DERWENT FOREST SITE (FORMERLY RNAD BROUGHTON …...BSc. MSc. CEng. MICE ... system nor be reproduced...

DERWENT FOREST SITE

(FORMERLY RNAD BROUGHTON MOOR)

SURFACE WATER MONITORING REPORT

Round 3; April 2009

GC20549/G3/03

Issue: Rev. 0, June 2009

Undertaken For:

Allerdale Borough Council Cumbria County Council NWDA

Capita Symonds, Kingmoor Business Park, Carlisle, Cumbria. CA6 4SJ

Derwent Forest Site

(Formerly RNAD Broughton Moor)

Surface Water Monitoring Report

Round 3; April 2009

O.S.G.R. 349100E, 494000N to 352900E, 495900N

DOCUMENT VERIFICATION

Report Reference: GC20549/G3/03 Issue: Rev. 0 Date: 06/09

Prepared by: Tim Smith

PhD FGS

Geoenvironmental Engineer for and on behalf of Capita Symonds

Approved by: S.J.J.Ferley

BSc. MSc. CEng. MICE

Principal Geotechnical Engineer for and on behalf of Capita Symonds

Revision History

This document has been prepared by Capita Symonds Limited within the terms of the Contract with the Client to whom this document is addressed.

Capita Symonds Limited disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of matters outside the scope of the said contract. No person

other than the client and their professional advisors shall rely on it in any respect and no duty of care shall be owed to any such third party by Capita

Symonds Limited.

This document is of UK origin and is © Capita Symonds Limited. The contents of this document shall not in whole or in part be stored in any retrieval

system nor be reproduced or transmitted in any form by photocopying or any optical, electronic, mechanical or other means, without the prior written

permission of the Managing Director, Capita Symonds Limited, 1 Proctor Street, London WC1V 6DW.

Revision Date Description Prepared Checked Approved

Derwent Forest, Broughton Moor Surface Water Monitoring Report

Cumbria County Council / Allerdale Borough Council Round 3; April 2009

CAPITA SYMONDS Report GC20549/G3/03

Carlisle i Rev. 0, June 2009

CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 SAMPLING LOCATIONS .................................................................................................. 2

1.4 MONITORING AND TESTING ......................................................................................... 3

1.5 DATA ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 4

2.0 MONITORING RESULTS ............................................................................................... 5

2.1 GENERAL........................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 QUALITY CONTROL AND STATISTICAL VARIABILITY............................................ 5

2.3 RIVER ECOSYSTEM (RE) CLASSIFICATION................................................................. 7

2.4 STREAM WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................ 8

2.5 ISRAEL GILL ..................................................................................................................... 9

2.6 HOLDENS GILL / PARSEYS GILL ................................................................................... 9

2.7 FLAMIGGS GILL (NORTH) ............................................................................................ 10

2.8 FLAMIGGS GILL (SOUTH)............................................................................................. 12

2.9 STAGNANT POND (CONTAMINANT AREA)............................................................... 13

2.10 PIPE DISCHARGE FROM TRACK BED ......................................................................... 13

3.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................. 14

3.1 CHANGES BETWEEN MONITORING ROUNDS .......................................................... 14

3.2 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................... 14

3.3 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 17

3.4 RECCOMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 19

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: MAPS AND PLANS

GC20549/G3/03_A/01 Site Layout

GC20549A/G3/03_A02 Contaminant EQS Failures

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY

APPENDIX C: ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY

D/01 Free Ammonia Calculation

D/02 River Ecosystem Classification

D/03 Principles of Risk Evaluation

D/04 Project Assessment Criteria

APPENDIX D: SOURCES OF INFORMATION

E/01 Standards and Guidance on Standards

E/02 References to Published Information

E/03 Previous Ground and Water Investigation Reports

E/04 Computer Programs

APPENDIX E: SITE MONITORING REPOR




Carlisle 1 Rev. 0, June 2009

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 The work was carried out on behalf of Allerdale Borough Council, Cumbria County Council and the

Northwest Regional Development Agency, (The Clients).

1.1.2 This document has been prepared by Capita Symonds Limited within the terms of the Contract with

the Clients to whom this document is addressed. Capita Symonds Limited disclaims any

responsibility to the Clients and others in respect of matters outside the scope of the said contract.

No person other than the Clients, their professional advisors, and Beneficiaries under the Deed of

Warranty shall rely on it in any respect and no duty of care shall be owed to any such third party by

Capita Symonds Limited.

1.1.3 The following document describes Round 3 Surface Water Monitoring Results undertaken as part of

a three year surface water monitoring programme at the Derwent Forest Site (Formerly RNAD

Broughton Moor) in Cumbria. The proposed monitoring programme follows on from that

previously carried out by Capita Symonds Ltd between April 2004 and April 2005 and reported in

Capita Symonds Ltd (CSL) Report SS20245/05/01 Revision D, February 2006 Former RNAD Site,

Broughton Moor; Ground Investigation and Water Monitoring Interpretative Report. Reference

should be made to this 2006 Capita Symonds Report for further background information.

1.1.4 The Project Area is located at O.S.G.R. 349100E, 494000N to 352900E, 495900N, near Broughton

Moor in North West Cumbria. The site encompasses an area of 425 hectares. Surface water flows

in a general south westerly direction towards the River Derwent.

1.1.5 The main objectives of monitoring are to:

� Demonstrate that localised on-site contamination is not significantly impacting on controlled

waters within the site boundary; and,

� Demonstrate that there are no on-going liabilities with regard Part 2A of the EPA ’90.

1.2 HYDROLOGY

1.2.1 The hydrological regime of the Project Area is composed of four principal surface water courses as

shown on Drawing GC20549/G3/03_A/01 (Appendix A), namely:

� Israel Gill

� Holden’s Gill

� Flamiggs Gill North and South

� Parsey’s Gill

1.2.2 These watercourses are fed by a network of smaller channels and field drains. During the course of

previous monitoring (2004 – 2005) it became apparent that the headwaters of some of these

watercourses dry up in the summer months.





1.2.3 The River Derwent, classified by Environmental Agency as a “Main River”, lies some 500m to the

South West of the site and the aforementioned watercourses drain into it. The river is also classified

as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and a designated Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

1.3 SAMPLING LOCATIONS

1.3.1 A schedule of 14 sample locations is shown in Table 1.1 and illustrated on Drawing

GC20549/G3/03_A/01. The locations listed in Table 1 have been included in the monitoring scheme

to assess the site with regard to Part 2A issues and water quality issues based on the required

objectives of the monitoring programme.

1.3.2 The following methodology was adopted to select monitoring locations:

� 12 monitoring locations were required;

� All potential upstream monitoring points have been included to provide background water

quality data;

� All downstream monitoring points have been included to provide water quality data on exit

from the site;

� All existing monitoring points that are located in such a position as to monitor the plausible

pollutant linkages identified in the assessment report have been included.

� Locations W10 and W15 have been added to the monitoring programme.

1.3.3 The rationale for inclusion of each monitoring location is presented in Capita Symonds Report

CS/030885/Monitoring Proposal (Oct 2008) and Drawing GC20549/G3/03_A/01. The positions

were agreed in advance with Allerdale Borough Council Environmental Health Department.

1.3.4 Location W10 has been included to monitor water quality of Flamiggs Gill (N) downstream of W2,

thereby assessing degradation of organic contaminants entering the site, as well as to provide a

benchmark of water quality prior to the Buckhill colliery, the main contaminant area on site.

1.3.5 Location W15 provides quality data for a pipe discharge previously identified as a source of elevated

sulphate. The drainage area for this source is not known.





Sample

Position

Number Tributary Position

O.S.

Grid

Easting

O.S.

Grid

Northing Comments

W 2 Flamiggs Gill (N) Headwaters / Inflow to Site 306266 532391 Entrance onto Site near eastern

boundary, south of W1

W 3 Flamiggs Gill (S) Headwaters / Inflow to Site 306678 531955 Entrance at eastern boundary near

Main Gate

W10 Flamiggs Gill (N) At culvert entrance 305985 532116 Immediately North (upstream) of the

main contaminant area (Buckhill

Colliery site)

W 12 Flamiggs Gill (N) Downstream of railway

bridge 305748 531705

South (Downstream) of Buckhill

Colliery site

W 13 Flamiggs Gill (S) Mid-position along stream 306187 531343 South of storage areas

W 14 Stagnant Pond Drainage from base of

colliery spoil tip 305814 531929

Seepage emerging from low retaining

wall to recharge water body

W15 Flamiggs Gill (N) Drainage from railway

trackbed 306707 531740

Immediately South West of Explosive

laboratory area

W 16 Holdens Gill Mid-position along stream 304972 532365 Exit of culvert

W 18 Parseys Gill Upstream branch 304954 531571 Upstream of merging point with

Holdens Gill

W 19 Holdens Gill Upstream branch 304929 531574 Upstream of merging point with

Parseys Gill

W 21 Flamiggs Gill (S) Downstream 305307 530887 Exit at western boundary

W 23 Israel Gill Downstream exit 304284 532061 Near to southern boundary, Camerton

Grange

W 24 Flamiggs Gill (N) Downstream exit 305081 531017 Exit from Site at western boundary

W 25 Parseys Gill Downstream exit 304813 531322 Exit at western boundary of Site

Table 1-1 Surface Water Monitoring Locations

1.4 MONITORING AND TESTING

1.4.1 During the current investigation samples were recovered from all water monitoring points by

Alcontrol Geochem of Chester, using a variety of stabilised and unstabilised sampling containers,

and employing suitably qualified Geo-environmental Technicians. The site monitoring report is

included as Appendix E. A duplicate sample for quality control purposes was recovered from

Location W2.

1.4.2 The following time critical determinands were measured on site during sampling visit and are

reported in the monitoring and testing report (Appendix E) and listed in the Summary Data Table

(Appendix B).

� Dissolved oxygen (%DO)

� pH (pH units)

� Electrical conductivity (EC) (mS/cm or µS/cm)

� Temperature (°C).

� Redox potential (Eh) (mV)

1.4.3 Samples were dispatched in insulated boxes within twenty-four hours.





1.4.4 Chemical testing for the current monitoring exercise is carried out by Alcontrol Geochem of Chester.

This laboratory is MCERTS accredited, and the majority of contaminant testing is covered by UKAS

accreditation, number 1291.

1.4.5 The analytical detection limits for each test are included in the monitoring and testing report

(Appendix E) and in the Analytical Summary Table (Appendix B).

1.5 DATA ASSESSMENT

1.5.1 The List I and List II determinands and other contaminants included in the current investigation were

indicated by Allerdale Borough Council based on the results of the previous investigations. The

assessment criteria have been compiled by Capita Symonds using available UK sources. The

sources of the criteria used are generally based on either UK Drinking Water Standards or

Environmental Quality Standards for Freshwater.

1.5.2 A full list of assessment criteria, discussion of the sources and analytical detection limits is included

in Appendix C.

1.5.3 Where a hardness dependant range of EQS values is given for a particular determinand, the value has

been adjusted for the measured hardness of the surface waters. In contrast to previous monitoring

rounds the hardness data varied significantly between surface water streams for the April 2009

monitoring round, as follows:

Mean Median Down stream

Exit from site Comments Units

Israel Gill - - 210 One test result only

Holdens/Parseys Gill 237 240 240 Excludes W16 (Hardness <1) mg/l CaCO3

Flamiggs (N) 59 25 120 Excludes W14 & W15 mg/l CaCO3

Flamiggs (S) 283 250 250 mg/l CaCO3

1.5.4 Therefore the Hardness Range adopted to determine the Assessment Criteria for hardness sensitive

List II parameters is 50-100 mg/l for Flamiggs Gill (N) and 150-200mg/l for the other streams. The

assessment criteria adopted were for the protection of sensitive aquatic life (e.g., Salmonid fish).

1.5.5 Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen was determined at a detection limit of 0.01mg/l. Using this value and

the site measurements for temperature and pH, a value for un-ionised ammonia (NH3) was

calculated for comparison with the Ammonia EQS (0.015mg/l). The results are presented in the

Summary Data Table (Appendix B) and the un-ionised ammonia calculation is described in

Appendix C.

1.5.6 In previous reports, contaminants that occur repeatedly have been identified as persistent. For the

purposes of the current study, persistence is taken to be either an exceedance in three consecutive

months, or six months over the twelve month monitoring period.





2.0 MONITORING RESULTS

2.1 GENERAL

2.1.1 The recording of a result as an “Exceedance” is generally based upon the measured laboratory

concentration exceeding the assessment criterion adopted for a particular element or chemical.

There are exceptions for some determinands where the level of detection (LOD) achievable in the

laboratory is above the assessment criterion value. These include:

Determinand Assessment

Value

Level of

Detection Units

Sulfide 0.25 10 ug/l

Vinyl Chloride 0.5 <2 ug/l

1.1-Dichloropropene 0.1 <1 ug/l

1.2-Dichloropropane 0.1 <1 ug/l

cis-1-3-Dichloropropene 0.1 <1 ug/l

1.2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.1 <2 ug/l

1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene 0.4 <2 ug/l

1.2.3-Trichlorobenzene 0.4 <2 ug/l

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.1 <2 ug/l

2.1.2 In these cases any exceedances are recorded when a detectable concentration of that determinand

above the LOD is reported by the laboratory.

2.1.3 The full laboratory results for the April 2009 samples are contained in Alcontrol Report

09/00871/02/02, and are included in Appendix E. A summary of the analytical and field results are

presented in the Summary Data Table (Appendix B).

2.1.4 Fifteen surface water samples were taken, including a duplicate sample from W10: Sample locations

are indicated in Table 1.1 and Drawing GC20549/G3/03_A/01.

2.2 QUALITY CONTROL AND STATISTICAL VARIABILITY

2.2.1 Precision describes the repeatability of the methods. Field precision has been measured by collecting

field duplicate samples. Although Standard Deviation is the usual measure of sample spread it is

only appropriate where more than two samples are collected. Consequently, where duplicate analysis

are available the data is evaluated by the relative percent difference (RPD) between samples. RPD

should generally be better than ~20%, however, in some circumstances RPD up to 50% may be

acceptable for environmental samples. Although the purpose of duplicate sampling is to check the

precision of the sample collection, it also gives an estimate of the combined field and laboratory

precision.

2.2.2 Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between two duplicates is calculated as:

RPD = (Duplicate 1 - Duplicate 2) x 100.

(Duplicate 1 + Duplicate 2)/2





2.2.3 Comparison of duplicate samples collected from SW10 is presented in Table 2.1a (for all metals)

and Table 2.1b (other in-organic analytes). No organic compounds were detected in either sample

from W10. The results presented include the duplicate data, the mean and the variation of the results

about the mean; i.e., in this case half the range and the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) which is

equivalent to 2 times % Std Error or equal to the Total difference about the mean.

2.2.4 There was complete agreement for non-detects between duplicates; i.e., no contaminants were

detected in only one sample. For detected contaminants, the results show reasonable agreement,

however, a number of analytes show significant RPD’s, particularly copper (36%), Zinc (163%) and

Ammoniacal Nitrogen (28.6%). These significant variations are likely to be attributable to

differences in the samples (e.g., sediment particles in suspension), rather than analytical error.

Hard

nes

s

Tota

l

An

tim

on

y

Dis

solv

ed

Ars

en

ic

Dis

solv

ed

Ch

rom

ium

Dis

solv

ed

Cop

per

Dis

solv

ed

Iro

n

Dis

solv

ed

Lea

d

Dis

solv

ed

Nic

kel

Dis

solv

ed

Cad

miu

m

Tota

l

Zin

c T

ota

l

Mer

cury

Tota

l

Criteria 5 50 20 10 1000 10 150 5 75 1

SW10 25 <0.75 <0.75 <1 2.3 110 0.8 <1.5 <0.4 25 <0.01

SW10 DUP 23 <0.75 <0.75 <1 1.6 120 0.8 <1.5 <0.4 240 <0.01

Mean 24 0.75 0.75 1 1.95 115 0.8 1.5 0.4 132.5 0.01

RPD 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.9% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 162.3% 0.0%

LOD <1 <0.75 <0.75 <1 <1.6 <50 <0.40 <1.5 <0.40 <3 <0.01

Units mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

RPD – Relative Percent Difference

Table 2-1a Comparison of Duplicate Test results (Metals)

pH

Valu

e (S

ite)

Con

du

ctiv

ity

(am

bie

nt

deg

.

C)

(Sit

e)

Dis

solv

ed

Oxygen

(S

ite)

BO

D

CO

D

Con

du

ctiv

ity (

at

20 d

eg.C

)

Am

mon

iaca

l

Nit

rogen

pH

Valu

e

Criteria 6 - 9 2.5 20 - 80 3 2.5 0.25 6 - 9

SW10 7.37 0.272 70.4 1 <7 0.10 7.62 <7

SW10

DUP 7.37 0.157 83.8 1 <7 0.095 7.57 <7

Mean 7.37 0.2145 77.1 1 7 0.0975 0.035 7.59

RPD 0.0% 53.6% 17.4% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 28.6% 0.7%

LOD <1 <7 <0.014 <0.01 <1.00

Units pH Units mS/cm % mg/l mg/l mS/cm mg/l pH Units

Table 2-1b Comparison of Duplicate Test results (Other in-organic Parameters)

2.2.5 For those contaminants where the calculated RPD exceeds 20% in the duplicate analysis, this

potential range has been applied to the other samples, to give an indication of potential variation in

results, and the impact this may have on exceedances of assessment criteria. If this is undertaken, a

limited number of changes in the water quality assessment are noted where concentrations are close

to the assessment criteria, at:





� W14 - The concentration of zinc in the stagnant pond could decrease below the assessment

criteria, resulting in a pass instead of a fail;

� W15 - The concentration of zinc and the conductivity could increase above the criteria in the

track-bed discharge resulting in a fail for these contaminants;

� W24 - The concentration of zinc could increase above the assessment criteria in the downstream

discharge from Flamiggs Gill (N) resulting in a marginal fail for this contaminant;

2.3 RIVER ECOSYSTEM (RE) CLASSIFICATION

2.3.1 The general quality of the streams within the site can be assessed using the EA River Ecosystem

(RE) Classification (Table 2.2). This incorporates the parameters used for the EA General Quality

Assessment (GQA). The classification scheme is presented in Appendix C

2.3.2 At all but one location (W14) the main controlling factor for the RE classification in these streams is

the concentration of dissolved oxygen. This can be influenced by the water temperature, the quantity

of sediment in the stream, the amount of oxygen taken out of the system by decaying organic matter

or the oxidation of chemical contaminants and the amount of oxygen put back into the system by

stream flow, and aeration. It is likely that the classification will vary through the year in such small

streams due to variations in these factors.

2.3.3 Stream quality on the site, as indicated RE classification, is good to very good, with discharge water

quality at all locations classed as good on leaving the site. The quality has generally remained

consistent with Round 2 although a slight decline is noted at W16 (Holdens Gill) and W3 (Flamiggs

Gill (S) and an improvement noted at W15 (Pipe discharge) and W12 (Flamiggs Gill (N)).

RE Classification

Stream Location October

2008

January

2009

April

2009

Description

Limiting

Parameter

Israel Gill W23 5 2 2 Downstream exit Do

Holdens Gill W16 4 2 3 Mid-position along

stream Do

Holdens Gill W19 3 2 2 Upstream branch Do

Parseys Gill W18 3 2 2 Upstream branch Do

Holdens/Parseys

Gill W25 4 2 2 Downstream exit Do

Flamiggs Gill (N) W2 3 2 2 Headwaters / Inflow

to Site Do

Flamiggs Gill (N) W10 - 1 1 Culvert Entrance -

Stagnant Pond W14 5 5 5 Drainage from base

of colliery spoil tip

pH, BOD,

Ammonia,

Pipe Discharge W15 - 3 2 Drainage from

railway trackbed Do

Flamiggs Gill (N) W12 4 3 1 Downstream of

railway bridge -

Flamiggs Gill (N) W24 3 2 2 Downstream exit Do

Flamiggs Gill (S) W3 2 2 3 Headwaters / Inflow

to Site Do

Flamiggs Gill (S) W13 1 2 2 Mid-position along

stream Do

Flamiggs Gill (S) W21 2 2 2 Downstream Do





Table 2-2: Water Quality Classification of the streams on Derwent Forest Site

2.4 STREAM WATER QUALITY

2.4.1 Table 2.3 summarises elevated concentrations in surface waters by determinand, in order to readily

identify locations of elevated levels. Table 2.4 summarises the elevated concentrations along the

individual surface watercourses, thus readily illustrating the changes in concentration between

sample positions and Table 2.5 summarises elevated concentrations in surface waters by sample

number.

Determinand Comments

Antimony W2,

W12

~7x assessment value

2 x assessment value

Copper W14

W12

20x assessment value

1.5 x assessment value

Iron W 14 2.5x assessment value

Lead W14 Marginal

Nickel W 14 ~3x assessment value

Zinc W 14

W2

~5x assessment value

~3 x assessment criteria

Sulphate W 14

W15

4.5x assessment value

~3 x assessment criteria

Total Ammoniacal-N W14 10 x assessment criteria

EPH C21 – C35 W14

Concentrations > theoretical solubility of either

aliphatic or aromatic fractions.

Suggests presence of free phase.

Fluoranthene W3 5 x assessment criteria

Benzo(a)Pyrene W3 Marginal

Total PAHs W3 4 x assessment criteria

Chloroform W2 2 x assessment criteria

Chloroform

W10,

W12

W24

Present but <EQS

Bromodichloromethane

W2

W10

W12

Present but <EQS

Table 2-3: Elevated Surface Water Concentrations by Determinand, April 2009

Flamiggs Gill North Flamiggs Gill South Stagnant Pond

Sample No. Determinand Sample No. Determinand Sample No. Determinand

W 2 Sb,

Chloroform W 3 PAH W 14

Cu, Fe, Pb, Ni, Zn, Sulphate, pH, Amm-N

EPH

W10 Zn W 13 None Pipe Discharge

W 12 Sb, Cu W 21 None W15 Sulphate

W 24 None

Israel Gill Holden’s Gill Parsey’s Gill

Sample No. Determinand Sample No. Determinand Sample No. Determinand

W 23 None W 16 None W 18 None

W 19 None

Downstream of confluence of Holden’s Gill and Parseys Gill

W25 None W25 None





Table 2-4: Elevated Surface Water Concentrations by Water Course, April 2009

Sample

No.

Persistent

Determinands

(2004-2005)

Elevated

Determinands

(>Criteria)

Notable Contaminants

(<Criteria) Comment

W 2 Chloroform Antimony

Chloroform Bromodichloromethane

� Chloroform consistent with persistent

contaminants noted in 2004-2005.

� Zinc, PAHs & hydrocarbons now

absent (noted in Round 2)

W 3 None PAHs (See Table

2.3) None � PAHs previously noted in Round 2

W10 None Zn Chloroform


� Elevated Zn in duplicate

� VOC previously noted <EQS (round 2)

W 12 None Sb, Cu Chloroform

� Chloroform previously noted < EQS.

� Elevated Cu due to Hardness of stream

� Elevated Sb not previously detected

W 13 None None None

W 14 Cu, Fe, Ni, Zn,

Sulfate, pH

Cu, Fe, Pb Ni, Zn,

Sulfate, Amm-N,

pH

EPH C21 – C35

None

� Consistent with 2004-2005

� Elevated Pb due to Hardness of stream

� Elevated EPH not previously detected

W15 Sulphate Sulphate None � Consistent with persistent contaminants

noted in 2004-2005

W 16 None None None

W 18 None None None

W 19 None None None

W 21 None None None

W 23 None None None

W 24 None None Chloroform � Chloroform detected in Round 2

W 25 None None None

Table 2-5: Elevated Surface Water Concentrations by Sample Position, April 2009

2.5 ISRAEL GILL

2.5.1 The quality of water in Israel Gill is monitored at one monitoring location (W23) at the point where

the stream exits the site. The stream is classified as RE2 (good) based on dissolved oxygen

concentration. This is consistent with Round 2 and a significant improvement on Round 1 (RE5;

poor). COD concentrations have continued to reduce slightly since Round 2, suggesting that

associated chemical oxidation processes that can deplete oxygen in the stream have also continued

decline, giving rise to slightly increased dissolved oxygen concentrations.

2.5.2 Water quality data for Israel Gill show no contaminant failures for Round 3 and comply with all

EQS and other assessment criteria.

2.6 HOLDENS GILL / PARSEYS GILL

2.6.1 Holdens Gill and Parseys Gill are considered together because the two streams join prior to exiting

the site. Holdens Gill is monitored at two locations (W16 & W19) and Parseys Gill at one location

(W18). The combined flow is monitored at W25.





2.6.2 The headwaters of Holdens Gill (W16) are classified as RE3 (fairly good), however, the waters

improve, becoming RE2 (Good) downstream at W19. Parseys Gill is classified as RE2 (W18), and

the combined discharge from the site at W25 is also RE2. This is generally consistent with Round 2

and a notable improvement on Round 1.

2.6.3 Water quality data for Holdens/Parseys Gill show no contaminant failures for Round 3 and comply

with all EQS and other assessment criteria.

2.6.4 In Round 2; EPH C21-C40 was elevated at W16 (headwaters of Holden Gill) and Antimony was

elevated at W18 (Parseys Gill above the confluence with Holdens Gill), however, they have not been

detected in Round 3. Elevated concentrations of Antimony had been previously detected at this

location on one occasion (CSL Report 2006), however, hydrocarbons had not been previously

detected at elevated concentrations. Since these contaminants do not appear to be persistent they are

presumed to be anomalies and will be kept under review as the monitoring continues.

2.6.5 No exceedances of assessment criteria are noted at W25, and therefore the quality data for discharges

from the site via Holdens Gill and Parseys Gill show no contaminant failures and comply with all


2.7 FLAMIGGS GILL (NORTH)

2.7.1 Flamiggs Gill (N) is monitored at four locations; W2- entering the site, W10 – up-stream of Buckhill

Colliery, W12 – downstream of the main contaminant risk area; and W24 – downstream exit from

the site.

2.7.2 The stream is classified as RE2 (good) as it enters the site, and this improves downstream at W10

(RE1; very good). The classification remains RE2 (good) at W12, largely determined by dissolved

oxygen concentration. The stream quality becomes RE2 (good) by the time it exists the site at W25.

2.7.3 Flamiggs Gill (N) is noted to have a relatively low CaCO3 concentration, ranging between 16mg/l –

120mg/l with a mean of 59mg/l. This is in contrast to a mean of 139mg/l for the 2004-2005

monitoring period and means for the current monitoring programme of 133mg/l and 140mg/l for

Round 1 and Round 2 respectively. This results in lower EQS for the List II metals Lead,

Chromium, Zinc, Copper, Nickel.

2.7.4 Antimony and Chloroform are elevated in waters entering the site via the Northern tributary of

Flamiggs Gill (N) (W2). In addition, Bromodichloromethane is also detected at W2, but at

concentrations less than the assessment criteria.

2.7.5 The presence of chloroform at W2 is consistent with previous monitoring and indicates a continuing

source outwith the site boundary. Chloroform is also detected in all downstream samples within

Flamiggs Gill (N), steadily declining to W24 where concentrations of 3ug/l are detected (Chart 2-1).

It can also be noted, however, that chloroform concentrations have increased since 2004-2005, and

in consecutive monitoring rounds (2008-2009) in all locations (Chart 2-1).





Chart 2-1: Chloroform Trends in Flamiggs Gill (N); Derwent Forest Site

Flamiggs Gill (N)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Mean

2004/05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Monitoring Round

Ch

loro

form

(u

g/l

)

W2 W10 W14 W15 W12 W24 Assessment Criteria LOD





2.7.6 Bromodichloromethane is detected at W2 and downstream at W10, however, it does not persist

beyond this point. Again, the concentrations of Bromodichloromethane at W2 and W10 are

increasing since first detected in Round 1 (W2) and Round 2 (W10).

2.7.7 Elevated Antimony is detected at W2 and downstream at W12, however, it does not remain elevated

beyond this point. The concentrations of Antimony at W2 have increased since Round 1 (W2), and

are significantly greater than the mean for 2004-2005.

2.7.8 Elevated Copper is detected at W12 (downstream of the Buckhill Colliery area). The low CaCO3

concentration in this stream compared to other streams on site and relative to previous monitoring

events gives rise to a lower assessment criterion for copper (6ug/l), and this together with the slightly

higher copper concentration contributes to the exceedance.

2.7.9 Elevated Zinc is detected at W10 (Duplicate Sample), however, it does not remain elevated beyond

this point. Zinc has been detected at elevated concentrations once previously at W10 in 2004-2005.

2.7.10 EPH C21-C40, PAHs (Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)Pyrene) were previously detected in

Round 2 however, these contaminants were not detected in Round 3.

2.7.11 No exceedances of assessment criteria are noted at W24, however, and therefore the quality data for

discharges from the site via Flamiggs Gill (N) show no contaminant failures and comply with all


2.8 FLAMIGGS GILL (SOUTH)

2.8.1 Flamiggs Gill (S) is monitored at three locations; W3- water entering the site, W13 – downstream of

the main drainage area and W21 – exit from the site.

2.8.2 The stream is classified as RE3 (fairly good) at W3 and water quality improves to RE2 (good) at

W13 and remains good for the rest of its course on site. The variation is largely determined by

dissolved oxygen concentration.

2.8.3 Water quality data for Flamiggs Gill (S) show elevated PAH concentrations (Total PAHs,

Fluoranthene & Benzo(a)Pyrene) in waters entering the site at W3. The concentrations of these

contaminants are significantly less than the Round 2 levels, with Anthracene not detected at all.

Stream water quality at other locations and for all other contaminants complies with appropriate


2.8.4 No exceedances of assessment criteria are noted at W21, and therefore the quality data for discharges

from the site via Flamiggs Gill (N) show no contaminant failures and comply with all EQS and other

assessment criteria.





2.9 STAGNANT POND (CONTAMINANT AREA)

2.9.1 The drainage from the base of the colliery tip is monitored at W14.

2.9.2 RE classification is not appropriate as this is not a flowing stream, however, it provides an indication

of the basic water quality in relation to the other site drainage features discussed above. The water

from this location would be classed as RE5 (poor) based on BOD (41mg/l) Total Ammonia

(2.8mg/l) and pH (3.4).

2.9.3 The drainage water quality data shows a number of contaminant failures; Copper, Iron, Nickel, Zinc

and Sulphate, consistent with those previously identified (CSL Report 2006). In addition, lead and

EPH hydrocarbons (C21 – C35) are also noted as exceeding the assessment criteria.

2.9.4 Lead and hydrocarbons have not previously been elevated at this location. The exceedance for Lead

is a consequence of the reduction in the EQS due to low CaCO3 Hardness in the receiving stream

(Flamiggs Gill, N). The elevated hydrocarbon concentrations (38ug/l) is greater than the theoretical

solubility of either aliphatic or aromatic fractions. This suggests the possible presence of free phase

or particulate matter with adsorbed hydrocarbons.

2.10 PIPE DISCHARGE FROM TRACK BED

2.10.1 The drainage from the pipe discharge in the old rail track bed is monitored at W15. The drainage

water quality data shows one contaminant failure for Sulphate. This water quality failure is

consistent with those previously identified (CSL Report 2006).





3.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

3.1 CHANGES BETWEEN MONITORING ROUNDS

3.1.1 The changes in the patterns of exceedances between Round 1, 2 and 3 are summarised in Table 3.1.

This indicates that the number of contaminant failures has generally decreased in Round 3,

particularly for organic compounds. It can be noted that Toluene and Xylene have not been detected

since Round 1, however, the occurrence of Chloroform and Bromodichloromethane is becoming

more widespread and persistent. In general, the nature of elevated contamination is consistent with

the findings of the previous monitoring programme (CSL Report 2006), although the location of

individual, periodic failures continues to change.

3.2 DISCUSSION

3.2.1 Drawing GC20549/G3/03_A/02 illustrates the determinands identified at concentrations above the

assessment criteria in the surface water.

3.2.2 Overall, the water quality in the surface watercourses as they traverse the site remains fairly constant

or there is a slight decline, particularly for Flamiggs Gill (N). This is illustrated in Chart 3.1, which

plots the ratio of the concentration or value of a parameter in the downstream water sample (site exit)

to the upstream sample concentration or value for water entering the site (ratio =

downstream/upstream). If this ratio is greater than 1 it indicates that water quality has declined

across the site. Note that where contaminants were recorded below detection limit the concentration

was set as equal to detection limit as a conservative indicator. The also chart shows limits on the

ratio of ±20%. From this chart, a notable overall decline in quality is indicated for:

� Iron and sulphate in Holdens Gill (No sample is available upstream of the site, therefore the

upstream point is taken as the mid-point sample W16 on Holdens Gill); and,

� Copper, Zinc and sulphate in Flamiggs Gill (N).

3.2.3 Note that although a slight reduction in water quality is indicated for these contaminants, the scale of

these changes is relatively small, the overall level of metals and other indicators within the surface

watercourses is generally considered to be low and no contaminants exceed the EQS in water leaving

the site.





Table 3-1: Summary of the variation between identified contaminants between monitoring rounds.

Elevated Contaminants (> Criteria) Noted Contaminants (< Criteria) Persistent

Contaminants

Water Course Sample Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 2004-05

Israel Gill W23 Sb None None None None None None

W16 None EPH None None None None None

W19 None None None None None None None

W18 None Sb None None None None None

Hold

ens/

Par

seys

Gil

l


W2 None

Sb, Zn, EPH,

Anthracene,

Fluoranthene,

B(a)P, Chloroform,

Sb, Chloroform,

B(a)P,

Chloroform,

Toluene, m/p-

xylene

Bromodichloromethane Bromodichloromethane Chloroform

W10 - None Zn - Chloroform,


Chloroform,

Bromodichloromethane None

Stagnant

Pond W14

Cu, Fe, Ni, Zn,

Sulfate, pH,

Total Amm-N

Cu, Fe, Ni, Zn, pH,

Sulfate, Total

Amm-N

Cu, Fe, Pb, Ni, Zn,

pH, BOD, Sulfate,

Total Amm-N, EPH

None None None Cu, Fe, Ni, Zn,

Sulfate, pH

Pipe W15 - Sulfate Sulfate - None None Sulfate

W12 None None Sb, Cu Toluene Chloroform, Chloroform,

Bromodichloromethane None

Fla

mig

gs

Gil

l (N

)

W24 Sb None None Chloroform, Chloroform, None

W3 None

Anthracene,

Fluoranthene,

B(a)P, Chloroform,

Fluoranthene,

B(a)P, PAH Toluene None None None


Fla

mig

gs

Gil

l

(S)






Chart 3-1: Ratio of down stream water quality to Upstream Water Quality for Derwent Forest Site

Note: Ratios > 1 (i.e., above the red line) indicate an increase in contaminant load across the site.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Contaminant

Rati

o:

Qu

ality

Do

wn

str

eam

/Qu

ali

ty U

ps

tre

am

Holdens Gill Flamiggs Gill (N) Flamiggs Gill (S) No Change No Change +20% No Change - 20%

AsSb Cr Cu Fe Pb Ni ZnCd Hg

pH

(S

ite)

Con

d (

Site

)

DO

(S

ite

)

Te

mp

(S

ite

)

BO

D

CO

D

Co

nd

(La

b)

Am

m-N

(To

tal)

Am

m-N

(F

ree

)

SO

4

SO 3

Am

m-N

H3

(To

tal)




Carlisle 17 Rev. 0 June 2009

3.2.4 Elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons were detected at the stagnant pond, W14; and elevated

PAHs were detected in Flamiggs Gill (S), W3. In addition Antimony (W2), zinc (W10) and

antimony and copper (W12) were identified in Flamiggs Gill (N).

3.2.5 Based on previous monitoring, it is known that these contaminants occur periodically across the site,

and may reflect local activity and/or disturbance by vehicles on or around the site or perhaps the

inclusion of contaminated suspended sediment in water samples. It suggests that contaminants may

be widely present on site but are generally held within soils and sediments unless disturbed or local

conditions change. This can be further assessed in subsequent monitoring rounds.

3.2.6 Exceedances of Sulphate and a variety of metals above EQS continue to occur in location W14; the

stagnant pond at the base of the large spoil tip at the former Buckhill Colliery. This contamination is

consistent with the products of Coal carbonisation works.

3.2.7 Deterioration is noted in Flamiggs Gill (N) at W12, for Nickel, Copper and Sulphate, downstream of

the stagnant pond area. Given the potential uncertainty in the sampling and analysis results and the

absence of similar trends for other contaminants, there is no evidence from the monitoring that there

is a connection between the stagnant pool or pipe discharge and Flamiggs Gill (N), which is

culverted beneath the railway cutting at this point. However, such a connection cannot be ruled out.

The stagnant pond, pipe discharge and associated contaminated soils continue to represent a Low

Risk to on-site receptors and will be further assessed in the annual summary monitoring report after

Round 4.

3.2.8 It can also be noted that the majority of the elevated contaminant occurrences within the streams

were identified in the upstream samples, reflecting the quality of the water entering the site. The

contribution of contaminants to surface waters from the site itself appears to be limited to Zinc

(W10) and Antimony and Nickel, Copper and Sulphate at W12.

3.3 TRIHALOMETHANES

3.3.1 Chloroform in Flamiggs Gill (N) is at its highest concentration as it enters the site (W2; 26ug/l) and

exceeds the EQS. Bromodichloromethane is also noted at this location. Both contaminants decline

downstream, however, Chloroform concentrations are still at the EQS concentration (12ug/l) at W10,

and are detectable at W24 where Flamiggs Gill (N) exits the site.

3.3.2 As previously noted (CSL Report 2006) the contamination is considered to be due to an off-site

source. Chlorine is a widely used chemical for water disinfection. In disinfection, gaseous chlorine

(Cl2) or liquid sodium hypochlorite (bleach, NaOCl) is added to, and reacts with, water to form

hypochlorous acid. In the presence of bromine, hypobromous acid is also formed. Both chlorine and

bromine are in the “halogen” group of elements, and have similar chemical characteristics.

Hypochlorous and hypobromous acid form strong oxidizing agents in water and react with a wide

variety of compounds, which is why they are such effective disinfectants.





3.3.3 Hypochlorous acid and hypobromous acid also react with naturally occurring organic matter to

create many water disinfection by products, including the four primary trihalomethanes:

• ·Chloroform - CHCl3,

• ·Bromodichloromethane (BDCM) - CHCl2Br,

• ·Dibromochloromethane (DBCM) - CHClBr2, and

• ·Bromoform - CHBr3.

3.3.4 At the centre of each of the four trihalomethanes is a carbon atom, and it is surrounded by and bound

to four atoms: one hydrogen and three halogens. These four compounds are collectively termed

trihalomethanes and are abbreviated as either THM or TTHM (for total trihalomethanes).

3.3.5 These compounds are relatively stable in water and undergo only limited biodegradation. In surface

water, the principal removal process is volatilization.

3.3.6 The presence of chloroform is on-going issue particularly as the concentrations in the water course

appear to be increasing and may have a potential impact on any sensitive receptors on-site. It is

therefore considered to be a continuing Moderate risk to on-site receptors and a Very Low Risk to

the River Derwent. These assessments will be kept under review, and should further increases in

Chloroform concentrations occur, the risk to on-site and off-site receptors is likely to increase.

3.3.7 It is recommended that a series of up-stream water samples are collected from the main channel in

order to delineate the source area, and repeat visits undertaken on key tributaries to focus on and

identify the source.

3.4 CONCLUSIONS

3.4.1 Round 3 of the Surface Water Monitoring Programme has been completed at the Derwent Forest

Site. The results indicate the following conclusions:

� The majority of contamination within streams is noted in the up-stream samples, and there is no

clear improvement or deterioration of overall water quality as the streams traverse the site;

� Water Quality data at all the downstream monitoring locations is classed as good (RE2) for all

streams based on the RE classification, and water quality data complies with EQS and other

assessment criteria;

� Levels of contamination in the streams exiting the site are therefore not considered a significant

risk to the River Derwent;

� Risks to controlled waters associated with the site are summarised in Table 3.2, below.

� Chloroform concentrations have increased since Round 2 and by comparison with 2004/2005.

It exceeds the assessment criteria in water entering the site in Flamiggs Gill (N) and is noted in

all downstream samples.

� Exceedances for sulphate in the pipe discharge and sulphate and a variety of metals in location

W14 are consistent with those previously identified (CSL Report 2006); and,





� Elevated concentrations of PAHs, hydrocarbons and metals were noted at a limited number of

other monitoring locations. The periodic occurrence of these contaminants on the site is

consistent with the previous monitoring round.

Table 3-2: Summary of Risk to Controlled Waters

Contaminant Source Pathway Receptor Likelihood Consequence Risk

Aquatic Life in

stream on-site

High Mild Moderate Chloroform

(W2)

Off-Site Flamiggs Gill (N)

River Derwent Low Minor Very Low

Flamiggs Gill (N) Low Mild Low Copper, Iron,

Lead Nickel,

Zinc, Sulphate,

EPH (W14)

On-site (Coal

Carbonisation

Area)

Leaching through

backfill River Derwent Unlikely Minor Very Low

Flamiggs Gill (N) Low Mild Low PAHs (W3) On/Off-Site Flamiggs Gill (S)

River Derwent Unlikely Minor Very Low

Periodic

contaminants

On / Off site? various River Derwent Unlikely Minor Very Low

3.5 RECCOMENDATIONS

3.5.1 An investigative sampling programme should be undertaken upstream in Flamiggs Gill (N) to

identify the source of the chloroform contamination.

3.5.2 An additional sample should be collected from Flamiggs Gill (N) if the concentration of Chloroform

at W24 exceeds the EQS of 12ug/l. It is recommended that the location for this sample is outside the

site boundary downstream of the confluence with Flamiggs Gill (S).




Carlisle Appendix Rev. 0 June 2009

Appendix A: Maps and Plans

1:5000

Drawing No.

Client:

Date:

Amendments

Title:

Project:

Approved

Checked

Drawn

Scale:

No.

Rev.Date

Made

Initials

Chk.

The Capita Building

Kingmoor Business Park

CARLISLE

Cumbria

CA6 4SJ

Tel. 01228 673000

Fax. 01228 673111

DERWENT FOREST

~SURFACE WATER

MONITORING PROGRAMME

SURFACE WATER MONITORING POINTS

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL

ALLERDALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

NW REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

GC 20549/G3/03_A/01

(based on SS20245/A/02_D)

MAy '09

KC/TS

SJJF

Fernlea

Blanshard H

ouse

Kirklands

1

6

12

1

The Mount

6

Brae Side

Hillside

High Stile

TCB

Villa Lorasta

Sundawn

Mount

View

Mount

Farm

Stud Farm

Tank

Issues

Tanks

Issues

92.4m

88.4m

77.7m

BM 76.39m

82.9m

92.0m

64.0m

47.5m

8300

800049003900

0016

0037

4633

8648

86587358

6755

6166

0077

6478

0082

0001790061005000

MP

(def)

93.0m

Uplands

Vale V

iew

BM 59.26m

Isra

el G

ill

Camerton

BM 93.49m

Silo

Dismantled Railway

WoodsideLodge

Nanaimo

GhyllMount

TawnyGhyll

0004

0016

0082

0001

1993

1586

1172

1962

1426

2100

2749

2286

2492

2000 3300

3394

3476

3437

3200

4145

4056

5200

6400

8180

39.9m

BM 45.50m

Sinks

Copeland Gill

Tra

ck

Issues

Track

Issues

Issues

Air Shaft

Issues

Hol

den

s G

ill

SP

Track

Demesne

Pond

Pond

4086

9557

Ribton Wood

0071

Track

Par

seys

Gill

Dismantled Railway

4960

Israel Gill

44.5m

Track

Track

Track

Lynpet Farm

0068

0081

2100

2000

3104

2293

4400

Pond

Track

Ribton Wood

Hold

ens

Gill

Ribton

Wood

Peatmere Hill

Spoil Heaps(disused)


110.6m

BM 108.51m

108.8m

Pond

110.6m

111.9m

ETL

ETL

ETLOld Shafts110.0m

BM 110.35m

GP

Pond

111.3m

Opencast Mine

(Coal)

Issues

Spoil Heaps

(dis)

Drain

Drain

Track

Track

Track

Tank

Tank

Tra

ck

Tank

Tank

Sheepfold

Track

Tank

Drain

Drain

1500

2792

3683

4950

5200

5375

5055

6400

7667

Dismantled Railway

Ribton HallIssues

22.9m

BM 23.39m

28.3mBM 48.29m

Ribton Hall Bungalow

21.0m

BM 20.43m

26.5m

Tra

ck

Tra

ck

Track

39.3m

BM 44.72m

43.9m

Dangerous Wood

Belm

ont

38.1m

Hol

den

s G

ill

Arran V

ean

Drain

3200

Dismantled Railway

Track

43.3m

Cultivation Terraces Sinks

Riv

er

Derw

ent

Track

Bottom Wood

2100

Pond

110.0m

Wood Side

Mira

mar

Ava

lon

Wyn

dale

Opencast Mine

(Coal)

Drain

Dra

in

Sheepfold

Dra

in

Sae V

iew

3600

4915

0015

Issues

Tr a

ck

92.4m

90.2m

Pond

Grange Farm

Camerton

7324

96.3m

94.8m

ETL

4433

ETL

GP

ETL

4642101.5m

105.8m

109.7m

7477

5363

4876

Canker Beck

93.9m

BM 96.24m

Issues

100.9m

0015

0081

108.8m

Tra

ck

Mine

(disused)

3900

3767

4448

49005200

5185

5182

5864

6567

7070

6300

8088

7673

8058

7960

80008300

8700 0004

19.2m

Path

West House

Foot Bridge

Gauge Station

Water

Post

Cultivation

Terraces

Path (um

)

18.9m

BM 20.19m

19.5m

44.8m

BM 52.74m

Angilorn

Home Farm

34.7m

22.3m

GP

LB

Hall

PO

Woodend

Silver Dawn

Gard

ens

Sunny

Trevene

BM 26.71m

Bryn Avon

Glen V

iew

Vale View

Green End 21

32.0m

GP

Derwent

ViewShala

mar

Ramsey

House

Croft C

ottages

Cro

ft End C

otta

ge

Glen

dale

Benedene

Beckside

Meadow Croft

41

Meadow Farm

BM 43.27m

Sinks

Issues

Sinks

BM 27.54m

26.8m

Issues

Camerton

Cro

ft House

BlackTom Inn(PH)

5

East House

Colliers

Arms

Meadow

Walk

Tra

ck

De Nada

61.1m

0900

8500

7661

SP

SP

SP

Ribton Wood

Horse

grass

ing P

lanta

tion

Parseys Gill

SB

Fla

mig

gs

Gill

Track

Bottom W

ood

0006

MP

Dismantled Railway

Track

Track

Track

Track

Chy

Track

Track

Path (um)

BM 62.53m

63.4m

63.7m

67.4m

62.5m

76.8m

4923

4421

3819

1711

8500

0007

0003

1008

8600

TCB

65.8m

61.0m

BM 66.81m

Pat

h (u

m)

Sinks

South Terrace

42

BM 72.13m

Track

38

LB

G

Track

Track

Tra

ck

Track

Track

Cattle Grid

Drain

2852

56004600

Stockmoor

100.0m

80.8m

BM 80.89m

80.8m

87.5m

BM 92.85m

91.4m

Tranby

Opencast Mine

Water

(Coal)

Drain

Pond

Pond

Pond

Drain

Dra

in

Water

Dra

in

Drain

Track

Track

Tra

ck

Track

Pond

Pond

Drain

Drain

Drain

Track

0048

Water

105.5m

103.9m

BM 109.45m

BM

119.38m

116.1m

Mountain View

118.3m

Track

Ho

lde

ns G

ill

Opencast Mine

Water

Ribton Wood

(Coal)

Tank

Dra

in

Drain

Dra

in

Drain

Dra

in

Drain

Pond

Tank

Tra

ck

Issues

Issues

Path (um)

Issues

Issues

Mast

Issues

Issues

Drain

Drain

(Coal)

Opencast Mine

0006

0381

0544

1793

2062

3249

5168

6354

7684

0060

0067

0072

0003

Issues

46.1m

Ribton House

BM 47.55m

Issues

Ford

48.8m

53.7m

Track

56.8m

BM 50.97m

56.3m

BM 55.63m

Ennops

Gill

Bottom Wood

Track

Track

0003 3500

4568

5964 7064

7969

8600

Stone

(site of)

Track

St Lawrence's Chapel

0060

Path (um)

Graveyard

Issues

4216

5600

4809

Broughton Lodge

Cattle Grid

Drain

Quarry

122.9m

WashingtonHouse

Mountain View

Fell View

Denholme

Issues

Quarry

Drain

RIVER DERWENT

BH01/02

BH01/03

BH01/04

BH01/05

BH01/06

BH01/07

BH01/08

BH01/09

BH01/10

BH01/11

BH01/12

BH01/13

BH01/14

BH01/16

BH01/17

BH01/15BH01/18

W4

W6

W7W1

W2

W3

W10

W9

W23

W22

W8

W14

W11

W15W12

W13

W21

W24

W20

W19W18

W5

W16

W17

W25

BH04/21

BH04/19

BH04/20

BH04/24

BH04/22

BH04/23

BH04/26

BH04/25

BH04/28

BH04/27

BH04/30

BH04/29

BH04/31

BH04/32

BH04/34

BH04/33

BH04/36

BH04/35

BH04/38BH04/37

(TP01/W02)

BH01/01Locations chosen to monitor

water quality on exit from the

site. This allows assessment

of impact of site on local

streams and assessment of

potential impact on specified

downstream receptor (PL11)

W19 - Monitors Water

Quality Downstream of W16

& Water Quality Prior to

Confluence with Parseys Gill

to allow water quality assessment.

W16 - Monitors

headwaters of Holdens

Gill and possible impact

of diffuse contamination

from headwater catchment

area (PL2).

W18 - Monitors Water Quality

downstream of potential

contaminant source area (PL3) &

Water Quality Prior to

Confluence with Holden Gill

W3 - Monitors up-stream

water quality entering the

site for comparison against

downstream water quality

leaving site.W13 - Monitors water

quality in headwaters of

catchment covering a

significant site area.

W12 - Monitors potential impact of

main contaminant area (PL4 - PL9)

from identified contaminant sources on stream.

W2 - Persistent contaminants

Present. Monitors an off-site

contaminant source (PL5) and

Water Quality entering site.

W14 - Persistent

contaminants present.

Monitors contaminant

source (PL6 & PL7) prior to

potential impact on stream.

Flamiggs Gill (

S)

Flamiggs G

ill (N

)

Parseys Gill

Hold

ens

Gil

l

Isra

el G

ill

W15 - Monitors

contaminated

discharge from

pipe

W10 - Monitors Water

Quality up-stream of

main contaminant area

(Buckhill colliery)

Site Boundary

KEY

NOTES

1. This drawing only showswatercourses which areplotted on the OrdnanceSurvey map. There arenumerous ditches and

2. It should be assumedthat all surface waterdrainage (including landdrainage) ultimatelydischarges to the river.

3. The line of culverts asshown on this drawing is approximate only.

Watercourse

Culvert

other minor watercourseswithin the site whichultimately discharge tothe river

2001 Boreholes

Water Sampling Point 2004/05

BH01/01

W

Area of known

Soil Contamination

2004 BoreholesBH04/21

Proposed Water Sampling Point

2008/11

W3

1:5000

Drawing No.

Client:

Date:

Amendments

Title:

Project:

Approved

Checked

Drawn

Scale:

No.

Rev.Date

Made

Initials

Chk.

The Capita Building

Kingmoor Business Park

CARLISLE

Cumbria

CA6 4SJ

Tel. 01228 673000

Fax. 01228 673111

DERWENT FOREST

~SURFACE WATER

MONITORING PROGRAMME

WATER QUALITY FAILURES AND

NOTABLE CONTAMINATION

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL

ALLERDALE BOROUGH COUNCIL

NW REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

GC 20549/G3/03_A/02

(based on SS20245/A/02_D)

MAY'09

KC/TS

SJJF

Fernlea

Blanshard H

ouse

Kirklands

1

6

12

1

The Mount

6

Brae Side

Hillside

High Stile

TCB

Villa Lorasta

Sundawn

Mount

View

Mount

Farm

Stud Farm

Tank

Issues

Tanks

Issues

92.4m

88.4m

77.7m

BM 76.39m

82.9m

92.0m

64.0m

47.5m

8300

800049003900

0016

0037

4633

8648

86587358

6755

6166

0077

6478

0082

0001790061005000

MP

(def)

93.0m

Uplands

Vale V

iew

BM 59.26m

Isra

el G

ill

Camerton

BM 93.49m

Silo

Dismantled Railway

WoodsideLodge

Nanaimo

GhyllMount

TawnyGhyll

0004

0016

0082

0001

1993

1586

1172

1962

1426

2100

2749

2286

2492

2000 3300

3394

3476

3437

3200

4145

4056

5200

6400

8180

39.9m

BM 45.50m

Sinks

Copeland Gill

Tra

ck

Issues

Track

Issues

Issues

Air Shaft

Issues

Hol

den

s G

ill

SP

Track

Demesne

Pond

Pond

4086

9557

Ribton Wood

0071

Track

Par

seys

Gill

Dismantled Railway

4960

Israel Gill

44.5m

Track

Track

Track

Lynpet Farm

0068

0081

2000

3104

2293

4400

Pond

Track

Ribton Wood

Hold

ens

Gill

Ribton

Wood

Peatmere Hill



110.6m

BM 108.51m

108.8m

Pond

110.6m

111.9m

ETL

ETL

ETLOld Shafts110.0m

BM 110.35m

GP

Opencast Mine

(Coal)

Issues

Spoil Heaps

(dis)

Drain

Drain

Track

Track

Track

Tank

Tank

Tra

ck

Tank

Tank

Track

Tank

Drain

Drain

1500

2792

3683

4950

5200

5375

5055

5439

6400

7667

9835

Track

Dismantled Railway

Ribton HallIssues

22.9m

BM 23.39m

28.3mBM 48.29m

Ribton Hall Bungalow

21.0m

BM 20.43m

26.5m

Tra

ck

Tra

ck

Track

39.3m

BM 44.72m

43.9m

Dangerous Wood

Belm

ont

38.1m

Hol

den

s G

ill

Arran V

ean

Drain

3200

Dismantled Railway

Track

43.3m

Cultivation Terraces Sinks

Riv

er

Derw

ent

Track

Bottom Wood

92.4m

90.2m

Pond

Grange Farm

Camerton

7324

96.3m

94.8m

ETL

4433

ETL

GP

ETL

4642101.5m

105.8m

109.7m

7477

5363

4876

Canker Beck

93.9m

BM 96.24m

Issues

100.9m

0081

108.8m

Tra

ck

Mine

(disused)

3900

3767

4448

49005200

5185

5182

5864

6567

7070

6300

8088

7673

7821

8058

7960

80008300

8700 0004

0024

18.6m

Issues

Sinks

Station

Wood

Dismantle

d Railw

ay

19.2m

Path

Path

West House

Foot Bridge

Gauge Station

Water

Post

Cultivation

Terraces

Path (um

)

18.9m

BM 20.19m

19.5m

44.8m

BM 52.74m

Angilorn

Home Farm

34.7m

22.3m

GP

LB

Hall

PO

Woodend

Silver Dawn

Gard

ens

Sunny

Trevene

BM 26.71m

Bryn Avon

Glen V

iew

Vale View

Green End 21

32.0m

GP

Derwent

ViewShala

mar

Ramsey

House

Croft C

ottages

Cro

ft End C

otta

ge

Glen

dale

Benedene

Beckside

Meadow Croft

41

Meadow Farm

BM 43.27m

Sinks

Issues

Sinks

BM 27.54m

26.8m

Issues

Camerton

Croft H

ouse

BlackTom Inn(PH)

5

East House

Colliers

Arms

Meadow

Walk

Tra

ck

De Nada

61.1m

0900

8500

7661

SP

SP

SP

Ribton Wood

Horse

grass

ing P

lanta

tion

Parseys Gill

SB

Fla

mig

gs

Gill

Track

Bottom W

ood

0006

MP

Dismantled Railway

Track

Track

Track

Track

Chy

Track

Track

Path (um)

BM 62.53m

63.4m

63.7m

67.4m

62.5m

76.8m

4923

4421

3819

1711

8500

0007

0003

1008

8600

TCB

65.8m

61.0m

BM 66.81m

Pat

h (u

m)

Sinks

South Terrace

42

BM 72.13m

Track

38

LB

G

Track

Track

Tra

ck

Track

Track

Cattle Grid

Drain

2852

Stockmoor

100.0m

80.8m

BM 80.89m

80.8m

87.5m

BM 92.85m

91.4m

Tranby

Opencast Mine

Water

(Coal)

Drain

Pond

Pond

Pond

Drain

Dra

in

Water

Dra

in

Drain

Track

Track

Tra

ck

Track

Pond

Pond

Drain

Drain

Drain

Track

0048

Water

105.5m

103.9m

BM 109.45m

BM119.38m

116.1m

Mountain View

118.3m

Track

Ho

lde

ns G

ill

Opencast Mine

Water

Ribton Wood

(Coal)

Tank

Dra

in

Drain

Dra

in

Drain

Dra

in

Drain

Pond

Tank

Tra

ck

Issues

Issues

Path (um)

Issues

Issues

Mast

Issues

Issues

Drain

Drain

(Coal)

Opencast Mine

0006

0381

0544

0726

1793

2062

3249

4537

4626

5168

6354

7684

0042

0060

0067

0072

0003

Track

Issues

46.1m

Ribton House

BM 47.55m

Issues

Ford

48.8m

Sinks

53.7m

Track

Foot Bridge

56.8m

Spring

BM 50.97m

56.3m

BM 55.63m

Ennops

Gill

Bottom Wood

Track

Track

0003

0042

3500

4568

5964 7064

7969

8600

Pond

Issues

Stone

(site of)

Track

St Lawrence's Chapel

0060

Path (um)

Track

Graveyard

Issues

Shingle

RIVER DERWENT

RIVER DERWENT

BH01/02

BH01/03

BH01/04

BH01/05

BH01/06

BH01/07

BH01/08

BH01/09

BH01/10

BH01/11

BH01/12

BH01/13

BH01/14

BH01/16

BH01/17

BH01/15BH01/18

W4

W6

W7W1

W2

W3

W10

W9

W23

W22

W8

W14

W11

W15W12

W13

W21

W24

W20

W19W18

W5

W16

W17

W25

BH04/21

BH04/19

BH04/20

BH04/24

BH04/22

BH04/23

BH04/26

BH04/25

BH04/28

BH04/27

BH04/30

BH04/29

BH04/31

BH04/32

BH04/34

BH04/33

BH04/36

BH04/35

BH04/38BH04/37

(TP01/W02)

BH01/01

Flamiggs Gill (

S)

Flamiggs G

ill (N

)

Parseys Gill

Hold

ens

Gil

l

Isra

el G

ill

W2 Concentration

Assessment

Criteria Units

Antimony Dissolved (ICP-MS) 38 5 ug/l

Chloroform 26 12 ug/l

Bromodichloromethane 7 100 ug/l

W10 Concentration

Assessment

Criteria Units

Zinc (Duplicate only) 240 50 ug/l



W14 Concentration

Assessment

Criteria Units

Copper Dissolved (ICP-MS) 130 6 ug/l

Iron Dissolved (ICP-MS) 2600 1000 ug/l

Lead Dissolved (ICP-MS) 13 10 ug/l

Nickel Dissolved (ICP-MS) 610 100 ug/l

Zinc Total (HNO3 Digest) 370 50 ug/l

EPH C21 - C35 38 10 ug/l

pH 3.96 6 to 9 pH Units

BOD 41 3 mg/l

Total Ammoniacal-N 2.8 0.25 mg/l

Sulphate (soluble) 1800 400 mg/l

W3 Concentration

Assessment

Criteria Units

Fluoranthene Aqueous 110 20 ng/l

Benzo(a)pyrene Aqueous 32 30 ng/l

PAH 16 Total Aqueous 430 100 ng/lW12 Concentration

Assessment

Criteria Units

Antimony 10 5 ug/l

Copper 9.5 6 ug/l



W15 Concentration

Assessment

Criteria Units

Sulphate (soluble) 1100 400 mg/l

W24 Concentration

Assessment

Criteria Units


Site Boundary

KEY

NOTES

1. This drawing only showswatercourses which areplotted on the OrdnanceSurvey map. There arenumerous ditches and

2. It should be assumedthat all surface waterdrainage (including landdrainage) ultimatelydischarges to the river.

3. The line of culverts asshown on this drawing is approximate only.

Watercourse

Culvert

other minor watercourseswithin the site whichultimately discharge tothe river

2001 Boreholes

Water Sampling Point 2004/05

BH01/01

W

Area of known

Soil Contamination

2004 BoreholesBH04/21

Proposed Water Sampling Point

2008/11

W3





Appendix B: Analytical Data Summary

Derwent Forest, Broughton Moor

Cumbria County Council / Allerdale Borough Council


Round 3; April 2009

Har

dnes

s T

ota

l

Anti

mony D

isso

lved

(IC

P-M

S)

Ars

enic

Dis

solv

ed (

ICP

-MS

)

Chro

miu

m D

isso

lved

(IC

P-M

S)

Copper

Dis

solv

ed (

ICP

-MS

)

Iron D

isso

lved

(IC

P-M

S)

Lea

d D

isso

lved

(IC

P-M

S)

Nic

kel

Dis

solv

ed (

ICP

-MS

)

Cad

miu

m T

ota

l (H

NO

3 D

iges

t)

Zin

c T

ota

l (H

NO

3 D

iges

t)

Mer

cury

Tota

l (A

qua

Reg

ia)

Method TM152 TM152 TM152 TM152 TM152 TM152 TM152 TM152 TM152 TM152 TM183

Hardness 150-200 5 50 20 10 1000 20 150 5 75 1

Hardness 50-100 10 6 10 100 50

Source 1 2 3 3 4 3 3 5 3 5

Sample

Identity

W2 Flamiggs Gill (N) Headwaters / Inflow to Site16 38 <0.75 <1 3.1 130 1.0 <1.5 <0.4 20 <0.01

W3 Flamiggs Gill (S) Headwaters / Inflow to Site350 <0.75 <0.75 2 2.4 66 1.0 3.1 <0.4 35 <0.01

W10 Flamiggs Gill (N)North (Upstream) of

Buckhill Colliery site 25 <0.75 <0.75 <1 2.3 110 0.8 <1.5 <0.4 25 <0.01

W10 DUP Flamiggs Gill (N)North (Upstream) of

Buckhill Colliery site 23 <0.75 <0.75 <1 1.6 120 0.8 <1.5 <0.4 240 <0.01

W12 Flamiggs Gill (N)Downstream of railway

bridge 110 10 <0.75 <1 9.5 <50 0.8 6.4 <0.4 26 <0.01

W13 Flamiggs Gill (S) Mid-position along stream250 3.0 <0.75 <1 3.1 <50 0.7 3.6 <0.4 19 <0.01

W14 Stagnant PondDrainage from base of

colliery spoil tip 1700 1.6 <0.75 2 130 2600 13 610 0.6 370 <0.01

W15 Small diameter pipeSouth West of Explosive

laboratory area 1400 0.90 0.82 1 4.1 190 0.8 36 <0.4 34 <0.01

W16 Holdens Gill Mid-position along stream<1 <0.75 <0.75 2 1.9 <50 0.6 1.9 <0.4 29 <0.01

W18 Parseys Gill Upstream branch 260 <0.75 <0.75 2 2.5 <50 0.7 1.8 <0.4 31 <0.01

W19 Holdens Gill Upstream branch 210 <0.75 <0.75 <1 4.1 <50 0.6 1.5 <0.4 32 <0.01

W21 Flamiggs Gill (S) Downstream 250 <0.75 <0.75 <1 2.4 <50 0.7 2.4 <0.4 29 <0.01

W23 Israel Gill Downstream exit 210 <0.75 0.88 <1 2.7 110 0.7 2.3 <0.4 22 <0.01

W24 Flamiggs Gill (N) Downstream exit 120 <0.75 0.89 <1 4.8 70 0.5 1.7 <0.4 28 <0.01

W25 Holdens Gill Downstream exit 240 <0.75 0.86 <1 2.3 65 0.5 2.2 <0.4 31 <0.01

Method Detection Limit <1 <0.75 <0.75 <1 <1.6 <50 <0.4 <1.5 <0.4 <3 <0.01

Units mg/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

Min Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria

CAPITA SYMONDS

Carlsile

Report GC20549/G3/03

Rev0, June 2009




Round 3; April 2009

Method

Source

Sample

Identity

W2 Flamiggs Gill (N) Headwaters / Inflow to Site

W3 Flamiggs Gill (S) Headwaters / Inflow to Site


Buckhill Colliery site




bridge

W13 Flamiggs Gill (S) Mid-position along stream


colliery spoil tip


laboratory area

W16 Holdens Gill Mid-position along stream

W18 Parseys Gill Upstream branch

W19 Holdens Gill Upstream branch

W21 Flamiggs Gill (S) Downstream

W23 Israel Gill Downstream exit

W24 Flamiggs Gill (N) Downstream exit

W25 Holdens Gill Downstream exit

Method Detection Limit

Units


Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria

pH

Val

ue

Conduct

ivit

y (

ambie

nt

deg

. C

)

Dis

solv

ed O

xygen

Red

ox P

ote

nti

al

Tem

per

ature

BO

D

CO

D

Conduct

ivit

y (

at 2

0 d

eg.C

)

Am

monia

cal

Nit

rogen

Low

as

N

Un-i

onis

ed A

mm

onia

as

N

Sulp

hat

e (s

olu

ble

)

Sulp

hid

e

Tota

l A

mm

onia

as

NH

3

Tota

l A

mm

onia

(N

H3)

as N

Chec

k o

n A

mm

onia

cal

N

anal

ysi

s

pH

Val

ue

Site Site Site Site Site TM045 TM107 TM120 TM099 Calculated TM098 TM101 TM099 Calculated TM133

6 - 9 2.5 20 - 80 - <21.5 3 2.5 0.25 0.015 400 0.00025 - 6 - 9

6a 1a RE5 - RE1 - 6a 6b RE1 6a

7.83 0.133 73.8 221 9.8 1 <7 0.083 0.03 0.000367 12 <0.1 <0.2 - 7.50

7.98 0.843 61.4 24.9 10.4 3 35 0.81 0.20 0.003603 24 <0.1 0.3 0.25 8.33

7.37 0.272 70.4 272 9.1 1 <7 0.10 0.04 0.000162 9 <0.1 <0.2 - 7.62

7.37 0.157 83.8 255 9.2 1 <7 0.095 0.03 0.000122 8 <0.1 <0.2 - 7.57

7.81 0.311 82.6 246 10.4 2 <7 0.25 0.04 0.000490 79 <0.1 <0.2 - 7.74

8.27 0.559 76.3 241 11.2 2 28 0.50 0.04 0.001467 16 <0.1 <0.2 - 8.44

3.96 2.89 55.4 338 10.1 41 96 2.5 2.8 0.000005 1800 <0.1 3.4 2.80 3.68

8.1 2.11 70.7 264 12.1 2 11 2.0 0.05 0.001343 1100 <0.1 <0.2 - 8.22

8.17 0.47 69.4 219 6.6 3 51 0.43 0.03 0.000618 15 <0.1 <0.2 - 8.12

8.14 0.572 74.2 228 7.9 1 9 0.52 0.02 0.000426 43 <0.1 <0.2 - 8.29

8.4 0.496 75.1 226 7.8 1 10 0.45 0.05 0.001891 39 <0.1 <0.2 - 8.19

8.41 0.571 75.4 246 11.6 <1 11 0.49 0.03 0.001543 32 <0.1 <0.2 - 8.32

8.21 0.494 72.2 212 7.3 2 14 0.43 0.04 0.000952 36 <0.1 <0.2 - 8.11

7.96 0.321 73.6 214 8.1 1 10 0.28 0.02 0.000288 75 <0.1 <0.2 - 8.00

8.37 0.535 73.3 227 7.8 1 10 0.48 0.02 0.000708 45 <0.1 <0.2 - 8.29

- - - - - <1 <7 <0.014 <0.01 <3 <0.1 <0.2 <1

pH Units mS/cm % mVoC mg/l mg/l mS/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l pH Units

CAPITA SYMONDS

Carlsile


Rev0, June 2009




Round 3; April 2009

Method

Source

Sample

Identity








bridge



colliery spoil tip


laboratory area









Units


Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria

EP

H (

DR

O)

(C10-C

40)

Aqueo

us

EP

H C

10-1

2 A

queo

us

EP

H >

C12-1

6 A

queo

us

EP

H >

C16-2

1 A

queo

us

EP

H >

C21-3

5 A

queo

us

EP

H >

C35-4

0 A

queo

us

GR

O (

C4-C

10)

GR

O (

C10-C

12)

Vis

ible

Shee

n

Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Eth

yl

ben

zene

m &

p X

yle

ne

o X

yle

ne

Sum

m&

p a

nd o

Xyle

ne

Sum

of

BT

EX

MT

BE

TM172 TM172 TM172 TM172 TM172 TM172 TM089 TM089 Site TM089 TM089 TM089 TM089 TM089 TM089 TM089 TM089

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Present 30 50 20 30 30 30 15

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6a 2 2 4 2 2 2 7a

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

38 <10 <10 <10 38 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

CAPITA SYMONDS

Carlsile


Rev0, June 2009




Round 3; April 2009

Method

Source

Sample

Identity








bridge



colliery spoil tip


laboratory area









Units


Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria

PA

H b

y G

CM

S

Nap

hth

alen

e A

queo

us

Ace

nap

hth

yle

ne

Aqueo

us

Ace

nap

hth

ene

Aqueo

us

Flu

ore

ne

Aqueo

us

Phen

anth

rene

Aqueo

us

Anth

race

ne

Aqueo

us

Flu

ora

nth

ene

Aqueo

us

Pyre

ne

Aqueo

us

Ben

z(a)

anth

race

ne

Aqueo

us

Chry

sene

Aqueo

us

Ben

zo(b

)flu

ora

nth

ene

Aqueo

us

Ben

zo(k

)flu

ora

nth

ene

Aqueo

us

Ben

zo(a

)pyre

ne

Aqueo

us

Inden

o(1

23cd

)pyre

ne

Aqueo

us

Dib

enzo

(ah)a

nth

race

ne

Aqueo

us

Ben

zo(g

hi)

per

yle

ne

Aqueo

us

PA

H 1

6 T

ota

l A

queo

us

TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178 TM178

1.00E+04 20 20 30 100

2 8 8 8 1

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <010

<100 <11 <15 <14 44 <15 110 80 28 31 54 <27 32 19 <16 27 430

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

<100 <11 <15 <14 <22 <15 <17 <15 <17 <13 <23 <27 <9 <14 <16 <16 <100

ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l

CAPITA SYMONDS

Carlsile


Rev0, June 2009




Round 3; April 2009

Method

Source

Sample

Identity








bridge



colliery spoil tip


laboratory area









Units


Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria

Vo

lati

le O

rga

nic

Co

mp

ou

nd

s

Dic

hlo

rodif

luoro

met

han

e

Chlo

rom

ethan

e

Vin

yl

Chlo

ride

Bro

mom

ethan

e

Chlo

roet

han

e

Tri

chlo

rofl

uoro

met

han

e

tran

s-1-2

-Dic

hlo

roet

hen

e

Dic

hlo

rom

ethan

e

Car

bon D

isulp

hid

e

1.1

-Dic

hlo

roet

hen

e

1.1

-Dic

hlo

roet

han

e

Met

hyl

Ter

tiar

y B

uty

l E

ther

cis-

1-2

-Dic

hlo

roet

hen

e

Bro

moch

loro

met

han

e

Chlo

rofo

rm

2.2

-Dic

hlo

ropro

pan

e

1.2

-Dic

hlo

roet

han

e

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

- - 0.5 - - 100 50 2000 - 30 10 15 50 - 12 - 10

1 9 10 4 10 4 7a 10 5 5

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 26 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 12 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 12 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 5 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 3 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

CAPITA SYMONDS

Carlsile


Rev0, June 2009




Round 3; April 2009

Method

Source

Sample

Identity








bridge



colliery spoil tip


laboratory area









Units


Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria

1.1

.1-T

rich

loro

ethan

e

1.1

-Dic

hlo

ropro

pen

e

Ben

zene

Car

bonte

trac

hlo

ride

Dib

rom

om

ethan

e

1.2

-Dic

hlo

ropro

pan

e

Bro

modic

hlo

rom

ethan

e

Tri

chlo

roet

hen

e

cis-

1-3

-Dic

hlo

ropro

pen

e

tran

s-1-3

-Dic

hlo

ropro

pen

e

1.1

.2-T

rich

loro

ethan

e

Tolu

ene

1.3

-Dic

hlo

ropro

pan

e

Dib

rom

och

loro

met

han

e

1.2

-Dib

rom

oet

han

e

Tet

rach

loro

ethen

e

1.1

.1.2

-Tet

rach

loro

ethan

e

Chlo

roben

zene

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

100 0.1 30 12 - 0.1 - 10 0.1 - 400 50 - - - 10 - -

4 1 2 5 1 1 5 1 2 1 5

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 7 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 3 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 3 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

<1 <1 <1 <1 <3 <3 <1 <2 <2 <3 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <4

ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

CAPITA SYMONDS

Carlsile


Rev0, June 2009




Round 3; April 2009

Method

Source

Sample

Identity








bridge



colliery spoil tip


laboratory area









Units


Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria

Eth

ylb

enze

ne

p/m

-Xyle

ne

Bro

mofo

rm

Sty

rene

1.1

.2.2

-Tet

rach

loro

ethan

e

o-X

yle

ne

1.2

.3-T

rich

loro

pro

pan

e

Isopro

pylb

enze

ne

Bro

moben

zene

2-C

hlo

roto

luen

e

Pro

pylb

enze

ne

4-C

hlo

roto

luen

e

1.2

.4-T

rim

ethylb

enze

ne

4-I

sopro

pylt

olu

ene

1.3

.5-T

rim

ethylb

enze

ne

1.2

-Dic

hlo

roben

zene

1.4

-Dic

hlo

roben

zene

sec-

Buty

lben

zene

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

20 30 - 50 - 30 - - - 1 - 1 - - - 20 20 -

2 2 4 2 4 4

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

<2 <2 <3 <1 <5 <1 <9 <2 <1 <2 <3 <2 <1 <3 <1 <3 <1 <1

ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

CAPITA SYMONDS

Carlsile


Rev0, June 2009




Round 3; April 2009

Method

Source

Sample

Identity








bridge



colliery spoil tip


laboratory area









Units


Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria

tert

-Buty

lben

zene

1.3

-Dic

hlo

roben

zene

n-B

uty

lben

zene

1.2

-Dib

rom

o-3

-chlo

ropro

pan

e

1.2

.4-T

rich

loro

ben

zene

Nap

hth

alen

e

1.2

.3-T

rich

loro

ben

zene

Hex

achlo

robuta

die

ne

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

071WI

- 20 - 0.1 0.4 10 0.4 0.1

4 1 5 2 5 5

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

<2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <4 <3 <3

ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l

CAPITA SYMONDS

Carlsile


Rev0, June 2009





Table B.1: References Sources and RE Classification Scheme

Mean Hardness = 148 mg/l

Hardness Range = 89 - 210 mg/l

EQS based on Sensitive Species for protection of downstream receptors

Sources:

1 UKDWS

1a Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000

2 Statutory List 2: SI2560, 1997

3 FWEQS: Circular 7/89

4 FWEQS

5 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

6 Fresh Water Fish Directive; 6a - Imperative Standards, 6b - Guideline Standards

7 Other Jurisdictions: 7a Canadian Drinking Water Standard

8 SEPA for DEFRA: SEPA Annex G

9 Sum Trihalomethanes

10 WHO DWS

Noted as Present

Exceeds Criteria

River Ecosystem Classification RE1 (Best) - RE5 (Worst) for:

Dissolved

Oxygen

BOD

(ATU)

Total

Ammonia

Un-ionised

Ammonia

pH

RE1: very good quality (suitable for all fish species)

RE2: good quality (suitable for all fish species)

RE3: fairly good quality (suitable for high-class coarse fisheries)

RE4: fair quality (suitable for course fisheries)

RE5: poor quality (likely to limit fish populations)





Appendix C: Assessment and Classification Methods





C 1.0 FREE AMMONIA CALCULATION

Free ammonia was calculated using the principles and derivations presented in an on-line Free

Ammonia Calculator (http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~piwc/w3-research/free-ammonia/nh3.html).

Free Ammonia (NH3-N) and ionized-ammonia (NH4+-N) represent two forms of reduced inorganic

nitrogen which exist in equilibrium depending upon the pH and temperature of the waters in which

they are found. Of the two, the free ammonia form is considerably more toxic to organisms such as

fish and, therefore, we pay considerable attention to the relative concentration of this particular

contaminant. Lastly, this free ammonia is a gaseous chemical, whereas the NH4+ form of reduced

nitrogen is an ionized form which remains soluble in water.

The free (NH3) and ionized (NH4+) forms of reduced nitrogen exist in a chemical equilibrium

whose relative distribution is governed by the water's pH and temperature. For example, as the pH

of a water drops (i.e., the H+ ion concentration becoming higher), free ammonia (NH3) will tend to

combine with this additional H, thereby shifting this chemical equilibrium towards the ionized,

NH4+, form, as follows:

NH3 + H+ -> NH4+

However, given that this reaction is transformation is maintained as an equilibrium reaction, the

ionized ammonium form (NH4+) may also drop a proton (H+) as the pH increases...thereby

reforming free ammonia (NH3), as follows:

NH4+ -> NH3 + H+

The relative equilibrium between these two forms is determined by what is known as an equilibrium

constant, Keq, which at room temperature is approximately 10^-9.25.

In turn, the relative distribution of the free (NH3) and ionized (NH4+) forms can be mathematically

determined as a function of the pH and temperature of any given water. This relationship is quite

complex. The overall solution for the concentration of free-ammonia-nitrogen (FA) can be derived

using the following master equation:

FA = [(Total Reduced Nitrogen)*10^pH]/[(e^[6344/(273+T)] + 10^pH)

1) The FA and Total-Reduced-Nitrogen values are both in mg N/L; 2)

2) The Total-Reduced-Nitrogen value is the sum of free-ammonia-nitrogen plus ionized-

ammonium-nitrogen.

A simplified solution was used to prepare the Javascript solution given in the Free Ammonia

Calculator and used in this report:

FA=(Total-Reduced-Nitrogen)/(1+10^[(0.0902-pH) + (2730/(273.2 + T))])

NH3 is much more dependent on pH than temperature. An increase of one pH unit will increase the

NH3 concentration about 10-fold.





C 2.0 RIVER ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION

Class Dissolved

Oxygen

BOD

(ATU)

Total

Ammonia

Un-ionised

Ammonia

pH

Hardness

Dissolve

d

Copper

Total

Zinc

% saturation mg/l mg N/l mg N/l - mg/l CaCO3 µg/l µg/l

10

percentile

90

percentile

90

percentile

95

percentile

pH6 - 5%ile

pH9 – 95%ile

95

percentile

95

percentile

RE1

Very

Good

80

2.5

0.25

0.021

6.0-9.0

≤10

>10&≤50

>50&≤100

>100

5

22 40

112

30

200 300

500

RE2

Good

70

4.0

0.6

0.021

6.0-9.0

≤10

>10&≤50

>50&≤100

>100

5 22

40

112

30 200

300

500

RE3

Fairly

Good

60

6.0

1.3

0.021

6.0-9.0

≤10

>10&≤50

>50&≤100

>100

5

22

40

112

300

700

1000

2000

RE4

Fair

50

8.0

2.5

-

6.0-9.0

≤10

>10&≤50

>50&≤100

>100

5

22

40

112

300

700

1000

2000

RE5

Poor

20

15.0

9.0

-

-

-

-

-





C 3.0 PRINCIPLES OF RISK EVALUATION

C 3.1 The risk evaluation methodology presented below is qualitative in nature, and is therefore a

subjective method. It is based upon guidance presented in CIRIA publication referenced

C552, ‘Contaminated land risk assessment ~ A guide to good practice’, 2001 and involves

the classification of the following.

C 3.2 The magnitude of the potential consequence (severity) of risk occurring (Table D3. 1).

C 3.3 The magnitude of the probability (likelihood) of the risk occurring (Table D3. 2).

C 3.4 These are then considered in conjunction to give a risk matrix (Table D3. 3)

C 3.5 This leads to a table of risk classification and risk management actions (Table D3.4)

Classification Definition Examples

Severe Short-term (acute) risk to human health likely to result in

‘significant harm’ as defined by the Environmental

Protection Act 1990, Part II A. Short-term risk of pollution

(note: Water Resources Act contains no scope for

considering significance of pollution) of sensitive water

resource. Catastrophic damage to buildings/property. A

short-term risk to a particular ecosystem, or organism

forming part of such ecosystem (note the definitions of

ecological systems within the Draft Circular on

Contaminated Land, DETR, 2000).

High concentrations of cyanide on the

surface of an informal recreation area.

Major spillage of contaminants from

site into controlled water.

Explosion, causing building collapse

(can also equate to a short-term human

health risk if buildings are occupied).

Medium Chronic damage to Human Health (‘significant harm’ as

defined in DETR, 2000). Pollution of sensitive water

resources (note: Water Resources Act contains no scope for

considering significance of pollution). A significant change

in a particular ecosystem, or organism forming part of such

ecosystem. (Note: the definitions of ecological systems

within Draft Circular on Contaminated Land, DETR, 2000).

Concentrations of a contaminant from

site exceed the generic, or site-specific

assessment criteria.

Leaching of contaminants from a site

to a major or minor aquifer.

Death of a species within a designated

nature reserve.

Mild Pollution of non-sensitive water resources. Significant

damage to crops, buildings, structures and services

(‘significant harm’ as defined in the Draft Circular on

Contaminated Land, DETR, 2000). Damage to sensitive

buildings/structures/ services or the environment.

Pollution of non-classified

groundwater.

Damage to building rendering it unsafe

to occupy (e.g. foundation damage

resulting in instability).

Minor Harm although not necessarily significant harm, which may

result in a financial loss, or expenditure to resolve. Non-

permanent health effects to human health (easily prevented

by means such as personal protective clothing etc). Easily

repairable effects of damage to buildings, structures and

services.

The presence of contaminants at such

concentrations that protective

equipment is required during site

works.

The loss of plants in a landscaping

scheme.

Discolouration of concrete.

Table C3. 1: Classification of Consequence





Classification Definition

High likelihood There is a pollution linkage and an event that either appears very likely in the short term

and almost inevitable over the long term, or there is evidence at the receptor of harm or

pollution.

Likely There is a pollution linkage and all the elements are present and in the right place, which

means that it is probable that an event will occur.

Circumstances are such that an event is not inevitable, but possible in the short term and

likely over the long term.

Low Likelihood There is a pollution linkage and circumstances are possible under which an event could

occur.

However, it is by no means certain that even over a longer period such event would take

place, and is less likely in the shorter term.

Unlikely There is a pollution linkage but circumstances are such that it is improbable that an event

would occur even in the very long term.

Table C3. 2: Classification of Probability

Consequence

Severe Medium Mild Minor

High Likelihood Very High Risk High Risk Moderate Risk Moderate/Low

Risk

Likely High Risk Moderate Risk Moderate/Low

Risk Low Risk

Low Likelihood Moderate Risk Moderate/Low

Risk Low Risk Very Low Risk

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Unlikely Moderate/Low

Risk Low Risk Very Low Risk Very Low Risk

Table C3. 3: Comparison of Consequence Against Probability

Very High Risk There is a high probability that severe harm could arise to a designated receptor from an

identified hazard, OR, there is evidence that severe harm to a designated receptor is currently

happening.

This risk, if realised, is likely to result in a substantial liability.

Urgent investigation (if not undertaken already) and remediation are likely to be required.

High Risk Harm is likely to arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard.

Realisation of the risk is likely to present a substantial liability.

Urgent investigation (if not undertaken already) is required and remedial works may be

necessary in the short term and are likely over the longer term.

Moderate Risk It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard. However,

it is relatively unlikely that any such harm would be severe, or if any harm were to occur it is

more likely that the harm would be relatively mild.

Investigation (if not already undertaken) is normally required to clarify the risk and to determine

the potential liability. Some remedial works may be required in the longer term.

Low Risk It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard, but it is

likely that this harm, if realised, would at worst normally be mild.

Very Low Risk There is a low possibility that harm could arise to a receptor. In the event of such harm being

realised, it is not likely to be severe.

Table C3. 4: Description of the classified risks and likely action required





C 4.0: Project Assessment Criteria

The Environment Agency (EA) has published advice for screening water quality and leachates

entering controlled waters in their ‘Technical Advice to Third Parties on Pollution of Controlled

Waters for Part IIA of the EPA’ (2002).

Environmental Quality Standards values are available for individual substances in (surface) water.

They indicate the concentration of the specific substance that is protective of all aquatic life, which

is typically aquatic invertebrates or fish.

Where EQS values are not available for a particular determinand the EA guidance suggests the use

of the following sources of assessment criteria which are discussed below:

� EQS values developed by Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) for

DEFRA

� UK Drinking Water Standards (UKDWS)

� EU Standard for Protecting Drinking Water (EUDWS)

� World Health Organisation Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (WHO Health)

The EQS values developed by SEPA are contained in Technical Guidance Manual for Licensing

Discharges to Water: Annex G, Table 3, October 2004. This has been used to obtain assessment

criteria for:

� Anthracene;

� Fluoranthene;

� Benzo-(a)-Pyrene

� Dichlorobenzenes (Sum of Isomers)

� Ethylbenzene

The UKDWS would normally be used in the case where potable waters are present or could be

affected, i.e. the protection of a sensitive receptor. For this site where no potable extraction is

potentially affected, the EQS and SEPA values are assumed to take priority. The UKDWS are

therefore only used where EQS values are not available, and if the value indicated is more

conservative (lower) than the WHO Health and EUDWS.

The UKDWS are taken from:

� Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (as amended)

� Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 (as amended)





The UKDWS have been used as assessment criteria for the following determinands:

� Antimony Cyanide (total)

� Sulphur Selenium

� Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

� PAH (total) Cis and Trans 1,3-dichloropropene

� Vinyl chloride Trihalomethanes

� 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane

� 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene

The WHO health value is a guideline value that represents the concentration of a constituent that

does not result in any significant risk to the consumer over a lifetime of exposure: the WHO Health

value is therefore a conservative human health value. For this site where no potable extraction

could potentially be affected, the EQS values take priority. The WHO Health values are used where

EQS values are not available, if the value is more conservative (lower) than the UKDWS and

EUDWS.

The WHO Health values have been used as assessment criteria for the following determinands:

� Trans & Cis 1,2-dichloroethene

Assessment criteria values for individual ranges of petroleum hydrocarbons within waters, i.e.

Gasoline / Petroleum Organics (GRO), Diesel Range Organics (DRO) and Mineral Oil Range

Organics (MRO), are not available from the above data sources.

Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination chemistry is extremely complex (EA R&D Technical Report

P5-080/TR1, 2003). In preference to using generic assessment criteria published by other bodies

(e.g. Department of Environment, State of Maryland USA, Cleanup Standards for Soil and

Groundwater, 2000), and attempting to validate them for use specifically on this site, the UKDWS

assessment criteria value for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) has been used to encompass the

different ranges of petroleum hydrocarbons. It is not considered justifiable at this stage to use site

specific assessment criteria, and the adopted approach is considered conservative in the absence of

potable water abstraction within the area.





Determinand Value Source of Data

Antimony Dissolved (ICP-MS) (ug/l) 5 UKDWS

Arsenic Dissolved (ICP-MS) (ug/l) 50 Statutory List 2: SI2560, 1997

Cadmium Total (ICP-MS) (ug/l) 5 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

Chromium Dissolved (ICP-MS) (ug/l) 10 or 20 FWEQS: Circular 7/89

Copper Dissolved (ICP-MS) (ug/l) 6 or 10 FWEQS: Circular 7/89

Iron Dissolved (ICP-MS) (ug/l) 1000 FWEQS

Lead Dissolved (ICP-MS) (ug/l) 10 or 20 FWEQS: Circular 7/89

Nickel Dissolved (ICP-MS) (ug/l) 100 or 150 FWEQS: Circular 7/89

Zinc Total (ICP-MS) (ug/l) 50 or 75 FWEQS: Circular 7/89

Mercury Total (CVAAS) (ug/l) 1 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

Un-ioniosed Ammonia (N) (mg/l) 0.015 FWEQS:

Sulphate (soluble) (mg/l) 400 FWEQS

Sulphide (mg/l) 0.00025 FWEQS

BOD (Unfiltered Sample) (mg/l) 3 Fresh Water Fish Directive: Guideline Standard

COD (Unfiltered Sample) (mg/l) -

Hardness Total (mg/l) - -

EPH (DRO) (C10-C40) 10 UKDWS

EPH C10-12 (ug/l) 10 UKDWS

EPH >C12-16 (ug/l) 10 UKDWS

EPH >C16-21 (ug/L0 10 UKDWS

EPH >C21-35 (ug/l) 10 UKDWS

EPH (C35-C40) (ug/l) 10 UKDWS

GRO C4-C10 (ug/l) 10 UKDWS

PRO >C10–C12 (ug/l) 10 UKDWS

Benzene (ug/l) 30 Classification: SI389, 1998

Toluene (ug/l) 50 Classification: SI389, 1998

Ethyl benzene (ug/l) 20 FWEQS, Sniffer/EA 2001

m & p Xylene (ug/l) 30 Classification: SI389, 1998

o Xylene (ug/l) 30 Classification: SI389, 1998

Acenaphthylene - -

Acenaphthene - -






Fluorene - -

Phenanthrene - -

Anthracene 20 SEPA for DEFRA: SEPA Annex G

Fluoranthene 20 SEPA for DEFRA: SEPA Annex G

Pyrene - -

Benz(a)anthracene - -

Chrysene - -

Benzo(b)fluoranthene - -

Benzo(k)fluoranthene - -

Benzo(a)pyrene 30 SEPA for DEFRA: SEPA Annex G

Indeno(123cd)pyrene - -

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene - -

Benzo(ghi)perylene - -

PAH 16 Total 100 UKDWS

Phenol 30 FWEQS

2-Chlorophenol 50 Classification: SI389, 1998

2-Methylphenol - -

4-Methylphenol - -

2-Nitrophenol - -

4-Nitrophenol - -

2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 Classification: SI389, 1998

2,4-Dimethylphenol - -

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 40 Classification: SI389, 1998

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol - -

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol - -

Pentachlorophenol 2 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

1,3-Dichlorobenzene - -



1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.4 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

Nitrobenzene - -

Azobenzene - -






Hexachlorobenzene 0.03 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

Naphthalene 10 Classification: SI389, 1998

Acenaphthylene - -

Acenaphthene - -

Fluorene - -

Phenanthrene - -

Anthracene 0.02 SEPA for DEFRA: SEPA Annex G

Fluoranthene 0.02 SEPA for DEFRA: SEPA Annex G

Pyrene - -

Benzo(a)anthracene - -

Chrysene - -

Benzo(b)fluoranthene - -

Benzo(k)fluoranthene - -

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.03 SEPA for DEFRA: SEPA Annex G

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene - -

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene - -

Benzo(ghi)perylene - -

2-Chloronaphthalene - -

2-Methylnaphthalene - -

Carbazole - -

Isophorone - -

Dibenzofuran - -

Dimethyl phthalate - -

Diethyl phthalate - -

Di-n-butyl phthalate - -

Di-n-Octyl phthalate - -

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate - -

Butylbenzyl phthalate - -

4-Chloroaniline - -

2-Nitroaniline - -

3-Nitroaniline - -

4-Nitroaniline - -






2,4-Dinitrotoluene - -

2,6-Dinitrotoluene - -

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether - -

4-Bromophenylphenylether - -

4-Chlorophenylphenylether - -

Hexachloroethane - -

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.1 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - -

Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane - -

N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine - -

Dichlorodifluoromethane - -

Chloromethane - -

Vinyl Chloride 0.5 UKDWS

Bromomethane - -

Chloroethane - -

Trichlorofluoromethane 100 Sum Trihalomethanes FWEQS

trans-1-2-Dichloroethene 50 DWS: WHO

Dichloromethane 2000 FW EQS

Carbon Disulphide - -

1.1-Dichloroethene 30 WHO DWS

1.1-Dichloroethane 10 FW EQS

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether 15 Canadian Drinking Water Standard (Aesthetic)

cis-1-2-Dichloroethene 50 DWS: WHO

Bromochloromethane - -

Chloroform 12 FWEQS

2.2-Dichloropropane - -

1.2-Dichloroethane 10 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

1.1.1-Trichloroethane 100 Classification: SI389, 1998

1.1-Dichloropropene 0.1 UK DWS

Benzene 30 Classification: SI389, 1998

Carbontetrachloride 12 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

Dibromomethane - -






1.2-Dichloropropane 0.1 UKDWS

Bromodichloromethane 100 UKDWS

Trichloroethene 10 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

cis-1-3-Dichloropropene 0.1 UKDWS

trans-1-3-Dichloropropene -

1.1.2-Trichloroethane 400 Classification: SI389, 1998

Toluene 50 Classification: SI389, 1998

1.3-Dichloropropane - -

Dibromochloromethane 100 UKDWS: Trihalomethanes

1.2-Dibromoethane - -

Tetrachloroethene 10 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

1.1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane - -

Chlorobenzene - -

Ethylbenzene 20 FWEQS

p/m-Xylene 30 Classification: SI389, 1998

Bromoform - -

Styrene 50 FWEQS

1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane - -

o-Xylene 30 Classification: SI389, 1998

1.2.3-Trichloropropane - -

Isopropylbenzene - -

Bromobenzene - -

2-Chlorotoluene -

Propylbenzene - -

4-Chlorotoluene -

1.2.4-Trimethylbenzene - -

4-Isopropyltoluene - -

1.3.5-Trimethylbenzene - -

1.2-Dichlorobenzene 20 FW EQS (Sum of Isomers)


sec-Butylbenzene - -

tert-Butylbenzene - -







n-Butylbenzene - -

1.2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.1 -UK DWS

1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene 0.4 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

Naphthalene 10 Classification: SI389, 1998

1.2.3-Trichlorobenzene 0.4 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.1 Statutory List 1: SI2286, 1989; SI337, 1992





Appendix D: Sources of Information





APPENDIX D: LIST OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION

D/01: STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE ON STATUTES

Publisher Number Date Title

British Standards

Institution

BS5930 1999 Code of Practice for Site Investigations

British Standards

Institution

BS10175 2001 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites: Code of Practice

Environment Agency R&D

Publication 20

1999 Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for Soil and

Groundwater

Environment Agency 0702 Rel. 1.0,

2002

Technical Advice to Third Parties on Pollution of Controlled Waters for

Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act

D/02: REFERENCES TO PUBLISHED INFORMATION

Author Reference Publisher Information Obtained

Gas Works, Coke Works and other Coal

Carbonisation Plants

DoE Industry Profile:

1995

Generic list of potential

contaminants.

Policy and Practice for the Protection of

Groundwater, Sheet 3: Groundwater

Vulnerability of North West Cumbria.

Environment Agency Groundwater vulnerability

classification.

Policy and Practice for the Protection of

Groundwater, Sheet 7: Groundwater

Vulnerability of Yorkshire Dales.

Environment Agency Groundwater vulnerability

classification.

Wilson, D.C. &

Stevens, C.

Problems Arising from the

Redevelopment of Gas Works and

Similar Sites

UKAEA, Harwell,

1981

GW Sutter & CL

Tsao

Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening

Potential Contaminants of Concern for

Effects on Aquatic Biota. ES/ER/TM-

96/R2

US Department of

Energy; 1996 Revision

Indication of toxicity

concentrations of Antimony in

the aquatic environment





D/03: PREVIOUS GROUND AND WATER INVESTIGATION REPORTS

Source Date Title & Contents Usage in Current Study

Capita DBS March 2001 Phase I Land Quality Assessment:

Broughton Moor

(Two Volumes)

Background information; historic and

local setting; potential contaminants;

preliminary conceptual model

BAE Systems July 2002 Site Investigation at RNAD

Broughton Moor: Factual Report

(Three Volumes)

Trial pit, borehole and contamination

data.

Capita DBS July 2002 Phase II Land Quality Assessment:

Broughton Moor

(Two Volumes)

Areas of soil contamination;

depictions of 2001 water monitoring

results

BAE Systems July 2003 Site Investigation at RNAD

Broughton Moor: Explosives Risk

assessment in buildings

No explosives contamination likely

BAE Systems March 2002 Site Investigation at RNAD

Broughton Moor: Factual Report

Limited to explosives and explosives

residues: no explosives

contamination likely

R.G. Parkins April 2002 Hydrological Survey of RNAD

Broughton Moor

Hydrological and hydrogeological

input to preliminary conceptual

model

Capita Geotechnical Aug. 2002 Former Buckhill Colliery: Report on

Mineshaft Investigation

Results of BH18.

BAE Systems June 2003 Site Investigation at RNAD

Broughton Moor: Groundwater and

Surface Water Monitoring

2003 monitoring results

JMC Engineering Dec. 2004 Gas Monitoring Report Great

Broughton and Ewanrigg, Maryport,

Cumbria

Capita Symonds Ltd Feb. 2006 Former RNAD Site, Broughton

Moor: Ground Investigation and

Water Monitoring Interpretative

Report

Assessment of Comprehensive water

monitoring programme undertaken

between 2005 and 2005.

D/04: COMPUTER PROGRAMS

Program Version & Date Publisher Use

AutoCAD 2004.0.0 Autodesk Preparation of maps and plans

EXCEL 9.0.6926 SP-3,

2000

Microsoft Data collation and interpretation.: Statistical

Analysis

SURFER 8.03, 2003 Golden Software Contouring of data points; surface modelling,

spatial plots of exceedances when present.





Appendix E: Laboratory Monitoring Report

DERWENT FOREST SITE (FORMERLY RNAD BROUGHTON …...BSc. MSc. CEng. MICE ... system nor be reproduced...

Documents

Transcript of DERWENT FOREST SITE (FORMERLY RNAD BROUGHTON …...BSc. MSc. CEng. MICE ... system nor be reproduced...