Kerdiffstown Landfill Remediation Project · 2017-10-20 · This report has therefore been prepared on behalf of Kildare County Council (KCC) as a baseline report for the proposed

Kerdiffstown Landfill Remediation Project

Kildare County Council

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 | V2

17 August 2017

IED Baseli ne Repor t

Kildare C ounty C ouncil

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

0 03/05/17 DRAFT for KCC review MB VSM RR

V2 17/08/17 IEAL Issue MB VSM RR

Distribution of copies

Revision Issue

approved

Date issued Issued to Comments

0 03/05/17 03/05/17 Client Review For Review in advance of EPA Meeting (04/05/17)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 i

Kerdiffstown Landfill Remediation Project

Project No: 32EW5604

Document Title: IED Baseline Report

Document No.: DOC0047

Revision: V2

Date: 17 August 2017

Client Name: Kildare County Council

Client No:

Project Manager: Rhianna Rose

Author: Mark Burston

File Name: \\Iedub1-fil001\ji\Sustainable Solutions\Kerdiffstown Landfill\4 - Documents\4.3 - Draft

Documents\32EW5604 E EIA IED Planning\IED\Main IED

Report\Attachments\Attachment I.4 Baseline Report\Baseline Report\KLRP - IED

Baseline Report V2-clean.docx

Sinclair Knight Merz (Ireland) Limited (Jacobs)

Merrion House

Merrion Road

Dublin 4, D04 R2C5

Ireland

T +353 1 269 5666

F +353 1 269 5497

www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2017 Sinclair Knight Merz (Ireland) Limited (Jacobs). The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of

Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the

provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance

upon, this document by any third party.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 ii

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background and Requirement for Baseline Report ..................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of the Report ..................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Report Layout .............................................................................................................................................. 2

2. Land Use .................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Site Location ................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Historical Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Current Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 3

2.4 Proposed Future Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.5 Surrounding Land Use................................................................................................................................. 5

3. Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Topography ................................................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Geology ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Overview of Geology ................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.2 Overburden Geology ................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.3 Bedrock Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.3 Surface Water .............................................................................................................................................. 8

3.4 Hydrogeology .............................................................................................................................................. 9

3.4.1 Hydrogeology overview ............................................................................................................................... 9

3.4.2 Groundwater Levels and Flow ................................................................................................................... 10

3.4.3 Groundwater Abstractions ......................................................................................................................... 12

3.5 Man-made pathways ................................................................................................................................. 13

4. Site Investigations ................................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Investigations Undertaken ......................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Summary of Investigation Results ............................................................................................................. 17

4.2.1 Waste type by Zone ................................................................................................................................... 17

4.2.2 Leaching Tests .......................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.3 Groundwater and Leachate Quality and Morell River monitoring ............................................................. 20

4.2.4 Landfill gas ................................................................................................................................................ 24

4.2.5 Soil Quality ................................................................................................................................................ 25

4.3 Uncertainties Associated with Soil and Groundwater Data ....................................................................... 25

5. Conceptual Site Models and Risk Assessment ................................................................................... 26

5.1 Source Pathway Receptor Linkages ......................................................................................................... 26

5.2 Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 31

5.2.1 Groundwater Risks .................................................................................................................................... 31

5.2.2 Contaminated Land and Human Health Risks .......................................................................................... 32

5.2.3 Contaminated Land and Property Risks .................................................................................................... 32

5.2.4 Landfill Gas Risks ...................................................................................................................................... 33

6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 35

7. References ............................................................................................................................................... 36

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 iii

Appendix A. Report Checklist

Appendix B. Groundwater monitoring data from boreholes installed in 2016

Appendix C. Chain of custody documentation for samples collected December 2016

Appendix D. Figures

Attachments:

Attachment A – EPA site investigation 2010 borehole logs

Attachment B – EPA site investigation 2011 borehole logs

Attachment C – Phase 1 site investigation January/February 2012 borehole logs

Attachment D – Phase 2 site investigation August/September 2012 borehole logs

Attachment E – IGSL Ltd, 2017. Additional Monitoring, Ground Investigation and Gas Extraction

Boreholes, Kerdiffstown Landfill Remediation Project. Geotechnical Investigation

Report.

Attachment F - Report on the repeat geophysical survey at Kerdiffstown Landfill remediation project

(phase 6, 2016)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Requirement for Baseline Report

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that a baseline report is required to support the

IED application for remediation of the Kerdiffstown landfill site. Landfill leachate has relevant hazardous

substances associated with it including ammoniacal nitrogen, metals/metalloids (including nickel, zinc and

arsenic) and certain organic substances including phenol and mecoprop.

This report has therefore been prepared on behalf of Kildare County Council (KCC) as a baseline report for the

proposed remediation of the Kerdiffstown landfill site and development of the site as a public park. The purpose

of the report is to meet the requirements of Article 22(2) of the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU).

Article 22(2) specifies that a baseline report should contain at least the following:

a) “information on the present use and, where available, on past uses of the site; and

b) where available, existing information on soil and groundwater measurements that reflect the state at the

time the report is drawn up or, alternatively, new soil and groundwater measurements having regard to

the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination by those hazardous substances to be used,

produced or released by the installation concerned.”

Article 22(2) was transposed into Irish national law on 23 April 2013 by the European Union (Industrial

Emissions) Regulations 2013 (S.I. No. 138 of 2013) and resulting amendments to the Environmental Protection

Agency Act 1992. Section 86B of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, as amended, states that:

“(1) Where an industrial emissions directive activity involves the use, production or release of relevant

hazardous substances, and having regard to the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination at the

site of an installation concerned, the Agency shall require an applicant under this Part for a licence…to

furnish to the Agency a baseline report in accordance with regulations under section 89.”

“(2) In relation to an installation, a baseline report shall contain the information necessary to determine the

state of contamination of soil and groundwater at the time the report is drawn up in order that a quantified

comparison may be made to the state of the site upon the permanent cessation (including cessation by

abandonment) of the industrial emissions directive activity concerned and the applicant in preparing the

baseline report shall include any information prescribed in regulations under section 89.”

“(3) Notwithstanding the generality of subsection (2), a baseline report shall include at least the following

information-

a) The current use and, where available, the past use of the site,

b) Any available information.

i On soil or groundwater measurements that reflect the state of the site at the time that the baseline

report is drawn up, or

ii. On new soil and groundwater measurements, having regard to the possibility of soil and

groundwater contamination by the hazardous substances proposed to be used, produced or

released by the installation concerned.”

Guidance on the production of baseline reports was produced by the EU in May 2014 (EU, 2014) to clarify in a

practical manner the wording and intent of the IED in relation to baseline reports so that member states

implement the requirements of the IED in a consistent manner. The EU guidance has been considered in the

production of this report. Appendix A provides the checklist of information required for a baseline report as laid

out in the guidance and where within this report the information is provided.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 2

1.2 Scope of the Report

This report summarises the current and historical site conditions and soil and groundwater information collected

over a number of years much of which is presented in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which

accompanies the IE licence application for the proposed Project. It should be noted that due to the large volume

of data that has been collected, the data used for defining the baseline condition are not included in this report

but references are provided to relevant documents where such data are presented.

1.3 Report Layout

The historical and current uses of the site are described in Chapter 2 of this report. The environmental setting in

terms of geology, hydrogeology and surface waters is provided in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 provides a summary

of site investigations undertaken at the site, together with a summary of the results of the investigations.

Chapter 5 presents conceptual site models for the site identifying the current contaminant linkages together with

those to be expected following site remediation.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 3

2. Land Use

2.1 Site Location

The site is located approximately 3km north-east of central Naas and the closest site boundary is approximately

400m north-west of Johnstown village as shown in Figure 2.1.

2.2 Historical Land Use

Kerdiffstown Landfill is a former sand and gravel quarry which had been progressively backfilled with wastes by

a variety of operators from the 1950s onwards (SKM Enviros 2010). The facility at Kerdiffstown was operated

under a local authority waste permit followed by a waste licence, W0047-01, issued by the EPA in 2003, with a

revised licence W0047-02 issued in 2006. The site consisted of an extensive recycling facility, a lined landfill cell

which had been partially filled with waste and large areas of the site in which substantial quantities of waste

have been deposited in a non-compliant manner. The main area of waste deposition is in the unlined north-

western area of the landfill. Both household (also referred to as municipal solid waste (MSW)) and construction

and demolition (C&D) waste have been deposited at the site.

The presence of waste has the potential to produce “leachate”. Leachate is a liquid that is produced when water

infiltrates through waste and substances leach from the waste into the water. Depending on the source of the

waste, key chemical components of landfill leachate include chloride, ammoniacal nitrogen, potentially metals

and potentially organic compounds such as pesticides and phenols. Landfill leachate can also have a high

chemical oxygen demand such that if the leachate enters surface water, oxygen concentrations in the surface

water can decrease leading to stress or killing of fish or other fauna.

In June 2010, the former operator of the landfill vacated the site and it was left in an unsecured condition. In

January 2011, a major fire developed within the mass of mounded waste material present in the north of the site

which required the intervention of a number of state agencies, including KCC and the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

2.3 Current Land Use

The former landfill and waste processing facility at Kerdiffstown has now closed and is in the early stages of

remediation. Since February 2011 the EPA, and following the transfer of the project in June 2015 KCC, have

been using powers under Section 56 of the Waste Management Act 1996 (as amended) to control the site and

put in place appropriate measures to prevent and limit pollution.

Currently on site, the following infrastructure is present:

Residual concrete walls and hardstanding from buildings and structures used as part of the historical waste

processing and concrete batching activities;

Temporary buildings housing KCC staff and site security;

Roads and pathways;

Two landfill gas (LFG) flares;

Environmental monitoring boreholes for LFG and groundwater;

Lighting infrastructure; and

A leachate collection system and leachate tankers for the storage of leachate prior to removal for off-site

disposal.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 4

The current site layout is sub-divided into a number of discrete geographical areas, or zones, each of which has

their own unique characteristics. The layout of the various zones with information on the key characteristics of

the materials within each zone is summarised in the Table 2.1. The indicative location of these zones within the

site is shown on Figure 2.2.

Table 2.1: Key Characteristics of Each Zone

Zone Number Zone Key Characteristics

Zone 1; comprising sub

Zones 1 & 1A

Estimated Area: 100,000m2

Estimated Waste Volume: 2,023,000m3

Wastes deposited in Zone 1 located to the north-west area of the site accounts for approximately 65% of

the entire estimated volume of waste on site. The wastes in this area are typically unprocessed, highly

odorous and principally comprise non-hazardous mixed construction and demolition (C&D) wastes and

household / Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW). C&D wastes are noted to contain varying amounts of clay,

gravel, concrete, brick, wood, textile, plastic, rubber and metal. The MSW within this zone is described as

having plastic, textiles, wood, ash paper, cables and steel in varying proportions. The MSW wastes are

found over most of the zone, although there appears to be more C&D waste in the north-west corner of the

zone (e.g. borehole EMW12 and BH18). This area has therefore been designated as Zone 1A to reflect this

reduced risk profile. To the southern end of Zone 1, wastes are observed to be more silty (e.g. BH11,

BH12) with C&D and MSW waste within the silt. Throughout Zone 1, where waste is encountered, it is

considered that there is sufficient putrescible material (material that contains organic material which

capable of decomposing) within the waste to class the wastes as non-hazardous biodegradable waste.

Zone 1 is unlined and uncapped, with no means of limiting leachate generation or management.

There are a series of landfill gas wells present across Zone 1, extracting gas to a flare. The average overall

quality of gas from Zone 1, based on values recorded in the landfill gas extraction wells, is methane

23%v/v carbon dioxide 25% v/v and <1% v/v oxygen. The gas wells cover selected areas of the zone

based on targeting areas of odour generation.

Zone 2; comprising sub

Zones 2A & 2B


Estimated Waste Volume: 660,000m3

Zone 2 comprises largely flat areas with thick reinforced concrete hardstandings covering an area of

approximately 58,000m2 which form an impermeable layer over the wastes and prevent direct rainwater

ingress. Walls from the former buildings of the waste processing facility also remain.

Wastes in this zone were observed to be unprocessed non-hazardous mixed C&D waste with varying

amounts of clay, gravel, brick, concrete, wood, textile, paper, plastic, rubber and metal. Domestic waste

(MSW) is also present in this area at varying depths mixed in with C&D materials.

This area was originally assessed as one zone, however, review of ground investigations and subsequent

monitoring data confirms that wastes in Zone 2A comprise more MSW than that in Zone 2B. Initial readings

of gas shown on borehole logs show that relatively high concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide

have been present in Zone 2A and 2B with two locations exceeding 20% methane. Monitoring undertaken

in May and June 2017 shows a variable picture in Zone 2A with the average methane concentration

ranging between 1.4% and 30 % v/v. Zone 2B shows very low concentrations of methane between 0.0%

v/v and 0.9% v/v.

The majority of waste in Zone 2B is reported in the borehole logs to comprise unprocessed non-hazardous

mixed C&D waste with varying amounts of clay, gravel, brick, concrete, wood, textile, paper, plastic, rubber

(including tyres) and metal but with MSW also present at varying depths mixed in within the C&D materials.

The wastes are generally described as being dry, although damp or wet wastes are identified closer to the

groundwater table with saturated wastes shown in the boreholes where waste is at the lowest elevation in

Zone 2B (e.g. in BH9 and BH50). No saturated wastes have been identified in Zone 2A.

The areas beyond the hardstandings are uncapped in Zones 2A and 2B. Like Zone 1, there is no means of

managing leachate generated in the waste although the presence of hardstanding will limit leachate

generation through infiltration.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 5

Zone Number Zone Key Characteristics

Zone 3



Zone 3 comprises a cell with engineered basal and side slopes lining system, and is referred to as the

‘Lined Cell’. The wastes in Zone 3 comprise a mixture of waste similar to the wastes elsewhere on site

including processed non-hazardous waste derived from composting tunnels, C&D materials and

unprocessed domestic waste mixed through. Substantial quantities of woodchip were used as daily cover

for the waste in the cell.

C&D wastes contain varying amounts of clay, gravel, concrete, brick, wood, textile, plastic, rubber and

metal. Non-hazardous waste excavated from the location of the fire at the site in 2011 was also deposited

in the lined cell; volume approximately 35,000m3. Following demolition of the site buildings in 2016, non-

hazardous wastes that had been stockpiled in and around the buildings was removed and deposited to the

lined cell; approximate volume 14,000m3.

Zone 3 has a temporary cap applied over the existing waste mass. Landfill gas wells extract gas to a flare.

The average overall quality of gas from Zone 3, based on values recorded in the landfill gas extraction

wells, is methane 25%v/v, carbon dioxide 25 %v/v and <1%v/v oxygen. Pumps located within inclined

risers extending to the base of the cell extract leachate for transfer to tankers and removal from the site.

Zone 4



Zone 4 contains large waste stockpiles, redundant infrastructure and concrete tanks/bays/walls in the lower

yard area, with thick reinforced concrete hardstandings covering an area of approximately 12,000m2. The

area also contains a surface water soakaway lagoon which is cut into waste deposits and into which

leachate from the adjacent waste stockpiles currently drains.

Stockpiles comprise both processed and unprocessed non-hazardous mixed C&D waste and household

waste. The majority of waste in Zone 4 is reported in borehole and trial pit logs to comprise C&D waste with

a high proportion of inert material (predominantly reported as gravelly clay) with varying amounts of plastic,

timber, textiles, steel, concrete, brick, PVC pipes. The logs (30 No.) do not generally report any MSW to be

present (although the logs for BH4 to BH6 do describe the wastes as MSW. However, based on the actual

description of the materials and proportion of these the materials are indicative of C&D waste rather than

MSW).

Where gas readings have been taken and reported in the borehole logs, it is reported that methane and

carbon dioxide concentrations are largely absent from the wastes or less than 1%v/v within this zone.

The bottom 1 to 2m of wastes are below the water table in this area. The areas beyond the hardstandings

are uncapped. The hardstandings will limit rainwater and surface water infiltration to an extent.

2.4 Proposed Future Land Use

The proposed Project is to enact remediation of the site and establish the site as a public park with multi-use

sports pitches. The main features associated with the proposed development comprise:

Instigation of a remediation solution including the reduction of waste footprint at the site and installation of

an engineered capping system;

Installation of new environmental management and control systems including leachate and LFG

management; and

Development of a public park with multi-use sports pitches, car parking, changing room building, children’s

playground and a network of paths across the site.

2.5 Surrounding Land Use

The land use surrounding the site comprises mainly non-urban uses as summarised below:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 6

North and east – Kerdiffstown House parkland and golf course;

South-east – Open fields with a garden centre beyond and the village of Johnstown beyond the N7 road.

South – Open fields and a mobile home/caravan sales business and isolated dwellings.

West – A local road bounds the western site boundary with isolated houses being present beyond the road.

Open fields are beyond the road with the town of Naas present approximately 800m to the west beyond the

N7 road. To the north of the western boundary and local road, a former sand and gravel quarry is present

which is currently not landscaped and contains scrubby vegetation.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 7

3. Environmental Setting

3.1 Topography

The site lies adjacent to the Morell River and in the local area land naturally slopes down to the east and north.

On-site, the highest area of land is in Zone 1 at around 113mOD (metres Ordnance Datum) and Zone 1

effectively forms a mound which slopes down in all directions. Zone 2A is relatively level at an elevation of

around 94mOD. The ground slopes down relatively steeply from Zone 2A to Zone 2B which itself is also

relatively level and has an elevation of around 87mOD with a bund in the east. The lowest point on the site is in

Zone 4 at an elevation of around 81mOD. However, within Zone 4 mounds of waste are present which reach a

height of approximately 102mOD.

3.2 Geology

3.2.1 Overview of Geology

A summary of the geology, including the made ground deposits identified at the existing site, is shown in Table

3.1. The natural geological sequence in the vicinity of the site comprises overburden deposits of glacial origin

(sands and gravels, silt and clays), with alluvial (river) deposits close to the major rivers (including along the

Morell River). These overburden deposits overlie limestone bedrock. On the existing site, the natural geology

has been altered by the quarrying of the sand and gravel deposits and subsequent deposition of waste

materials.

Table 3.1: Summary of Geology

Geological

strata

Occurrence Thickness

(m)

Further Comments

Made ground

Throughout most of the existing site.

Potentially present in other in-filled quarries to the north-west of the existing site

0 to 36m The greatest thickness is observed in Zone 1 of the existing site.

Glacial overburden deposits

Beneath the entire existing site and adjacent area.

5 to 25m

The glacial deposits are dominantly sand and gravel in nature and it is this material that would have been quarried at the site. However, deposits of a more clayey or silty nature are present, particularly to the south of the existing site in Zone 4.

Alluvium (overburden)

Deposits laid down by the major rivers in the region including the Morell River

Approximately 5m to 7m

Identified as a silty, clayey material, although sandy in places.

Limestone bedrock

Present beneath the whole region Over 100m

Several phases of site investigation have been undertaken at the site as shown in Chapter 4. These

investigations provide the baseline information for the geology and hydrogeology as summarised in this chapter

together with publicly available information from sources including the Geological Survey of Ireland on-line

mapping portal (GSI, 2017).

3.2.2 Overburden Geology

On a regional scale, the existing site is indicated to be in an area of glacio-fluvial sands and gravels which

extend over an area of 2km2. Due to the nature of the historical development of the site, originally as a sand and

gravel quarry, the overburden deposits beneath much of the existing site have been removed, at least in part. It

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 8

should be noted that boreholes which have fully penetrated the waste have all identified overburden deposits

beneath the waste.

Boreholes installed immediately at the edge of the landfilled area and off-site are completed in the natural

overburden deposits where little or no made ground is identified.

In general, although not universally, this glacial overburden is characterised by an initial, more silty, clayey sand

and gravel horizon approximately 3m thick underlain by gravelly sands approximately 10m thick and then sandy

gravels around 7m thick. To the east and south-east of the existing site the glacial deposits tend to become

more silty and clayey. However, within these clayey deposits, sand and sand and gravel horizons are present.

In several boreholes installed along the Morell River and the site’s eastern boundary, a hard conglomeritic

horizon was encountered and this horizon appears to be observed in the river’s bed.

Along the northern and eastern boundaries of the landfill, a small number of monitoring wells have been

advanced to define the full thickness of the overburden deposits. The boreholes show that along these

boundaries the thickness of overburden deposits increases in a northerly direction along the eastern boundary

with the thickest deposits being encountered in borehole BB2 at 25m and the data would suggest that there is a

buried channel running through the site in a generally south to north direction. Within the site itself, even thicker

overburden deposits were encountered in borehole BH68 with the deposits being 26.8m thick.

In the Morell River valley, clayey alluvium associated with the river predominates the near-surface deposits.

However, the borehole logs from boreholes to the north-east of the site do show that sandy gravel layers are

present beneath the clay-dominated alluvium.

3.2.3 Bedrock Geology

The majority of the existing site is mapped by the GSI as being underlain by bedrock of the Ballysteen

Formation. This formation is described as dark muddy limestone/shale and not susceptible to processes which

would cause an increase in permeability such as karstification. The far north-west corner of the existing site is

underlain by the Waulsortian Limestone, which is described as a pale grey muddy limestone

Ground investigations in 2012 and 2016 reached the bedrock in 12 boreholes although the 2012 borehole logs

do not provide a description of the bedrock strata. The 2016 investigation included for coring of the bedrock in a

small number of boreholes so that detailed description of the bedrock could be made. Based on the 2016

investigation, the bedrock is generally described as a strong to medium strong, thickly to thinly bedded,

grey/dark grey, fine-grained, limestone.

Fracture logging (Attachment E) shows the upper sections of the bedrock to be highly fractured, with the

number of fractures reducing with depth. The borehole logs do also show that in many of the fractures clay is

recorded as being present within the fractures.

Where bedrock was encountered, the depth to bedrock was recorded in the borehole logs as being between

7.1m and 26.8m below ground level (bgl) with the bedrock elevation varying from 62mOD to 79.5mOD.

The GSI website (GSI, 2017) shows that there are no mapped karst features (cavities and cave systems

created by weathering of limestone) present in the limestones within the vicinity of the site.

3.3 Surface Water

Kerdiffstown Landfill lies within the Eastern River Basin District (ERBD), Hydrometric Area 9 (Liffey and Dublin

Bay) within the Liffey Water Management Unit (WMU). The catchment of this area is drained by the River Liffey

with all associated watercourses entering tidal water in the Liffey Estuary, north-east of the site.

The closest surface water body to the site is the Morell River which lies to the east of the landfill. The Morell

River flows generally northwards joining the River Liffey approximately 5km from the site boundary. There is a

major public water supply abstraction from the River Liffey at Leixlip, which serves Fingal, Kildare and north

Dublin.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 9

The Morell River itself is located approximately 25m east of the site boundary at its closet point. The river

channel has an artificially straightened planform throughout its length, with likely modifications to account for

surrounding land uses and drainage requirements.

The Hartwell stream joins the Morell River east of the landfill site with lakes/ponds associated with the

Palmerstown House Estate & Golf Course approximately 100m to the east of the site.

The Canal Feeder Stream is an engineered feature that collects surface water runoff from lands generally to the

south and south-west of the site. The Canal Feeder Stream flows generally westward to the Grand Canal, which

is located approximately 2km west of the site.

Under the WFD classification, the status of the Morell River and the Hartwell stream adjacent to the site is

classified as moderate. Their failure to reach good status is due to ecological status.

3.4 Hydrogeology

3.4.1 Hydrogeology overview

The site is underlain by soil and rock of mostly fluvio-glacial sands and gravels (rocks formed from glacial

meltwater), under which lies a bedrock of muddy limestones. The site is mostly underlain by a muddy Limestone

Formation (The Ballysteen Formation) that is classified as a Locally Important Aquifer (Ll). The very northern tip

of the site is reported on regional scale maps to be underlain by a karstified Regionally Important Aquifer (Rkd),

the Waulsortian Limestone Formation; although there are no outcrops of rock or borehole evidence to confirm

that this is the case. The GSI’s vulnerability classification for the bedrock aquifer in the vicinity of the existing

site is ‘high’.

Within the overburden deposits, groundwater flow will be within the pore spaces between the sand and gravel

deposits. Whilst the clay and silt deposits may have a relatively high percentage of pore space, there will be

very limited groundwater movement in these deposits with the clays forming a barrier to groundwater flow.

In the bedrock aquifer, flow will be dominantly in fractures rather than within the rock matrix itself and a review of

available data indicates that groundwater flow in these deposits is likely to occur in the upper few metres of the

deposits where the rock is often highly fractured and has a “rubbly” appearance (the “transition zone”). This

transition zone is likely to be less than a metre thick and is underlain by a “shallow bedrock” zone where

fractures are present which may or may not be clogged with residual clays. This shallow bedrock zone is

unlikely to reach a depth from rockhead of greater than 10 to 20 metres and in turn is underlain by the “deep

bedrock” zone. This deep bedrock zone is a zone in which fractures become fewer with depth and in which

there is reduced groundwater flow compared to the two overlying zones.

Based on the borehole logs from the 2016 investigation, it is apparent that there is this transition zone and

fractured “shallow bedrock” zone beneath the Kerdiffstown site. Although the thickness of the transition zone is

not easily determined, it is apparent that the upper five to ten metres of the bedrock is fractured and will provide

the dominant pathway for groundwater movement in the bedrock.

The site is located in the Eastern River Basin as defined under the Water Framework Directive and within the

Kildare River Basin District. The basin’s management plan was produced in 2010 (Department of Environment,

Heritage and Local Government 2010). The site is shown on the GSI mapping portal to lie on the south-western

edge of the Dublin Groundwater Body which covers an area of 824km2 (GSI 2017). In 2004 the groundwater

body in the vicinity of the site was “not at risk” and the groundwater body is shown to be of good chemical and

quantitative status.

In terms of hydraulic conductivity (permeability) measurements, rising and falling head tests have been

undertaken in boreholes during site investigations. The values obtained have shown a wide range of values with

tests undertaken in completed boreholes generally showing higher values than for tests undertaken in

boreholes during drilling.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 10

For the overburden deposits, the results from tests undertaken in completed boreholes showed that for the sand

and gravel horizons, permeability values are high with values ranging from 2m/day to 150m/day. However, for

the tests undertaken at the time of drilling, the results show values in sand and gravel deposits for boreholes

situated between the site and the Morell River as being in the order of 0.005 to 1.6m/day.

Boreholes installed into the bedrock are at a relatively shallow depth and likely to be monitoring the “transition

zone” or “shallow bedrock” zone (as defined in EPA 2010). The GSI has indicated that the transmissivity of both

the Ballysteen and Waulsortian in this area is less than 10m2/day with a bulk permeability for the two formations

of 0.1m/day to 0.2m/day and that yields from the boreholes installed in the Ballysteen and Waulsortian bedrock

are usually less than 30m3/day (EPA 2010). The measured bedrock permeability value for the one test

undertaken in a completed borehole measured at Kerdiffstown produced a result of 5.4m/day. However, as with

the tests in the overburden deposits, the results from tests undertaken during drilling showed much lower

permeability values with results ranging from 0.004m/day to 0.083m/day.

3.4.2 Groundwater Levels and Flow

Groundwater strikes within the overburden deposits observed during the time of site investigations did not

generally record large water inflows following the strike (see the borehole logs in Attachment E) and indeed

many of the boreholes did not record water strikes, even though subsequently the completed boreholes were

found to contain groundwater. However, when drilling the bedrock boreholes it was noted that large inflows

occurred when the fractured transition zone at the top of the bedrock was encountered. This would indicate that

this zone is potentially an important flowpath for groundwater, although where the fractures are clay-filled the

importance of this zone for groundwater flow will be reduced.

The borehole logs also show that following water strikes in the overburden deposits, the water levels rose

slightly and this, together with the presence of “blowing sand” in some boreholes would indicate that there is a

degree of confinement in the overburden deposits with the more clayey horizons (sometimes associated with

alluvial deposits along the Morell River) providing the confining layer. The conglomeratic horizon encountered

close the Morell River also has the potential to provide a confining layer or a barrier to the downward flow of

groundwater.

Groundwater levels in all available monitoring wells are measured monthly. Groundwater contour plans for the

overburden deposits and the underlying bedrock recorded in February 2017 are shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.

Over the existing site, the groundwater contours for the overburden deposits indicate a general fall in

groundwater levels from south to north indicating a broadly northerly groundwater flow direction. Groundwater

levels to the south of the existing site are in the order of 81.5mOD with levels to the north-east of the existing

site being in the order of 78mOD. Perched groundwater levels (that is an isolated body of groundwater sitting

above the main groundwater level) are recorded in several of the boreholes that have been completed in the

waste deposits.

A weir on the Morell River adjacent to the existing site has an elevation of 79.79mOD indicating that

groundwater to the east of the landfill is likely to be hydraulically connected with the river based upon the level

and pattern of observed groundwater contours. To the south of the weir, the river levels would be greater than

79.79mOD, whilst to the north the river levels would generally be less than 79.79mOD. It is noted that

groundwater levels on the site to the north of the weir in Zone 4 do fall below the weir elevation at times of low

groundwater levels, indicating that on occasions there is the potential for water to flow from the river to

groundwater.

Spot measurement of the water level in the Canal Feeder to the west of the existing site has shown this feature

to be at an elevation of approximately 80.6mOD adjacent to the existing site. This suggests that the Canal

Feeder may be hydraulically connected with groundwater, although the observed groundwater flow direction

(i.e. south to north and east) indicates that there is likely to be little groundwater input to this stream from

groundwater in the vicinity of the site.

The pattern of inferred groundwater contours for the bedrock is shown in Figure 3.2 which shows a generally

south to north flow with water levels being around 78.5mOD in the south and 76.5mOD in the north. The

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 11

groundwater levels recorded in the bedrock boreholes are typically in the order of 10m to 15m higher than the

bedrock surface elevation.

Comparison of measured water levels between the overburden and bedrock aquifers indicates higher water

levels within the overburden deposits across the existing site (typically in the order of 2m to 3m). This difference

in groundwater level provides a mechanism for potential downward flow of groundwater (and potential

contamination from the wastes in the landfill) into the bedrock aquifer. However, in borehole BB04 which is

completed near to the Morell River in the south-east of the site, the groundwater elevation is close to the

elevation recorded in the overburden deposits and the Morell River elevation. This would indicate that in this

part of the site there is potential for groundwater in the bedrock to be in connection with the Morell River.

Furthermore, as often occurs in groundwater systems, it is possible that beneath the length of the river the

bedrock groundwater level is higher and groundwater from the bedrock could discharge to the river.

Since groundwater level monitoring commenced in 2010 for off-site boreholes and 2011 for on-site boreholes,

the groundwater level data show that there has been a gradual increase in overall water levels up to January

2013 by between approximately 0.5m and 2m (Diagram 3.1). This is likely to be the result of increased rainfall

during 2012 which was a wet year relative to 2011. Following this rise in groundwater levels, the levels have

been exhibiting a seasonal fluctuation in the region of 0.5m to 1m with the high groundwater levels being

recorded in the late winter/early spring and the low water levels recorded in late summer. This seasonal

variation is typical of groundwater levels in Ireland where high winter rainfall and low evapotranspiration rates

lead to groundwater recharge over the winter. In the spring and summer, little or no rainfall will reach the

groundwater table due to evapotranspiration and rainfall reducing soil moisture deficits.

Diagram 3.1: Groundwater Levels Recorded Over Time for Selected Overburden Boreholes

Data produced by the GSI on their online portal (GSI, 2017) shows that in the vicinity of the site the effective

rainfall (that is the rainfall which will either recharge ground or runoff as shallow flow to streams) is 391mm/year

with the groundwater recharge to the limestone bedrock being 200mm/year. Recharge to the shallow sand and

gravel deposits and the wastes within the Kerdiffstown Landfill site boundary is likely to be higher than the

recharge to the limestone and closer to the effective rainfall value.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 12

With respect to groundwater levels and the base of the waste, in many areas, the waste is above the

groundwater table. However, in the south and east of Zone 1 and the north-east of Zone 2B, the data show that

the waste is below the groundwater table at least for part of the year such that the waste is saturated in these

areas. Up to 5m of waste may be saturated in parts of Zone 1. Within Zone 4, the data also show that wastes

are locally present below the water table in areas where there are mounds of waste. Zone 3, the lined landfill

cell, was constructed above the water table, although there is local perching of groundwater to the south and

west of the zone where the perched groundwater table is locally above the base of the liner.

3.4.3 Groundwater Abstractions

Whilst the GSI website (GSI, 2017) shows 74 wells and springs to be present within the hydrogeology study

area, most of these wells appear to relate to boreholes installed for ground investigation or other investigation

purposes or relate to historical wells. However, based on the “well use” description, wells shown in Table 3.2

have been identified as potentially being in use (see Diagram 3.1).

Diagram 3.1: Abstraction Wells within the Hydrogeology Study Area

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 13

Table 3.2: Potential Groundwater Abstractions within the Hydrogeology Study Area

Well Type Location Locational

Accuracy (m)

Depth

(m)

Use

Easting Northing

Dug well 290380 224530 50 14.1 Agricultural and domestic use

Borehole 291030 220950 10 15 Industrial use

Dug well 291470 224760 50 2 Agricultural and domestic use

Borehole 290600 221200 10 11.9 Industrial use

Unknown 290040 224030 50 NR Agricultural and domestic use



Dug well 291310 224660 50 2 Agricultural and domestic use



Dug well 290950 224970 50 NR Agricultural and domestic use

NR – Not recorded

Two groundwater abstractions were situated on the Kerdiffstown landfill site but these are no longer operational

(details are also not fully known in terms of depth or how much water they abstracted). In addition to these

former abstractions, the data presented in the Kerdiffstown Remediation Project Groundwater Management

Plan (SKM Enviros 2013) identified a further abstraction associated with Palmerstown House Golf Course,

situated approximately 500m to the north-east of the landfill site. As this is situated to the east of the Morell

River it is unlikely to be a receptor for groundwater from the Kerdiffstown landfill and its use is understood to be

for watering the golf course rather than being for the more sensitive end use of a drinking water supply.

With respect to the Waulsortian Limestone, due to the variable nature of the limestone, it is known that wells

regularly fail in this horizon and that poor yielding wells can occur very close to more successful wells. This

indicates the unpredictability of this rock unit in terms of providing a water source. The Ballysteen Limestone

also shows variable productivity although a small number of wells are described as having excellent productivity

in the County Kildare Groundwater Protection Scheme Volume 1: Main Report (GSI 2002).

3.5 Man-made pathways

One drainage discharge from the landfill site occurs. This drain collects rainwater runoff from areas of

hardstanding in the southwest of the site and neighbouring land and discharges via a drain which leaves the site

by the site entrance to discharge into the Canal Feeder.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 14

4. Site Investigations

4.1 Investigations Undertaken

The baseline data provided in this report have largely been obtained from site investigations that the EPA and

KCC commissioned to establish geological and groundwater conditions as summarised in Table 4.1. The

locations of investigation points are shown in Attachments A to E with Figure 4.1 showing the location of

groundwater monitoring boreholes and surface water sampling locations.

In addition to the boreholes completed as groundwater monitoring points, a number of trial pits have been

excavated within the site to allow soil samples to be collected for leaching tests and for a visual inspection of the

wastes present. These trial pits have been installed as follows:

2012 Site investigation – 26 trial pits were excavated with all of these trial pits excavated to investigate

wastes within the mounds in Zone 4 with the exception of TP26 which was excavated in Zone 1;

2016/17 Site investigation – Nine trial pits were excavated in waste mounds and in Zone 3 with an

additional 22 slit trenches excavated around the edge of the site to define the true extent of waste.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 15

Table 4.1: Summary of Groundwater and Geology Site Investigations

Investigation

Name

Dates of Site

Investigation

No. of

Boreholes

Drilled

No. of

Monitoring

Wells

Installed

On / off

site

Monitoring

Well Nos.

Rationale for borehole

locations

Attachment to

this Report

where borehole

logs can be found

EPA SI 10/05/10 to 12/05/10

10 9 Off-site EMW01* to EMW10

These boreholes were installed to monitor groundwater quality and levels around the edge of Zone 1 to determine potential for off-site impacts.

A

EPA SI 06/06/11 to 19/06/11

7 7 On-site EMW11 to EMW17

These boreholes were installed to monitor groundwater quality and levels around the edge of Zones 1, 2 and 4 to determine potential for off-site impacts.

B

Phase 1 SI 09/01/12 to 06/02/12

24 4 On-site BH2, BH6, BH7, BH24

Site investigation to determine waste presence and thickness with boreholes installed where groundwater was encountered within Zones 2 and 4.

C

Phase 2 SI 14/08/12 to 21/09/12

61

21

(17 groundwater, 1 leachate (now dry) 2 Inclinometer, 1 Gas)

On and off-site

BH26, BH36B, BH39B, BH40B, BH42, BH48, EMW18 to EMW24, BHEMW27 to EMW33.

On-site boreholes prefixed “BH” were installed to monitor on-site waste deposits. The “EMW” boreholes were installed to monitor groundwater conditions around the edge of the site and off site including provision of up-hydraulic gradient monitoring points.

D

Phase 3 November 2016 to February 2017

46 43

Off-site RM01 to RM06

To provide groundwater monitoring points in the overburden deposits adjacent to the Morell River adjacent to Zones 1 and 2B E

On and off-site

BB01 to BB04 To provide groundwater monitoring points in the bedrock around the site perimeter.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:15

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 16

Investigation

Name

Dates of Site

Investigation

No. of

Boreholes

Drilled

No. of

Monitoring

Wells

Installed

On / off

site

Monitoring

Well Nos.

Rationale for borehole

locations

Attachment to

this Report

where borehole

logs can be found

On-site BH60 to BH80 (excluding BH74)

To investigate wastes within all zones of the site (except the lined cell in Zone 3). Boreholes completed as leachate and LFG monitoring points except for BH68 which was competed as a bedrock monitoring borehole.

On-site and off-site

DB01 to DB15 (excluding DB11 and DB13)

Boreholes were installed to assess ground conditions around the edge of the landfill for geotechnical purposes. Completions allow for monitoring of groundwater (where not dry) and LFG

Former abstraction wells

Not relevant 2 2 On-site GW1D, GW2S These boreholes were installed to allow groundwater abstraction at the time of sand and gravel extraction

No logs available

* EMW01 was backfilled due to health and safety concerns by the landowner regarding the location of the well on a pathway.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 17

Investigations have involved installation of approximately 60 groundwater monitoring wells on and off the

existing site to collect data to define the geological and hydrogeological site setting and provide groundwater

monitoring points. Borehole locations have been constrained by the location of on-site buildings and other

infrastructure (including the lined cell in Zone 3) and also, in part, by site topography. The latter has been most

notable for the eastern boundary where it has not been possible to install boreholes on the steep slopes of Zone

1. Furthermore, due to difficult drilling conditions through landfilled waste, it was not always possible for

boreholes to reach the originally designed depth and in some cases boreholes have remained dry following

drilling. However, given the number of investigation points that have been installed, the constraints have not

prevented a robust data set being collected to define geological and groundwater conditions.

Subsequent rounds of groundwater monitoring have been undertaken to establish the chemical quality of the

groundwater with the most recent monitoring including the boreholes installed in the winter of 2016/17.

Groundwater and surface water monitoring has been undertaken since June 2011, initially on an ad-hoc basis

but since October 2013 the groundwater and surface water monitoring programme has involved sample

collection on a monthly basis, with a larger analytical suite and more monitoring points being sampled every six

months (see EIAR Appendices A12.2 for further details of the monitoring undertaken).

In addition to the intrusive ground investigations summarised above, there have also been non-intrusive

geophysical investigations to aid the assessment of the geology and to detect the presence of or any changes

in contaminant plumes flowing from the site. These geophysical investigations have been undertaken annually

with the most recent survey undertaken in February 2016 and the report from this survey is included as

Attachment F.

Due to the potential for groundwater to discharge to the local surface waters, a series of surface water samples

have been collected along the Morell River and the Canal Feeder at the locations shown in Figure 4.1. These

surface water samples have been collected since January 2012 and since October 2013 samples have been

collected on a monthly basis from eight locations and every six months at 18 locations). In addition, works have

been undertaken to investigate and control LFG. The site works in relation to LFG have included installation of

boreholes into the waste to allow for the abstraction and flaring of LFG.

To assess the impact on groundwater quality from the leachate, regular (monthly) on-going groundwater and

surface water monitoring is undertaken. Monthly monitoring has been undertaken from selected boreholes for a

reduced analytical suite. Six monthly sampling has been undertaken from all serviceable monitoring boreholes

with analysis for an expanded analytical suite which includes organic parameters. Monthly monitoring

commenced in October 2013 and results and findings of groundwater monitoring are included in monthly

monitoring reports. The most recent six-monthly groundwater monitoring report (for monitoring undertaken in

December 2016) is included as EIAR Appendix A12.2. However, at the time of production of the report, a full

round of groundwater monitoring had not been undertaken for boreholes installed at the end of 2016. For these

new boreholes, monitoring data collected in early 2017 is included in Appendix B of this report.

Monitoring includes the collection and analysis of groundwater samples for a range of potential contaminants

associated with landfill leachate. These have been collected from on-site and off-site monitoring wells installed

within overburden deposits and the underlying bedrock. Sampling methods are shown in EIAR Appendix A12.2

with a copy of the chain of custody forms from the samples collected in December 2016 shown in Appendix C.

Groundwater and surface water samples have been analysed by ALS (formerly Severn Trent Laboratories) that

hold ISO 17025 accreditation for the majority of the testing that has been undertaken. Analytical methods and

accreditation held for each test is shown in the groundwater sampling report in EIAR Appendix A12.2.

4.2 Summary of Investigation Results

4.2.1 Waste type by Zone

The investigations undertaken have included the logging of waste type to determine their physical description.

Table 4.2 shows a summary of the wastes that have been identified in each zone.

Table 4.2 – Waste Thickness and Description for Each Zone

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 18

Zone Waste Type Maximum

waste

thickness

Further Comments

1

Dominantly MSW waste 36m Unlined landfill which is thought to have first been filled in the 1950s.

2A

Mixture of MSW and C&D waste

14m

Waste largely present below the ground surface (rather than in bunds or mounds) but also potentially present in the bund along the zone’s western boundary.

2B

Dominantly C&D waste but MSW present in parts

9m Waste largely present below the ground surface but also present in bunds along the zone’s eastern boundary.

3

Processed MSW and C&D waste

14 Waste in lined cell.

4

Processed waste and C&D waste

22

Waste present in mounds and bunds around the edge of the zone with thinner deposits in the centre of the zone below the current ground level.

4.2.2 Leaching Tests

In the 2016 investigation, chemical testing was undertaken on selected made ground/waste samples in the form

of leaching tests to assess how much contamination could leach from the materials and reach groundwater. Full

results of the leaching tests including analytical certificates are provided in the IGSL factual report of ground

investigation (Attachment E) and key parameters are summarised in Table 4.3. In this table, interim guideline

values (IGVs) for groundwater quality are provided to put results into context (IGVs are taken from EPA, 2003).

The exceedance of the IGV does not, in itself, indicate unacceptable impacts from the substance leaching from

the waste.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 19

Table 4.3: Summary of Leaching Test Results (all results mg/l)

Zone

No. of

tests

Determinand IGV

Minimum leachate

concentration

Average leachate

concentration*

Maximum leachate

concentration

Zone 1 14

Ammoniacal nitrogen

0.15 <0.03 42.3 171.98

Chloride 30 0.5 45.3 187.9

Mecoprop 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Phenol 0.0005 <0.0005 0.0043 0.01

Zone 2A 4

Ammoniacal nitrogen

0.15 <0.03 0.0625 0.1

Chloride 30 0.3 0.875 1.6

Mecoprop 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Phenol 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005

Zone 2B 5

Ammoniacal nitrogen

0.15 0.07 0.778 2.47

Chloride 30 0.5 5.92 21.4

Mecoprop 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Phenol 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005

Zone 3 4

Ammoniacal nitrogen

0.15 1.83 37.0 57.76

Chloride 30 1.2 20 31.7

Mecoprop 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Phenol 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005

Zone 4 5

Ammoniacal nitrogen

0.15 0.03 7.18 21.8

Chloride 30 0.8 9.5 25.3

Mecoprop 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Phenol 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005

Mound to west of site entrance

1

Ammoniacal nitrogen

0.15 - - 9.6

Chloride 30 - - 14.3

Mecoprop 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Phenol 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005

* Average value calculated using the detection limit where a result is reported to be below the detection limit.

Results in bold show exceedance of the IGV

See Attachment E for full results

The results show that in Zone 1, high leaching rates can occur with the average ammoniacal nitrogen and

chloride concentrations exceeding the IGV for these substances. Zone 1 was also the only zone where phenol

was detected, although mecoprop was not measured in any sample. Relatively high concentrations of

ammoniacal nitrogen were also measured in the leachate from samples taken at the top of Zone 3 (the lined

cell) although the concentrations are not as high as the values recorded in the leachate collected from the zone

and removed for off-site treatment.

For the samples from the other zones, relatively low concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen and chloride were

measured, and in the case of phenol and mecoprop these substances were not detected. In Zone 2A all results

were below the IGV values for chloride ammoniacal nitrogen whereas in Zone 2B the mean and maximum

concentrations both exceeded the IGV for ammoniacal nitrogen, although not for chloride. The ammoniacal

nitrogen concentrations in Zone 4 were typically higher than the results from Zone 2 with the mean and

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 20

maximum concentrations for ammoniacal nitrogen exceeding the IGV and being around 10 times higher than

the results from Zone 2B.

With respect to other parameters, the leaching tests do show that elevated metal concentrations are periodically

detected in the leachate with the sample from 10m in BH61 having the highest concentration of all metals

except for lead and zinc (for lead, the highest concentration was recorded in the sample from TP32 in Zone 4

and for zinc it was detected in a sample from TP57 in Zone 2B). Sulphate concentrations were elevated in

several of the leaching test results, with a maximum value of 1725mg/l being recorded in a sample from BH62A

in Zone 1 (this compares to the IGV for sulphate of 200mg/l). Cyanide was detected in four of the leachate

sample results, but all concentrations were below the IGV for this determinand.

With respect to the organic determinands polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and extractable petroleum

hydrocarbons (EPH), the highest total PAH concentration was obtained from a sample taken in Zone 2B (in

BH79) as was the highest TPH concentration (in a sample from BH78).

4.2.3 Groundwater and Leachate Quality and Morell River monitoring

The main components of concern with respect to water contamination are ammonia (directly toxic to fish and

other aquatic life), dissolved organic material (mainly organic acids) which give rise to high demands for oxygen

(chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)) which can deoxygenate waters

(leading to fish kills) and chloride which increases salinity of water and changes the ecological make-up.

Leachate also contains other components such as dissolved metals and trace organic compounds, and the

extent of these depends principally on the origin of the wastes.

Boreholes have been drilled into the wastes in Zone 1 and elsewhere. The majority of these boreholes were

installed to investigate waste depth and composition and due to difficult drilling conditions could not be

completed as monitoring points to collect leachate. The 2016 investigation did install monitoring points within

Zone 1 although again difficulties completing the holes meant that the base of the waste was not always

reached. These holes have remained dry to date.

Samples of leachate are routinely collected from the lined cell in Zone 3 and these are analysed for a

determined range of parameters to allow the leachate to be disposed of off-site. In addition, sampling of

groundwater from boreholes completed below or adjacent to waste deposits provides an indication of the

contaminants which are leaching from the waste.

The likely leachate composition based on the data from Zone 3 and groundwater quality data from below and

around Zone 1 was assessed in the Kerdiffstown Landfill Remediation Project Groundwater DQRA Report for

the Environmental Protection Agency (SKM Enviros, 2014). The Zone 3 leachate results (Table 4.4) show that

the leachate being produced at the site is typical of a landfill that has accepted MSW and C&D waste in that it

has elevated chloride and ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations. Assessment of the groundwater data also

shows elevated concentrations compared to background groundwater quality and environmental quality

standards for certain metals/metalloids (including nickel, zinc and arsenic) and trace organic compounds

including mecoprop and phenol. These data show that leachate is being produced at the site and hazardous

substances are currently present in the groundwater.

Table 4.4: Leachate Monitoring Results from Zone 3

Determinand*

No. of

samples

IGV Minimum Average Maximum

Ammoniacal nitrogen 231 0.15 87.7 350 833

Arsenic 9 0.01 <0.001 0.057 0.224

Benzene 4 0.001 <0.0005 0.0046 0.0059

Chloride 233 30 171 434 1142

Mercury 121 0.0001 <0.00005 0.0018 0.005

Nickel 158 0.02 <0.001 0.098 0.605

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 21

Determinand*

No. of

samples

IGV Minimum Average Maximum

Phenol 1 0.0005 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Zinc 157 0.1 0.013 0.302 3.7

All values mg/l

* Results from samples taken from 2010 to 2016

Average calculated using the detection limit value where the result is reported as less than the detection limit

Results in bold show exceedance of the IGV

Groundwater chemical analysis results presented in EIAR Appendix A12.2 and Appendix B1 indicate elevated

concentrations of substances which are present in the leachate including ammoniacal nitrogen, chloride and

trace organic compounds. Concentrations of certain substances are recorded as exceeding IGVs (EPA 2003).

Table 4.5 sets out exceedances for certain key determinands which are identified in the groundwater.

Table 4.5 Exceedances of Interim Guideline Values for Key Leachate Parameters

Determinand

IGV* Maximum Concentration

measured in groundwater^

Location of

Maximum

Ammoniacal nitrogen 0.15 273 EMW14

Chloride 30 475 BH26

Mecoprop 0.01 0.084 EMW14

Phenols 0.0005 230 BH26

All values mg/l * Interim Guideline Value (EPA 2003) ^ Measured up to December 2016

Figures 4.2 to 4.5 show the distribution of ammoniacal nitrogen, chloride, phenol and mecoprop (an organic

herbicide) across the existing site and off-site in December 2016 to February 2017. These contaminants are

considered to be key contaminants as they occur in elevated concentrations in leachate for landfills that

accepted household wastes and wastes that are likely to degrade. Ammoniacal nitrogen is linked to ammonia

which is highly toxic to aquatic species whilst chloride provides a good “tracer” for landfill leachate as it is very

mobile and discharges to surface water can alter the ecology of the receiving water. Phenol is an organic

compound with relatively high mobility and is frequently found in leachates and groundwater, as has been the

case at Kerdiffstown. Mecoprop is an active ingredient in many broadleaf weed killers and is commonly

detected in landfill leachate and has been detected in the groundwater at Kerdiffstown. Both phenol and

mecoprop have relatively low IGVs in groundwater.

Figures 4.2 to 4.5 do not indicate a clear contaminant plume emanating from the site, although they do show

that substances are present in on-site monitoring wells completed in the overburden deposits and in

groundwater off-site. These occur principally in monitoring wells located along the north-eastern boundary of the

existing site near to the unlined and uncapped area of the landfill (Zone 1 and Zone 2B). However, for boreholes

situated closest to the Morell River, these do not show greatly elevated concentrations of the key substances

although there is evidence that increases in concentrations of determinands associated with landfill leachate are

observed in the wells closest to the Morell River such as EMW05 during times of lower water levels during the

summer (see EIAR Appendix A12.2 for further details).

Monitoring of the river does not show a discernible impact from these substances with the probable exception of

slight changes in chloride concentrations (typically in the range of 1 to 2mg/l) as the river flows past the site. In

the winter, the monitoring shows a slight increase in the chloride concentration observed downstream whilst

during the last two summers the concentrations downstream are slightly lower than upstream.

1 Results from boreholes installed prior to 2016 are reported monthly in monitoring reports. The report from December 2016 (EIAR Appendix A12.2)

is the most recent six monthly report whereby a larger number of boreholes is sampled and the analytical suite is larger than the monthly sampling. For boreholes installed in 2016, these were sampled in February 2017 for the larger (six monthly) analytical suite and results from these are presented in a summary table in Appendix B

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 22

Groundwater monitoring has shown seasonal variation in groundwater quality in certain boreholes, with the

highest concentrations being detected in late summer. This likely occurs due to dilution of leachate in the winter

due to increased groundwater recharge. There is evidence that elevated concentrations of determinands

associated with landfill leachate are observed in the well closest to the Morell River (EMW05) during times of

lower water levels during the summer. However, the measured concentrations are significantly lower than

concentrations measured in boreholes right on the site boundary.

The most recent six-monthly groundwater monitoring report (EIAR Appendix A12.2) includes plots of

groundwater quality data over time. In the majority of boreholes, there is no indication of substance

concentrations increasing or decreasing over time. However, in borehole BH26, which is completed in the

overburden deposits at the base of the waste in Zone 1, the ammoniacal nitrogen concentration has increased

since the borehole was installed Diagram 4.1). Furthermore, in 2016 concentrations of certain substances,

including ammoniacal nitrogen (Diagram 4.2) and chloride, have increased in EMW20 on the existing site’s

north-eastern boundary. The increase in concentrations in borehole EMW20 is likely to reflect seasonal

increases which have been observed since monitoring began in certain other boreholes on the north-eastern

boundary such as in EMW03 (Diagram 4.3).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 23

Diagram 4.1: Ammoniacal Nitrogen Concentration in BH26 over Time

Diagram 4.2: Ammoniacal Nitrogen Concentration in EMW20 over Time

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 24

Diagram 4.3: Ammoniacal Nitrogen Concentration in EMW03 over Time

With respect to groundwater quality in the bedrock, low concentrations of substances associated with landfill

leachate (including ammoniacal nitrogen and potassium) are measured in the older boreholes EMW12 and

EMW19. However, concentrations are significantly lower than measured in the overburden deposits in the

vicinity of Zone 1. For boreholes in stalled in 2016, the samples taken from the bedrock boreholes are generally

low with chloride and ammoniacal nitrogen both being below the IGV value on all five bedrock boreholes that

have been sampled.

4.2.4 Landfill gas

Currently active gas extraction occurs in two areas of the site; the lined cell (Zone 3) where the majority of the

currently in-place waste has gas extraction well coverage, and the north-western section (Zone 1) where only

approximately a quarter of the in-place waste has gas well coverage. Gas extraction is accomplished via a

network of gas extraction wells and pipework. Gas is removed and burnt in specially manufactured stainless

steel high temperature gas flares. There are two flares on site, one with capacity 250m3/hr and the second with

capacity 500m3/hr. Currently, all gas extracted is being directed to the ‘250’ flare, with the ‘500’ flare acting as

standby.

The aims of the existing measures are to control off-site LFG migration along the north-western boundary of the

site (where wastes are deep and close to the edge of the original sand quarry wall, and houses and outbuildings

are present within 10m of the site boundary) and to reduce emissions to atmosphere to control odours (these

two areas of the site were identified in previous studies as being significant for gas emissions to atmosphere

and hence odour).

Within the lined cell in Zone 3, wastes have been covered with a temporary heavy duty membrane to assist with

odour management and to reduce air from being drawn in during gas extraction operations.

The overall quantity and quality of gas entering the 250 flare has changed gradually over time with current flows

of approximately 100m3/hr and gas concentrations of 23% methane, 23% carbon dioxide and 0.3% oxygen.

This represents a decrease of more than a half for the gas flows compared to initial gas yields during

July/August 2011. The decline in gas yields has been seen to be relatively steady since April 2012 despite

weekly monitoring and rebalancing.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 25

4.2.5 Soil Quality

During remediation works there is the potential for hazardous substances to be brought to, stored and used on

site in the form of diesel (hydrocarbons) which will be used for powering temporary generators (if required) and

for fuelling plant. The location that diesel will be stored and dispensed from still has to be determined. As such,

soil quality testing has not been undertaken to date and when it is determined where diesel is to be stored

during the remediation works there will be the need to obtain, locally, the quality of shallow soil with respect to

hydrocarbons. It should be noted, however, that to date very few of the excavations have identified

contamination that could be attributable to fuel and total petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (which are associated with diesel fuel) have not been found to be widespread or greatly elevated

in the groundwater at the site or leaching from soils.

For the proposed remediation works, soils will be moved around site and soils will also be imported to the site to

form the capping layers. Imported material will be required to meet the requirements for provision of a suitably

engineered site and to meet the proposed end-use condition. As such, imported soil will be tested for quality.

The testing results from this soil will then form the baseline conditions for soil quality against which deterioration

of soil quality will be assessed over the lifetime of the licence.

It should be noted, however, that based on the proposed end use that following the remediation works, no

hazardous substances are anticipated to be used or stored on site that could give rise to shallow soil

contamination with the exception of leachate pumped from Zone 3. Testing of soil in the vicinity of the landfill

infrastructure compound will therefore be required following the earthworks and placement of soils associated

with the remediation works to determine baseline conditions in this area of the site.

4.3 Uncertainties Associated with Soil and Groundwater Data

As with any ground investigation, the volumes of groundwater and soil sampled represent a very small

percentage of materials present at the site. As such, the presence of hazardous wastes cannot be ruled out.

However, as there has been extensive investigation of all zones in the site it is clear that if hazardous wastes

are present they are not extensive. If such wastes are identified during the remediation works they will be taken

off site and will therefore not provide an ongoing source of contamination.

In terms of groundwater quality, extensive monitoring has been undertaken both in time and space and whilst

unidentified groundwater contaminant pathways cannot be ruled out, the monitoring data do provide a good

representation of current groundwater conditions and how these change over time.

Soil quality data will need to be collected locally once the location of fuel storage associated with remediation is

identified and the earthworks in the vicinity of the landfill infrastructure plant have been undertaken. Soils

imported to site will be tested to provide baseline data for soil quality.

Whilst there has been no investigation of the area of land known as Tunney’s Field, the historical aerial photos

and maps would suggest that waste is absent in this area and as such there is no contamination source present

and a pollution linkage does not exist for this area of land.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 26

5. Conceptual Site Models and Risk Assessment

5.1 Source Pathway Receptor Linkages

Hydrogeological CSMs for the different zones of the existing site have been developed based on guidance

provided by the EPA (Code of Practice: Environmental Risk Assessment for Unregulated Disposal Sites 2007

and Framework Approach for the Management of Contaminated Land and Groundwater at EPA Licensed

Facilities 2012) and England’s Environment Agency (2004) Model Procedures for the Management of Land

Contamination. The conceptual models are based on the long-established “source-pathway-receptor” approach

in which without all three components being in place there can be no risk to the receiving environment. The

CSMs for the zones are presented graphically in Figures 5.1 to 5.4 with further explanation provided in Table

5.1. Within each figure and the table, the CSMs show how the identified source-pathway-receptor linkage will be

addressed within the remediation works. It should be noted that for the area of land to the south of Zones 3 and

4, the available information of historical aerial photos and the logs from DB09 and DB10 installed within this

zone would indicate that there is no waste in this area, and as such there is no source present and a pollution

linkage does not exist for this land.

With respect to groundwater impacts, the aim of the remediation works is to reduce the quantity of leachate

produced by infiltrating rainfall by placing low permeability materials at the surface and controlling rainfall runoff

such that infiltration into waste is reduced. However, it is likely that groundwater flowing into the waste which is

below the groundwater table will continue after remediation. As such, it should be noted that it is anticipated that

following the remediation works, hazardous substances will continue to discharge to groundwater. The aim of

the works is therefore to provide betterment of the groundwater environment with the aim of preventing

deterioration in groundwater quality from the current conditions and improve groundwater quality over the longer

term.

Groundwater in Ireland is protected under European Community and national legislation, and local authorities

and the EPA are responsible for enforcing this legislation. The European Community identified that there was a

need for action to avoid long-term deterioration of quality and quantity of all freshwater resources, including

groundwater and this led to a framework for an Integrated European water policy; the Water Framework

Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC). The WFD was later complemented by the adoption in 2006 of a daughter

directive (Directive 2006/118/EC, the so called “Groundwater Daughter Directive” (GWDD)) laying down

additional technical specifications on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration and led to

the repeal of the original 1980 Groundwater Directive in 2013.

The requirements of the WFD and GWDD have been enacted into Irish law through S.I. No. 9 of 2010 —

European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations 2010. The regulations require

measures to be implemented to prevent the input of hazardous substances to groundwater bodies. S.I. No. 9 of

2010 also limits the input of non-hazardous substances to groundwater.

In the case of Kerdiffstown landfill and the remediation scheme, and as noted above, hazardous substances are

likely to continue to discharge to groundwater following the works. However, under the regulations, the EPA

may issue exemptions to the “prevent and limit” requirements of the regulations if, for example:

Inputs are considered to be of a quantity and concentration so small as to obviate any present or future

danger of deterioration in the quality of the receiving groundwater; or

Inputs are considered incapable, for technical reasons, of being prevented or limited without using:

i. measures that would increase risks to human health or to the quality of the environment as a whole, or

ii. disproportionately costly measures to remove quantities of pollutants from or otherwise control their percolation in, contaminated ground or subsoil.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 27

An example of where such an exemption could apply is given in Guidance on the Authorisation of Discharges to

Groundwater (EPA, December 2011) as an old, unlined landfill where full remediation may do more

environmental harm than good.

In considering the remedial options available for the site, it was determined that the alternatives which could

lead to the prevention of the discharge of hazardous substances such as excavation and removal of wastes

would either present significant risks to human health and the environment as a whole or were too costly (see

Chapter 6 of the EIS for further details).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 28

Table 5.1 Conceptual Site Models by Zone and how the Pollutant Linkage is being Addressed by the Remediation Works

Zone Source Pathway Potential Receptor Approach to addressing the pollutant linkage

Current, remediation and aftercare phases

Zone 1

Principally MSW wastes above the groundwater table

Rainfall infiltration and leaching of contaminants from the wastes with vertical and lateral groundwater migration

Groundwater in the overburden deposits

This zone will be capped with a fully engineered landfill cap. Capping of the zone will reduce rainfall infiltration and leaching from the unsaturated wastes leading to a lower input of contaminants to the groundwater in the overburden deposits. However, there is the potential for greater infiltration during the remediation works when wastes are exposed.

Groundwater in the limestone bedrock, principally within the transition zone

Capping of the zone will reduce rainfall infiltration and leaching from the unsaturated wastes leading to a lower input of contaminants to the groundwater in the overburden deposits and subsequent vertical migration to the bedrock aquifer. Capping the zone has the potential to reduce the groundwater level in the overburden deposits beneath the zone and reduce the driving head in to the limestone.

Surface waters (Morell River, River Liffey) including abstraction from the River Liffey

Capping of the zone will reduce rainfall infiltration and leaching from the unsaturated wastes leading to a lower input of contaminants to the groundwater in the overburden deposits and subsequent migration to the surface water receptors. Capping the zone has the potential to reduce the groundwater level in the overburden deposits beneath the zone and reduce the hydraulic gradient between the zone and the Morell River, therefore reducing the contaminant flux.

Principally MSW wastes below the groundwater table in the centre and east of the zone

Groundwater flowing through the wastes, leaching of contaminants and vertical and lateral groundwater migration

Groundwater in the overburden deposits Capping the zone may reduce the groundwater level beneath the zone and thus the thickness of saturated waste may reduce. However, even after capping it is very likely that wastes at the base of Zone 1 will remain saturated and provide an ongoing source of contaminants to groundwater in the overburden deposits.


As with the wastes situated above the water table, capping the zone may reduce the driving head into the bedrock aquifer. However, even after capping the zone, the saturated waste will continue to provide an ongoing source of contaminants to groundwater with the potential for downward migration into the limestone bedrock.


Even after capping the zone, the saturated waste will continue to provide an ongoing source of contaminants to the overburden groundwater with the potential for migration to the surface waters. However, reduction in the groundwater hydraulic gradient may reduce the groundwater flux.

Zone 2A

MSW and C&D wastes above the groundwater table


Groundwater in the overburden deposits This zone will be remediated by installation of a low permeability layer at the surface to reduce rainfall infiltration. Reducing infiltration to the zone will reduce leaching from the wastes leading to a lower input of contaminants to the groundwater in the overburden deposits.


Reducing infiltration to the zone will reduce leaching from the wastes leading to a lower input of contaminants to the groundwater in the overburden deposits and subsequent vertical migration to the bedrock aquifer.


Reducing infiltration to the zone will reduce leaching from the wastes leading to a lower input of contaminants to the groundwater in the overburden deposits and subsequent migration to the surface water receptors.

Zone 2B

MSW and C&D wastes above the groundwater table

Rainfall infiltration and leaching of contaminants from the wastes with


This zone will be remediated by installation of a low permeability layer at the surface to reduce rainfall infiltration. Reducing infiltration to the zone will reduce leaching from the wastes leading to a lower input of contaminants to the groundwater in the overburden deposits. However, there is the potential for greater infiltration during the remediation works when wastes in the bunds are exposed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 29


vertical and lateral groundwater migration





MSW and C&D wastes below the groundwater table

Groundwater flowing through the wastes, leaching of contaminants and vertical and lateral groundwater migration

Groundwater in the overburden deposits, principally within the transition zone

Even after placement of the low permeability materials it is likely that wastes at the base of Zone 2B will remain saturated and provide an ongoing source of contaminants to groundwater in the overburden deposits.

Groundwater in the limestone bedrock Even after placement of the low permeability materials, it is likely that wastes at the base of Zone 2B will remain saturated and provide an ongoing source of contaminants to groundwater in the overburden deposits with the potential for downward migration into the limestone bedrock.


Even after placement of the low permeability materials, it is likely that wastes at the base of Zone 2B will remain saturated and provide an ongoing source of contaminants to groundwater in the overburden deposits with the potential for migration to the surface water receptors.

Zone 3

Wastes within the lined cell (the origin of the wastes is uncertain but is likely to reflect wastes elsewhere on the existing site comprising processed MSW and C&D wastes)

Rainfall infiltration through the geomembrane, leaching of contaminants from the wastes and leakage through the basal liner with vertical and lateral groundwater migration

Groundwater in the overburden deposits, principally within the transition zone

Following infilling of this zone, the zone will be capped with a fully engineered landfill cap with leachate abstraction from the lined cell. Control of leachate levels will minimise the leakage of contaminants through the basal liner into the overburden groundwater flowing beneath the zone.


Minimising the input of contaminants to the overburden deposits would also minimise the subsequent vertical migration of contaminants to the bedrock aquifer.


Minimising the input of contaminants to the overburden deposits would also minimise the subsequent migration of contaminants to the surface water receptors.

Zone 4

Wastes above the groundwater table



This zone will be remediated by installation of a low permeability layer at the surface to reduce rainfall infiltration. Reducing infiltration to the zone will reduce leaching from the wastes leading to a lower input of contaminants to the groundwater in the overburden deposits. However, there is the potential for greater infiltration during the remediation works when wastes in the bunds and mounds are exposed.





Wastes below the groundwater table locally present at the base of the mounds of waste

Groundwater flowing through the wastes and vertical and lateral groundwater

Groundwater in the overburden deposits Even after placement of the low permeability materials it is possible that wastes at the base of Zone 4 will locally remain saturated and provide an ongoing source of contaminants to groundwater in the overburden deposits.


Even after placement of the low permeability materials, it is possible that wastes at the base of Zone 4 will remain saturated and provide an ongoing source of contaminants to groundwater in the overburden deposits with the potential for downward migration into the limestone bedrock.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 30


migration Surface waters (Morell River, River Liffey) including abstraction from the River Liffey

Even after placement of the low permeability materials, it is possible that wastes at the base of Zone 4 will remain saturated and provide an ongoing source of contaminants to groundwater in the overburden deposits with the potential for migration to the surface water receptors.

Zone 1 and 3 LFG produced

from degradation of historical waste materials

lateral migration in permeable deposits

On-site and off-site structures, on-site and off-site humans and on-site and off-site vegetation

Installation of an active gas management system with landfill gas being collected and burnt in a flare within a controlled environment.

Zones 2A and 2B

Installation of a passive gas management system with landfill gas being released to atmosphere from vent trenches in a controlled environment.

Remediation phase

Unknown

Storage areas for diesel fuel associated with plant and generators used for remediation

Leaks or spills of diesel from storage tanks or during filling of tanks or plant

Shallow soils. Fuel being used and stored on site will be carefully and appropriately managed. This will include storage in bunded areas to minimise the risk of spills and leaks and the availability of spill kits on site to respond in the event of a spill.

Groundwater in the overburden deposits.

Groundwater in the limestone bedrock, principally within the transition zone.

Aftercare phase

South of Zone 4

Leachate collected from Zone 3 in the vicinity of the landfill infrastructure compound

Leaks or spills of leachate

Shallow soils. Instigation of a leachate management plan as detailed in the IED licence application to include the use of bunded tanks, hardstanding with drainage discharged via a cut-off vale and regular inspection of the infrastructure.

Groundwater in the overburden deposits.

Groundwater in the limestone bedrock, principally within the transition zone.

All zones

Historical waste materials

Direct contact Contact of below ground infrastructure with contaminated material.

There is no indication that this pollution linkage exists for current conditions. For the aftercare phase, suitable engineering will mitigate the risk to below ground structures.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 31

5.2 Risk Assessment

5.2.1 Groundwater Risks

The site investigations and groundwater monitoring have identified that landfill leachate has impacted locally on

groundwater quality although to date no impacts on the Morell River have been seen. In order to further assess

the risk of future impact on the river quality and groundwater outside of the site, risk assessments have been

undertaken.

Detailed quantitative risk assessments have been undertaken for groundwater so that the effects of remediating

the site can be assessed. In order to put potential impacts into context for Zone 1, a DQRA was undertaken for

Zone 1 in 2014 (SKM Enviros 2014) to assess the potential impacts to the overburden groundwater and Morell

River receptors and the benefits of capping the landfill in this zone. The DQRA utilised the LandSim modelling

package which estimates leachate leakage through the base of a landfill with subsequent mixing (dilution) and

attenuation of leachate in the underlying groundwater and migration away from the landfill.

The DQRA predicted that based on the current layout of Zone 1, substances present in leachate would be

present in the groundwater beneath and adjacent to Zone 1. Furthermore, the assessment identified that

significant impacts on groundwater adjacent to the Morell River would be seen with concentrations above IGVs.

The groundwater monitoring has identified that these substances are present in groundwater beneath and

adjacent to the existing site at similar concentrations as predicted by the model. However, they are not seen at

the predicted concentrations in groundwater monitoring undertaken in boreholes between the existing site and

the Morell River.

Following the DQRA in 2014, further DQRA was undertaken during the 2016 ground investigation (Jacobs,

2017). This DQRA was undertaken for all zones, using updated ground investigation and monitoring information

so that the impacts of wastes that have been identified as being present beneath the water table could be

assessed.

For Zones 1, 2A, 2B and 4, the DQRA used the RAM modelling software as this allowed, where required, each

zone to be modelled as having two distinct sources of contaminant input to the groundwater system:

Contaminants leaching from the waste as rainwater percolates through the waste with contaminants

migrating through the unsaturated zone and mixing with groundwater as it flows beneath the zone; and

A direct input of contaminants to the groundwater from wastes which are present below the water table.

This input is not allowed for in LandSim which assumes that all wastes are present above the groundwater

table.

For Zone 3, the 2017 DQRA utilised the LandSim modelling package as described above for Zone 1 as this

zone has the attributes in terms of landfill construction that closely match the assumptions of LandSim, including

with wastes only being present above the groundwater table.

For each zone, the DQRA was run looking at a capped zone and an uncapped zone, so that the effects of

capping the zone could be assessed. A summary of the results of the DQRA and assessment of the effects of

undertaking the remediation works is provided below with full results in Jacobs, 2017.

Zone 1 DQRA Results

For Zone 1, the uncapped and capped models did not clearly show that there would be an improvement in

groundwater quality following installation of the cap, although this was thought to be due to the limitations of the

RAM model. The model showed that the source term is dominated by the saturated waste component, and this

is likely to remain the case for this zone such that even after remediation, the saturated wastes would continue

to have the major input of contaminants to groundwater. However, in reality the cap would cause the rainfall

infiltration which is migrating through the waste to reduce leachate generation and lead to a reduction in the

build-up of leachate within the zone and potentially reduce the water levels beneath the landfill (any potential

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 32

reduction in groundwater level is not included in the RAM model). A reduction in groundwater level beneath the

waste, even if this reduction is small, would have benefits to the groundwater environment.

Zone 2A DQRA Results

For Zone 2A, the uncapped and capped models did show that there would be an improvement in groundwater

quality following installation of the low permeability materials in this zone. This occurs due to lower infiltration

into the wastes and subsequent higher dilution of leachate in the groundwater for the remediated scenario. As

this zone is modelled as having negligible saturated waste, there is no input of leachate from this source which

plays a significant role in other zones.

Zone 2B DQRA Results

For Zone 2B, the uncapped and capped models showed that there would be an improvement in groundwater

quality following installation of the low permeability materials in this zone. This occurs due to lower infiltration

into the wastes and subsequent higher dilution of leachate in the groundwater for the remediated scenario.

However, as the saturated waste provides the dominant input component for this zone and the wastes are likely

to remain saturated after the zone is remediated, the predicted improvement in groundwater quality is relatively

small.

Zone 3 DQRA Results

The model for the remediated zone has a larger area than the uncapped model. Despite these conditions, the

remediated scenario results in concentrations of the same order of magnitude than the pre-remediation

scenario, with concentrations below the IGVs in both cases.

Zone 4 DQRA Results

For Zone 4, the uncapped and capped models showed that there would be an improvement in groundwater

quality following remediation in this zone. This occurs due to lower infiltration into the wastes and subsequent

higher dilution of leachate in the groundwater for the remediated scenario. However, as the saturated waste

provides the major input component for this zone, and the wastes are likely to remain saturated after the zone is

remediated, the predicted improvement in groundwater quality is relatively small.

5.2.2 Contaminated Land and Human Health Risks

Human health risks are currently controlled on-site by preventing public access to the site and having

appropriate health and safety measures in place for staff working on the site. As there is no impact of leachate

on surface water bodies outside of the existing site or nearby groundwater abstractions, there is no human

contact with contaminated water. Even though a source (contaminants within the waste) and a receptor (site

workers) have been identified, based on the source-pathway-receptor model described for the hydrogeology

CSM there is no pollution linkage as there is no pathway from the source to the receptor. It should be noted that

the assessment of human health risks from LFG is considered later in this chapter.

5.2.3 Contaminated Land and Property Risks

Below ground services and structures have the potential to be attacked by contaminants in contaminated land.

These include concrete structures which can be attacked by water with high sulphate or chloride concentrations

or acid conditions (low pH). Plastic pipes can be attacked by organic compounds and certain organic

compounds (including phenol) can permeate plastic water supply pipes such that drinking water is tainted. The

potential for chemical attack depends on the presence of water as a carrier of the substance, the concentration

of the substance and the degree of contact between the substance and the below ground infrastructure.

At Kerdiffstown, the majority of the existing site’s surface is significantly above the groundwater table (only the

low points of Zone 4 are relatively close to the water table). As such, the below ground infrastructure, which will

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 33

be at shallow depth beneath the ground surface, is unlikely to be in contact with contaminated groundwater,

although there is the potential that contaminated water in the unsaturated zone, produced as rainwater infiltrates

through the waste, does come into contact with the below ground services.

Whilst substances are present in the wastes and groundwater at the existing site that have the potential to

attack below ground infrastructure or permeate drinking water pipes, there is no such infrastructure present on

the site and there are no reports that below ground structures have been affected by aggressive ground

conditions or drinking water supplies at the existing site have been affected. As such, whilst a potential source-

pathway-receptor linkage does exist it does not appear to have been realised. However, this pollutant linkage

does need to be considered as part of the remediation of the site when any new below ground structures and

services will be installed. However, appropriate engineering can mitigate the risk.

5.2.4 Landfill Gas Risks

Off-site boreholes show variable sequences of silt, sand, gravel and clay around the site. Gas migration risk is

highest along bands of sand and gravel deposits which have lower permeability silts and clays above and below

them, this concentrating gas movement along the sand and gravel layer. The boreholes from the site

investigation indicate that much of the natural geology around the site is conducive to gas movement. The

variability of the strata and the presence of sand and gravel layers cannot be defined to the level required to

consider the risk of migration through specific routes.

Receptors identified are:

Buildings and structures and their occupants - there are a number of buildings and structures (enclosed spaces)

on site and houses and outbuildings close to the north-western, western and southern boundaries of the site

which could be vulnerable to LFG entry. Gas present in soils can enter buildings through cracks or holes in the

floor slab, or via services which enter buildings below ground if no protection measures have been incorporated

into building design. This can present an asphyxiant or explosive risk. Off-site monitoring shows that currently

there is a low risk for this linkage and during the aftercare period this risk will be reduced further by the

enhancement of the current LFG control measures.

Users of the park in the aftercare phase – the site engineering including an engineered capping design, and

LFG management proposals for the final end-use will limit vertical migration of the LFG to the site surface.

However, there is a risk that LFG may accumulate in voids, or structures associated with the proposed project

and final engineering, or that some structure may intentionally or unintentionally vent LFG.

During detailed design of the remediation and aftercare phases this will be considered through the

implementation of the requirements of the ATEX Directives.

Underground services - Underground services on-site and off-site are potentially at risk from LFG entry and

accumulation, unless the services have been designed to prevent gas ingress. The risk to underground services

from LFG ingress is associated with the flammability and potential explosion risk of methane. Locations of

surface water drainage on site are known and sections of drainage around the site offices and access road

have been subject to surveys and the current risk is low. Suitable engineering for new on-site infrastructure and

gas control measures following remediation will ensure the risk remains low during the aftercare period.

Utility workers - The risks to utility workers from LFG are associated with flammability and potential explosion

risk of methane, and asphyxiation arising from accumulation of carbon dioxide and/or reductions in oxygen. It is

likely that practices for working below ground and within buildings will take account of potential risks arising from

accumulation of potentially asphyxiant and explosive atmospheres before work commences and as such this

presents a low risk.

Vegetation/agricultural land and golf courses - LFG which migrates into soils will tend to displace oxygen from

the root zone, and in extreme cases can lead to anaerobic conditions in the soil. This can result in vegetation

stress or die off. Deep rooted vegetation is generally more prone to effects of LFG presence in soils than

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 34

shallow rooted vegetation. No such effects have been observed in the vicinity of Kerdiffstown and the risk of it

occurring during the aftercare period is considered to be low as active and passive gas management measures

will mitigate the risk.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 35

6. Conclusions

This document presents the baseline report for the Kerdiffstown Landfill IED licence applications and has been

prepared in accordance with the relevant guidance (EU, 2014).

Baseline data for groundwater collected over a number of years has identified that due to the historical use of

the site as a landfill site, landfill leachate has locally contaminated the groundwater system. There is no

evidence that this contamination is impacting adversely on local surface watercourses or groundwater

abstractions.

Leachate from the landfill has relevant hazardous substances associated with it including ammoniacal nitrogen,

metals/metalloids (including nickel, zinc and arsenic) and certain organic substances including phenol and

mecoprop. These substances are likely to continue to be released to groundwater from the waste during the

remediation works and in the aftercare period. Baseline data for these determinands as presented in this report

and the associated attachments can be used to assess if there is any improvement or deterioration in

groundwater quality in the remediation or aftercare phases as a result of the works.

Soils imported to the site as part of the remediation works will be subject to quality testing and these data will

provide the baseline data for soil quality.

During the remediation phase for the site it is likely that diesel fuel will need to be stored on site for fuelling of

plant. Once locations of the fuel storage areas are determined there may be a need to collect soil baseline data

in these areas. Furthermore, for the aftercare phase, soil sampling and testing in the vicinity of the landfill

infrastructure compound is likely to be required so that soil baseline data can be set once earthworks have been

completed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047 36

7. References

Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Towards Setting Guideline Values for the Protection of Groundwater in

Ireland. Interim Report.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Poorly Productive Aquifers. Monitoring Installations and Conceptual

Understanding.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Guidance on the Authorisation of Discharges to Groundwater. Version

1.

European Union, 2014. European Commission Guidance Concerning Baseline Reports under Article 22(2) of

Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions.

Geological Survey of Ireland, 2002. County Kildare Groundwater Protection Scheme Volume I: Main Report

First Draft.

Geological Survey of Ireland, 2017. GSI on-line mapping portal. https://www.gsi.ie/Mapping.htm (accessed April

2017.

Jacobs, 2017. Kerdiffstown Landfill Remediation Project. Groundwater DQRA Technical Note.

SKM Enviros, 2010. Evaluation of Environmental Liabilities at Kerdiffstown Landfill.

SKM Enviros, 2014 (on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency). Kerdiffstown Landfill Remediation

Project. Groundwater DQRA Report for the Environmental Protection Agency.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

https://www.gsi.ie/Mapping.htm

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047

Appendix A. Report Checklist

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047

Baseline investigation and report checklist as set out in EU (2014)

Required Information Section(s) of this report where reported

Details of data collection - Existing data

Relevant plans of the installation (showing boundaries and key points of interest)

Figure 2.2

Review and summary of previous reports, with report references

Referenced throughout the report and provided as attachments

Summary of any risk assessment carried out at the site of installation relevant for baseline data collection

Risk assessments are summarised in Section 5.2

Details of data collection - Site investigation

Rationale for investigation – may include list of potential contaminant sources relevant to each proposed investigation location

Table 4.1 in Section 4.1

Constraints applicable to the placement of site investigation locations

Section 4.1

Methods used for forming exploratory holes e.g. boreholes, trial pits, window samples

See Attachments A to E

Methods used for collecting, preserving and transporting samples to the analytical laboratory

See EIAR Appendix A12.2

Details of data collection - Sampling and monitoring

Rationale for sampling strategy e.g. if targeted rationale of targets; if non-targeted justification for spacing and layout

Table 4.1 in Section 4.1

Description and explanation of monitoring programmes for groundwater and surface waters

Section 4.1 and EIAR Appendix A12.2

Details of monitoring and sampling including locations, depths, frequencies

EIAR Appendix A12.2

Details of data collection – Analysis

Rationale for selection of analytical methods EIAR Appendix A12.2

Description and performance of analytical methods EIAR Appendix A12.2

Presentation and interpretation of data within text of report

Description of conditions encountered at the site, including groundwater regime and surface water features

Sections 2 and 3

Summary tables of chemical analyses and site monitoring

EIAR Appendix A12.2

Description of type, nature and spatial distribution of contamination, with plans where appropriate

EIAR Appendix A12.2 and Figures

Analysis of the data set and derivation of representative concentrations for individual contaminants to a suitable level of significance

EIAR Appendix A12.2

Evaluation of site investigation results against the outline conceptual model

Section 5

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047

Required Information Section(s) of this report where reported

Presentation of raw data (annex to report)

Plan showing monitoring and sample point locations Figure 4.1

Description of site works and on-site observations Attachments A to E and EIAR Appendix A12.2

Exploratory borehole, core or drilling logs Attachments A to E

Details of response zone and other construction details of borehole monitoring installations

Attachments A to E

Monitoring results EIAR Appendix A12.2

Description of samples submitted for analysis EIAR Appendix A12.2

Relevant Quality Assurance/Quality Control data – this may include accreditations of staff, calibration certificates of equipment, laboratory accreditations (national and international standards)

EIAR Appendix A12.2

Laboratory analytical reports, completed in accordance with the relevant QA/QC data, including relevant international analytical or test method standards.

EIAR Appendix A12.2

Chain of custody records for sample and data collected

Appendix C shows an example of the chain of custody forms for the samples collected in December 2016.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047

Appendix B. Groundwater monitoring data from boreholes installed in 2016

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

Sampling results from boreholes installed in 2016

Analyte Units IGV GTV

Sampling Date Dec-16 Feb-17 Mar-17 Dec-16 Feb-17 Mar-17 Dec-16 Feb-17 Mar-17 Dec-16 Feb-17 Mar-17 Dec-16 Feb-17 Mar-17Calcium , Total as Ca mg/l 200 - 206 125 122 196 113 113 259 198 176 172 177 149 288 107 105Magnesium, Total as Mg mg/l 50 - 14 10.9 15.3 10.5 34.9 16.6 13 12.6 26.7 9.4Potassium , Total as K mg/l 5 - 5.17 0.97 0.93 1.92 1.34 1.47 2.79 2.36 2.12 2.59 1.62 0.98 <3.6 1.21 1.24Sodium , Total as Na mg/l 150 150 20.1 11 10.9 10 8.65 9.73 30.2 40.2 40.4 19.4 12.6 11.6 26.6 8.51 8.34Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/l - - 969 309 312 544 291 274 943 506 486 434 358 366 1950 268 277Sulphate as SO4 mg/l 200 187.5 111 12.3 18.8 45.9 18.3 20.6 112 69.7 63.7 95.6 22.3 18.7 103 23.8 24.2Chloride as Cl mg/l 30 24-187.5 35.1 20.3 18.3 21 17.2 16.3 41.9 38.4 33.6 27.8 22.3 22.1 42.4 18.4 18.7Nitrate as NO3* mg/l 25 37.5 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 8.9 8.3 <3.1 <3.1 5.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N# mg/l 0.12 0.05-0.14 1.88 0.08 0.09 0.37 <0.06 0.06 0.82 0.67 0.6 2.43 1.45 0.84 0.53 <0.06 <0.06Nitrite as NO2* mg/l 0.1 0.375 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28Phosphates , Total as PO4* mg/l 0.03 0.035 3.00 5.52 1.75 0.77 7.35 2.08 1.93 5.52 23.29 <0.37Boron, Total as B mg/l 1 0.75 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <2.3 0.32 <0.23 <0.23 <4.6 <0.23Sulphide as S mg/l - - <0.020 <0.020 0.094 <0.020 0.056 <0.02 0.036 <0.020 0.544 <0.020Iron , Total as Fe mg/l 0.2 - 17.2 13.9 29.7 8.46 2.95 4.21 18.8 6.88 4.05 14.9 22.9 13.9 41.5 0.77 2.96Manganese , Total as Mn mg/l 0.05 - 1.43 0.673 0.707 1.11 0.412 0.286 8.72 0.79 0.484 1.66 1.8 0.865 9.26 0.257 0.345Arsenic, Total as As µg/l 10 7.5 12 16 32 10 3.6 5.6 17 13 8 9.1 19 11 40 2.1 8Barium, Total as Ba µg/l 100 - 222 154 106 68 381 81 198 189 1020 70Beryllium, Total as Be µg/l - - <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <21 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <42 <2.1Cadmium , Total as Cd µg/l 5 3.75 1.5 <0.6 1.6 <0.6 <6 <0.6 <0.6 0.6 12.2 <0.6Chromium , Total as Cr µg/l 30 37.5 21 <2 12 3 32 4 6 8 58 <2Copper, Total as Cu µg/l 30 1500 37 <1.9 54 4.9 87 10 17 16 264 <1.9Lead , Total as Pb µg/l 10 18.75 51 <6 90 9 91 <6 24 23 245 <6Mercury, Total as Hg µg/l 0.1 0.75 0.25 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.42 <0.1Nickel , Total as Ni µg/l 20 15 52 <3 49 6 131 11 20 15 176 5Selenium, Total as Se µg/l - - 3 4.8 4.1 6.5 <0.8 0.9 1.1 8.5 <0.8 <0.8Vanadium , Total as V µg/l - - 23 <4 20 <4 <40 5 13 11 <80 <4Zinc, Total as Zn µg/l 100 - 206 <18 263 20 399 40 100 70 768 <18Cyanide, Total µg/l - - <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9pH pH units - - 7.4 7.7 7.9 7.6 7.9 8.1 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.1 7.9 7.8Conductivity- Electrical 20C uS/cm - - 970 565 623 642 528 564 1090 956 1020 891 633 701 1020 531 599BOD + ATU (5 day) mg/l - - 2 <1 <1 1 <1 1 1 <1 5 <1 1 3 <1 4 <1COD (Total) mg/l - - 270 <11 16 162 <11 15 241 40 31 68 86 62 29 <11.0 <11.0TOC (Filtered) mg/l - - 9.4 1.3 1.4 3 0.9 1.1 7 4.6 4.8 4.3 1.9 1.7 5.5 1.8 1.2

RM02 RM03 RM05RM04RM01

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16



Sampling DateCalcium , Total as Ca mg/l 200 -Magnesium, Total as Mg mg/l 50 -Potassium , Total as K mg/l 5 -Sodium , Total as Na mg/l 150 150Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/l - -Sulphate as SO4 mg/l 200 187.5Chloride as Cl mg/l 30 24-187.5Nitrate as NO3* mg/l 25 37.5Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N# mg/l 0.12 0.05-0.14Nitrite as NO2* mg/l 0.1 0.375Phosphates , Total as PO4* mg/l 0.03 0.035Boron, Total as B mg/l 1 0.75Sulphide as S mg/l - -Iron , Total as Fe mg/l 0.2 -Manganese , Total as Mn mg/l 0.05 -Arsenic, Total as As µg/l 10 7.5Barium, Total as Ba µg/l 100 -Beryllium, Total as Be µg/l - -Cadmium , Total as Cd µg/l 5 3.75Chromium , Total as Cr µg/l 30 37.5Copper, Total as Cu µg/l 30 1500Lead , Total as Pb µg/l 10 18.75Mercury, Total as Hg µg/l 0.1 0.75Nickel , Total as Ni µg/l 20 15Selenium, Total as Se µg/l - -Vanadium , Total as V µg/l - -Zinc, Total as Zn µg/l 100 -Cyanide, Total µg/l - -pH pH units - -Conductivity- Electrical 20C uS/cm - -BOD + ATU (5 day) mg/l - -COD (Total) mg/l - -TOC (Filtered) mg/l - -

DB04

Dec-16 Feb-17 Mar-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Mar-17 Dec-16 Feb-17 Mar-17144 120 112 136 118 132 145 253 226 120 121 3900 206 164 16110.1 9.9 11.3 11.6 96 14.4 8.9 5.41.37 1.05 0.92 4.17 3.22 3.02 3.02 <1.80 <3.6 2.57 2.34 6.55 1.49 0.75 0.387.16 8.73 7.52 14.6 11.6 15.1 16.5 3.27 <6.00 24.5 31.4 48.9 6.18 7.38 5.86384 270 283 360 316 355 365 392 352 354 367 12700 687 410 34920.1 7.3 9.4 19.4 10.16 44.5 38.5 18.8 25.7 36.7 45.1 106 12.2 10.3 18.818.3 19.1 18.6 20.5 21.7 23.8 30.3 10.1 22.9 31.6 36.4 17.5 17.2 12.7 12.2<3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 4.1 <3.1 <3.1 11.4 <3.1 <3.1 <3.10.3 0.33 0.29 1.93 1.75 1.97 1.77 <0.06 <0.06 0.32 0.23 <0.06 0.44 <0.06 <0.06

<0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.281.62 1.29 2.57 4.60 11.65 0.89 2.70 4.29

<0.23 <0.23 0.29 <0.23 <2.30 <0.23 <0.23 <0.230.054 <0.020 <0.020 0.026 1.18 <0.020 0.028 0.0228.92 5.61 4.64 11.8 9.26 19.9 51.8 8.65 7.82 1.34 0.56 27.4 15.5 3.55 1.760.851 1.58 1.36 1.05 0.934 1.32 1.55 4.83 3.92 1.07 0.831 34.9 2.1 0.699 0.428

13 4.9 5 12 11 24 72 7.4 5 1.6 <1 12 30 4.3 4126 117 151 250 339 47 230 115<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <2.10.7 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <6 <0.6 3 1.18 <2 4 3 <20 5 14 517 5 6.1 5.5 33 12 55 8.423 <6 8 <6 <60 <6 0.07 10

0.12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.15 <0.135 <3 12 10 87 8 44 171.7 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 11.8 1.513 <4 4 4 <40 <4 19 7153 <18 30 40 511 <18 198 40<9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <97.4 7.5 7.7 7.2 7.5 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.1 7.3 7.1 7.3535 535 597 722 649 796 803 554 561 780 830 1090 534 631 6813 <1 6 2 6 2 4 <1 3 1 3 14 1 <1 488 15 17 47 21 52 32 144 440 32 <11.0 6000 48 56 261.3 1.1 0.9 2.5 2.2 3.5 3 2.5 <0.7 1.9 1.3 1.7 2 1.2 0.9

RM06 DB05BB04BB03RCBB01BB01

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16




BH69

Dec-16 Feb-17 Mar-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Feb-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Feb-17130 102 109 103 102 592 773 564 173 160 315 298 454 144 17910.7 8.7 24.7 24.6 66.8 16.6 15.1 26.5 5.41.4 1.29 1.36 2.55 2.33 1.81 4.04 45 22.1 21 32.2 30.1 <3.60 1.15 22.96.59 8.57 9.52 16.9 15.6 4.77 4.92 55.4 31.7 31.3 49.2 42.1 27.6 15.6 13440 285 318 312 302 1380 2210 1330 351 359 152 135 1060 732 4157.9 <4.4 7.16 17.2 19.5 26.99 15 621 230 201 774 769 25.7 30.7 13617 18.6 22.5 30.4 30.3 18.3 20.7 35.4 32.6 33.7 46.3 40.9 19.9 25.8 10.7

<3.1 12.9 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.1 <3.10.48 0.65 0.65 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 0.58 19.9 6.73 6.52 6.75 7.21 0.15 0.22 0.43

<0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.28 <0.283.37 2.05 <0.37 <3.7 3.06 <0.37 <0.37 <7.35 1.90

<0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <2.30 0.79 0.29 0.45 <4.60 <0.230.032 0.031 <0.020 0.197 7.08 <0.020 <0.020 0.192 0.11214.1 7.15 7.07 0.42 0.55 16.4 25.7 21.8 2.03 2.14 0.68 0.7 69.4 16.5 10.71.23 1.03 1.06 0.433 0.495 4.58 6.61 2.35 4.81 4.47 0.657 0.407 9.74 2.42 0.9257.8 5.6 6 <1 <1 4.6 7.2 27 4.3 4.6 5.9 5.6 15 10 16126 109 36 194 434 108 48 575 193<2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <21 <2.1 <2.1 <2.1 <42 <2.12.1 <0.6 <0.6 <6 2.2 <0.6 <0.6 14.5 2.215 4 <2 <20 20 <2 4 42 1998 11 <1.9 36 85 <1.9 7.5 282 8875 14 <6 <60 172 <6 <6 230 197

0.37 <0.1 <0.1 0.31 0.17 <0.1 <0.1 0.23 0.1838 12 7 <30 47 10 15 126 43

<0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 1 1.627 4 <4 <40 19 <4 <4 <80 19334 60 <18 <180 473 <18 20 529 316<9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <97.5 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.4 8 8.1 7.7 7.4 7.1495 503 591 608 607 495 508 2600 973 1030 1450 1550 630 673 794<1 5 4 <1 3 2 1 17 4 <1 4 <1 3 <1 9<11 <11.0 19 <11.0 39 227 304 316 23 24 59 44 196 174 2483.2 2.1 1.4 0.8 1.3 0.8 90.2 28.5 6 5.9 15.3 12.7 1.1 <0.7 4.7

BH77BH72BH71BH70DB10DB08DB06

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16




Mar-17 Feb-17 Mar-17199 131 155

5.126 7.92 7.62

16.2 9.65 6.85488 221 28687.2 111 83.111.4 10.7 9.4<3.1 <3.1 <3.11.58 0.09 0.27

<0.280.86

<0.23<0.020

3.87 7.9 22.31.8 0.444 0.4927.3 8.8 21

83<2.11.274055121

<0.89

200<9 <9 <97.1 7.4 7.3998 547 593<1 4 <143 87 1614.1 4.1 4.3

BH78BH77

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047

Appendix C. Chain of custody documentation for samples collected December 2016

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

IED Baseline Report

DOC0047

Appendix D. Figures

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

Drawing Title

Project

Drawing Status

Drawing No.Client No.

This drawing is not to be used in whole in or part other than for the intended purposeand project as defined on this drawing. Refer to the contract for full terms and conditions.

Scale @ A3Jacobs No.

DO NOT SCALE

Drawn Check'd Appr'dPurpose of revisionRev. DateAC PW RREIAR SUBMISSION1 29/06/2017

1:20,000

RKRev'd

Client

Site Location

FIGURE 3.1

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25

Kilometres

KERDIFFSTOWN LANDFILL REMEDIATION PROJECT

32EW5604-801 P1

32EW5604

Rev1

IED BASELINE REPORT

Merrion House ,Merrion RoadDublin D4, Ireland

Tel: +353.1.269.5666 | www.jacobs.com

LegendSite Location

G:\JI\Sustainable Solutions\Kerdiffstown Landfill\11 - Data\GIS Data EIAR\MXDs\Rev1\Rev0_Figure 3.1.mxd

6286

Based on Ordnance Survey Ireland data and reproducedunder Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence Number"2016/26/CCMA/Kildare County Council". Unauthorisedreproduction infringes Ordnance Survey Ireland andGovernment of Ireland copyright.

FIGURE 2.1 - SITE LOCATION

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

House

Kerdiffstown

Chapel

Roseborough

FB

(in ruins)

Church

Lake

Interchange

Maudlings

Spring

Pool

QUARRY

Sand Pit

J

o

h

n

s

t

o

w

n

C

o

t

t

a

g

e

s

J

o

h

n

s

t

o

w

n

C

o

t

t

a

g

e

s

4

3

1

Grave

Yard

90

90

85

85

90

100

95

90

90

90

959085

90

95

85.00

95100

8590

95

90

90

90

85

90

95

100

100

105

110

110

105

100

95

90

110

105

100

95

90

95

95

90

90

85

80

100.00

100

105

90

85

D

'

D

A

A

'

E

E

'

B

B

'

F

F

'

G

G

'

H

'

H

C

C

'

I

'

I

Morell River

Kerdiffstown Road

Site Office

Site Entrance

ZONE 1

ZONE 2A

ZONE 2B

ZONE 4

ZONE 3

ZONE 1A

N

Proposed CPO Boundary

Proposed Temporary CPO Boundary

Area Excluded from CPO

Inferred Zone Boundary

Buildings/Structures

Concrete Hardstandings (interpolated extents)

Existing Site Contours metres OD (Malin Head)

0 31/10/2016 AR JB CD RR

90

KEY:

NOTES:

1. For section details see Drawing No. 32EW5604-00-024 (Figure

4.6) and Drawing No. 32EW5604-00-025 (Figure 4.7).

2. Site features based on survey provided by Coastway - Chartered

Geospatial Engineering Surveyors, Drg No. 1105-001 Rev11 b,

10th February 2012.

3. Topographical survey undertaken by Baseline Surveys Ltd,

15th February 2016.

4. For detailed description of Zones refer to Chapters 3 and 12 of

the EIAR.

KERDIFFSTOWN LANDFILL REMEDIATION PROJECT

FIGURE 2.2EXISTING SITE CONDITION

IED BASELINE REPORT1:2000 @ A1

32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-001 2

32EW5604-00-001-2

DRAFT EIAR SUBMISSION

1 30/06/2017 KMA CD CD RREIAR SUBMISSION

FIGURE 2.2

This drawing is not to be used in whole or part other than for the intended

purpose and project as defined on this drawing. Refer to the contract for full

terms and conditions.

Drawing status

Drawing number

Client no.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

DETAILS SHOWN ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PURPOSES HENCE DRAWING SHOULD NOT BE SCALED

Rev

Project

®

Apprv'dPurpose of revision

Rev. Date Drawn CheckdRev'd

Rev

Jacobs, Merrion House, Merrion Road, Dublin 4

Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com

Client

Scale

Based on Ordnance Survey Ireland data and reproduced under Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence

Number "2016/26/CCMA/Kildare County Council". Unauthorised reproduction infringes Ordnance

Survey Ireland and Government of Ireland copyright.

50 100 150 200 m0

SCALE 1 : 2000

2 07/08/2017 AR CD CD RREIAR SUBMISSION

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

House

Kerdiffstown

Chapel

Roseborough

FB

(in ruins)

Church

Lake

Interchange

Maudlings

Spring

Pool

QUARRY

Sand Pit

J

o

h

n

s

t

o

w

n

C

o

t

t

a

g

e

s

J

o

h

n

s

t

o

w

n

C

o

t

t

a

g

e

s

3

79m

7

9

m

78m

78m

EMW29

81.51

EMW27

80.99

BH26

79.09

EMW13

79.50

EMW23

79.23

EMW21

77.48 EMW33

79.73

EMW32

78.59

EMW31

78.69

EMW05

78.27

BH36B

77.94EMW20

78.74

EMW08

78.79

EMW11

78.45

EMW16

79.60

EMW17

79.78

BH6

79.39

BH2

84.72

EMW30

79.28EMW28

81.00

EMW02

79.82

BH7

79.06

GW2S

78.86

BH42

79.19

EMW18

78.60

EMW15

78.68

EMW07

78.86

EMW06

82.34

EMW04

80.33

81m

DB1

77.32

DB3

79.81

RM1

78.25

RM2

78.27

DB5

77.98

RM6

79.14

DB6

78.98

DB8A

79.64

DB9

87.68

BH70

79.56

BH72

80.94

BH77A

87.04

BH78

84.62

BH69

83.05

RM3

79.07

RM4

79.01

BH75

91.74

BH76A

82.51

BH10A

88.25

BH71

82.16

BH80

81.08

RM5

79.31

8

1

m

8

0

m

8

0

m

KEY:

Licence Boundary

Groundwater Monitoring Point

Inferred Groundwater Contour (mOD)




Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client no.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

Rev

Project

Client

Drawing number / Rev

GN

W

I

A

R

D

T

U

AO

A

D

C

\\Iedub1-fil001\ji\S

ustainable S

olutions\K

erdiffstow

n Landfill\5 - D

raw

ings\C

AD

\E

ngineering D

esign - E

IS

\32E

W5604-00-009-2.dw

g - 22/08/2017 13:07:09

- IE

D - alroberts

®


Rev Rev. Date Drawn CheckdRev'd





Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com



KERDIFFSTOWN LANDFILL

REMEDIATION PROJECT

FIGURE 3.1

GROUNDWATER LEVELS -

OVERBURDEN

IED BASELINE REPORT

NTS @A3

32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-0092

32EW5604-00-009-2

FIGURE 3.1

EIAR SUBMISSION1 30/06/2017 KMA CD CD RR

0 26/01/2017 AR UD MB RR

N

DRAFT EIS SUBMISSION

EIAR SUBMISSION2 07/08/2017 AR CD CD RR

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

Chapel

Roseborough

FB

(in ruins)

Church

Lake

Interchange

Maudlings

Spring

Pool

QUARRY

Sand Pit

77m

EMW24

77.96

EMW12

76.87

EMW22

76.10

EMW19

78.06

EMW03

77.71

7

9

m

78m

77m

DB4 (D)

76.43

BB1

78.73

BB4

79.85

BH68

78.53

BB3A

78.55

7

8

m

7

9

m

KEY:




Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client no.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

Rev

Project

Client


G

N

W

I

A

R

D

T

U

A

O

A

D

C

\\Ie

du

b1

-fil0

01

\ji\S

usta

in

ab

le

S

olu

tio

ns\K

erd

iffsto

wn

L

an

dfill\5

- D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

\E

ng

in

ee

rin

g D

esig

n - E

IS

\3

2E

W5

60

4-0

0-0

11

-2

.d

wg

- 2

2/0

8/2

01

7 1

3:0

4:0

9 - E

IA

R - a

lro

be

rts

®

Apprv'd

Purpose of revision






Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com




REMEDIATION PROJECT

FIGURE 3.2

GROUNDWATER LEVELS -

BEDROCK

IED BASELINE REPORT

NTS @A3

32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-011 2

32EW5604-00-011-2

FIGURE 3.2


0 26/01/2017 AR UD MB RR

N

Licence Boundary


Inferred Groundwater Contour (mOD)



NOTE:Groundwater contours shown are interpolated

based on the whole monitoring data set and

considering hydrogeological principles

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

House

Chapel

FB

(in ruins)

Church

Lake

Spring

Pool

QUARRY

EMW24

EMW12

BH26

EMW09

EMW10

EMW13

EMW22

EMW23

EMW21

17

05

07

14

04

EMW33

15

EMW32

EMW31

EMW05

BH38

EMW03

EMW04

03

BH36B

EMW14

BH39B (D)

EMW20

EMW08

EMW19

06

BH48

EMW11

BH40B

EMW15

02

08

EMW16

BH24

EMW17

BH7

GW2S

BH42

BH6

BH41D

GW1D

BH2

EMW30

01

EMW29

13

Site Discharge

10

EMW28

EMW27D

EMW06

EMW02

EMW07

EMW18

(D)

(D)

DB15A (D)

BH61 (D)

BH62A (D)

BH64 (D)

BH63 (D)

BH60

(D)

DB1

DB2

DB3

DB4 (D)

BB2

RM1

RM2

RM3

RM4

RM5

DB14A (D)

BH67 (D) DB5

BB1BH66 (D)

BH65 (D)

BH78

BH76A

BH77A

BH75 (D)

BH68

BH80

RM6

DB6

BB4

BH69

DB7

BH71

BH70

DB8A

BH73 (D)

DB9

DB10A

BH72

DB12 (D)

BH79 (D)

BB3A

Car Park

C

a

n

a

l

S

u

p

p

l

y

N7

LIMERICK, CORK

11

12

KEY:

Based on Ordnance Survey Ireland data and reproduced

under Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence Number

"EN0059208". Unauthorised reproduction infringes Ordnance





Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client no.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

DO NOT SCALE

Rev

Project

Client


GN

W

I

A

R

D

T

U

AO

A

D

C


ustainable S

olutions\K

erdiffstow

n Landfill\5 - D

raw

ings\C

AD

\IE

D B

aseline R

eport\32E

W5604-00-052-1.dw

g - 22/08/2017 13:35:22 - F

igure 4.1

- alroberts

®




REMEDIATION PROJECT

FIGURE 4.1

LOCATION OF GROUNDWATER

MONITORING WELLS AND SURFACE

WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS

IED BASELINE REPORT

AS SHOWN

32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-052 1

32EW5604-00-052/0

0 12/04/2017 AR MB CD RR

N

Licence Boundary


Surface Water Monitoring Point

Borehole Dry, January 2017

Overburden GW

Bedrock

In-Waste Boreholes


Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com

0 50 100 150

METRES

EIS SUBMISSION

(D)

N

1 17/08/2017 AR MB CD RRIED SUBMISSION

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

House

Kerdiffstown

Chapel

FB

(in ruins)

Church

Lake

Spring

Pool

QUARRY

Sand Pit

EMW29

0.12

EMW09

EMW10

EMW12

<0.06

BH26

129

EMW13

165

EMW05

1.45

EMW14

BH39B

EMW20

1.06

EMW19

3.85

EMW11

<0.06

BH40B

EMW16

5.18

BH2

BH42

3.42

EMW15

14.4

BH41D

EMW03

23.8

EMW06

<0.06

BH24

EMW24

<0.06

EMW22

<0.06

EMW23

<0.06

EMW04

0.27

EMW02

<0.06

EMW21

<0.06

EMW33

0.2

EMW32

0.12

EMW31

2.82

BH36B

1.65

EMW08

<0.06

EMW07

4.89

EMW18

0.44

EMW17

1.39

BH7

0.64

BH6

<0.06

EMW30

<0.06

GW2S

0.32

GW2D

<0.06

EMW28

0.38

EMW27D

0.23

RM05

1.88

RM02

0.37

RM05

0.53

RM04

2.43

RM03

0.82

DB05

0.44

RM06

0.3

DB06

0.48

DB15A (D)

DB1

DB2

DB3

6.38

DB4 (D)

BB2

<0.06

DB14A (D)

BB1

1.97

BB4

0.32

DB7

DB8A

<0.06

DB9

DB10A

<0.06

DB12 (D)

BH70

6.73

BH71

6.75

BH72

0.15

BH77A

0.43

BH68

<0.06

BH78

0.09

BH69

19.9

BH48

BH38




Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client No.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

DO NOT SCALE

Rev

Project

Client


GN

W

I

A

R

D

T

U

AO

A

D

C


ustainable S

olutions\K

erdiffstow

n Landfill\5 - D

raw

ings\C

AD

\IE

D B

aseline R

eport\32E

W5604-00-053-1.dw

g - 22/08/2017 12:30:52 - F

IG

UR

E 4.2

- alroberts

®




REMEDIATION PROJECT

FIGURE 4.2

DISTRIBUTION OF

AMMONIACAL NITROGEN

IED BASELINE REPORT

AS SHOWN

32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-053 1

32EW5604-00-053/1

0 12/04/2017 AR UD MB RR


Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com

0 50 100 150

METRES

AMMONIACAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS:

<0.5mg/l

0.5 - 5mg/l

5 - 50mg/l

>50mg/l

KEY:Licence Boundary





Survey Ireland and Government of Ireland copyright. OSI data

is correct as of 18/10/2016 and has been combined with

topographical survey data from 15/02/2016.

N

EIS SUBMISSION

NOTE:Results shown for boreholes installed prior to2016 are from samples collected in December2016 whilst the results from boreholes installedin 2016 are from February 2017.

1 17/08/2017 AR UD MB RRIED SUBMISSION

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

EMW29

25.2

EMW27

15.1

BH26

412

EMW13

221

EMW21

4.1

EMW33

16.1

EMW32

18.2

EMW31

19.9

EMW05

24.8

BH36

139

EMW14

BH39B

EMW11

51.7

BH40B

EMW16

153

EMW17

19.5

BH2

EMW30

12.1

EMW28

9.9

EMW02

7.6

BH7

64.7

GW2S

31.8

EMW18

17.4

EMW15

50.3

EMW07

31.1

EMW06

5.7

EMW03

59.3

EMW04

40.5

EMW08

8.6

BH42

25.1

EMW24

18.4

EMW22

35

EMW23

11.4

EMW12

31

EMW20

19.5

EMW19

27.5

BH6

26

GW1D

170

House

Kerdiffstown

Chapel

FB

(in ruins)

Church

Lake

Spring

Pool

QUARRY

Sand Pit

RM05

35.1

RM02

21.0

RM05

42.4

RM04

27.8

RM03

41.9

DB5

17.2

DB6

17.0

RM06

18.3

DB15A (D)

DB1

DB2

DB3

BB2

39.7

DB14A (D)

BB1

23.8

BB4

31.6

DB7

DB8A

30.4

DB9

DB10A

18.3

DB12 (D)

BB3A

10.1

BH70

32.6

BH71

46.3

BH72

19.9

BH77A

10.7

BH68

22.7

BH78

10.7

BH69

35.4




Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client No.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

DO NOT SCALE

Rev

Project

Client


GN

W

I

A

R

D

T

U

AO

A

D

C


ustainable S

olutions\K

erdiffstow

n Landfill\5 - D

raw

ings\C

AD

\IE

D B

aseline R

eport\32E

W5604-00-054-1.dw

g - 22/08/2017 12:39:44 - F

IG

UR

E 4.3

- alroberts

®




REMEDIATION PROJECT

FIGURE 4.3

DISTRIBUTION OF CHLORIDE

IED BASELINE REPORT

AS SHOWN

32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-054 1

32EW5604-00-054/1


Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com

0 50 100 150

METRES

0 12/04/2017 AR UD MB RR

CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS:

<30mg/l

30mg/l - 100mg/l

100mg/l - 200mg/l

>200mg/l

KEY:Licence Boundary








N

EIS SUBMISSION



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

House

Kerdiffstown

Chapel

FB

(in ruins)

Church

Lake

Spring

Pool

QUARRY

Sand Pit

EMW29

<0.5

EMW12

1.2

BH26

36

EMW13

98

EMW21

<0.5

EMW33

0.67

EMW31

<0.5

EMW05

<0.5

EMW14

BH39B

EMW20

<0.5

EMW19

<0.5

EMW11

<0.05

BH40B

EMW16

<0.5

EMW17

<0.5

BH6

<0.5

BH2

EMW30

<0.5

EMW28

<0.5

EMW02

<0.5

BH7

<0.5

GW2S

<0.5

EMW15

<0.5

EMW08

<0.5

BH42

<0.5

EMW24

<0.5

EMW22

<0.5

EMW23

<0.5

EMW32

<0.5

EMW06

1.3

EMW03

11

EMW04

<0.5

BH36

<0.5

EMW07

<0.5

EMW18

<0.5

EMW27

3.2

GW1D

<0.5

DB6

<0.5

RM06

<0.5

RM05

<0.5

RM02

<0.05

RM04

<0.05

DB5

<0.05

RM03

<0.05

RM01

<0.05

DB15A (D)

DB1

DB2

DB3

<0.05

BB2

<0.5

DB14A (D)

BB1

<0.5

BB4

<0.5

DB7

DB8A

6.4

DB9

DB10A

0.7

DB12 (D)

BH70

5.0

BH72

0.67

BH77A

7.0

BH68

13.0

BH78

<0.5

BH69

26.0

BB3A

<0.5




Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client No.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

DO NOT SCALE

Rev

Project

Client


GN

W

I

A

R

D

T

U

AO

A

D

C


ustainable S

olutions\K

erdiffstow

n Landfill\5 - D

raw

ings\C

AD

\IE

D B

aseline R

eport\32E

W5604-00-055-1.dw

g - 22/08/2017 12:42:31 - F

igure 4.4

- alroberts

®




REMEDIATION PROJECT

FIGURE 4.4

DISTRIBUTION OF PHENOL

IED BASELINE REPORT

AS SHOWN

32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-055 1

32EW5602-00-055/1


Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com

0 50 100 150

METRES

0 12/04/2017 AR UD MB RR

TOTAL PHENOL CONCENTRATIONS:

<1 µg/l

1 µg/l - <10 µg/l

>10 µg/l

KEY:







N

Licence Boundary


EIS SUBMISSION



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

House

Kerdiffstown

Chapel

FB

(in ruins)

Church

Lake

Spring

Pool

QUARRY

Sand Pit

EMW29

<0.04

EMW27

<0.08

EMW12

<0.04

BH26

28.6

EMW13

14.4

EMW21

<0.04

EMW33

<0.04

EMW32

<0.04

EMW31

<0.04

EMW05

0.5

BH36

0.25

EMW14

BH39B

EMW20

<0.04

EMW19

0.27

EMW11

<0.04

BH40B

EMW16

0.74

EMW17

<0.04

BH6

0.11

BH2

EMW30

<0.04

EMW28

<0.4

EMW02

<0.04

BH7

0.05

GW2S

0.05

EMW18

<0.04

EMW15

0.42

EMW07

0.16

EMW06

<0.04

EMW03

1.62

EMW04

0.4

EMW08

<0.04

BH42

0.25

EMW24

<0.04

EMW22

0.05

EMW23

<0.04

GW1D

<0.04

RM01

0.14

RM02

0.09

RM03

0.30

RM05

<0.04

RM04

<0.17

DB5

0.38

DB6

<0.04

RM06

<0.04

DB15A (D)

DB1

DB2

DB3

0.73

DB4 (D)

BB2

<0.08

DB14A (D)

BB1

0.1

BB4

<0.04

DB7

DB8A

<0.04

DB10A

<0.04

DB12 (D)

BH70

0.7

BH72

<0.04

BH77A

0.12

BH68

<0.04

BH78

<0.04

BH69

KEY:




Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client No.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

DO NOT SCALE

Rev

Project

Client


GN

W

I

A

R

D

T

U

AO

A

D

C


ustainable S

olutions\K

erdiffstow

n Landfill\5 - D

raw

ings\C

AD

\IE

D B

aseline R

eport\32E

W5604-00-056-1.dw

g - 22/08/2017 12:53:52 - F

igure 4.5

- alroberts

®




REMEDIATION PROJECT

FIGURE 4.5

DISTRIBUTION OF MECOPROP

IED BASELINE REPORT

AS SHOWN

32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-056 1

32EW5604-00-056/1

Licence Boundary



Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com

0 50 100 150

METRES

0 12/04/2017 AR UD MB RR

MECOPROP CONCENTRATIONS:

<0.25 µg/l

0.25 µg/l - 10 µg/l

>10 µg/l







N

EIS SUBMISSION



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

100

mOD

WESTEAST

Groundwater Conceptual Site Model for Zone 1: Current Scenario

Low permeability materials

associated with river alluvium

have the potential to retard

contaminant migration to river

Morell

River

70

120

Precipitation onto uncapped landfillPrecipitation onto uncapped landfill

Potential downwards vertical and

lateral migration into limestone bedrock

Base of waste saturated leading to leachate

production from groundwater flowing through

the waste

Monitoring indicates contaminated groundwater east of Zone 1

Increased groundwater levels in overburden locally

recorded reflecting increased infiltration via rainwater

Potential for leachate breakout as

waste approaches field capacity

Seasonal variation in infiltration rates reflected in seasonal

changes in groundwater quality measured in aquifer

Overburden

(principally sands & gravels becoming

more clayey in the west)

Limestone Bedrock

Leachate and saturation of household wastes

through rainfall infiltration

Low points in landfill surface have potential

for increased infiltration

Potential for migration of

leachate towards Morell River

Golf course

and lake

mOD

WESTEAST

Groundwater Conceptual Site Model for Zone 1: Post Remediation





Morell

River

120

Precipitation onto remediated landfillPrecipitation onto remediated landfill

Potential downwards vertical and lateral migration into limestone

bedrock reduced as result of lower groundwater levels in the

overburden deposits

Potential for reduction in saturated waste thickness

although likely to remain saturated leading to

leachate production from groundwater flowing

through the waste

Ongoing monitoring to record changes in

groundwater quality over time

Potential leachate breakouts will be directed back

into the waste mass via a drainage layer

below the remediation system

Limestone Bedrock

Leachate and saturation of household wastes

through rainfall infiltration reduced

Reduced potential for migration of

leachate towards Morell River

Golf course

and lake

Drainage system to collect clean

surface water run off

Perimeter drainage

system to collect clean

surface water run off

Material imported from other zones to

create a landform suitable

for remediation

Low permeability geomembrane and

remediation soils limiting infiltration to

waste

80

90

100

70

80

90

Remediation layer vegetated and

evapotranspiration increased to

reduce precipitation ingress

Indicative

Site Boundary

Indicative

Site Boundary

Indicative

Site Boundary

Indicative

Site Boundary

Overburden

(principally sands & gravels becoming

more clayey in the west)

47

3 to <0.6

109

'Transition Zone' - fractured limestone with some clay in fractures

60

Swale


60

Groundwater Level in the

Overburden

Groundwater Head in the Limestone

Bedrock

Migrating Leachate

Ammoniacal Nitrogen Concentration

July 2016 (mg/l)

KEY:

47




Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client No.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

Rev

Project

Client


\\Ie

du

b1

-fil0

01

\ji\S

usta

in

ab

le

S

olu

tio

ns\K

erd

iffsto

wn

L

an

dfill\5

- D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

\E

ng

in

ee

rin

g D

esig

n - E

IS

\3

2E

W5

60

4-0

0-0

16

-2

.d

wg

- 0

9/0

8/2

01

7 0

8:2

9:3

6 - E

IA

R - a

lro

be

rts

®






REMEDIATION PROJECT

FIGURE 5.1 HYDROGEOLOGY CONCEPTUAL

SITE MODEL (ZONE 1)

IED BASELINE REPORTNTS [A3]

32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-016 2

32EW5604-00-016-2

0 17/08/2016 AR MB CD RR


Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com


FIGURE 5.1



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

100

Precipitation onto uncapped wastes

Leakage through cracks and

joints in concrete

Concrete Hardstanding

Leaching from predominately household waste

through rainfall infiltration

Leaching from household and C & D waste through rainfall infiltration

Limestone Bedrock

Limestone Bedrock


lateral migration into limestone bedrock with

principal flowpath being in the transition zone

Base of waste saturated leading to

leachate production from

groundwater flowing through

the waste

Potential for migration

of leachate towards

Morell River

Precipitation onto uncapped wastes

Infiltration through

uncapped wastes





Morell

River

Concrete

Hardstanding

Mixing and dilution of leachate

in overburden groundwater

60

Thin unsaturated zone with limited

potential for attenuation of contaminants

mOD

WEST EAST

Groundwater Conceptual Site Model for Zone 2A and 2B: Current Scenario

100

P r e c i p i t a t i o n

Sealing of cracks and

joints in concrete

Leaching from household waste

through rainfall infiltration is significantly reduced

Leaching from household and C & D waste through rainfall infiltration

is significantly reduced


lateral migration into limestone bedrock reduced

Base of waste likely to remain saturated

leading to leachate production from

groundwater flowing through the waste

Reduced potential for migration

of leachate towards

Morell River

Overburden deposits

become more clayey

in the east





Morell

River

mOD



WEST EAST

Groundwater Conceptual Site Model for Zone 2A and 2B: Post Remediation


Drainage associated with low

permeability layer

Low permeability layer to

reduce rainfall infiltration

Drainage associated with low

permeability layer

70

80

90

80

60

70

90



Indicative

Site Boundary

Indicative

Site Boundary

Indicative

Site Boundary

Overburden

(principally clayey, silty

sands & gravels)

Overburden

(principally sands & gravels

becoming more clayey

in the east)

Monitoring shows ammoniacal

nitrogen in the groundwater

Ongoing monitoring to record changes

in groundwater quality overtime

Vent trench

Vent trench

Gas collection layer

Concrete

Hardstanding

Swale

Concrete

Hardstanding

Concrete

Hardstanding

'Transition Zone' - fractured limestone with some clay in

fractures

'Transition Zone' - fractured limestone with

some clay in fractures

14

3.6 to

<0.06

Groundwater Level

Potential Leachate Level

Migrating Leachate

Ammoniacal Nitrogen

Concentration July 2016 (mg/l)

KEY:

4.7




Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client No.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

Rev

Project

Client


\\Ie

du

b1

-fil0

01

\ji\S

usta

in

ab

le

S

olu

tio

ns\K

erd

iffsto

wn

L

an

dfill\5

- D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

\E

ng

in

ee

rin

g D

esig

n - E

IS

\3

2E

W5

60

4-0

0-0

17

-2

.d

wg

- 0

9/0

8/2

01

7 0

8:3

2:2

8 - E

IA

R - a

lro

be

rts

®






REMEDIATION PROJECT


SITE MODEL (ZONE 2)


32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-017 2

32EW5604-00-017-2

0 17/08/2016 AR MB CD RR


Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com


FIGURE 5.2



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

100

mOD

WEST

70

80

90

EAST

Potential downwards vertical and lateral migration into

limestone bedrock with principal flowpath in the transition zone

Potential for leakage of leachate through any defects in the basal liner with

mixing and dilution of leachate in overburden groundwater

Precipitation onto lined cell


Temporary geomembrane to

reduce rainfall infiltration

Precipitation ingress to wastes through defects

in the geomembrane with leaching from

wastes

Leachate pumped to surface

for off-site disposal

Perched groundwater

Low permeability

clay horizon

Precipitation runoff from

geomembrane

Leachate levels controlled by pumping

from leachate sump

Leachate collection layer (gravel)

1m low permeability clay

Basal liner system

Overburden deposits

predominately silts and clays at the surface, possibly

becoming more sandy and gravelly with depth

Limestone bedrock


100

WEST

70

80

90

EAST

Potential downwards vertical and lateral migration into limestone

bedrock with principal flowpath in the transition zone



Low permeability remediation

layer

Perched groundwater

Low permeability

clay horizon

Leachate levels controlled by pumping

from leachate sump

Leachate collection layer (gravel)

1m low permeability clay

Basal liner

system

Overburden deposits

predominately silts and clays

at the surface, possibly becoming

more sandy and gravelly with depth


2m high bund

HDPE side

wall liner

HDPE side

wall liner





Potential for leakage of leachate through any defects in the basal liner with

mixing and dilution of leachate in overburden groundwater. Leakage may

increase over long time scales as the basal liner degrades

Reduced precipitation ingress to wastes

through the low permeability

remediation layer

Precipitation runoff from

landfill remediation

Remediation layer vegetated and

evapotranspiration increased to reduce

precipitation ingress

Material imported from other zones to

create a landform suitable

for remediation

Leachate pumped to

surface for off-site

disposal

Surface water drainage

Drainage Ditch



mOD

Limestone bedrock


Overburden


Bedrock

Potential Leachate Level

Migrating Leachate

KEY:




Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client No.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

Rev

Project

Client


\\Ie

du

b1

-fil0

01

\ji\S

usta

in

ab

le

S

olu

tio

ns\K

erd

iffsto

wn

L

an

dfill\5

- D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

\E

ng

in

ee

rin

g D

esig

n - E

IS

\3

2E

W5

60

4-0

0-0

18

-2

.d

wg

- 0

9/0

8/2

01

7 0

8:3

5:2

2 - E

IA

R - a

lro

be

rts

®






REMEDIATION PROJECT


SITE MODEL (ZONE 3)


32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-018 2

32EW5604-00-018-2

0 17/08/2016 AR MB CD RR


Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com


FIGURE 5.3



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16

100

60

mOD

Morell

River



with principal flowpath in transition zone

Precipitation onto uncapped

waste mounds

Precipitation onto uncapped

waste mounds

Potential for migration of leachate

towards Morell River

Limestone Bedrock

Base of waste potentially saturated leading to

leachate production from groundwater flowing

through

the waste



with principal flowpath in the transition zone

Overburden Deposits

Leaching from C & D wastes

through rainfall infiltration with

mixing and dilution of leachate in

overburden groundwater


100

mOD

Morell

River


Potential for migration of leachate

towards Morell River

Overburden Deposits



SOUTH-WEST NORTH-EAST

Lined Pond

Low permeability layer to reduce

rainfall infiltration

70

80

90

Indicative

Site Boundary

50

Concrete

Hardstanding



Leaching from wastes through

rainfall infiltration

significantly reduced

Base of waste likely to remain potentially saturated leading to

leachate production from groundwater flowing through

the waste

60

70

80

90

50



Indicative

Site Boundary



4.6

Monitoring shows ammoniacal nitrogen

concentration at eastern boundary

Drainage associated with low permeability layer

SOUTH-WEST NORTH-EAST









Potential downwards vertical and lateral

migration into limestone bedrock


Ongoing monitoring to record changes in

groundwater quality over time

Potential downwards vertical and lateral

migration into limestone bedrock


Overburden

(principally sands & gravels)

Limestone Bedrock

'Transition Zone' - fractured limestone

with some clay in fractures

3.3

'Transition Zone' - fractured limestone

with some clay in fractures

Overburden

(principally sands & gravels)


Overburden


Bedrock

Migrating Leachate

Ammoniacal Nitrogen Concentration

July 2016 (mg/l)

KEY:

47




Drawing status

Drawing number

Scale

Client No.

Jacobs No.

Drawing title

Rev

Project

Client


\\Ie

du

b1

-fil0

01

\ji\S

usta

in

ab

le

S

olu

tio

ns\K

erd

iffsto

wn

L

an

dfill\5

- D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

\E

ng

in

ee

rin

g D

esig

n - E

IS

\3

2E

W5

60

4-0

0-0

19

-2

.d

wg

- 0

9/0

8/2

01

7 0

8:3

8:2

9 - E

IA

R - a

lro

be

rts

®






REMEDIATION PROJECT


SITE MODEL (ZONE 4)


32EW5604

6286

32EW5604-00-019 2

32EW5604-00-019-2

0 17/08/2016 AR MB CD RR


Tel:+353(1)269 5666

www.jacobs.com


FIGURE 5.4



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 20-10-2017:03:25:16