A, Figures A6 and A7 respectively.

THF remains below the MDL (0.01 mg/L) in groundwater from wells: 7 (since November 2009), 205 (since May 2011), 409 (since November 2009) and 702 (not detected since monitoring began).

Recent THF concentration trends in wells 404, 501 and C1 are summarised below:

• Well 404 – increased from below the MDL in May 2015 to 0.057 mg/L in November 2015

• Well 501 – increased from 0.98 mg/L in May 2015 to 2.06 mg/L in November 2015, with both results above the DIV of 0.3 mg/L

• Well C1 – increased from 0.079 mg/L in May 2015 to 0.110 mg/L in November 2015

Cyclohexane concentrations remain below the MDL in groundwater from wells: 7 (since May 2007), 205 (since May 2011), 404 (since May 2014), 409 (not detected since monitoring began), 702 (not detected since monitoring began) and C1 (since May 2009).

In groundwater from well 501, cyclohexane declined from a peak of 10.1 mg/L in November 2010 to 1.3 mg/L in May 2015 but increased to 1.7 mg/L in November 2015.

Acetone was detected in groundwater from well 501 in November 2015 at a concentration 4.72 mg/L, a decrease from the May 2015 result of 8.18 mg/L. Prior to November 2014, acetone had been below the MDL (0.05 mg/L) since November 2011. A peak concentration of 71 mg/L was detected in groundwater from well 501 in May 2009.

Ethyl acetate has not been detected above its MDL since 1998.

2.2.4 Dissolved Heavy Metals

Metal results are presented in Table 7.

Chromium, copper, lead and mercury were not detected above their respective MDLs in groundwater sampled from the seven IEL wells monitored in November 2015.

Cadmium, nickel and zinc were detected in one or more of the groundwater samples, but concentrations did not exceed the relevant assessment criteria.

Arsenic, similar to previous monitoring rounds, was detected above the MDL (0.0025 mg/L) in groundwater from four of the seven wells monitored in November 2015, with three detections exceeding relevant assessment criteria, where detected, arsenic concentrations ranged from 0.003 mg/L (well C1) to 0.013 mg/L (well 205). Concentrations of arsenic exceeded the GTV of 0.0075 mg/L in groundwater from three wells (205, 404 and 501), while it also exceeded the IGV of 0.01 mg/L in groundwater from one well (205).

The source of these trace arsenic detections in groundwater is considered to be from naturally occurring metallic minerals in the underlying limestone geology beneath the site. Arsenic solubility increases under anaerobic groundwater conditions, such as those found beneath the site.

2.2.5 Major Ions

Major ion results are presented in Table 8.

Nitrite was not detected above the MDL (0.02 mg/L) in groundwater sampled from any of the seven wells in November 2015.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




Nitrate was detected above the MDL (0.2 mg/L) in all groundwater samples taken in November 2015 and ranged from 0.4 mg/L (wells 7 and 501) to 3.9 mg/L (well 409). All nitrate detections were below applicable screening criteria.

Calcium and magnesium were detected in groundwater from the seven wells sampled but at concentrations below relevant assessment criteria.

Chloride was detected at concentrations between 10 mg/L and 50 mg/L in groundwater from wells 7, 409 and 501. Chloride concentrations for wells 205, 404, 702 and C1 were higher, ranging from 163 mg/L to 253 mg/L.

Elevated sodium concentrations (>100 mg/L) were also reported for wells 205, 404, 702 and C1 with concentrations up to 160 mg/L (C1) reported. Wells with the highest sodium concentrations corresponded to those with the highest chloride concentrations and EC measurements of >1,000

µS/cm. Elevated readings of these parameters are likely to be due to the coastal setting and influence of brackish water from the coast, possibly drawn in by groundwater abstraction from the containment wells.

Potassium concentrations ranged from 0.6 mg/L in well 409 to 11.4 mg/L in well 702. Concentrations in 702 and C1 (6.2 mg/L) were above the IGV of 5 mg/L, elevated potassium concentrations for wells 702 and C1 are also inferred to be linked to the site’s coastal setting.

Sulphate was detected in groundwater from all seven wells sampled, with concentrations for all wells less than the IGV (200 mg/L) and GTV (187.5 mg/L).

Concentrations of ammoniacal-nitrogen in groundwater from wells 7, 205, 404, 501 and C1 ranged from 0.63 mg/L (well 7) to 1.63 mg/L (well 404) indicating reducing groundwater conditions in these wells. The concentrations of ammoniacal-nitrogen in the remaining wells 409 and 702 were below the MDL (0.03 mg/L).

In November 2015, as in previous groundwater monitoring rounds, manganese and iron concentrations for wells 409 and 702 were low (<0.5 mg/L for manganese and below the MDL for iron). Low iron and manganese concentrations coupled with elevated nitrate and the absence of ammoniacal-nitrogen, as present at wells 409 and 702, suggest more oxidising groundwater conditions. Iron and manganese are oxidised to insoluble forms when oxygen is present.

In a reducing environment, naturally occurring iron and manganese in the aquifer material can dissolve into groundwater. As such, iron and manganese concentrations reported for well 501 indicates reducing conditions; this is consistent with previous monitoring rounds and results for ammoniacal nitrogen and nitrate. Manganese was also above 0.5 mg/L in groundwater from wells 7, 205, 404 and C1, with elevated concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen (>1.0 mg/L) and low nitrate (<1.0 mg/L), these results suggest mildly reducing groundwater conditions.

Results for total alkalinity in groundwater from all seven monitoring wells are due to the presence of bicarbonate alkalinity only (as all carbonate alkalinity concentrations were below the MDL). Measurements of alkalinity can reflect the groundwater’s buffering capacity to pH change, with higher concentrations allowing for greater resistance. Concentrations of total alkalinity range between 236 mg/L (well C1) and 389 mg/L (well 501) and are similar to ranges reported by Johnston and McConvey

7 for Dinantian Limestones elsewhere in Ireland.

For all wells in November 2015, the ionic balances are below ±10%. In general, an ionic balance difference within ±10% is taken to indicate that sampling procedures and laboratory analytical practices are acceptable. An ionic balance of 7.8 % was recorded for well 205, this was the largest ionic balance difference reported for November 2015. The absence of certain parameters, such as fluoride, from the analysis suite may influence the ionic balance calculations.

Major ion results for November 2015 were generally within the ranges reported for previous monitoring rounds.

7 Water Framework Directive – The Calcareous/Non-Calcareous (“Siliceous”) Classification of Bedrock Aquifers in the

Republic of Ireland, 2003

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




2.3 Temporal Trends of Chemical of Potential Concern

Groundwater monitoring data is available for the Ringaskiddy site dating back twenty years (to 1994/5). Historically, VOCs have been detected in groundwater from the site, most notably: BTEX hydrocarbons, alcohols and THF. Alcohol detections are intermittent, but for the most part undetected in recent years; while BTEX and THF tend to persist, with long-term declining concentration trends becoming apparent.

In general, dissolved organic compound concentrations across the site have shown significant decreases since the mid-1990s. This is due to a combination of factors, including:

• Engineering upgrades

• UST removal in the Solvent Recovery Area north of OSP1

• Contaminated groundwater recovery and continued operation of the hydraulic containment system

Recent trends (<10 years) in BTEX and total VOC concentrations in the source area (well 501) have fluctuated between 50 mg/L and 200 mg/L since May 2005 (Figures 4 and 5). Both trends follow very similar patterns, as total VOC concentrations in well 501 are largely composed of BTEX hydrocarbons.

Results for BTEX and total VOC indicate an overall decrease in concentrations between May 2012 (143 mg/L) and November 2015 (88 mg/L). Total VOC concentrations down-gradient of the source area at well C1 have been less than 1 mg/L since May 2006. Historical VOC data is tabulated in Appendix A.

The MTBE concentration for well 501, located in the source area, increased in November 2015 to the highest recorded concentration for this well to date. Down-gradient of the source area, MTBE concentrations detected in groundwater from wells 205 and 404 also increased in November 2015, but remain significantly below peak concentrations recorded in November 2009 (see Appendix A - Figure A5). The containment wells appear to capture MTBE contaminated groundwater from these up-gradient wells through the influence of pumping.

2.4 Review of Solvent Mass Recovery

Trend diagrams of solvent mass recovery via groundwater abstraction, from May 1996 to November 2015, are presented in Figure 6A and 6B. Small quantities of solvent mass are being recovered from both containment wells C1 and C2, with approximately 4 kg total VOCs being recovered between May and November 2015.

It’s likely that residual groundwater contamination from the up-gradient source area is being significantly attenuated naturally along its flow path down-gradient.

It is noted on Figure 6A that groundwater abstraction from the R-series wells on-site ceased in September 1999 due to excavation works at the southern UST tank farm. Groundwater abstraction from the RC-wells on-site ceased in May 2005 and the wells were decommissioned in August 2007 with agreement from the EPA.

A feasibility study on the impact of decommissioning the RC wells and nearby well 601 was commissioned by Pfizer and prepared by AECOM (URS report reference: 46171688) in May 2006. The study concluded that cessation of pumping and decommissioning of the seven wells in the RC area would have negligible impact on off-site groundwater receptors.

The report recommended that specified actions be taken during decommissioning to ensure effective closure. The report also noted that, despite cessation of pumping from the RC wells, the containment wells C1 and C2 would continue to operate. Hydraulic containment provided by these wells is expected to prevent migration of contaminated groundwater from the site.

2.5 Conceptual Site Model

The site lies just above Monkstown Creek, with higher ground to the south and west sloping steeply towards the coast to the north and east. Bedrock consists of fractured, fine grained, unbedded

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




limestone. Subsoils consist of low permeability deposits (comprising soft silts with some fine sand and gravel) ranging from 0.2 m to 16.7 m bgl, with a thick, in-filled glacial channel occupying an area north of the nature pond.

Under natural gradient conditions, groundwater in the limestone aquifer is thought to flow in a north east direction and discharge to Monkstown Creek (the principal groundwater receptor). However, due to the action of hydraulic containment wells on site, installed in 1996, groundwater is contained in an area around wells C1 and C2 (see Figure 2 for locations). Schematic representations of geology underlying the Pfizer Ringaskiddy site are presented in AECOM’s 1995 site investigation report

8, while the conceptual site model (CSM) was presented in AECOM 2006 risk assessment.

2.5.1 Hydraulic Containment

Since 1993, the main contaminated source area identified during site investigations was located in the former southern UST farm, north of OSP1. Other source zones (of smaller extent) were identified in areas to the north and northwest of the containment wells (see Figure 2). The controlled water quantitative risk assessment (AECOM, 2006) concluded that, in the event of containment wells C1 and C2 being turned off, contaminated groundwater from the identified source areas would not pose a significant risk to Monkstown Creek.

Historically, VOCs have been detected in groundwater from the site, most notably: BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene) hydrocarbons, alcohols and tetrahydrofuran (THF). Alcohol detections are intermittent, while BTEX and THF tend to persist, with long-term declining concentration trends being apparent.

The hydraulic containment system installed in 1996 (wells C1 and C2) not only contains contaminated groundwater on site but was also designed to reduce the mass of dissolved phase VOCs migrating off-site to Cork Harbour. To this end, groundwater is abstracted from wells C1 and C2 on a continuous basis. The mass of solvent recovered through operation of the hydraulic containment system is estimated from pumping rates and analytical data from biannual monitoring. Assessment of containment system efficiency and the need for rehabilitation works is incorporated in biannual monitoring reports.

In 1998, following a loss incident, the hydraulic containment system was augmented by the installation of free-phase product recovery wells. Recovery wells R1, R3 and R4 were installed in the solvent recovery area with additional recovery wells, RC1-RC6, installed in 2000. Solvent recovery from the R-series well ceased in 1999 and from the RC-series of wells recovery ceased in May 2005; the RC-series were decommissioned in May 2007.

Since the hydraulic containment system was commissioned, dissolved phase concentrations of BTEX and THF have reduced further. More recently, MTBE concentrations peaked down-gradient of the solvent recovery area and subsequently declined (data available up to November 2015).

A review of remedial options for the site was conducted in 2014 and completed in 20159. It was

concluded that the benefits of any scheme, over and above the mass recovery obtained with the current hydraulic containment system, are likely to be limited in nature due to the difficulties in effectively targeting any treatment within the source zone and given the uncertainty of contaminant mass distribution within the complex limestone bedrock aquifer and/or the silty-sandy gravel drift unit directly overlying it. Practicality issues, particularly relating to access in the operational solvent recovery and solvent tank farm areas, together with Health & Safety requirements, are likely to limit the effectiveness of the design of any scheme for enhancing mass recovery from the source area, which is located within an ATEX Zone area. The benefits of any of the options assessed are considered likely to be outweighed by low sustainability.

8 URS, Phase III Groundwater Investigation and February 1995 Groundwater Monitoring Results for the Ringaskiddy,

Cork Facility, URS report reference 17717-018-401/MF/pl, dated 15 May 1995

9 AECOM, Pfizer Ringaskiddy Groundwater Remediation Assessment 2014, AECOM report reference

47092735/CKRP0001, February 2015

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




2.5.2 Potential Pollutant Linkages

A summary of potential Source-Pathway-Receptor (SPR) linkages is outlined in the table below.

Potential SPR Linkages

Sources Pathways Potential Receptor

S1 Residual contamination remaining beneath the former southern underground storage tank (UST) farm area – BTEX, alcohols and THF

S2 Residual contamination remaining below ground in the area north of the containment wells – BTEX, THF and cyclohexane

S3 Residual contamination remaining below ground in the area north-west of the containment wells –MTBE

Human Health

P1 Ingestion of soil/dust, groundwater and/or surface water

P2 Dermal contact with soil/ dust, groundwater and/or surface water

P3 Inhalation of indoor and outdoor contaminant vapours which can arise directly from residual contaminants in the unsaturated overburden itself and indirectly via the dissolved phase in groundwater

Human Health

S1 On-site workers

S2 Off-site workers

S3 Workers on-site undertaking subsurface works

Controlled Waters

P4 Lateral migration of contaminants through the bedrock aquifer

Controlled Waters

S4 Monkstown Creek (pNHA 001979)

S5 Cork Harbour (SPA 004030)

Based on the current site status and monitoring data it is considered that:

• The potential for ingestion of contaminated soil/dust and groundwater is low. The former northern and southern UST farms, key source areas for contaminated soil and groundwater, were removed in 1998 and 1999 (along with associated contaminated soils which were bio-remediated on site), respectively, reducing contaminant concentrations in groundwater. On-site personnel do not have routine contact with either soil or groundwater.

• Similarly, the potential for dermal contact with contaminated soil/dust and groundwater is low, for the reasons outlined above.

• The potential for indoor inhalation of contaminant vapours on site is low, as the nearest occupied building in the vicinity of the source area is up-topographical and hydraulic gradient (OSP 1). Outdoor inhalation of volatile compounds emanating from contaminated soil and groundwater is also considered low, as contaminated soil and groundwater in the source areas have been remediated to an acceptable level with regard to exposure to human health via vapour inhalation.

• The potential for indoor/outdoor inhalation of contaminant vapours by workers on off-site properties is considered negligible, as there are no occupied properties down-gradient of the site and contaminated groundwater is either captured by the containment wells or discharges to Monkstown Creek from the site.

• There is a potential for on-site workers to be exposed to low level contamination in the source area of the Pfizer Ringaskiddy site if redevelopment requiring excavation is undertaken. However, if such works were to be undertaken, then project-specific additional health and safety procedures would be put in place to protect site workers (e.g. permit system, air monitoring with action levels, PPE, etc.).

• Given the site’s coastal setting and the fact that groundwater in this area is likely to be brackish, it is unlikely that wells for potable use are/will be located in the vicinity of the site.

• The mass of dissolved contaminants in groundwater migrating laterally through the bedrock aquifer from the source area towards Monkstown Creek is considered low. Two hydraulic

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




containment wells capture groundwater with dissolved contamination. In addition, dissolved phase organic contaminants are being significantly attenuated along the groundwater flow path (through sorption, in-situ degradation, dilution and dispersion).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




3. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED WAY FORWARD

3.1 Summary and Conclusion

Groundwater monitoring was undertaken between 16 and 18 November 2015 for Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals at their API plant, Ballintaggart, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork (Pfizer Ringaskiddy). The scope of work included: groundwater level measurement in all accessible wells; sampling groundwater from seven on-site wells; analysis for parameters required by the site’s IEL and determination of the direction of groundwater flow.

In general, the groundwater flow pattern and long term declining solvent trends have remained consistent at Pfizer Ringaskiddy and can be summarized as follows:

• Groundwater flow direction in both the subsoil and bedrock aquifers is in an eastward direction across the western portion of the site. Moving further east, groundwater in the bedrock aquifer is contained in an area north of the nature pond by groundwater abstraction from two containment wells: C1 and C2. It is understood from historic data that, under natural gradient conditions, groundwater flow in this area would swing northward towards Monkstown Creek.

• A general overall declining trend in solvent concentrations has been evident in groundwater from the IEL monitored wells at Pfizer Ringaskiddy since the mid-1990s.

• Solvent mass recovery, as a result of groundwater abstraction from wells C1 and C2 (and historically from other wells), has followed an overall trend of decreasing mass loads over time. This is attributed to a combination of engineering up-grades, removal of source contaminants and groundwater abstraction itself. Ongoing natural attenuation of dissolved solvent concentrations along the groundwater pathway down-gradient of the source area has also reduced the overall mass recovered.

Conclusions from Round 2 November 2015 monitoring round are:

• No floating/sinking non-aqueous phase liquid layer was detected in any of the monitoring wells dipped.

• Total VOC concentrations in November 2015 increased compared to May 2015 with the majority of the increase recorded in well 501. The total for well 501, 88 mg/L, consists mostly of BTEX compounds. Total VOCs in the remaining wells also increased between May and November 2015, but were much lower than in well 501, not exceeding 0.6 mg/L. BTEX concentrations increased in groundwater from wells 205, 501 and C1, remained stable in well 404, nd remained below the MDL in wells 7, 409 and 702 monitored in Round 2 (November) 2015.

• Iso-propanol (IPA) was the only alcohol detected in groundwater sampled in November 2015 and only from well 501. Prior to May 2015, IPA was last detected in groundwater from well 501 in November 2011. IPA is mobile and readily biodegradable. Methanol was also detected in groundwater from well 501 in May 2015, but declined below the MDL in November 2015.

• The acetone concentration decreased slightly in groundwater from well 501 in November 2015. Prior to November 2014, acetone was last detected at this well in 2011.

• THF concentrations increased in groundwater from wells 501, 404 and C1 in November 2015. THF remained below the MDL in groundwater from wells 7, 205, 409 and 702.

• The cyclohexane concentration increased slightly in groundwater from source area well 501. Cyclohexane was not detected above the MDL in remaining wells.

• Following May 2015 monitoring, Pfizer subsequently conducted detailed investigation into the increased alcohol, THF, acetone and BTEX concentrations in well 501. The investigation identified leaks in two weak effluent manholes CS116 and CS124 which are located in close proximity up-stream of well 501. The repair work to the aforementioned manholes was

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02




successfully completed on 05 February 2016. Both manholes were pressure tested to EN1610 and passed.

• All licensed monitoring wells appeared to be in good condition during fieldwork and do not require repair or maintenance.

3.2 Recommended Way Forward

Based on results of the second round of IEL biannual groundwater monitoring conducted in November 2015, AECOM recommends that groundwater containment and monitoring continue in accordance with EPA requirements into 2016.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02



February 2016

Figures

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

NORTH

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ! � � � � ! � � � � " # $ % # &' ( ) * + , - ) ( + . ( / + ( 0 + . - + 1 2. - ) 3 4 ) 5 5 - 6 1 + .7 8 9 : ; 8 . ) , + <= > ? @ A B CD EF G G H I J K� � � � � � L � M N � ! � L N � � � � � �

I O P Q R Q S T G U O V T W X O T Y R Q P Z [ S T Q S T K \ ] K ^ ^ ^ _ ` _ ab I O P Q R Q S T G U O V T W X O T Y R Q P R Q P c \ V T O Q d T Q e \ f X O T Y R Q P� � � � ! g � � � � � � � � � �0 km 1 km 2 km 3 km

h i j k l > m n j m o ? p m m q p ? r s p t q > s s o k > l o ? p s i > h th i j k l > m t q i s ur p l v w x y x z @ B { | x C y A A C } } } ~ > p q i � ~ q i �h i j k l > m n j m o ? p m m q p ? r s p t q > s s o k > l o ? p s i > h th i j k l > m q i s u� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � �

� � � ��

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

� � ��

� � � ��

!" # $ $ %&'()*+ ,&* (- '� � �� . / � � � � � �

0 1 2 3 4 15 6 3 7 18 9: ; < = > ? @ A > B @ ? CAD > D E F G F H I J K LMN M O P Q R S TU T V W X Y Z[ \ ] _ ! [ \ _ a [ \ b c \ d ] e fg h i j C k lm l n o p q rs > i g ka \ _ b t ! u _ [ \ ] ! v ] b u ] c \ ] e j k w x A k B @ ? C s > i g k ?y D z= > ? @ A > B @ ? Cs > i g k ?y D { | }A D > D E~ � ~ � � � � �~ � ~ � � � � �~ � ~ � � � � �� ~ � ~ � � � � �~ � ~ � � � � � � � �� ~ � ~ � � � � � ~ � ~ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ~ � ~ � � � � � ~ � ~ � � � � ��

5 6 3 7 10 1 2 3 4 18 9: �� / � � � �

� � ��

� � � � � � � � � �� ¡ ¢ £= x ? @ ¤ > h j = ?¥ ¦ § {B k E > k B ©g > h k ? A

� � � � � � � �� ª � �� « � � � � �� ¬ �� ª � � � � 0 1 2 3 4 15 6 3 7 18 9: 0 1 2 3 4 15 6 3 7 18 9: ®8 9 : ¯0 1 2 3 4 15 6 3 7 1° ± ² ³ � µ � ¶ �

· \ d a u� « �

c _ \ u [ a \ _ u a� � � � � � · ¹ e _ \ º » v _ ua ! v \ ] � « �

¼ ! ½ ½ ¹ ¼ _ v [ ¾ u ]� « � ¿ À ÀÁÂÃ À ÄÂÅ Å ¿

v ] v a · u e º \ \ e a¼ d v ½ e v ] º� « �� Æ� « �� «· ¹ e _ \ º Ç

e _ d b a \ _ ! º u� � � k È A k B ? x hC x g E © h @ ? j k Bg A > B k¿ À À ÁÂÃ À ÄÂÅ Å ¿

É x B Ê @ ? C g É x E k gE > ? A B x E A > B ËÌ ËÍÎÏÐÑ Ò Ó Ò Ô Õ Ö × ØÙÚ ÙÛÜÝÞßàá àâãäåæçè çéêëìíîï îðñòóôõ ö õ÷ø ùú û� ü � � � / / � � � � � / � � .� � � � � � � � ýþ ÿ þ � � �� þ ÿ þ � � ��

� « �[ \ b c \ d ] e �[ \ ] _ ! [ \ _ a

� � � � � � � ��

5 6 3 7 1 � 2 18 9 : ; � 2 15 6 3 7 18 9: ; � � 2 15 6 3 7 18 9: ; ; 0 1 2 3 4 15 6 3 7 18 9 : 0 1 2 3 4 15 6 3 7 18 9 : �� / � � � � � � � � � �� « �

� � � / � � � �� «�� / � �� ! " 5 6 3 7 1 � 2 18 9: <5 6 3 7 1 � 2 18 9 : �

� � �� / � / � � � � �� / � � � � � 4 � �# $ ;% � & # $ ;% � �# $ ;4 � & # $ ;

� ��

� � �� ' ( � � � ) � � � ª � � � � �� ' ( � � � �� / � � *� � � �� / � � * � � � � � /� � � � � � �ª �� +� � �� ) � ª � �, ,� « �� -

NORTH

501

602602

205

C1404

7

702

409

501

205

C1404

7

702

. / 0 1 2 3 43 5 6 2 7 4 8 / 9 : 6 7 ; 4 6 4 5 2 < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L F M N OP Q R S T U R U T V W X Y P Z W U [ W \ T ] R \ W V _

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL [ X a _ b X \ U T T a

P Q R S T U U R X c W _ a R Y Y dc U ] X Y b W T U [ X R U R X c e f g h 8 / 999 : 799999 : 7 4 / 9 3 2 8 3 i 2 3 j 2 8 9 . . / 0 k 2 8l m n op 3 9 5 2 8 / ; 7 0q 8 9 4 2/ 2 kr s s m t u v w r v x y z {| t } m ~ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ~�~ � � � � � �� ~ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ~�~ � � � � � � � � � �� ¡ ¢ £¤ ¥¦ § ¨ £ § © ª § « ª ¢ ¢7 0 4 2 p ¬� ¦ ¡ § � ¨ ª� ® ¦ § £ ¦ � £ § « ª ¢ ¢ ° ± § ² £ © ª ³ ¨¦ § ª ´¬� ¦ ¡ § � ¨ ª� ® ¦ § £ ¦ � £ § « ª ¢ ¢ ° ± § µ� £ ¶APPROXIMATE SCALE

150 200m100500

· ¹ º » ¹ ¼ ½

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

180

MAINTENANCE

SUB-06

EHS/TRAINING CENTRE

OSP 3178

WAREHOUSE

164

170OSP 2

STORES

FA-977

PAR

KING

TAN

KER

187RECYCLE CENTRE

DELUGEHOUSENo.17

MONITORINGT.O.C

PIPE RACK

PIPE

RACK

PIPE

RACK

CONTRACTOR'S COMPOUND 2

SLUDGE

PIPE

RACK

HOUSE

STORM WATER CONTAINMENT POND

DEWATERING

HOUSE No. 3

MONITORINGHOUSE No. 1&2

T.O.C

PIPE RACKPIPE RACKPIPE RACK

174 COOLING TOWERS

PIPE RACKPIPE RACK

175

183 176SUB-14

PIPE RACK PIPE RACK

SOLVENTSTORE

115PUMPHOUSE

FIRE

PIPE RACK PIPE RACK

175

HOUSEDELUGE

No.5

ENGINEERING BUILDING

SUB- 01160

MAINTENANCE

121ADMIN. OFFICES

CANTEEN

182

162MANIFOLD MN-601

RECOVERYSOLVENT

NITROGENPLANT

197STOREOSP 1

EJECTORSTATION

DELUGEHOUSE

No.4

DELUGEHOUSE

No.3

No.2

DELUGEHOUSE

SLUDGE TANK

PROJECT STORES

181

184

HYDROG 4

FIRESTATION

194

B

193

MCC-RACKROOM

FINISHED GOODSBUILDING

191

OSP 4190

179HYDROG 3

DRUM STORAGE

165

EXTERNALGAS CYLINDER

STORE

MCC-RACKROOM

PARKING SPACESCONTRACTOR

PIP

ERACK

PIPE RACK

PIPE RACK

PIP

ERACK

PIP

ERACK

PIP

ERACK

PIPE RACK

API MILLINGFACILITY

185

SUB-18

PIPE RACK

186

PIPE RACK PIPE RACK

192

COMPOUND 1CONTRACTOR'S

PUMPHOUSEFIRE

HOUSEVALVE

No.1

VALVEHOUSENo.10

VALVEHOUSENo.11

DELUGEHOUSENo.24

DELUGEHOUSENo.28

O.S.G.OFFICES

126

TANKER UNLOADING AREA198

BUILDING169

Q.A. LAB

177

NO

EX

IT

YIELD

YIELD

HOUSEVALVE

No.7

HOUSEVALVE

No.8

201KILO LAB

166

173UTILITIES

GAA-912FAB-912FAA-912

GAB-912

COE127

168HYDROG 2

STORAGE

167HYDROG 1

OFFICESLAB &

OFFICES161

LAB &

CONTROLROOM

172AHCL

OSP 1163

CONTROLROOM

162

MCCEP2

LABSP.S.

196OFFICES

&

NORTH

PROJECT

CLIENT DRAWING TITLE

FIGURE 3_BEDROCK GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP (NOVEMBER 2015)

PFIZER IRELAND PHARMACEUTICALS

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

MONKSTOWN CREEK

PFIZER RINGASKIDDY GROUNDWATER MONITORING 2015

DRAWN TRACED CHECKED APPROVED

DH EO’H KF

SCALE DRG NO.

DATE

REV

AS SHOWN

JAN 2016

NA

DOUGLAS BUSINESS CENTRE, CARRIGALINE ROAD,DOUGLAS, CORK

TEL: +353 (21) 436 5006 WWW.AECOM.COM

DOUGLAS BUSINESS CENTRE, CARRIGALINE ROAD,DOUGLAS CORK

Hydraulic Containment Well

NOTES

Groundwater Monitoring Well (In Limestone)

Groundwater Monitoring Well (In Drift)

APPROXIMATE SCALE

150 200m100500

2m

8.0 Groundwater Elevation (m AOD)

Groundwater Equipotential in Limestone (m AOD)

Predicted Groundwater Flow Directionin Limestone

Not Applicable - Monitoring Well in DriftNA

47093026

7m7m 6m6m 5m5m3m3m

2m2m

3m3m

4m4m

5m5m

7m 6m 5m 4m4m4m 3m2m

3m

4m

5m

1.5m1.5m1.5m1.5m

1.5m1.5m

1.5m

1.5m

6.08

2.90

2.71

2.62

1.49

1.24

NA

BHBH409409

501501

205205

C1C1404404

7702702

409

501

C1

702702702

205205205

404

7

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOHPage 1 of 2

URS Ireland Limited J:\Cork-Jobs\Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals\47093026 Pfizer Ringaskiddy GWM 2015\Technical\Round 2 2015\Tables\Trends\IEL Trends

0

50

100

150

200

250

May 0

5

Mar

06

Jan

07

Nov 0

7

Se

p 0

8

Jul 09

May 1

0

Mar

11

Jan

12

Nov 1

2

Se

p 1

3

Jul 14

May 1

5

Mar

16

(mg

/L)

Figure 4: Total VOC Concentration Trends in Wells 205 & 501 from May 2005 to November 2015

501

205

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH



0

50

100

150

200

250

May-0

5

Mar-

06

Jan

-07

Nov-0

7

Se

p-0

8

Jul-0

9

May-1

0

Mar-

11

Jan

-12

Nov-1

2

Se

p-1

3

Jul-1

4

May-1

5

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure 5: BTEX Concentration Trends in Wells 205 & 501 from May 2005 to November 2015

501

205

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOH Figure 6B Page 1 of 2

AECOM Infrastructure and Enviroment Ireland LimitedJ:\Cork-Jobs\Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals\47093026 Pfizer Ringaskiddy GWM 2015\Technical\Round 2 2015\Tables\Mass Recovery\Mass Recovery - Nov 2015.xlsx

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

May-96 May-97 May-98 May-99 May-00 May-01 May-02 May-03 May-04 May-05

Mass

Rem

oved (kg)

Solvent Mass Recovery from June 1996 to May 2005

R Wells

C Wells

RC Wells

Several R series wells abandoned as pumping wells in September 1999 due to southern UST farm excavations

RC wells ceased pumping in May 2005 and decommissioned in May 2007

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOH Figure 6B Page 2 of 2

AECOM Infrastructure and Enviroment Ireland LimitedJ:\Cork-Jobs\Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals\47093026 Pfizer Ringaskiddy GWM 2015\Technical\Round 2 2015\Tables\Mass Recovery\Mass Recovery - Nov 2015.xlsx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Apr-05 Apr-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Dec-12 Dec-13 Nov-14 Nov-15

Mass

Rem

oved (kg)

Solvent Mass Recovery from May 2005 to November 2015

C Wells

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02



February 2016

Tables

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOHTable 1 Monitoring Inventory November 2015 Final.xlsx

Pfizer API Ringaskiddy

Page 1 of 8

Monitoring

PointDate Sampled

VOCs and

AlcoholsMetals

Ammonia as

NMajor Ions pH*

Electrical

Conductivity*Temperature*

7 16-Nov-15 X X X X X X X

205 18-Nov-15 X X X X X X X

404 18-Nov-15 X X X X X X X

409 16-Nov-15 X X X X X X X

501 18-Nov-15 X X X X X X X

702 16-Nov-15 X X X X X X X

C1 17-Nov-15 X X X X X X X

Notes:

VOCs and Alcohols - Standard VOC suite plus: Acetone, Methanol, Ethanol, Iso-Propanol, Tetrahydrofuran, Cyclohexane and Ethyl Acetate

Metals - Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and Zinc

ns - indicates not sampled

X - indicates parameter scheduled for analysis

~ - indictes parameter not scheduled for analysis

Major Ions - Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, Sulphate, Nitrate as NO3, Nitrite as NO2, Carbonate Alkalinity (as CaCO3),

* Not possible to use a field water quality meter, measurements of pH and electrical conductivity were reocrded in the laboratory, temperature was

measured with a spirit thermometer.

AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Ireland LimitedJ:\Cork-Jobs\Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals\47093026 Pfizer Ringaskiddy GWM 2015\Technical\Round 2 2015\Tables\November 2015 Final.xlsx

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOHTable 2 Well Inventyory November 2015 Final.xlsx


Page 2 of 8

Monitoring

Point

Year

Installed

Screened

Interval

ING Easting

(m)

ING Northing

(m)

Top of Well Casing

Elevation

m OD

Internal

Diameter

mm

Total Depth

Installed

m bct

Screen

Length

m

Top of

Screen

m bct

Base of

Screen

m bct

Well CompletionMaintenance

Required

7 pre-1994 Drift 176761.661 64750.902 6.102 50 na na na na Raised metal cover No

205 1994 Limestone 176708.854 64861.865 3.535 50 15.15* 3.0 12.2 15.2 Flush metal cover No

404 1995 Limestone 176705.545 64826.362 5.355 50 14.75* 3.0 11.75 14.75 Flush metal cover No

409 1995 Limestone 176661.556 64699.725 12.133 50 18.5 5.5 13.0 18.5 Flush metal cover No

501 1996 Limestone 176632.164 64787.032 12.314 50 na na na na Flush metal cover No

702 2000 Limestone 177008.219 64772.403 9.522 50 13.93 5.0 8.93 13.93 Flush metal cover No

C1 1995 Limestone 176775.718 64834.784 4.840 na na na na na Concrete chamber No

Notes:

ING: Irish national grid co-ordinate m bct: Metres below casing top

m OD: Metres above Ordnance Datum na: Not applicable/not available

* Actual well depth from top of casing to end cap (m bct) - November 2014

AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Ireland Limited J:\Cork-Jobs\Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals\47093026 Pfizer Ringaskiddy GWM 2015\Technical\Round 2 2015\Tables\November 2015 Final.xlsx

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOHTable 3 Field Notes, November 2015 Final.xlsx


Page 3 of 8

Monitoring

Point

Total Depth

Measured

m bct

Depth to

Groundwater

m bct

pH*EC* µµµµS/cm

@ 25°C

TemperatureoC

LNAPL/

DNAPL

Detected

Comments

7 5.46 3.760 6.75 679 13.2 No Cloudy brown silty water, no odour

205 15.54 0.920 7.04 1059 13.5 No Clear and colourless water, hydrogen sulphide odour.

404 14.76 2.650 6.94 949 13.2 No Clear and colourless water, slight hydrogen sulphide odour

409 18.14 9.233 6.90 526 13.6 No Cloudy brown water, no odour

501 12.36 6.230 6.69 794 15.5 No Colourless water with black suspended solids, solvent odour

702 13.95 8.280 7.22 1322 13.8 No Cloudy brown silty water, no odour

C1 - 3.352 7.47 1146 13.0 No Clear and colourless water, slight hydrogen sulphide odour. Well pumping.

Notes:

m bct:- Metres below casing top µS/cm: Microsiemens per centimetre LNAP: light non-aqueous phase liquid (floating layer).

-: not measured oC: Degrees Celsius DNAPL: dense non-aqueous phase liquid (sinking layer).

na: not applicable/not available EC: Electrical Conductivity NEC: no evidence of contamination.

*: Measurements taken in laboratory


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOHTable 4 Groundwater Elevations, November 2015 Final.xlsx


Page 4 of 8

Monitoring

Point

Total Depth

Measured

m bct

Total Depth

Installed

m bct

Screen

Length

m

Thickness of

Silt

m

% of Screen

Blocked by

Silt

Top of Well

Casing Elevation

m OD

Depth to

Groundwater

m bct

Groundwater

Elevation

m OD

7 5.46 na na - - 6.102 3.760 2.342

205 15.54 15.54 3.0 0.00 0% 3.535 0.920 2.615

404 14.76 14.77 3.0 0.01 0% 5.355 2.650 2.705

409 18.14 18.50 5.5 0.36 7% 12.133 9.233 2.900

501 12.36 na na - - 12.314 6.230 6.084

702 13.95 13.93 5.0 -0.02 0% 9.522 8.280 1.242

C1 - na na - - 4.840 3.352 1.488

Notes:

m OD: Metres above Ordnance Datum

m bct:- Metres below casing top

-: not measured

na: not applicable/not available


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOHTable 5 Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/L), November 2015 Final.xlsx


Page 5 of 8

7 205 404 409 501 702 C1

Nov-15 Nov-15 Nov-15 Nov-15 Nov-15 Nov-15 Nov-15

Dichlorodifluoromethane ---- ---- ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

MTBE ---- 9.2 0.03 <0.0001 0.289 0.555 <0.0001 4.77 <0.0001 0.034

Chloromethane ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Vinyl Chloride 0.000375 0.005 ---- <0.0001 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Bromomethane ---- ---- ---- <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Chloroethane ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Trichlorofluoromethane ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

1,1-Dichloroethene ---- 0.01 0.03 1 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Dichloromethane ---- 1 0.01 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.048 <0.003 <0.003

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ---- 0.020* 0.03 1 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

1,1-Dichloroethane ---- 0.9 ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ---- 0.02* 0.03 1 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

2,2-Dichloropropane ---- 0.08** ---- <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Bromochloromethane ---- ---- ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Chloroform 0.075 B 0.4 0.012 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ---- 0.03 0.5 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

1,1-Dichloropropene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Carbon Tetrachloride ---- 0.01 0.02 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0225 0.4 0.3 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Benzene 0.00075 0.03 0.001 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.012 <0.0005 0.023 <0.0005 0.092

Trichloroethene 0.0075 A 0.5 0.07, 0.01

4 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003


Dibromomethane ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Bromodichloromethane 0.075 B ---- ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ---- ---- ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Toluene ---- 1 0.01 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 23.0 <0.0005 <0.0005

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ---- ---- ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

1,1,2-Trichloroethane ---- 0.13 ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Tetrachloroethene 0.0075 A 0.4 0.001, 0.04

2 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003


Dibromochloromethane 0.075 B ---- ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

1,2-Dibromoethane ---- ---- ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Chlorobenzene ---- 0.18 0.001 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ---- ---- ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Ethyl Benzene ---- 0.15 0.01 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 2.79 <0.0005 <0.0005

m,p-Xylene ---- 0.07***** 0.01 5 <0.001 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 43.8 <0.001 <0.001

o-Xylene ---- 0.07***** 0.01 5 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 8.83 <0.0005 <0.0005

Styrene ---- 0.3 ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Bromoform 0.075 B 0.63 ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Isopropylbenzene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 0.068 <0.003 <0.003

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ---- ---- ---- <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004

Bromobenzene ---- ---- ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

1,2,3-Trichloropropane ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Propylbenzene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.012 <0.003 <0.003

2-Chlorotoluene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.011 <0.003 <0.003

4-Chlorotoluene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

tert-Butylbenzene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.014 <0.003 <0.003

sec-Butylbenzene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

p-Isopropyltoluene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

1,3-Dichlorobenzene ---- 0.05*** ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

1,4-Dichlorobenzene ---- 0.05*** ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

n-Butylbenzene ---- ---- ---- <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ---- 0.05*** 0.01 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ---- ---- ---- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ---- 0.01**** 0.0004 3 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Hexachlorobutadiene ---- ---- 0.0001 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Naphthalene ---- 0.07 0.001 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ---- 0.01**** 0.0004 3 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Notes:

Underlined indicates result above GTV Indicates result above IGV

A: GTV is for the sum of tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene 1 Draft IGV is for the sum of dichloroethenes

B: GTV is for the sum of trihalomethanes 2 Two Draft IGVs are given for tetrachloroethene

---- indicates no guideline value defined 3 Draft IGV is for the sum of trichlorobenzenes

ns - indicates not sampled 4 Two Draft IGVs are given for trichloroethene

DIV - Dutch Intervention Value 5 Draft IGV is for the sum of xylenes

Italics - indicates result above DIV *** DIV is for the sum of all dichlorobenzenes

* DIV is for both cis and trans 1,2-dichloroethene **** DIV is for the sum of all trichlorobenezenes

** DIV is for the sum of dichloropropanes ***** DIV is for the sum of all xylenes

GTV - Groundwater Threshold Value, Statutory Instrument No. 9, 2010

Monitoring Point

IGV - EPA draft Interim Guideline Value for the protection of groundwater

Volatile Organic Compounds GTV DIV IGV


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOHTable 6 Alcohols and Other Organics (mg/L), November 2015 Final.xlsx


Page 6 of 8

7 205 404 409 501 702 C1


Methyl Alcohol --- 24 --- <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Ethyl Alcohol --- --- --- <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

i-Propyl Alcohol --- 31 --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.90 <0.1 <0.1

n-Propyl Alcohol --- --- --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

n-Butyl Alcohol --- 5.6 --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

n-Pentyl Alcohol --- --- --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

n-Hexyl Alcohol --- --- --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

n-Heptyl Alcohol --- --- --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Methyl Acetate --- --- --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Ethyl Acetate --- 15 --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

i-Propyl Acetate --- --- --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

n-Propyl Acetate --- --- --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

n-Butyl Acetate --- --- --- <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Acetone --- --- --- <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 4.72 <0.05 <0.05

Cyclohexane --- 15 --- <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.69 <0.05 <0.05

Tetrahydrofuran --- 0.3 --- <0.01 <0.01 0.057 <0.01 2.06 <0.01 0.110

Notes:

Underlined indicates result above GTV

DIV - Dutch Intervention Value

Italics - indicates result above DIV

---- indicates no guideline value defined


GTV - Groundwater Threshold Value, Statutory

Instrument No. 9, 2010

IGV - EPA draft Interim Guideline Value for the

protection of groundwater

Indicates result above IGV

Monitoring PointAlcohols and

Other OrganicsGTV DIV IGV

AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Ireland Limited

J:\Cork-Jobs\Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals\47093026 Pfizer Ringaskiddy GWM 2015\Technical\Round 2 2015\Tables\November 2015 Final.xlsx

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOHTable 7 Metals (mg/L), November 2015 Final.xlsx


Page 7 of 8

7 205 404 409 501 702 C1


Arsenic 0.0075 0.06 0.01 <0.0025 0.013 0.006 <0.0025 0.008 <0.0025 0.003

Cadmium 0.00375 0.006 0.005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.001 <0.0005

Chromium 0.0375 0.03 0.03 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015

Copper 1.5 0.075 0.03 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007

Lead 0.01875 0.075 0.01 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Mercury 0.00075 0.0003 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Nickel 0.015 0.075 0.02 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.003 <0.002 <0.002

Zinc --- 0.8 0.1 <0.003 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Notes:







Monitoring Point

GTV - Groundwater Threshold Value,

IGV - EPA draft Interim Guideline Value for the

Metal GTV DIV IGV

AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Ireland Limited

J:\Cork-Jobs\Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals\47093026 Pfizer Ringaskiddy GWM 2015\Technical\Round 2 2015\Tables\November 2015 Final.xlsx

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH

Checked by: EOHTable 8 Major Ions (mg/L), November 2015 Final.xlsx


Page 8 of 8

7 205 404 409 501 702 C1


Calcium --- 200 134 56 67 92 132 113 58

Magnesium --- 50 6.5 5.7 3.4 4.6 3.8 31.5 15.1

Potassium --- 5 3.9 1.8 2.0 0.6 3.7 11.4 6.2

Sodium 150 150 12 155 133 20 36 116 160

Chloride 24 - 187.5 30 14 198 163 26 46 238 253

Sulphate 187.5 200 40.0 7.7 2.0 27.0 1.1 120.1 26.7

Nitrate as NO3 37.5 25 0.4 1.4 0.6 3.9 0.4 2.9 0.6

Nitrite as NO2 0.375 0.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Ammoniacal

Nitrogen

0.065 -

0.1750.14* 0.63 1.10 1.63 <0.03 1.49 <0.03 1.52

Carbonate

Alkalinity as

CaCO3

--- --- <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Bicarbonate

Alkalinity as

CaCO3

--- --- 358 300 292 249 389 277 236

Toal Alkalinity --- --- 358 300 292 249 389 277 236

Iron --- 0.2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.3 <0.02 <0.02

Manganese --- 0.05 0.522 0.734 0.573 0.395 2.024 0.003 0.579

Ionic Balance --- --- -3.4 -7.8 -5.3 -4.3 -3.2 -4.4 -4.8

Notes:

GTV - Groundwater Threshold Value, Statutory Instrument No. 9, 2010




IGV - EPA draft Interim Guideline Value for the protection of groundwater



*Ammonia as Ammonium, 0.15 mg/L

Monitoring Point


Major Ion GTV IGV


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02



February 2016

Appendix A – Historical Data and Concentration Plots with Time for Key

Compounds (Figures A1 – A11)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH



0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

May-0

5

Mar-

06

Jan

-07

Nov-0

7

Se

p-0

8

Jul-0

9

May-1

0

Mar-

11

Jan

-12

Nov-1

2

Se

p-1

3

Jul-1

4

May-1

5

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A1: Benzene Concentration Trends in IEL Wells 501 from May 2005 to November 2015

7 205

404 409

501 702

C1 IGV (0.001 mg/L)

GTV (0.00075 mg/L) DIV (0.03 mg/L)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

May-0

5

Ap

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ap

r-08

Ap

r-09

Ap

r-10

Mar-

11

Mar-

12

Mar-

13

Mar-

14

Mar-

15

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A2: Toluene Concentration Trends in IEL Wells501 from May 2005 to November 2015

7 205

404 409

501 702

C1 IGV (0.01 mg/L)

DIV (1 mg/L)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

May-0

5

Ap

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ap

r-08

Ap

r-09

Ap

r-10

Mar-

11

Mar-

12

Mar-

13

Mar-

14

Mar-

15

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A3: Ethylbenzene Concentration Trends in IEL Wells from May 2005 to November 2015

7 205

404 409

501 702

C1 IGV (0.01 mg/L)

DIV (0.15 mg/L)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

May-0

5

Ap

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ap

r-08

Ap

r-09

Ap

r-10

Mar-

11

Mar-

12

Mar-

13

Mar-

14

Mar-

15

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A4: Total Xylene Concentration Trends in IEL Wells from May 2005 to November 2015

7 205

404 409

501 702

C1 IGV (0.01 mg/L)

DIV (0.07 mg/L)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

May-0

5

Ap

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ap

r-08

Ap

r-09

Ap

r-10

Mar-

11

Mar-

12

Mar-

13

Mar-

14

Mar-

15

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A5: MTBE Concentration Trends in IEL Wells from May 2005 to November 2015

7 205

404 409

501 702

C1 IGV (0.03 mg/L)

DIV (9.2 mg/L)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:02

Prepared by: DH



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

May-0

5

Ap

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ap

r-08

Ap

r-09

Ap

r-10

Mar-

11

Mar-

12

Mar-

13

Mar-

14

Mar-

15

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A6: THF Concentration Trends in IEL Wells from May 2005 to November 2015

7 205

404 409

501 702

C1 DIV (0.3 mg/L)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

Prepared by: DH



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

May-0

5

Ap

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ap

r-08

Ap

r-09

Ap

r-10

Mar-

11

Mar-

12

Mar-

13

Mar-

14

Mar-

15

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A7: Cyclohexane Concentration Trends in IEL Wells from May 2005 to November 2015

7 205

404 409

501 702

C1 DIV (15 mg/L)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

Prepared by: DH



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

May-0

5

Ap

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ap

r-08

Ap

r-09

Ap

r-10

Mar-

11

Mar-

12

Mar-

13

Mar-

14

Mar-

15

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A8: Acetone Concentration Trends in IEL Wells from May 2005 to November 2015

7 205 404

409 501 702

C1

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

Prepared by: DH



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

May-0

5

Ap

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ap

r-08

Ap

r-09

Ap

r-10

Mar-

11

Mar-

12

Mar-

13

Mar-

14

Mar-

15

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A9: Methanol Concentration Trends in IEL Wells from May 2005 to November 2015

7 205

404 409

501 702

C1 DIV (24 mg/L)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

Prepared by: DH



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

May-0

5

Ap

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ap

r-08

Ap

r-09

Ap

r-10

Mar-

11

Mar-

12

Mar-

13

Mar-

14

Mar-

15

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A10: Ethanol Concentration Trends in IEL Wells from May 2005 to November 2015

7 205 404

409 501 702

C1

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

Prepared by: DH



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

May-0

5

Ap

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ap

r-08

Ap

r-09

Ap

r-10

Mar-

11

Mar-

12

Mar-

13

Mar-

14

Mar-

15

Mar-

16

(mg

/L)

Figure A11: Isopropyl Alcohol Concentration Trends in IEL Wells May 2005 to November 2015

7 205

404 409

501 702

C1 DIV (31 mg/L)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03



February 2016

Appendix B – Laboratory Certificates

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

Unit 3 Deeside Point

Zone 3

Deeside Industrial Park

Deeside

AECOM

Attention :

Date :

Your reference :

Our reference :

Location :

Date samples received :

Status :

Issue :

Seven samples were received for analysis on 20th November, 2015 of which seven were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test

Report which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are

outside the scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.

All analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.

Simon Gomery BSc

Project Manager

25th January, 2016

47093026

Ringskiddy

20th November, 2015

Final report

Compiled By:

Test Report 15/16609 Batch 1

1

Jones Environmental Laboratory

CH5 2UA

Tel: +44 (0) 1244 833780

Fax: +44 (0) 1244 833781

Edel O'Hannelly

Acorn Business Campus

Mahon Industrial Park

Black Rock

Cork

Ireland

Registered Address : Unit 3 Deeside Point, Zone 3, Deeside Industrial Park, Deeside, CH5 2UA. UK

QF-PM 3.1.1 v16Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced

All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 1 of 8

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

Client Name: Report : Liquid

Reference:

Location:

Contact: Liquids/products: V=40ml vial, G=glass bottle, P=plastic bottle

JE Job No.: 15/16609 H=H2SO4, Z=ZnAc, N=NaOH, HN=HN03

J E Sample No. 1-7 15-21 50-56 71-77 78-84 106-112 120-126

Sample ID 7 205 404 409 501 702 C1

Depth

COC No / misc

Containers V H P G V H P G V H P G V H P G V H HN P G V H P G V H HN P G

Sample Date 16/11/2015 18/11/2015 18/11/2015 16/11/2015 18/11/2015 16/11/2015 17/11/2015

Sample Type Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water

Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Date of Receipt 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015

Dissolved Arsenic # <2.5 13.3 5.7 <2.5 7.7 <2.5 3.3 <2.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Cadmium # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Calcium # 133.9 56.3 66.5 91.8 131.7 112.8 58.3 <0.2 mg/l TM30/PM14

Total Dissolved Chromium # <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Copper # <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 ug/l TM30/PM14

Total Dissolved Iron # <20 <20 <20 <20 256 <20 <20 <20 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Lead # <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Magnesium # 6.5 5.7 3.4 4.6 3.8 31.5 15.1 <0.1 mg/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Manganese # 522 734 573 395 2024 3 579 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Mercury # <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Nickel # 2 <2 <2 <2 3 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Potassium # 3.9 1.8 2.0 0.6 3.7 11.4 6.2 <0.1 mg/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Sodium # 12.3 155.3 133.1 19.5 36.1 115.7 160.4 <0.1 mg/l TM30/PM14

Dissolved Zinc # <3 3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM30/PM14

Alcohols/Acetates

Methyl Alcohol <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 ug/l TM83/PM10

Ethyl Alcohol <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 <500 ug/l TM83/PM10

i-Propyl Alcohol <100 <100 <100 <100 1901 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

n-Propyl Alcohol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

n-Butyl Alcohol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

n-Pentyl Alcohol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

n-Hexyl Alcohol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

n-Heptyl Alcohol <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

Methyl Acetate <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

Ethyl Acetate <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

i-Propyl Acetate <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

n-Propyl Acetate <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

n-Butyl Acetate <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 ug/l TM83/PM10

Acetone <50 <50 <50 <50 4718AA <50 <50 <50 ug/l TM83/PM10

Cyclohexane <50 <50 <50 <50 1693 <50 <50 <50 ug/l TM83/PM10

Tetrahydrofuran <10 <10 57 <10 2056AA <10 110 <10 ug/l TM83/PM10

Sulphate # 40.01 7.69 1.98 27.02 1.12 120.09 26.65 <0.05 mg/l TM38/PM0

Chloride # 14.3 198.4 163.2 26.0 46.4 238.0 253.2 <0.3 mg/l TM38/PM0

Nitrate as NO3 # 0.4 1.4 0.6 3.9 0.4 2.9 0.6 <0.2 mg/l TM38/PM0

Nitrite as NO2 # <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 mg/l TM38/PM0

Ammoniacal Nitrogen as NH3 # 0.63 1.10 1.63 <0.03 1.49 <0.03 1.52 <0.03 mg/l TM38/PM0

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 # 358 300 292 249 389 277 236 <1 mg/l TM75/PM0

Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 mg/l TM75/PM0

Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 358 300 292 249 389 277 236 <1 mg/l TM75/PM0

Ringskiddy

Edel O'Hannelly

Please see attached notes for all

abbreviations and acronyms

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.


AECOM

47093026



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

Client Name: Report : Liquid

Reference:

Location:

Contact: Liquids/products: V=40ml vial, G=glass bottle, P=plastic bottle

JE Job No.: 15/16609 H=H2SO4, Z=ZnAc, N=NaOH, HN=HN03

J E Sample No. 1-7 15-21 50-56 71-77 78-84 106-112 120-126

Sample ID 7 205 404 409 501 702 C1

Depth

COC No / misc


Sample Date 16/11/2015 18/11/2015 18/11/2015 16/11/2015 18/11/2015 16/11/2015 17/11/2015



Date of Receipt 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015

Electrical Conductivity @25C # 679 1059 949 526 794 1322 1146 <2 uS/cm TM76/PM0

pH # 6.75 7.04 6.94 6.90 6.69 7.22 7.47 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM0

Total Cations 7.85 10.08 9.44 5.82 8.55 13.55 11.29 <0.00 mmolc/l TM30/PM14

Total Anions 8.40 11.78 10.49 6.34 9.12 14.80 12.43 <0.00 mmolc/l TM0/PM0

% Cation Excess -3.38 -7.78 -5.27 -4.28 -3.23 -4.41 -4.81 % TM0/PM0

LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.


AECOM

47093026

Ringskiddy

Edel O'Hannelly





For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

Client Name: VOC Report : Liquid

Reference:

Location:

Contact:

JE Job No.: 15/16609

J E Sample No. 1-7 15-21 50-56 71-77 78-84 106-112 120-126

Sample ID 7 205 404 409 501 702 C1

Depth

COC No / misc


Sample Date 16/11/2015 18/11/2015 18/11/2015 16/11/2015 18/11/2015 16/11/2015 17/11/2015



Date of Receipt 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015 20/11/2015

VOC MS

Dichlorodifluoromethane <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether # <0.1 289.3 554.9 <0.1 4768.6AB <0.1 34.4 <0.1 ug/l TM15/PM10

Chloromethane # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

Vinyl Chloride # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ug/l TM15/PM10

Bromomethane <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ug/l TM15/PM10

Chloroethane # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

Trichlorofluoromethane # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1 DCE) # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

Dichloromethane (DCM) # <3 <3 <3 <3 48 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

trans-1-2-Dichloroethene # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,1-Dichloroethane # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

cis-1-2-Dichloroethene # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

2,2-Dichloropropane <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ug/l TM15/PM10

Bromochloromethane # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Chloroform # <2 <2 <2 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,1,1-Trichloroethane # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,1-Dichloropropene # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

Carbon tetrachloride # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,2-Dichloroethane # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Benzene # <0.5 <0.5 12.0 <0.5 23.4 <0.5 92.0 <0.5 ug/l TM15/PM10

Trichloroethene (TCE) # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,2-Dichloropropane # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Dibromomethane # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

Bromodichloromethane # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

cis-1-3-Dichloropropene <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Toluene # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 22959.9AB <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ug/l TM15/PM10

trans-1-3-Dichloropropene <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,1,2-Trichloroethane # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,3-Dichloropropane # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Dibromochloromethane # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,2-Dibromoethane # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Chlorobenzene # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Ethylbenzene # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2794.5AB <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ug/l TM15/PM10

p/m-Xylene # <1 5 <1 <1 43795AB <1 <1 <1 ug/l TM15/PM10

o-Xylene # <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8832.9AB <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ug/l TM15/PM10

Styrene <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Bromoform # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

Isopropylbenzene # <3 <3 3 <3 68 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 ug/l TM15/PM10

Bromobenzene # <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,2,3-Trichloropropane # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

Propylbenzene # <3 <3 <3 <3 12 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

2-Chlorotoluene # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene # <3 <3 <3 <3 11 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

4-Chlorotoluene # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

tert-Butylbenzene # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene # <3 <3 <3 <3 14 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

sec-Butylbenzene # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

4-Isopropyltoluene # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,3-Dichlorobenzene # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10


n-Butylbenzene # <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10


1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

Hexachlorobutadiene <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

Naphthalene <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 ug/l TM15/PM10

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ug/l TM15/PM10

Surrogate Recovery Toluene D8 96 98 98 92 96 104 103 <0 % TM15/PM10

Surrogate Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene 100 103 104 97 71 106 107 <0 % TM15/PM10

Ringskiddy

Edel O'Hannelly



LOD/LOR UnitsMethod

No.


AECOM

47093026



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

JE Job No.:

SOILS

DEVIATING SAMPLES

SURROGATES

DILUTIONS

NOTE

It is assumed that you have taken representative samples on site and require analysis on a representative subsample. Stones will generally be

included unless we are requested to remove them.

ISO17025 (UKAS) accreditation applies to surface water and groundwater and one other matrix which is analysis specific, any other liquids are

outside our scope of accreditation.

As surface waters require different sample preparation to groundwaters the laboratory must be informed of the water type when submitting samples.

Where appropriate please make sure that our detection limits are suitable for your needs, if they are not, please notify us immediately.

NOTES TO ACCOMPANY ALL SCHEDULES AND REPORTS

Please note we are only MCERTS accredited (UK soils only) for sand, loam and clay and any other matrix is outside our scope of accreditation.

Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.

15/16609

WATERS

Data is only reported if the laboratory is confident that the data is a true reflection of the samples analysed. Data is only reported as accredited when

all the requirements of our Quality System have been met. In certain circumstances where all the requirements of the Quality System have not been

met, for instance if the associated AQC has failed, the reason is fully investigated and documented. The sample data is then evaluated alongside

the other quality control checks performed during analysis to determine its suitability. Following this evaluation, provided the sample results have not

been effected, the data is reported but accreditation is removed. It is a UKAS requirement for data not reported as accredited to be considered

indicative only, but this does not mean the data is not valid.

Where possible, and if requested, samples will be re-extracted and a revised report issued with accredited results. Please do not hesitate to contact

the laboratory if further details are required of the circumstances which have led to the removal of accreditation.

Where an MCERTS report has been requested, you will be notified within 48 hours of any samples that have been identified as being outside our

MCERTS scope. As validation has been performed on clay, sand and loam, only samples that are predominantly these matrices, or combinations

of them will be within our MCERTS scope. If samples are not one of a combination of the above matrices they will not be marked as MCERTS

accredited.

Negative Neutralization Potential (NP) values are obtained when the volume of NaOH (0.1N) titrated (pH 8.3) is greater than the volume of HCl (1N)

to reduce the pH of the sample to 2.0 - 2.5. Any negative NP values are corrected to 0.

Where a CEN 10:1 ZERO Headspace VOC test has been carried out, a 10:1 ratio of water to wet (as received) soil has been used.

All samples will be discarded one month after the date of reporting, unless we are instructed to the contrary.

Surrogate compounds are added during the preparation process to monitor recovery of analytes. However low recovery in soils is often due to peat,

clay or other organic rich matrices. For waters this can be due to oxidants, surfactants, organic rich sediments or remediation fluids. Acceptable

limits for most organic methods are 70 - 130% and for VOCs are 50 - 150%. When surrogate recoveries are outside the performance criteria but

the associated AQC passes this is assumed to be due to matrix effect. Results are not surrogate corrected.

A dilution suffix indicates a dilution has been performed and the reported result takes this into account. No further calculation is required.

If you have not already done so, please send us a purchase order if this is required by your company.

% Asbestos in Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) is determined by reference to HSG 264 The Survey Guide - Appendix 2 : ACMs in buildings

listed in order of ease of fibre release.

All analysis is reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected. Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C unless

otherwise stated. Moisture content for CEN Leachate tests are dried at 105°C ±5°C.

Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.

Please note we are not a UK Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) Approved Laboratory .

Samples must be received in a condition appropriate to the requested analyses. All samples should be submitted to the laboratory in suitable

containers with sufficient ice packs to sustain an appropriate temperature for the requested analysis. If this is not the case you will be informed and

any test results that may be compromised highlighted on your deviating samples report.



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

JE Job No.:

#

B

DR

M

NA

NAD

ND

NDP

SS

SV

W

+

++

*

AD

CO

LOD/LOR

ME

NFD

BS

LB

N

TB

OC

AA

AB

x10 Dilution

x50 Dilution

Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C

Dilution required.

ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS USED

Outside Calibration Range

No Fibres Detected

Result outside calibration range, results should be considered as indicative only and are not accredited.

Results expressed on as received basis.

Surrogate recovery outside performance criteria. This may be due to a matrix effect.

MCERTS accredited.

ISO17025 (UKAS) accredited - UK.

15/16609

AQC failure, accreditation has been removed from this result, if appropriate, see 'Note' on previous page.

Calibrated against a single substance

Not applicable

No Asbestos Detected.

No Determination Possible

Indicates analyte found in associated method blank.

None Detected (usually refers to VOC and/SVOC TICs).

Blank Sample

Client Sample

Trip Blank Sample

AQC Sample

Suspected carry over

Limit of Detection (Limit of Reporting) in line with ISO 17025 and MCERTS

Analysis subcontracted to a Jones Environmental approved laboratory.

Matrix Effect



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

JE Job No: 15/16609

Test Method No. Description

Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM0 Not available PM0 No preparation is required.

TM15Modified USEPA 8260. Quantitative Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs) by Headspace GC-MS.PM10

Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC

headspace analysis.

TM15Modified USEPA 8260. Quantitative Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs) by Headspace GC-MS.PM10


headspace analysis. Yes

TM30Determination of Trace Metal elements by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma -

Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7PM14

Analysis of waters and leachates for metals by ICP OES. Samples are filtered for

dissolved metals and acidified if required.

TM30Determination of Trace Metal elements by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma -

Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7PM14

Analysis of waters and leachates for metals by ICP OES. Samples are filtered for

dissolved metals and acidified if required.Yes

TM38Soluble Ion analysis using the Thermo Aquakem Photometric Automatic Analyser.

Modified US EPA methods 325.2, 375.4, 365.2, 353.1, 354.1PM0 No preparation is required. Yes

TM73Modified US EPA methods 150.1 and 9045D. Determination of pH by Metrohm

automated probe analyser.PM0 No preparation is required. Yes

TM75Modified US EPA method 310.1. Determination of Alkalinity by Metrohm automated

titration analyser.PM0 No preparation is required.

TM75Modified US EPA method 310.1. Determination of Alkalinity by Metrohm automated

titration analyser.PM0 No preparation is required. Yes

TM76Modified US EPA method 120.1. Determination of Specific Conductance by Metrohm

automated probe analyser.PM0 No preparation is required. Yes

Jones Environmental Laboratory Method Code Appendix

QF-PM 3.1.10 v14 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 7 of 8

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

JE Job No: 15/16609

Test Method No. Description

Prep Method

No. (if

appropriate)

Description

ISO

17025

(UKAS)

MCERTS

(UK soils

only)

Analysis done

on As Received

(AR) or Dried

(AD)

Reported on

dry weight

basis

TM83Modified USEPA method 8260. Determination of Alcohols, Acetates, Acetone, Fuel

Oxygenates, THF and Cyclohexane by Headspace GC-MSPM10


headspace analysis.

Jones Environmental Laboratory Method Code Appendix

QF-PM 3.1.10 v14 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 8 of 8

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03



February 2016

ABOUT AECOM In a complex and unpredictable world, where growing demands have to be met with finite resources, AECOM brings experience gained from improving quality of life in hundreds of places. We bring together economists, planners, engineers, designers and project managers to work on projects at every scale. We engineer energy efficient buildings and we build new links between cities. We design new communities and regenerate existing ones. We are the first whole environments business, going beyond buildings and infrastructure. Our Europe teams form an important part of our worldwide network of nearly 100,000 staff in 150 countries. Through 360 ingenuity, we develop pioneering solutions that help our clients to see further and go further. www.aecom.com Follow us on Twitter: @aecom

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-05-2016:01:35:03

Date post:	30-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hadan
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Pfizer Ringaskiddy IEL Groundwater Monitoring · • The acetone concentration decreased slightly...

Documents