Appendix 2: Water quality in the Bradford Beck and tributaries

Contents Aims and scope ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Background ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Catchment description .................................................................................................................................................... 3

Official water quality information ..................................................................................................................................... 4

River quality condition, up to 2009 ............................................................................................................................. 4

Water Framework Directive, 2009 onwards................................................................................................................ 5

Historical data on organic chemicals .......................................................................................................................... 5

Incidents and anecdotes ................................................................................................................................................. 6

2009 fish kill ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Ambler Mill .................................................................................................................................................................. 6

2012 diesel spill .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Malfunctioning CSOs .................................................................................................................................................. 6

Construction activity, September 2012 ....................................................................................................................... 7

Previous studies of water quality .................................................................................................................................... 8

British Geological Survey ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. 8

Urban Pollution Modelling for Yorkshire Water ........................................................................................................... 8

2012 sampling and interpretation ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Basis of a sampling campaign ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Volunteers ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Locations ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Sampling and analysis methods ................................................................................................................................... 10

Results .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

BOD .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Phosphorus .............................................................................................................................................................. 11

Ammonia .................................................................................................................................................................. 11

Metals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Organic chemicals .................................................................................................................................................... 12

Chloride and boron ................................................................................................................................................... 12

2

Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 14

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................... 14

Annex A: Summary of historical data on organic chemicals.............................................................................................. 15

Annex B. Average concentrations observed in Bradford Beck ......................................................................................... 19

Annex C Summary of organic chemical analyses, November 2012 .................................................................................. 22

Tentative positives and negatives ............................................................................................................................ 22

Figure 1 Schematic map of the Bradford Beck catchment .................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Distribution of historical landfills in the Bradford Beck catchment (from the Environment Agency website) ......... 4

Figure 3 Culvert exit at Amber Mill (picture from http://multi-story-shipley.co.uk/?m=201203) .......................................... 6

Figure 4 Intermittent foul discharge from CSO, Pitty Beck, November 2011 ...................................................................... 7

Figure 5 Sewage discharging from a CSO in Shipley in dry weather du`e to a sewer blockage, July 2012........................ 7

Figure 6 Sediment pollution of the Beck near Shipley from a construction site about 5km upstream, September 2012 ..... 8

Figure 7 Water quality sampling points ............................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 8 Longitudinal profile of chloride concentrations along Pinch and Bradford Becks ................................................ 13

Figure 9 Boron vs phosphate concentrations for all samples ............................................................................................ 14

Table 1 Summary of chemistry General Quality Assessment results for Bradford Beck at Shipley (from Environment

agency website) .................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Table 2 Current ecological and chemical status (from Environment Agency website, November 2012) ............................ 5

Table 3 Summary of water quality sampling undertaken .................................................................................................... 9

3

Aims and scope

The Bradford Beck was classified by the Environment Agency as of poor ecological quality in 2009 for the purposes of

the Water Framework Directive. This study aims to update this classification and determine the nature and sources of

pollution in the Bradford Beck and its tributaries. The interpretation was based on multiple rounds of water samples from

19 locations taken by volunteers during 2012.

Background

Catchment description

The Bradford Beck catchment of about 60 km2 in area is illustrated in Figure 1. The Beck rises in the west and relatively

rural area of the catchment (Pitty and Pinch Becks). Through much of the urban area, it flows in culvert, with very few

stretches open to the atmosphere. All the tributaries in the urban area are also culverted (Westbrook, Bowling Beck and

Eastbrook), with most of them running through industrial areas. After the Beck emerges from the culvert, it is canalised

all the way down to its confluence with the River Aire in Shipley; some stretches are also culverted.

In the early 1990s, a flood diversion tunnel was constructed (Figure 1). This can take water from Westbrook and the

Bradford Beck upstream of the city centre and rejoin the Beck downstream, reducing the risk of flooding in the city

centre. In dry weather there should be no flow in the diversion but this was not the case during the period of this study

2012 when significant flows went through the tunnel.

Most of Bradford is on a combined sewer system (i.e. foul and storm water in the same pipes). There are 51 CSOs

(combined sewer overflows) in the catchment, through which excess flows are discharged to surface water during wet

weather. In the early 2000s, 10 storm tanks were installed to store and reduce the frequency and size of such spills, but

Figure 1 Schematic map of the Bradford Beck catchment

4

spills have not been eliminated. In addition, there are an unknown number of outfalls for surface water; these are

unregulated and may have foul water drains misconnected to them.

Much of the land alongside the becks has been filled in order to raise levels and create flat areas of land for construction,

often of industrial sites. Other land has been used as landfill (Figure 2). There is a high likelihood that much of these

infilled areas will be contaminated land and at risk of leaching pollution into the streams.

Figure 2 Distribution of historical landfills in the Bradford Beck catchment (from the Environment Agency website)

Official water quality information

River quality condition, up to 2009

The GQA (General Quality Assessment) scheme was used to assess and report river water quality from 1990 to 2009.

Rivers were graded from A (very good) to F(bad) each year for chemistry, biology and nutrients. The chemistry CGA

used measurements of ammonia and dissolved oxygen to grade rivers. Table 1 gives a selection of the results for the

Bradford Beck at Shipley and shows that there have been significant improvements since 1990. The GQA score has

gone from E in the early 1990s to A or B by the late 2000. The major change around 1994 coincides with the closure or

reduction in size of a particular processing plant. In 2009, the method of classifying water quality changed with the

introduction of the Water Framework Directive.

Table 1 Summary of chemistry General Quality Assessment results for Bradford Beck at Shipley (from Environment agency website)

Year 1990 1993 1995 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009

Average ammonia concentration (mg/l)

2.22 1.98 0.34 0.36 0.40 0.25 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.10

Grade E E C C C B B B B A

5

Water Framework Directive, 2009 onwards

The Bradford Beck and its tributaries form a single waterbody for the purposes of the European Water Framework

Directive (WFD) which introduced a new, Europe-wide method of assessing chemical and ecological quality. The

waterbody was classified in 2009 by the Environment Agency using observed data for the 3 year period 2006-08. Under

the WFD scheme, ecological quality includes some physico-chemical parameters as well as ecological and

hydromorphological ones, while chemical quality is concerned with specific priority pollutants. It is a “one out, all out”

scheme, in which the lowest quality component determines the overall status. The components of the two types of

status are shown in Table 2 together with the results for the Beck. It is classified as good chemical quality but poor

ecological quality. The failing parameters are highlighted in bold in Table 2.

Table 2 Current ecological and chemical status (from Environment Agency website, November 2012)

Water quality parameter Current status Basis of status

Ecological status, composed of: Poor Poor biological quality Overall biological quality Poor Poor macro-invertebrates

Fish Moderate Macro-invertebrates Poor

Overall physico chemical quality Moderate Moderate ammonia Ammonia Moderate Dissolved Oxygen High pH High Phosphate Good

Overall specific pollutants quality Moderate Moderate ammonia and cypermethrin Ammonia Moderate Arsenic High Copper High Cypermethrin Moderate Iron High Permethrin High Zinc High

Chemical status, composed of: Good Overall priority substances Good All good

Aldrin, Dieldrin, Enrin & Isodrin Good Carbon Tetrachloride Good Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (Para-para) Good Tetrachloroethylene Good Trichloroethylene Good

Overall priority hazardous substances Good All good 1,2-dichloroethylene Good Cadmium (and its compounds) Good Hexachlorobenzene Good Hexachlorobutadiene Good Hexachlorocyclohexane Good Lead (and its compounds) Good Nickel (and its compounds) Good Trichlorobenzenes Good Trichloromethane Good Trifluralin Good

The Environment Agency stopped monitoring water quality in Bradford Beck in 2009.

Historical data on organic chemicals

Annex A summaries the Environment Agency’s data on organic chemicals in the Beck at Shipley for the period 1984-

2010. A number of these chemicals, mainly pesticides, would have failed the Environmental Water Quality standards

6

under the EU Priority Substances Directive. However, Annex A shows that concentrations have been falling over the

years and are no longer of major concern, provided there are no significant spillages and incidents.

Incidents and anecdotes A number of pollution incidents have been recorded in the last few years. Although we do not have a complete list of

these, some examples are given below which show that significant pollution incidents have occurred and are detrimental

to chemical and ecological quality.

2009 fish kill

In May 2009, over 1000 trout and

numerous other fish were found dead in

the Bradford Beck. The incident was

investigated by the Environment Agency.

It was ascribed to a chemical release from

industrial premises in Bradford, but the

actual source was not found and no

further action was taken.

Ambler Mill

Ambler Mill sits over the downstream end

of the 2.5 km culvert that carries the

Bradford Beck through Bradford (Figure

3). This reach receives the inflows from

Eastbrook and Bowling Beck. There have

been complaints from the Mill’s occupants

of bad smells emanating from the culvert.

The smell is obvious to any visitor, particularly on warm days. On the days that ART visited, it was a smell of

biodegradation of organic matter. The problem has been investigated by CBMDC, the Environment Agency and

Yorkshire Water but no specific source has been found. The smell is thought by some to be caused by sewer gas which

is the gas produced by biodegradation of sewage in the enclosed space of sewers. Normally it would vent at CSOs

which are open to the atmosphere; in this case the CSOs vent into the enclosed spaces of the various culverts upstream

of the Mill. This diagnosis has not been confirmed officially by any of the parties concerned.

2012 diesel spill

At the CBMDC depot on Shearbridge Rd, 5500 L of diesel was lost from an underground storage tank. Some of it found

its way to the Westbrook and much of the rest infiltrated into the ground and is the subject of a current clean-up

operation.

Malfunctioning CSOs

In November 2011, an ART catchment walker observed a CSO in Pitty Beck which was intermittently discharging foul

water (Figure 4 Intermittent foul discharge from CSO, Pitty Beck, November 2011). This was reported to Yorkshire

Water; we do not know if the cause was found and rectified.

In July 2012, an ART catchment walker observed a major, continuous discharge from a CSO in Shipley which polluted

an 800 m stretch to the confluence with the River Aire (Figure 5). This was reported to both Yorkshire Water and the

Environment Agency. It was apparently caused by a manhole cover blocking a sewer and the raised levels spilt through

the CSO. It took several days to clear the blockage.

Figure 3 Culvert exit at Amber Mill (picture from http://multi-story-shipley.co.uk/?m=201203)

7

Figure 4 Intermittent foul discharge from CSO, Pitty Beck, November 2011

Construction activity, September 2012

In September 2012, an ART catchment walker observed significant discolouration of the Bradford Beck at Shipley

(Figure 6). This was reported to the Environment Agency which traced it to construction of an Asda supermarket on

Cemetery Road. Construction work in the Beck polluted about 5 km of the stream for several days. We understand that

legal action against the polluters is being considered.

Figure 5 Sewage discharging from a CSO in Shipley in dry weather du`e to a sewer blockage, July 2012

8

Previous studies of water quality

British Geological Survey

The British Geological Survey took stream and sediment

samples in 1995 from several un-urbanised tributaries of the

Bradford Beck as part of their geochemical mapping of the UK

(http://www.bgs.ac.uk/gbase/). We have used these analyses as

a check on our own.

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology used the Bradford Beck

for a research project under the URGENT programme of

research on urban impacts. Rainfall, river flow and suspended

sediment concentrations were monitored at several locations

from 1999 to 2001. Several research papers were published1

related to the production and modelling of suspended sediment

in urban areas. One paper showed that winter gritting of roads lead to significant increases in specific conductance of

the river water, showing that there is a direct connection between road drainage and the river, even without large rainfall

events to trigger CSOs.

Urban Pollution Modelling for Yorkshire Water

As part of the design of engineering works to improve “unsatisfactory Intermittent Discharges” to Bradford Beck, a

computer model was constructed of the sewer network and its discharges, and used to explore design options. A paper

which summarises the work was presented to the WaPUG meeting in March 2004; unfortunately it contains very little

data or model results on water quality before and after the construction of the measures2.

2012 sampling and interpretation

Basis of a sampling campaign The Environment Agency’s water quality sampling stopped in 2009 and was mainly designed to classify the waterbody.

To update the information on water quality, diagnose why the ecological quality is poor and to identify the sources of

pollution, new and more detailed spatial information is required. In addition, the previous sampling did not routinely

include the full range of organic chemicals that may be present. Therefore, sampling throughout the catchment was

conducted (19 regular locations, 3 one-off locations). To ensure that the interpretation was not distorted by single

anomalous results, samples were taken on several occasions (maximum of 7). Each set of samples was taken at

approximately the same time to get snapshots in time of the water quality throughout the catchment.

1 Old et al., The impact of a convectional summer rainfall event on river flow and fine sediment transport in a highly

urbanised catchment: Bradford, West Yorkshire. The Science of the Total Environment 314 –316 (2003) 495–512

Goodwin et al., The temporal and spatial variability of sediment transport and yields within the Bradford Beck catchment, West Yorkshire. The Science of the Total Environment 314 –316 (2003) 475–494.

Old et al., River flow and associated transport of sediments and solutes through a highly urbanised catchment, Bradford, West Yorkshire. The Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 98-108.

Old et al., Physical and chemical extremes of the urban river environment: Bradford Beck, UK. Hydrology: Science and Practice for the 21st Century, British Hydrological Society (2004), 318-325

2 Caudwell, Bradford UPM – Modelling the Change. WaPUG Spring Meeting (2004) 5 pages.

Figure 6 Sediment pollution of the Beck near Shipley from a construction site about 5km upstream, September 2012

9

Volunteers Sampling at 19 locations at the same time requires lots of manpower. A group of volunteers was recruited and trained in

taking samples. We are very grateful to them as, without their help, this impressive dataset could not have been

obtained.

Locations The sampling locations are shown in Figure 7. They are distributed across all the tributaries and along the main course

of the Bradford Beck where access was available. Exact locations are included in the spreadsheet of results. A

summary of the sample points and number of samples taken is given in Table 3.

Table 3 Summary of water quality sampling undertaken

Site number

Stream Samples taken Comments

Inorganics Organics

1 Bradford Beck 7 1 Similar location to EA sampling point

2 Bradford Beck 4

3 Bradford Beck 7 1

4 Red Beck 7

5 Trap Syke 5

6 Bradford Beck 5

7 Bradford Beck 7 1

8 Lister Park (a) – 5 (b) - 1

(a) outfall of boating lake (b) upstream entrance to Park

9 Bradford Beck 7 1

10 Eastbrook 7 1

11 Westbrook (University)

5

12 Westbrook (Horton Park)

3

13 Bradford Beck 6 1

14 Chellow Dene 7

15 Clayton Beck 5

16 Pitty Beck 6

17 Pitty Beck 5

18 Pinch Beck 5

19 Clayton Beck 7

20 Diversion tunnel 1 Mouth of flood diversion tunnel at confluence Bradford Beck and tunnel

21 Bradford Beck 1 Bradford Beck before confluence of Beck and tunnel

10

Figure 7 Water quality sampling points

Sampling and analysis methods In most locations, volunteers could not safely access the river and samples were taken with buckets on ropes. New

black plastic buckets and nylon ropes were used, one for each site, and stored by the volunteers between sampling

rounds. Buckets were first rinsed with water from the Beck. On second filling, two half-litre samples were poured into

clean amber glass bottles which were filled to exclude air and capped. Bottles were delivered to the laboratory at the

University of Sheffield within 36 hours of sampling and stored in a fridge until analysis.

Plastic buckets are not suitable for collecting samples for trace organic analysis because of the potential for cross

contamination or sorption. One set of samples was taken from a restricted set of sites by lowering a clean glass bottle in

a wire cage carefully into the river with a nylon rope on the 8th sampling round.

Major and minor ions (Ca, Mg, Na, K, NH4, NO2, NO3, PO4, SO4, Cl, F, Br) were analysed by ion chromatography

(Dionex). As many of the PO4 values were below the detection limit of this method, all samples were reanalysed for

SRP (soluble reactive phosphorus) by a more sensitive method; the samples were first filtered through a 0.45µm filter

and then the SRP was determined using EN ISO 6878:2004, Ammonium Molybdate spectrometric Method. Metals were

analysed by ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma – mass spectroscopy). BOD5 was determined using BS 6068-

2.14:1990 dilution and seeding method.

Trip blanks were used on round 7 as a quality control check. These are pure water taken from the lab to site and

transferred via the bucket to sample bottles. They are used to detect if the sampling equipment or procedures

introduced any contamination of the samples.

Many of the samples from the un-urbanised tributaries showed higher levels of chromium than expected. The ICP-MS

was completely cleaned and all samples re-analysed for metals. In addition, a number of samples were spiked with

known concentrations of metals as further quality control checks.

11

The analytical method is based on the National Laboratory Service’s Multiresidue Screening Method, which is itself

based on EPA 8270. The samples were taken by using a glass bottle in a cage lowered into the water and transferred to

solvent-rinsed 1litre amber glass bottles. On return to the laboratory they were refrigerated until extracted. Internal

standard was added and the samples were neutral-acid extracted with 50ml portions of DCM. The DCM extracts were

combined, concentrated to 1ml and run by GC-MS in scan mode. Confirmed positives are possible against calibration

standards, and tentative positives are possible by matching spectra obtained to reference library spectra and expected

retention time based on NLS’s method. The method serves as a screen to maximise the potential of detecting potential

compounds of interest, therefore limits of detection are much higher and reliability of quantitation is reduced compared to

more specific methods, as the focus is on finding potential avenues for further investigation.

Results The quality control procedures (trip blanks, spiked samples, re-analysis) showed that the values are reliable.

The dataset collected is too large to reproduce in print. It is available in a MS Excel spreadsheet on request and Annex

B gives summary statistics for each of the important physio-chemical and inorganic parameters. Annex C summaries

the organic chemical analyses. The following sections summarise key findings.

Target values for water quality under the WFD use different statistics for different pollutants. For some, the average

concentration should be lower than a threshold. For others, the ninety percentile (90%ile) is used; this is the value that

is exceeded by 10% of samples. In both cases, the official approach is to base the statistics on 3 years of monthly

samples, i.e. 36 values. In this study, we have a maximum of 7 samples per site. We have used the average of our

samples where appropriate, and taken the maximum observed value at each site as an approximation to the 90%ile.

BOD

BOD is an indicator of degradable organic pollution and is a problem because it depletes oxygen concentrations and

promotes bacteria growth. It is associated with domestic and industrial effluents. For good status, the 90%ile BOD

should be less than 5 mg/l.

All 19 sites fail this test. In fact, 18 of 19 would fail if the test were based on average concentrations, an easier test.

Westbrook (11) is particularly bad with an average BOD of 49 mg/l.

However, measurements of dissolved oxygen on a number of occasions show that the Bradford Beck is well oxygenated

(data not shown). This is probably due to its shallow depth combined with turbulence due to the relatively steep slope

mixing oxygen from the atmosphere into the stream water.

Phosphorus

Phosphorus (orthophosphate or SRP) is a nutrient which stimulates algal growth and can lead to eutrophication. It

originates from human and animal wastes and from detergents. For good status in the Bradford Beck, the mean

concentration should be <120 µg/l as P.

Only two sites fail this test, Lister Park (8, 870 µg/l) and Westbrook at Horton Park (12, 300 µg/l). Both have populations

of geese, ducks and other birds. It is probable that the wastes from the birds are the major input of phosphate at the two

sites. The loads are not sufficient to pollute the Bradford Beck as a whole because they are diluted when these

tributaries mix with the main stream.

Ammonia

Ammonia is a source of the nutrient nitrogen but more importantly is harmful to fish in its un-ionised form (ie as NH3

rather than NH4). It is associated with human and animal wastes and with landfill leachate. For good status in the

Bradford Beck, the 90%ile concentration should be <0.60 mg/l.

Nine sites fail this test: Pinch Beck (19), Westbrook (11, 12), Eastbrook (10), Lister Park (8) and most of the Bradford

Beck sites downstream of the city centre (9, 7, 3, and 1). At all sites, observed concentrations are quite variable,

suggesting intermittent discharges are occurring.

12

In several cases, concentrations are observed to decrease downstream of polluted sampling points and then increase

again (e.g. decrease 19 15 13 9, increase at 7). The decreases result from dilution by cleaner water probably

combined with some oxidation of the ammonia to nitrate, with the increases resulting from new inputs of pollution. The

lowering of concentrations between sites 7 and 6 will be partly due to the influx of cleaner water from the diversion

tunnel, with new pollution raising concentrations again by site 3. The same down and up pattern occurs over the sites 3

2 1. These patterns may be useful in indicating reaches with higher rates of pollution inputs.

Ammonia concentrations appear to have increased since the last Environment Agency measurements in 2009.

Metals

The metals of concern are arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel and zinc and are toxic or carcinogenic.

The thresholds for good status vary between the metals but are generally a few µg/l for the average concentrations. The

exceptions are cadmium (much lower at 0.08 ug/l) and iron (much higher at 1000 ug/l).

Chromium is present around and above the threshold concentration at most sites, including those which come from

relatively rural catchments. This suggests that it is present in the background waters, perhaps as a result of the geology.

Concentrations are notably higher in Westbrook (site 11)

Zinc is also above its threshold in Westbrook (site 11) and downstream of the Eastbrook confluence (site 7), presumably

related to industrial activity. Iron is also above its threshold in Westbrook (site 11). The other metals do not exceed their

thresholds.

The higher concentrations in Westbrook and downstream of the Eastbrook confluence suggest that there is a load

related to improper drainage from industrial sites or leaching from contaminated land.

Organic chemicals

The results of the organic sampling and analysis are summarised in Annex C. Only one round of sampling was done

and so intermittent discharges are unlikely to have been detected. Nevertheless, the results suggest that organic water

quality remains good, with no compounds being observed above their EQS.

Some observations can be made about influences on water quality:

The priority substance tetrachloroethylene (widely used in dry cleaning and degreasing) was detected in three

of the samples, although not above the EQS.

Road-related compounds (PAHs and fuel components) were found along the Canal Rd stretch, generally with

higher concentrations at the downstream end. This suggests that the road traffic along this corridor as a source

of these compounds; none were above their EQS.

Caffeine was present in all the samples. Caffeine is an indicator of leakage of sewage into the river system

which will most likely be through misconnections. The data show an increase in concentration measured going

into the city from the West (Site 13 to Site 9) with similar levels through the city going North. The highest

concentration was at Eastbrook (Site 10), which has been shown from the inorganic data to be among the most

polluted sites.

Chloride and boron

Chloride and boron are useful species to help understand the origins of pollutants. Chloride is present in all domestic

and industrial effluents and is a conservative species, i.e. it is not created or destroyed in water. This makes it a useful

tracer of effluents even when, as in the Bradford Beck, it does not exceed acceptable concentrations. Boron is, like

phosphorus, a component of detergents, but is not a significant component of animal or human wastes.

Figure 8shows profiles of chloride concentrations from upstream (Pinch Beck) to downstream (Shipley). It is clear that

significant inputs of chloride enter the stream between sites 9 and 7, which is where the two most culvert tributaries

Bowling Beck and Eastbrook enter.

13

Concentrations drop again after site 7 due to dilution. If we assume the only source of water is the diversion tunnel, then

a simple mass balance of chloride on the single samples from sites 20 and 21 (round 7) suggests that 30% of the total

water flow downstream was coming through the tunnel at the time of sampling.

Figure 9presents a scatter plot of boron against phosphorus for all samples. Three groups of samples stand out from

the rest. The Westbrook and Lister Park samples have boron levels close to background but high phosphate, implying

that there is little detergent present and the phosphorus results from animal wastes, presumably the birds present in both

ponds.

The Eastbrook samples have high boron relative to phosphate, implying a different type of effluent pollution from other

sites; presumably this is related to the industrial activities upstream of the site.

0

50

100

150

200

250

18 19 15 13 9 7 6 3 2 1

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/l)

Sampling points from u/s to d/s

Averages

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

Round 5

Round 6

Round 7

Figure 8 Longitudinal profile of chloride concentrations along Pinch and Bradford Becks

14

Conclusions and recommendations

The Bradford Beck waterbody was classified as of poor ecological quality in 2009. In order to update this information

understand the nature and sources of pollution in the Bradford Beck and its tributaries, multiple rounds of water samples

were taken by volunteers from 19 locations during 2012. The results show that the waterbody is still of poor ecological

quality due to high concentrations of BOD and ammonia. Concentrations of chromium are also of concern.

The pollution arises from illegitimate connections of sewers into surface water drainage and into the streams. These

occur in all areas but are particularly concentrated in the urban areas with culverted tributaries (Westbrook, Bowling

Beck and Eastbrook). They discharge both domestic and industrial effluents.

The waterbody is prone to pollution incidents. As well as the many CSOs which discharge in wet weather, pollution

incidents occur due to occasional industrial discharges and spills due to sewer blockages.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the Project Volunteers without whom this would not have happened: Steven Angus , Sufian Ansari,

Steven Bland , David Brazendale , Lorraine Clark , Grace Cripps, Alison Damant, Graham Eastell, Caroline English,

Graham Glover, Sandra Hassell, Sue Heap, Alan Keighley, Dagmara Kępczyńska, Nick Milsom, Nafees Nazir, Julia

Pearson, Brian Rowntree, and Julie Taylor.

Thanks also to Andy Fairburn and James Berry of the University of Sheffield for prompt and accurate analysis of the

water samples.

Figure 9 Boron vs phosphate concentrations for all samples

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000

Bo

ron

(u

g/l

)

Phosphate (SRP, mg/l)

Averages Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5

Lister Park, 8

Eastbrook, 10

15

Annex A: Summary of historical data on organic chemicals

Extensive historical organic data is available to us only for the Shipley site (corresponding to site 01 in the current

document) for the time period of June 1984 to April 2010 with nearly all organic data stopping in January 2008. This

presents nearly a five-year gap in recent organic data.

Table A1 Summary of organic data provided by the Environment Agency, from sampling at Shipley from June 1984 to

April 2010, sorted by frequency detected.

Test Positive detects

Samples <LOD

Total analyses

Frequency detected

Highest Value (units

in column

1)

AA-EQS Inl Sur (ug/l)

Trend in concn

0461: DtrgtAncSyn, mg/l 9 0 9 100.00% 2.19 N/A Insufficient

data

6671: PhenoxytcAcd, ug/l 1 0 1 100.00% 0.41 N/A Insufficient

data

6874: OilPres/Absn, PRES_/AB 25 0 25 100.00% 1 N/A N/A

3334: Trichloroeth, ug/l 147 8 155 94.84% 6.2 10 Decrease

3373: Chloroform, ug/l 111 33 144 77.08% 1.8 2.5 Stable

0739: Glycols Poly, mg/l 2 1 3 66.67% 0.15 N/A Insufficient

data

0463: Dtrgt NncSyn, mg/l 7 4 11 63.64% 0.88 N/A Insufficient

data

0499: HCH Gamma, ug/l 119 135 254 46.85% 0.726 0.02 Decrease

3328: TetClEthene, ug/l 42 110 152 27.63% 4.5 10 Decrease, but

sporadic.

9051: 1,2,4-TCB, ug/l 39 116 155 25.16% 4.8 TCBs 0.4 Decrease

0487: HCH Alpha, ug/l 41 213 254 16.14% 0.15 0.02 Decrease

9050: 1,2,3-TCB, ug/l 24 135 159 15.09% 1.9 TCBs 0.4 Decrease

0511: Dieldrin, ug/l 38 214 252 15.08% 0.073 drins 0.01 Decrease

0491: HCH Beta, ug/l 18 151 169 10.65% 0.16 0.02 Decrease

9342: Permethrn-Tr, ug/l 2 24 26 7.69% 0.005 N/A Insufficient

data

0073: Cypermethrin, ug/l 13 186 199 6.53% 0.8 N/A (see

text) Decrease, but

sporadic.

3268: 1,1,1-TCA, ug/l 9 146 155 5.81% 0.59 N/A Decrease

0576: Hexachlorbnz, ug/l 5 87 92 5.43% 0.001 0.01 Sporadic

3272: 1,2-DCE, ug/l 7 149 156 4.49% 6.2 10 Decrease

9823: Permthrn c+t, ug/l 8 185 193 4.15% 0.32 N/A Sporadic

9341: Permethrn-cs, ug/l 1 25 26 3.85% 0.003 N/A Insufficient

data

7754: EULAN, ug/l 2 75 77 2.60% 0.3 N/A Stable

9989: Trifluralin, ug/l 2 90 92 2.17% 0.01 0.03 Increase

1120: Cyfluthrin, ug/l 3 189 192 1.56% 0.07 N/A Decrease

0664: Oil & Grs Vs, PRES_/AB 1 67 68 1.47% 1 N/A N/A

16

Test Positive detects

Samples <LOD

Total analyses

Frequency detected

Highest Value (units

in column

1)

AA-EQS Inl Sur (ug/l)

Trend in concn

9052: 1,3,5-TCB, ug/l 2 153 155 1.29% 0.068 TCBs 0.4 Decrease

9496: PCSDs, ug/l 1 100 101 0.99% 0.01 N/A Stable

0559: TDE (PP), ug/l 2 205 207 0.97% 0.0152 DDTs

0.025 Stable

1049: Carbon Tet, ug/l 1 150 151 0.66% 1 12 Stable

0539: DDT (OP'), ug/l 1 199 200 0.50% 0.007 DDTs

0.025 Stable

0551: DDE (PP'), ug/l 1 200 201 0.50% 0.01 DDTs

0.025 Stable

0555: DDT (PP), ug/l 1 208 209 0.48% 0.005 0.01 Stable

0483: Aldrin, ug/l 1 243 244 0.41% 0.007 drins 0.01 Stable

0462: DtgrtCncSyn, mg/l 0 2 2 0.00% 0 N/A Insufficient

data

0562: Endrin, ug/l 0 252 252 0.00% 0 drins 0.01 Stable

6648: HEXACHLORO 1, ug/l 0 91 91 0.00% 0 0.1 Stable

9494: Isodrin, ug/l 0 202 202 0.00% 0 drins 0.01 Stable

Notes: All data except two surfactant samplings, the visible detection of oil and olfactory detection of phenol, are from

sampling before 3rd January 2008. Lines highlighted in red indicate compounds that would have led to failure against the

Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) established in the Priority Substances Directive (2008/105/EC), with the

exception of cypermethrin which has been highlighted based on the proposed revisions of EQS (COM(2011) 876 final).

Blue highlights other compounds of note (see text).

The detected concentration of nearly all compounds shows a decrease over time. This can be clearly seen in for

trichloroethylene (TCE, a volatile solvent), where it has been decreasing to rest close to the limit of detection (LOD). This

is in contrast to the volatile solvent chloroform, which was detected in 77% of samples and shows no sign of decrease in

concentration. However, the annual average concentrations (calculated according to WFD criteria) range from 0.17 to

0.53µg/l, suggesting that chloroform will not fail its AA-EQS.

17

Figure A1 Changes in concentration of trichloroethylene at Shipley over time

In the example of the priority hazardous substance lindane (-HCH), there is has also been a clear decline in

concentration detected over time, and the MAC-EQS (maximum allowable concentration – environmental quality

standard) has not been exceeded for the last 74 samples i.e. since 03/08/2001. Based on these data, the Average

Annual (AA-EQS) concentration would have been exceeded four times, the last one being 2001 due to a single high

result of 0.2µg/l (see chart, where the MAC-EQS is shown). However, the improvement suggests that decline in use of

lindane means it does not currently cause a threat to water quality in Bradford.

Figure A2 Changes in concentration of Lindane at Shipley over time

An example of the sporadic behaviour of some compounds is that of cypermethrin. In this example, however, the

proposed MAL-EQS of 0.0006µg/l is below the detection limit of the methods used to generate the data therefore not

18

only would any positive be a breach of the proposed standard but also it would be impossible to show adherence without

improved methods.

Figure A3 Changes in concentration of Cypermethrin at Shipley over time

The annual average concentration of trichlorobenzenes (TCBs) in 2000 was higher than the AA-EQS, but these

compounds have shown a decrease in concentration to <LOD and were not detected in our analyses.

19

Annex B. Average concentrations observed in Bradford Beck

Sample Location BOD5 pH EC Fluoride Chloride Nitrite Bromide Nitrate Phosphate SRP Sulfate Sodium

mg oxygen/l

µS/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l as NO2 mg/l mg/l as NO3 mg/l as P mg/l as P mg/l as SO4 mg/l

1 Bradford Beck 5.9 7.4 791 0.1 94.0 3.6 <0.3 8.2 0.1 0.079 105.2 67.0

2 Bradford Beck 5.9 7.6 764 0.2 95.0 <0.1 <0.3 8.2 <0.06 0.066 99.2 68.4

3 Bradford Beck 6.3 7.5 813 0.1 101.6 <0.1 <0.3 7.7 <0.06 0.081 105.6 73.6

4 Redbeck 3.3 7.5 530 0.1 43.0 <0.1 <0.3 13.3 <0.06 0.035 94.2 28.7

5 Trap sike 4.9 7.6 573 0.2 35.9 <0.1 <0.3 19.2 <0.06 0.055 110.8 24.4

6 Bradford Beck 5.2 7.6 801 0.1 105.4 <0.1 <0.3 6.5 <0.06 0.081 101.5 69.3

7 Bradford Beck 6.2 7.5 1111 0.1 146.6 <0.1 0.6 6.2 <0.06 0.031 133.0 109.1

8a Lister park d/s 5.7 8.0 290 0.1 26.2 1.2 <0.3 1.2 0.5 0.867 34.8 16.0

8b Lister park u/s 11.6 7.4 490 0.1 10.9 <0.10 <0.30 0.1 <0.06 0.010 5.5 9.6

9 Bradford Beck 6.4 7.7 578 0.1 49.0 2.1 <0.3 7.8 <0.06 0.047 86.8 38.5

10 Eastbrook 5.5 7.6 696 0.6 50.0 <0.1 0.5 3.9 <0.06 0.067 126.8 37.3

11 Westbrook d/s 48.9 7.0 894 0.2 85.5 <0.1 0.6 1.8 2.8 0.007 106.6 54.8

12 Westbrook u/s 6.2 7.2 326 0.2 16.8 <0.1 <0.3 0.2 <0.06 0.302 10.9 12.4

13 Bradford Beck 6.2 7.7 464 0.1 39.9 <0.1 <0.3 7.9 <0.06 0.042 78.3 33.8

14 Chellow Dene 5.0 7.7 329 0.1 24.0 <0.1 <0.3 2.8 <0.06 0.027 30.0 14.3

15 Bradford Beck 4.7 7.6 505 0.1 41.1 <0.1 <0.3 7.4 <0.06 0.049 85.1 36.2

16 Pitty Beck d/s 4.9 7.6 429 0.1 44.6 2.1 <0.3 10.0 <0.06 0.059 38.5 26.8

17 Pitty Beck u/s 5.0 7.7 465 0.1 51.8 <0.1 <0.3 10.6 <0.06 0.051 43.9 30.6

18 Pinch/Clayton Beck u/s 6.6 7.6 504 0.1 35.0 0.7 <0.3 4.9 <0.06 0.008 109.0 34.9

19 Pinch/Clayton Beck d/s 4.1 7.7 493 0.1 35.2 <0.1 <0.3 5.2 <0.06 0.032 106.8 35.9

20 Diversion tunnel 3.6 7.83 507 0.10 37.45 <0.1 <0.3 8.73 <0.06 n/a 79.36 31.02

21 Bradford Beck before tunnel 4.1 7.68 957 0.11 124.62 <0.1 <0.3 8.33 <0.06 n/a 111.41 95.36

20

Ammonium Potassium Magnesium Calcium Ag Al As B Ba Be Bi Ce Cd Co Cr Cs

Sample mg/l as NH4 mg/l mg/l mg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l

1 0.94 5.9 17.8 71.7 0.032 36 1.2 107 24 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.042 0.3 3.6 0.0

2 0.22 5.9 16.9 71.9 0.006 51 1.0 103 23 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.036 0.4 3.2 0.0

3 0.67 6.4 17.8 73.9 0.014 20 1.1 110 23 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.042 0.3 3.9 0.0

4 <0.2 4.0 15.6 59.1 0.001 228 0.9 75 24 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.064 1.7 4.1 0.0

5 <0.2 3.2 23.5 66.8 0.002 14 0.7 61 17 - 0.0 0.0 0.015 0.1 4.0 0.0

6 0.37 6.0 17.1 70.4 0.003 84 1.0 104 23 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.028 0.4 3.9 0.0

7 0.62 8.1 26.1 96.2 0.002 18 1.0 127 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.027 0.6 4.8 0.0

8a 0.49 1.5 4.3 39.8 0.009 12 0.9 26 31 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.010 0.1 2.4 0.0

8b 5.17 4.2 3.8 45.8 0.000 22 3.4 44 26 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.006 0.1 0.3 0.0

9 <0.2 5.8 13.7 67.1 0.004 14 1.0 72 23 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.014 0.2 4.1 0.0

10 0.72 10.1 13.5 87.2 0.002 48 1.6 228 34 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.017 0.4 4.6 0.0

11 1.82 13.8 15.2 112.4 0.001 68 4.2 115 42 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.040 0.7 6.0 0.0

12 2.05 3.7 4.0 48.1 0.001 31 3.5 48 24 - 0.0 0.1 0.004 0.1 6.1 0.0

13 0.21 4.5 11.5 51.3 0.001 26 0.6 63 19 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.012 0.2 3.0 0.0

14 <0.2 2.4 7.3 34.7 0.001 12 0.5 35 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.005 0.1 2.9 0.0

15 0.25 4.9 11.5 50.5 0.008 42 1.3 62 20 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.010 0.2 3.2 0.0

16 0.29 5.2 8.6 43.9 0.005 79 0.9 52 18 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.018 0.2 3.0 0.0

17 <0.2 6.5 10.4 44.5 0.008 27 0.9 64 17 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.016 0.2 3.3 0.0

18 <0.2 4.6 11.7 48.4 0.000 47 0.5 55 19 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.014 0.4 2.3 0.0

19 0.72 4.0 11.3 46.3 0.005 95 0.6 59 21 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.020 0.5 3.1 0.0

20 <0.02 4.30 12.02 53.13 0.0 29.6 0.6 65.9 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.8 0.0

21 <0.02 6.50 17.78 73.26 0.0 27.3 1.1 161.7 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 0.0

21

Cu Fe Ga Mn Mo Nd Ni Pb Rb Se Sr Te Tl U V Zn

Sample µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l

1 3.5 375 0.6 53 1.4 0.1 4.2 1.7 3.8 1.5 220 7.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 50.0

2 3.1 493 0.6 65 1.1 0.1 4.9 0.4 4.0 1.1 214 5.8 0.0 0.3 0.8 42.6

3 3.1 380 0.6 76 0.9 0.0 3.8 0.4 3.6 1.1 223 7.9 0.0 0.2 0.9 61.7

4 2.5 242 0.6 219 0.7 0.5 9.5 0.2 2.8 1.1 158 6.9 0.0 0.5 0.6 11.2

5 1.8 142 0.4 7 0.6 0.0 1.9 0.2 2.0 1.2 114 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 18.0

6 3.7 467 0.6 89 1.0 0.2 3.5 1.6 3.6 0.9 211 9.2 0.0 0.2 1.1 57.7

7 2.8 411 0.6 286 0.9 0.0 4.5 0.4 4.7 1.2 327 7.1 0.0 0.2 1.1 241.7

8a 1.5 256 0.8 9 0.4 0.0 1.7 0.2 1.8 0.6 90 11.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 8.3

8b 1.3 852.6 0.8 90.7 0.5 0.1 1.5 0.8 4.2 0.4 94.3 26.5 0.0 0.1 0.8 10.2

9 3.2 322 0.6 37 1.0 0.0 2.8 0.2 3.0 1.0 157 6.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 6.8

10 3.4 413 0.9 337 1.5 0.1 3.6 0.9 9.9 1.6 242 10.9 0.0 0.8 1.8 22.9

11 2.7 2819 1.1 656 1.6 0.1 4.5 0.5 10.2 1.3 268 18.5 0.0 0.4 1.1 59.2

12 1.3 871 0.6 269 0.4 0.0 1.9 0.8 3.4 0.6 92 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.3

13 2.5 314 0.5 16 1.1 0.0 2.9 0.2 2.7 0.7 154 7.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 15.7

14 1.5 183 0.5 14 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.1 1.7 0.5 79 5.5 0.0 0.1 0.5 3.5

15 2.2 473 0.5 100 1.1 0.1 3.0 0.3 3.4 0.6 150 4.5 0.0 0.1 0.7 7.3

16 11.0 333 0.5 19 0.9 0.1 3.2 0.4 2.8 0.7 130 6.5 0.0 0.1 0.8 15.5

17 2.7 323 0.5 12 0.6 0.1 3.3 2.5 2.9 1.0 143 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.7 14.1

18 2.2 384 0.5 29 1.2 0.1 5.3 0.2 3.0 0.6 149 4.5 0.0 0.2 0.5 3.2

19 2.7 654 0.6 87 1.2 0.1 4.9 0.4 3.3 0.7 156 6.5 0.0 0.2 0.6 14.7

20 2.2 282.2 0.5 38.6 0.9 0.0 2.5 0.2 2.5 0.7 149.0 18.5 0.0 0.2 0.7 2.8

21 3.4 375.5 0.6 192.3 1.0 0.0 3.5 0.4 3.9 1.1 250.1 22.9 0.0 0.3 1.1 125.9

22

Annex C Summary of organic chemical analyses, November 2012

The results of organic analysis are shown in Table C1 at the end of this Annex. Where compounds were detected but

were below quantification level, <0.10µg/l has been recorded. Where compounds were not detected (which could mean

concentrations below 0.020µg/l for some compounds), N.D. has been recorded.

Points of note:

Priority substance tetrachloroethylene (widely used in dry cleaning and degreasing) was detected in three of the

samples. Due to the volatile nature of this compound, a quantitative value has not been quoted. The calculated

values of around 0.2µg/l are significantly below the AA-EQS (10µg/l) and no tetrachloroethylene was detected

in the Shipley site sample. This compound is detectable in the water at three sites nearly five years on from

previous analysis. Future work could include VOC analysis to quantify what is present and map concentrations

across the city as an indicator of pollution sources.

Trace levels of PAHs (acenaphthene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene) were found in nearly all the

samples, consistent with general city pollution. The priority hazardous substance anthracene was not detected,

however the priority substance fluoranthene was detected in all but one of the samples and this PAH serves as

an indicator of the presence of more hazardous PAHs. Those higher molecular weight compounds are likely to

be bound to sediment due to their poor solubility in water.

The priority substance naphthalene was detected at four sites, the highest concentration being at Shipley

(0.28µg/l) which is the most downstream site. This is still below the AA-EQS of 2.4µg/l.

Many substituted benzenes were detected at trace levels, especially in the Shipley sample. 1,2,4-

trimethylbenzene (added to and present naturally in fuel) was detected in all samples, highest in Shipley at

0.23µg/l. This was not analysed for in the EA data.

Trichlorobenzenes (TCBs) were not detected, supporting EA data that showed a decrease to undetectable

levels. These had previously been present at levels that would have led to failure of the water body.

Tentative positives and negatives

Tentative reprocessing of the data can be achieved by looking for ions of interest determined from library data at the

retention times indicated by the NLS method (after correction for our system). This enabled us to tentatively analyse for

many more compounds than we have available in standards, down to comparable detection limits. Three separate

methods were used; one for the WFD Annex X list of priority substances, one for selected pesticides and one for

‘interesting’ compounds (substances of abuse, sewage indicator compounds etc).

Reprocessing using these methods gave three tentative positives out of approximately 80 compounds. Traces of priority

substance atrazine and its breakdown product atrazine desethyl were found in Site 10 (Eastbrook). The AA-EQS for

atrazine is 0.6µg/l, likely well above the detected level. Traces of metaldehyde were found in Sites 09 (Westholme St)

and 13 (Cemetery Rd), and a larger amount in Site 10 (Eastbrook). Metaldehyde (used in slug pellets) is a widely

occurring pollutant.

An interesting finding in the organic analysis was the presence of caffeine in all the samples. Caffeine can be used as an

indicator of infiltration of sewage into the river system which will most likely be through misconnections. The data show

an increase in concentration measured going into the city from the west (Site 13 to Site 9) with similar levels through the

city going north. The highest concentration was at Eastbrook (Site 10), which has been shown from the inorganic data to

be among the most polluted sites. However, the data cannot conclusively determine any relationship between the sites

without measuring flow: the flow at Eastbrook is much less than at other sites, therefore there could be a lower mass

flow of caffeine through that site or even pollution local to that site may not be diluted to the extent it is at other sites.

23

Further work on the concentrations of caffeine in samples taken from more sites along with flow data on sampling could

have the potential to highlight misconnections in the city and act as a general indicator of river contamination.

Table C2 Caffeine concentrations relative to the highest observed value

Site Normalised response

(Eastbrook = 100%)

Site 01 - Shipley 18.4%

Site 03 - Poplar Rd 26.7%

Site 07 - Ambler Mill 23.7%

Site 09 - Westholme St 18.1%

Site 10 - Eastbrook 100.0%

Site 13 - Cemetery Rd 7.3%

24

Table C1 Results of organic analysis of samples taken 8th November 2012. Yellow and red highlights refer respectively to priority and priority hazardous substances under the Water

Framework Directive.

Retention

time Compound Name Site 01 (Shipley)

Site 03

(Poplar Rd)

Site 07

(Ambler Mill)

Site 09

(Westholme St)

Site 10

(Eastbrook)

Site 13

(Cemetery Rd)

Concentration (µg/l)

4.531 N-Nitrosodimethylamine N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

4.999 Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

5.272 Propane, 1,3-dichloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

5.447 Methane, dibromochloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

5.67 Ethane, 1,2-dibromo- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

5.743 Tetrachloroethylene N.D. N.D. D: NQ D: NQ N.D. D: NQ

6.538 Benzene, chloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

6.627 Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachlo N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

7.383 Methane, tribromo- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

8.035 Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachlo N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

8.198 Propane, 1,2,3-trichloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

8.306 Benzene, (1-methylethyl)- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

8.421 Benzene, bromo- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

8.895 Benzene, 1-chloro-3-methy N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

8.959 Benzene, propyl- <0.10 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

9.022 Benzene, 1-chloro-4-methy N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

9.288 Benzene, 1,3,5-trimethyl- <0.10 N.D. <0.10 N.D. <0.10 N.D.

9.719 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

9.72 Phenol, 2-chloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

9.829 Benzene, tert-butyl- <0.10 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

9.845 Benzene, 1,2,4-trimethyl- 0.23 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10

10.094 Benzene, 1,3-dichloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

10.224 Benzene, (1-methylpropyl) N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

25

Retention

time Compound Name Site 01 (Shipley)

Site 03

(Poplar Rd)

Site 07

(Ambler Mill)

Site 09

(Westholme St)

Site 10

(Eastbrook)

Site 13

(Cemetery Rd)

10.241 Benzene, 1,4-dichloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

10.53 Benzene, 1-methyl-4-(1-me <0.10 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

10.741 Benzene, 1,2-dichloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

11.197 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) et N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

11.212 Benzene, butyl- <0.10 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

11.579 Ethane, hexachloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

11.787 Propane, 1,2-dibromo-3-ch N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

11.883 Benzene, nitro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

12.601 2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 3,5,5 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

12.818 Phenol, 2-nitro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

13.378 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

13.518 Phenol, 2,4-dichloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

13.743 Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

13.887 Naphthalene 0.28 0.12 N.D. <0.10 <0.10 N.D.

14.464 Benzene, 1,2,3-trichloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

14.535 1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4, N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

15.822 Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

16.777 1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 1,2, N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

17.053 Phenol, 2,4,6-trichloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

17.508 Naphthalene, 2-chloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

18.974 Benzene, 2-methyl-1,3-din N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

19.405 Acenaphthene <0.10 <0.10 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

20.172 Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-din N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

20.999 Fluorene N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

21.12 Benzene, 1-chloro-4-pheno N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

21.596 Azobenzene N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

22.634 Benzene, 1-bromo-4-phenox N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

22.99 Benzene, hexachloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

26

Retention

time Compound Name Site 01 (Shipley)

Site 03

(Poplar Rd)

Site 07

(Ambler Mill)

Site 09

(Westholme St)

Site 10

(Eastbrook)

Site 13

(Cemetery Rd)

23.6 Phenol, pentachloro- N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

23.986 Phenanthrene <0.10 <0.10 N.D. <0.10 <0.10 N.D.

24.128 Anthracene N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

24.735 Carbazole N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

27.772 Fluoranthene <0.10 <0.10 N.D. <0.10 <0.10 <0.10

28.449 Pyrene <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10