ATTACHMENT E.2 (d) · The alternative parameter proposed to BOD for triggering the cessation of...

Grove October 2007 IPPC Application Attachment E.2 (d) ATTACHMENT E.2 (d) Magherarney River Flow Survey and future proposals A survey of flows in the Magherarany River at Magherarany Bridge, Smithborough, Co. Monaghan, was carried out on 3 separate days in 1999 and 2000, by Mescal & Associates consultants. The method employed was to measure the flow rate and corresponding staff gauge reading at the bridge. The method used to calculate the flow rate was the time of travel of floats in a short selected reach at the bridge. Cross sections of the reach were obtained. On each occasion the in-situ gauge reading was also taken. The flow (Q) was calculated using the area multiplied by the velocity method. The staff gauge at Magherarany Bridge, a distance of 900 meters below the effluent discharge point from the Grove Turkeys Ltd factory, was read at the 3 different days. This gauge stick is a standard 1 meter long Bord of Works aluminium marked stick obtained from Cuspal Signs Ltd, Dublin in May 1999. The first 3 rows in the table below outlines the survey findings: Table 1 Date Time Gauge

Reading Q-

Flow m3/s

Q-Flow m3/h

Q-Flow m3/day

30 October 1999

3.00 pm 1.5 0.61 2196 52,704

16 January 2000

10.00 am 2.1 0.98 3528 84,672

9 February 2000

1.00 pm 5.0 2.45 8820 211,168

Condition 7(a) of current licence

“low river flow”

0.125 0.05 187.5 4,500

95% ile Flow rate

Estimates 0.05 0.02 72 1,728

DWF (Dry weather Flow) rate

Estimates 0.025 0.01 36 864

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 25-07-2013:22:19:22

Grove October 2007 IPPC Application Attachment E.2 (d)

The attached graph below was created using this information. The table above also provides corresponding information in relation to condition 7 (a) of the current effluent licence, which states that effluent will be diverted from river to land spreading when: “River flow at Magherarney Bridge (EPA station 0200) is at or below 4500 M3 per day”. Grove Turkeys Ltd are proposing to monitor this gauge on a three times per week basis and divert effluent to land bank during the “low river flow” reading of 0.125 on the staff gauge, as per the corresponding flow of 4,500 M3/hour in condition 7 (a) of current licence. It is also proposed that this gauge reading over a 12 month period would provide data which would allow an accurate 95% ile flow to be obtained. The current figures available for 95% ile and DWF as per table above were estimates based on typical 95% ile versus DWF for other streams. Actual DWF was not recorded. Grove would also request that condition 7 (b) be removed from any future licence. This condition states that effluent will be diverted from river to land spreading when: “River BOD value at Magherarney Bridge exceeds 4 mg/l O2”. This is not deemed to be a practical indicator as it would require constant BOD monitoring of the river, and also takes 5 days to have analysis results. The alternative parameter proposed to BOD for triggering the cessation of discharge to the river is “low river flow” reading of 0.125 on the staff gauge, as outlined above. Grove Turkeys Ltd are proposing to analyze the river on a weekly basis for BOD, both upstream and downstream of the effluent outfall, in order to confirm that the effluent discharge is not adversely affecting the water quality of the Maghererney river.

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 25-07-2013:22:19:22

Grove October 2007 IPPC Application Attachment E.2 (d)

Magherarney River Flow Chart

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Flow M3/HR

Gau

ge

Rea

din

g

Series1

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 25-07-2013:22:19:22

Job No: 07-84

07-84-01

Date: 17/10/07

Location:

Landbank: Grove Turkeys

Client:

Report No:

GES LimitedGround and water environment consultants

Annaghmartin, Smithborough,

Grove Turkeys

Co. Monaghan

Geotechnical & EnvironmentalServices Ltd.,

Landspread Suitability Desk StudyFax: 059 91 40499

E-mail: [email protected]

Ph:059 91 30314

Campus Innovation CentreGreen Road,

Carlow

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 25-07-2013:22:19:22

Report No. 07/84/01 Grove Turkeys Ltd – Landbank Suitability Desk Study EF / GES October 2007

Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 General

1.2 Sources of Information

2. Generalised Description of the Existing Environment

2.1 Topography, Surface Water Features and Climate

2.2 Geology

2.2.1 Bedrock Geology

2.2.2 Soil and Subsoil Geology

2.3 Hydrogeology and Hydrology

2.4 Presence of Source Protection Area

3. Landspread Suitability

3.1 Response Matrix

3.2 Discussion

Appendices

(i) Summary spreadsheet detailing aquifers and vulnerability

(ii) Regional Location Map

(iii) Individual Plot Map

(iv) GSI Response Matrix for Landspreading

Report prepared by: Report checked by:

Eoin Fitzpatrick Jer Keohane

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 25-07-2013:22:19:22

Report No. 07/84/01Grove Turkeys Ltd – Landbank Suitability Desk Study EF / GES October 2007

C:\Documents and Settings\Mike Fraher\Desktop\Micks Work\Environmental\Grove Further info\Landspread Suitability Desk Study\Landspread Suitability Desk Study.doc - 1 -

1. INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical and Environmental Services Ltd. were requested by Panther Environmental, on

behalf of Grove Turkeys Ltd, to undertake a desk based study to assess the suitability of liquid

effluent disposal methods undertaken from the plant. The effluent is either disposed directly to the

River or when river flow conditions are not adequate, landspread. This report is used to assess

the suitability of their landbank, as per the criteria contained within the Response Matrix for

landspreading of final treated effluent (FTE) (DoELG/EPA/GSI, 1999).

The Response Matrix requires that a sufficient thickness of soil/subsoil cover should be

demonstrated overlying an Aquifer, with the thickness dependent on the aquifer importance.

The following approach was taken

1. Landspread maps cross referenced against geological maps.

2. Aquifer category of the Bedrock Geology determined.

3. The groundwater vulnerability of landspread area determined.

4. Landspread maps cross referenced against Source Protection Area Maps.

5. The Response Matrix is consulted to determine the appropriate response category in

accordance with the DoE/EPA/GSI guidelines 1999

6. Discussion and removal of areas deemed unsuitable for landspreading.

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 25-07-2013:22:19:22



1.1 Sources of Information

The findings of this suitability assessment are presented below and in spreadsheet format

(appendix 1) and refer to the land plot as detailed on the map provided in appendix 3

The sources of information used in this study are as follows:

The 1:100,000 scale Geology map of Monaghan - Carlingford (Sheet 8).

The North-western River Basin District Vulnerability Map and the National Aquifer Map available

at the Geological Survey of Ireland website.

The Walkover survey undertaken by Panther Environmental detailing relevant information on

topographic slopes and buried drains.

The Agroclimatic Atlas of Ireland (Collins and Cummins, 1996).

Landspreading of Organic Waste – Guidance on Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment of Land

(EPA, 2004).

EPA/GSI Groundwater Response Matrix for Landspreading.

2 GENERALISED DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Topography, Surface Water Features and Climate

The spreadlands are located within Co. Monaghan, at Annaghmartin, 0.5km northwest of

Smithstown and comprises of 16.1 ha (40.0 acres) of total useable area. The topography of the

area in Co. Monaghan is characterised by relatively undulating ground all below 100m O.D.

The landbank area at Annaghmartin lies within the catchment of the Magherarny Lough which is

less than 250m southeast of the landbank. An un-named stream flows from the Magherarny

Lough and into the Finn River 0.5km south of the Lough at Crockcumberland. The River Finn

flows in a southerly direction 2.5km west of the spreadlands.

Annual precipitation is expected to be approximately 800mm - 1,000mm per annum, with the

wettest period occurring from September to January. Groundwater recharge takes place almost

exclusively in the winter months due to low vegetation moisture demand and high soil moisture

content. Some summer recharge is possible during prolonged heavy showers when the

precipitation exceeds the vegetation moisture demand.

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 25-07-2013:22:19:22



2.2. Geology

2.2.1 Bedrock Geology

Reference to the 1:100,000 scale Geology map of Monaghan - Carlingford Sheet 8 (Geological

Survey of Ireland, 1996) indicates that the proposed landspread area is underlain by

Carboniferous aged rocks.

The Carboniferous Rocks

The Ballyshannon Formation consists of crinoidal limestone and silty shale (fields 2-6 and most

of field 1 except the northwest of the field).

The Ballysteen Formation comprises of fossiliferous dark-grey muddy limestone (in field 7 and

the southwest of field 2).

The Ulster Canal Formation comprises of calcareous sandstone, shale, and micrite (northwest

of field 1).

2.2.2 Soil and Subsoil Geology

Reference to the Soil Map of Ireland (1980) indicates that the soils covering the majority of the

proposed landspread areas are Luvisols. Luvisols are grey-brown podzols (soil with clay enriched

subsoil).

Reference to the Teagasc Subsoil map of Ireland available on the GSI website indicates that

subsoils covering the majority of the landspread area consist of TILLS derived from Devonian and

Carboniferous rocks and peat.

No auger holes were excavated on the proposed landbank in accordance with the EPA

guidelines on groundwater vulnerability assessment which states that a walk-over survey is

sufficient where the groundwater vulnerability is High, Moderate or Low.

2.3 Hydrogeology and Hydrology

Reference was made to the National Aquifer Map available from the GSI. Information is available

on the bedrock unit (described above in Section 2.2.1).

The Ballyshannon Formation is classified as a Regionally Important Karst Aquifer , bedrock

that has good development potential (Rk).

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 25-07-2013:22:19:22



The Ballysteen Formation is classified as a Regionally Important Fissured Bedrock Aquifer,

bedrock that has good development potential (Rf).

Based on the available hydrogeological information approximately 100% of the landspread area

is underlain by Regionally Important Aquifers .

The Quaternary deposits have a major effect on the hydrogeology of the underlying consolidated

aquifers. The nature and thickness of the subsoils influence the hydraulic conditions and the

amount of precipitation recharging the ground water, are pathways for discharge and provide

additional storage for the underlying strata. These deposits are also a very important source of

baseflow to the river network. Furthermore the movement of contaminants from the surface may

be restricted or prevented and/or the concentration sharply reduced by physical, chemical and

biological processes active in the subsoils.

In general, the water table is a subdued reflection of the topography, which is considered to be

less than 10m from the surface within the proposed spreadlands. The permeability of the sub-

terrain material will normally be highest in the top 30m (including Quaternary deposits and

weathered bedrock) where the effect of weathering and dissolution are most significant.

Potential recharge is estimated to be between 325mm and 525mm per year, resulting in

moderate volumes of water being available to recharge the aquifers.

Groundwater Vulnerability

Vulnerability is a term used to represent the intrinsic geological and hydrogeological

characteristics that determine the ease with which groundwater may be contaminated by human

activities. The travel time, attenuation capacity of the soils and the nature of the contaminants

are important elements in determining the vulnerability of groundwater.

Where the subsoil thickness is <3m, the vulnerability is rated as Extreme. Where the subsoil

thickness is >3m, the vulnerability is rated as High, Moderate, or Low (depending on the nature

and thickness of the subsoil).

Groundwater Vulnerability information is available from the County Monaghan Groundwater

Vulnerability map and the North-western River Basin District Vulnerability map. This vulnerability

map classifies the vulnerability of the landspread area into four categories, Extreme, High,

Moderate, and Low.

Most of the landspread area is classified as Moderate vulnerability (fields 2-7), with the

remainder of the land in field 1 classified as High vulnerability. The classifications given to 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 25-07-2013:22:19:22



various parts of the farm are outlined in the summary spreadsheet included in the appendices of

this report.

When the aquifer classification is considered in addition to the vulnerability, an assessment can

be made to determine the potential risk from a potentially polluting activity. For instance a

Regionally Important Karst Aquifer considered to have an High Vulnerability rating is

designated Rk/H.

Surface Water

Where subsoils are of low permeability there is an increased risk to surface water, resulting from

reduced infiltration to the ground and increased risk of surface run-off. With surface water

protection in mind, it is important that good farm practices are adhered to. Of particular

importance are areas sloping towards watercourses that may be prone to surface run-off. Some

of the slopes in the centre of field 2 within the proposed landbank are considered excessive for

landspreading. However, it is thought that over the majority of the proposed landbank the slopes

are not excessive, and provided the proposed mitigation measures are adhered to, the risk to

surface water and/or groundwater targets is expected to be low.

2.4 Presence of Source Protection Area?

The presence of a source protection area and the delineated area around that groundwater

source has been noted in this assessment. The source protection areas refer to the areas defined

by the Geological Survey of Ireland Source Protection Area map at the GSI website. These areas

are divided into Inner and Outer Source Protection Areas. The Inner Protection Area is designed

to protect the groundwater source from microbial contamination and is defined by the 100-day

time of travel from any point below the water table to the groundwater source. The Outer

Protection Area details the remainder of the zone of contribution of the groundwater source.

No source protection areas were noted within the landspread area.

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 25-07-2013:22:19:22



3 LANDSPREAD SUITABILITY

3.1 Response Matrix

The Response Matrix for landspreading indicated that spreading, on lands underlain by a

Regionally Important Aquifer, is deemed acceptable with a groundwater vulnerability of High or

Low (Response R1).

3.2 Discussion

Relevant Guidelines

Over the past few years a number of working parties have produced guidelines on the

environmental management of landspreading activities. The objective of these working parties

was to produce workable guidelines that would result in less environmental impact from

landspreading operations.

These include:

♦ The Geological Survey of Ireland guidelines for the assessment of the vulnerability of

groundwater to various potentially polluting activities and proposed approaches to the risk

assessment of groundwater pollution (Daly, 1994).

♦ Landspreading of Organic Waste – Guidance on Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment of

land (EPA, 2004)

♦ The BATNEEC guidance notes for the Pig Production Sector, published by the EPA (1996).

♦ Guidelines for good farm practice detailed in the Rural Environment Protection Scheme

documentation (1992).

♦ Guidance notes relating to the Integrated Pollution Control Licensing Application procedures

(EPA, 1997).

♦ Code of practice for the protection of groundwater from the landspreading of organic wastes,

published by LG/DoE/EPA/GSI Working Group (1999).

Reference was made to all these sets of guidelines in the preparation of this report.

The organic waste will be managed by Land Organics. The intention is to adhere to the guidelines

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23



for land application of wastes (1993) which suggest that, in general organic waste should not be

applied:

� On wet or waterlogged lands.

� On steep slopes (>6%), particularly sloping towards watercourses.

� On frozen or snow covered lands.

� On exposed bedrock.

� On fields that have been pipe or mole drained and the soil is cracked down to the drains or

backfill.

� On fields that have been pipe or mole drained in the previous 12 months.

� On fields that have been subsoiled over a pipe or mole drainage system in the previous 12

months.

� Within 30m of exposed karstified limestone or karst features such as swallow holes, springs

and collapse features.

� Where the watertable is within 1m of the surface in free draining areas.

Selecting the optimum times for spreading is also discussed. Although precise calendar dates

are not listed, the advice suggests that the application of nutrients should coincide with periods of

plant growth, so that the nutrients within the organic waste will be utilised by the growing crop.

Application of natural fertilisers should be avoided when the soil conditions prevent infiltration,

such as wet or waterlogged soil, frozen or snow covered soils and on land sloping steeply

towards watercourses. Unsuitable climatic conditions include when heavy rain is forecast within

48 hours.

Spreading should not be undertaken within 10m of any watercourse and the cordon sanitaire is

increased in some instances where the slope towards the watercourse was deemed excessive

(>18%). A 20m exclusion zone is normally applied to larger rivers.

Spreading should not be undertaken within 10m of public roadways.

Spreading should not be undertaken within 100m of dwelling houses and within 200m of sensitive

buildings, such as schools and churches.

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23



Spreading should not be undertaken within 50m of a domestic supply well and between 50m and

300m of a public supply well, depending on the topographic gradient, groundwater flow direction

and the vulnerability of the area.

Spreading should not be undertaken on lands delineated by Source Protection Areas where

areas of extreme vulnerability classification are determined within the Outer Source Protection

Area. Areas of high, moderate, or low vulnerability within the Outer Source Protection Area are

subject to organic loading rates as specified in the GSI Response Matrix for Landspreading of

Organic Waste.

Spreading of organic waste is not acceptable on lands within the area delineated by the Inner

Source Protection Area as stated in the GSI Response Matrix for Landspreading of Organic

Waste.

Spreading should be done in a safe and secure manner in strict accordance with the best

available weather forecasts.

The proposed spreading rates should be maintained within the guideline rates. This also helps

mitigate against any potential impacts.

The application of the organic waste through landspreading in a controlled manner can have a

number of advantages

♦ Its application to soil results in a significant “soil organic matter” improvement.

♦ Its application to the land, as a replacement to inorganic fertilisers, recycles the waste.

Landspreading guidelines recommend that landspreading should not be undertaken within 10m of

public roads, 100m of household dwellings, 200m of sensitive buildings (i.e. schools, churches),

50m of groundwater wells. The guidelines also recommend that a cordon of 10m should be

maintained adjacent to surface water features. This cordon is a minimum distance to reduce the

risk of surface run-off affecting the aquatic environment and should be increased if the slope

towards the watercourse channel is deemed excessive (>18%).

The exact location of all wells should be located prior to spreading to ensure that the correct 50m

radial cordon is established. A 100m radial cordon should be maintained around all houses,

industrial buildings and commercial buildings adjacent of near the landbank.

A cordon sanitaire of 10m should be maintained adjacent to any drainage ditches.

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23



Any fields or parts of fields that are wet or waterlogged should be allowed to dry out before

landspreading can be carried out.

Certain areas at the centre of field 2 have excessive slopes and may not be suitable for

landspreading of final treated effluent.

Landspreading is deemed acceptable on the remainder of the landbank based on the

criteria set down in the Response Matrix for Landsp reading (DoE-LG/EPA/GSI, 1999) and

the new EPA guidelines on sampling requirements (fr om landspreading of Organic Waste

– Guidance on Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment of Land, EPA, 2004). Provided

good farm practice is adhered to the environmental impact posed by the landspreading

activity will be low.

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

APPENDICES

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

APPENDIX 1

SUMMARY SPREADSHEET

(detailing aquifers and vulnerability)

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

FarmcodeField

NumbersUseable Area

(ha)Useable Area

(ac) FarmerLocation

(Townland) Geological Unit Aquifer Classification

Groundwater Vulnerability (Northwestern RBD Vulnerability Map)

Presence of Source Protection Area?

Auger Recommendations

Minimum Depths Required

Groundwater Protection Response

Matrix Notes and Comments

GT 1-7 16.1 40.0 Grove Turkeys

Annaghmartin, 0.5km northwest of

Smithstown, Co. Monaghan

Mostly Ballyshannon Formation (in fields 2-6, and field 1 except the northwest) with some Ballysteen

Formation (in field 7 and the southwest of field 2), and some Ulster Canal Formation in the

northwest of field 1

Mostly Rk (in fields 1-6) with some Rf (in fields 7, the southwest of field 2,

northwest of field 1 )High in field 1. Moderate in

fields 2-7 No None Required - -

R1 - Landspreading is Acceptable according to normal good practice.

Some steep slopes were noted in field 2.

Job No. : 07-84 Summary Spreadsheet for Grove Turkeys Ltd Spreadlands located at Annaghmartin, Smithborough Co. Monaghan

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

APPENDIX 2

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

APPENDIX 3

INDIVIDUAL PLOT MAP

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

APPENDIX 4

GSI RESPONSE MATRIX FOR LANDSPREADING OF ORGANIC

WASTE

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

RI

R2'

R3'

R3-'

R3-'

R4

0

0

0

0

0

0

~

Acceptable, subject to normal good practice.

Acceptable subject to a maximum organic nitrogen load (including that deposited by grazing animals) not exceeding 170 kg/heetarelyr.

Not generally acceptable, unless a consistent minimum thickness of 1 m of soil and subsoil can be demonstrated.

Not generally acceptable, unless a consistent minimum thickness of 2 m of soil and subsoil can be demonstrated.

Not generally acceptable, unless no alternative areas are available and detailed evidence is provided to show that contamination will not take place.

Not acceptable,

If contamination by nitrate (or other contaminants) is a problem in any particular area, then more restrictive responses may be necessary. Monitoring carried out under any Local Authority or Agency authorisation will assist in determining whether or not a variation in any of these responses is required.

The total nitrogen (organic and inorganic) load applied should not exceed Teagase's nutrient recommendations for growing crops.

No spreading should be allowed within 50 m of groundwater sources

In karst limestone areas, features such as swallow holes, caves and streams connected to karst systems, must be taken into account. Landspreading should not occur within 30 m of karst features.

Landspreading should coincide with the growing season so that the nutrients applied will be utilised by the growing crop.

Landspreading should be avoided when soil conditions prevent infiltration or when heavy rain is forecast within 48 hours. It is generally unacceptable to carry out landspreading during the period November to February inclusive. Operators who are considering landspreading during this period should consult the relevant authority.

Site investigations (e.g. trial pits, auger holes, boreholes) should reach sufficient depths to show that the minimum required subsoil thickness is present. In extreme vulnerability areas or within source protection areas there should be at least one investigation point per hectare. In all other cases the sampling points should be at a minimum frequency of one per 5 hectares.

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

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 25-07-2013:22:19:23

ATTACHMENT E.2 (d) · The alternative parameter proposed to BOD for triggering the cessation of...

Documents

Transcript of ATTACHMENT E.2 (d) · The alternative parameter proposed to BOD for triggering the cessation of...