HomeMy WebLinkAbout2660115 - F.I. Received Doc. - hydrological assessment
Hydrogeological Assessment
1
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SUBSOILS FOR PROPOSED EXTENDED BURIAL GROUND ST MACARTANS DIOCESAN TRUST TE REF: 26/ 139 TE
ST MACARTANS DIOCESAN TRUST
PROPOSED GRAVEYARD EXTENSION
ST MARY’S CHURCH
CASTLEBLAYNEY
CO. MONAGHAN
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SUBSOILS
FOR PROPOSED EXTENDED BURIAL GROUND AT
ST MARY’S CHURCH, CASTLEBLAYNEY
CO. MONAGHAN
Traynor Environmental Ltd
Belturbet Business Park, Creeny, Belturbet
Co. Cavan
Tel: +353 49 9522236
Fax: +353 49 9522808
Web: www.traynorenvironmental.com
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
2
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 4
3.0 POLICY CONTEXT – MONAGHAN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6
4.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR BURIALS IN IRELAND 7
5.0 GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 9
5.1 Topography 9
5.2 Soils 9
5.3 Subsoils 9
5.4 Bedrock Geology 10
5.5 Hydrology 11
6.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE SITE 16
6.1 Walkover Survey 16
6.2 Site Investigation Findings 16
6.3 Conceptual Model of the Site 19
7.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL RISK REGISTER 19
8.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUITABILITY 23
9.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND OPERATIONAL CONTROLS 23
10.0 CONCLUSION 23
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents a hydrogeological assessment of the proposed extension to the burial ground at St Mary’s
Church, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan. The purpose of the assessment is to determine the suitability of the site
for burial activities and to evaluate potential impacts on groundwater and surrounding environmental receptors.
The site is underlain by clay-rich glacial till of low permeability with a proven thickness exceeding 2.1–3.0 m.
Intrusive investigations confirmed that groundwater was not encountered to depths of 3.0 m below ground level,
indicating the presence of a substantial unsaturated zone. The underlying bedrock is classified as a Poor Aquifer,
and the site is situated within an area of Low groundwater vulnerability.
Percolation testing indicates moderate infiltration rates, while the cohesive nature of the subsoil provides
significant attenuation capacity. Groundwater flow is inferred to follow local topography and is directed away
from sensitive receptors, including Lough Muckno.
A Source–Pathway–Receptor risk assessment demonstrates that no significant pollutant linkage exists. Identified
risks are low following implementation of standard mitigation measures.
Conclusion: The site is considered hydrogeologically suitable for burial use and poses a low risk to groundwater,
subject to adherence to standard design and operational controls.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This assessment evaluates the hydrogeological suitability of the proposed burial ground extension. The study
incorporates a desk-based review, site walkover survey, intrusive ground investigation (trial pits), and percolation
testing.
The objective is to ensure that burial activities will not adversely impact groundwater quality, groundwater
quantity, or nearby environmental receptors.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
The site comprises gently undulating agricultural grassland located immediately south of an existing cemetery.
Surrounding land uses include recreational lands, agricultural fields, and established vegetation boundaries. No
surface water features, drainage ditches, or wetlands were identified within or immediately adjacent to the site.
The site is not located within any designated environmental sites. Lough Muckno is a proposed NHA. Lough
Muckno (IE_NB_06_56) is also designated to be at risk and is located greater than 200m from the site.
Figure 1: Site Location
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
5
Figure 2: Site Layout
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
6
3.0 POLICY CONTEXT – MONAGHAN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposed development has been assessed having regard to the following:
• EPA Groundwater Protection Guidelines
• GSI Groundwater Protection Schemes
• Relevant County Development Plan policies
• National and international guidance on burial ground development
Compliance with these requirements is demonstrated throughout this report, particularly within the risk assessment
and mitigation sections.
Groundwater Protection Policies
• Policy WPP1 – WPP4: Protect and enhance groundwater resources, ensure that development proposals
do not pose a risk to groundwater quality or quantity, and require appropriate site assessment and
mitigation in areas of elevated groundwater vulnerability, having regard to the EPA Groundwater
Protection Schemes.
Sustainable Infrastructure Policies
• Policy SI1: Ensure that development is supported by appropriate infrastructure and services and does
not result in unacceptable environmental impacts.
• Policy SI2: Require that all development proposals demonstrate compliance with relevant
environmental standards, including best practice guidance in relation to water protection, drainage,
and waste management.
Rural Community and Social Infrastructure Policies
• Policy RDP6: Support the provision, retention and appropriate expansion of community, cultural,
religious, and social infrastructure in rural areas, where such development is appropriately located,
environmentally sustainable and serves the needs of the local community.
The extension of an existing burial ground constitutes essential community infrastructure and is supported in
principle by the Development Plan, subject to compliance with environmental protection and groundwater
safeguarding requirements.
Table 1: Surrounding Land Use
Direction Site Boundaries
North The site is bounded to the North by an existing graveyard
South The site is bounded to the South by open grassland and by existing playing pitches
(Castleblayney Faughs GFC grounds)
East The site is bounded to the East by grassland and a woodland (amenity) area with
walking paths
West The site is bounded to the West by open grassland with occasional trees RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
7
4.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR BURIALS IN IRELAND
The proposed burial area should be developed in accordance with the following criteria:
• Maximum burial depth: 2.0 m below ground level
• Minimum unsaturated subsoil thickness beneath grave base: 1.0 m
• Minimum separation between grave base and seasonal high groundwater table: 1.2 m (where
applicable)
Based on trial hole data from the site investigation works no groundwater was encountered to 3.0 m BGL with the
presence of low-permeability clay-rich till, these criteria are considered achievable across the site.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
8
Table 2: Summary of Burial Guidance Information
Summary of Burial Guidance Documentation
Under Irish Law (1929 Irish law Amendment of the
1888 Rules & Regulations for the regulation of Burial
Grounds)
Requirements for minimum perpendicular burial soil
depth is eight feet (2.44m) and that a minimum
depth of four feet (1.21m) is required for interment.
Cemeteries, Burials & the Water Environment.
A good practice guide for applicants and planning
authorities when planning cemetery developments or
extensions, UK Department of the Environment (DOE)
& Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), April
2016.
Recommends 2.8m soil cover investigation depth.
If bedrock is encountered in the trial pit, that area of
the site should not be used for burials.
The area of the site is not suitable for burial if there is
standing water at the bottom of the burial pit when
first dug.
Burial plots should be at least 250m away from a
borehole, spring or well used for the supply of drinking
water and/or bottling of mineral water
Burial plots should be at least 50m away from all other
boreholes, spring, and wells.
Burial plots should be at least 50m away from a river,
canal, lake wetland, or the coast.
Burial plots should be at least 10m away from field
drains.
Guidelines for planning cemeteries (from Cemeteries, Burials & the Water Environment, DOE & NIEA, April
2016)
Environmental Protection Agency A minimum unsaturated zone thickness between
interment and water table of 1.2m is appropriate in
keeping with EPA recommendations in respect of
wastewater discharge to the subsurface.
In practice, burial depth control on this site will comply with the most conservative elements of applicable Irish
legislation, EPA guidance and UK/NIEA best practice, ensuring a minimum unsaturated subsoil thickness beneath
all interments.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
9
5.0 GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
5.1 Topography
The site slopes gently to moderately and will be subject to minor regrading to achieve suitable burial conditions,
without altering overall drainage patterns.
5.2 Soils
Subsoils comprise clay-dominated glacial till, typically over-consolidated, poorly sorted and of low permeability.
These materials provide significant attenuation capacity and restrict the movement of contaminants.
5.3 Subsoil (Quaternary) Geology
The site is underlain by Quaternary glacial deposits, predominantly tills derived from Lower Palaeozoic rocks. These
deposits typically comprise clay-dominated material with occasional gravelly horizons. Such tills are
characteristically over-consolidated, poorly sorted and of low to moderate permeability. Desk study data
indicate that depth to bedrock in the locality is in the order of 8–10 m below ground level.
Figure 3: Subsoils geology of the site and its environment. The subsoil is a till type. Till is sediment deposited by or
from glacier ice.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
10
The tills in the locality were deposited in the majority at the base of the moving ice. During the advancement of
the glaciers, the weight and pressure of the ice broke the bedrock upon which the glaciers moved and ground
it down to particle sizes ranging from boulders to clay. This material was smeared by the advancing ice on top
of the pre-existing bedrock, leaving the mixture of debris material comprised of till. Tills are often over-
consolidated, or tightly packed, unsorted, unbedded, possessing many different particle and clast (stone) sizes,
and commonly have sharp, angular clasts.
On the subsoil map tills are catergorised according to their dominant lithological component (Figure 3). Grain
size of the matrix, or the texture of the till, is important, as this determines permeability, which is important for soil
development processes. Thus, tills may be described as gravelly, sandy, silty or clay. From Figure 3 it would appear
that the site is located within an area of till derived chiefly from lower Paleozoic. The till extends outwards in all
directions from the site. The permeability of this till subsoil, as mapped for the County Monaghan. Groundwater
Protection Scheme (1995) is moderate. The parent material of the subsoil in the area has been derived
predominantly from Ordovician Metasediments generally breaks down to a clay. In some areas around
Monaghan, the tills contain gravelly and clay material, as they were deposited at the ice margin during glacial
retreat at the end of the ice age as moraines. Information from the Geological Survey depth-to-bed rock map
of Ireland suggests that depth-to-bedrock in the vicinity of the proposed site is between 8m and 10m.
5.4 Bedrock Geology
Bedrock beneath the site is expected at depths of approximately 8–10 m and was not encountered during trial
pit investigations dug to 3.0m. The bedrock is classified as a Poor Aquifer, indicating limited groundwater
productivity and low vulnerability. Groundwater flow is inferred to follow local topography. Recharge is expected
to be limited due to the low permeability of the subsoils and the characteristics of the underlying aquifer.
Figure 4: Bedrock Geology
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
11
5.5 Hydrogeology
5.5.1 Aquifer Classification
Groundwater is defined as water that moves through and is stored within sub-terrain geological strata and flow
direction follows topography. Groundwater underlying the site is therefore assumed to flow from east to west,
downslope towards the lower area to the southwest.
The aquifer potential of a bedrock unit is determined by the groundwater productivity. Productivity is based on
hydraulic characteristics compiled from borehole data throughout the county. The national draft aquifer map of
Ireland produced by the Geological Survey of Ireland has classified the proposed site as a poor aquifer (PI) -
bedrock which is generally unproductive except in local zones.
Figure 5: Aquifer Classification
5.5.2 Groundwater Vulnerability
Groundwater vulnerability is a term used to represent the geological and hydrogeological characteristics that
determine the ease with which groundwater may be contaminated by human activities. The vulnerability of an
aquifer is defined as the ease with which water and potential contaminants may reach groundwater in a vertical
or sub-vertical direction. It depends on permeability and thickness of the subsoil. A groundwater vulnerability
map for the area shows a ranking of 'Low' groundwater vulnerability.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
12
Figure 6: Groundwater Vulnerability
5.5.3 Ground Waterbody Status
The site is located within the Louth Groundwater Body (IEGBNI_NB_G_019), which is classified as having Good
Chemical Status and Good Quantitative Status under the Water Framework Directive (2019 –2024 cycle). This
classification indicates that groundwater quality is currently unimpacted and that the aquifer is in a sustainable
condition. In accordance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive, the proposed development
must ensure that no deterioration in groundwater status occurs.
Figure 7: Ground Waterbody WFD Status 2019-2024
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
13
5.5.4 Recharge
The term 'recharge' refers to the amount of water replenishing the groundwater system. Recharge is generally
estimated on an annual basis and is assumed to consist of an input (i.e. annual rainfall) less water losses (i.e.
annual evapotranspiration and runoff). In areas where point recharge from sinking streams etc. is discounted,
the main parameters involved in recharge rate estimation are annual rainfall, annual evapotranspiration, and
annual runoff. Diffuse recharge will occur via rainfall percolating through the subsoil or through areas of
outcropping rock. The proportion of the effective rainfall that will recharge the aquifer is determined by the
permeability of the soil and subsoil, and by the slope. The generally deep 'poor' permeability subsoil of the
Castleblayney locality will restrict recharge to a limited degree.
Figure 8: Location of Groundwater Wells and Springs
5.5.5 Utilisation of Groundwater Resources in the vicinity of the Proposed Development
According to the GSI Maps (2026), there are two wells in the area. The closest well is approximately >50m from
the proposed extended cemetery site.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
14
Figure 9: Wells in the vicinity
5.5.6 Surface Water Features
No significant hydrological or hydrogeological impact on Lough Muckno is anticipated, given the separation
distance (~200 m), inferred groundwater flow direction, intervening topography, and low-permeability subsoils.
Based on site topography and observed ground levels, groundwater flow is inferred to be directed towards the
west, away from Lough Muckno. In addition, an intervening topographic high (localised ridge/hill) is present
between the site and the lake, acting as a natural hydraulic divide and further preventing any potential hydraulic
connectivity. The Annahale Stream is located approximately 1.18 km to the south of the site and is considered
sufficiently distant such that no direct or indirect hydrogeological linkage exists. No significant hydrological or
hydrogeological impact is anticipated, given the separation distance, local topography, inferred groundwater
flow direction and low-permeability subsoils.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
15
Figure 10: Surrounding Surface Water Features
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
16
6.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE SITE
Intrusive site investigations comprising trial hole excavation and walkover survey were undertaken to characterise
subsoil conditions beneath the proposed graveyard extension.
6.1 Walkover Survey
Initially, a walk-over survey was conducted across the entire site to examine the ground conditions and salient
features on-site. The area of the proposed burial ground is covered with good quality vegetation. From this
walkover, it was seen that no drainage ditches have been dug on or around the site. The majority of the other
hedgerows around the site comprise fences and/or dry banks. None of the land across the site hosts rushes and
the ground appears firm and dry.
6.2. Site Investigation Findings
6.2.1 Trial Hole Excavations
Five trial pits were excavated across the site to depths of up to 3.0 m BGL. Subsoil thickness exceeded 2.1 m in all
locations. Groundwater was not encountered in any trial pit during the investigation, indicating a significant
unsaturated zone at the time of assessment. Bedrock was not encountered. The subsoil profile typically comprised
topsoil overlying clay-rich glacial till with occasional granular inclusions. Based on BS5930 classification and field
observations, the subsoil is classified as LOW permeability. The cohesive, fine-grained nature of the material
significantly restricts infiltration and reduces the potential for contaminant migration.
6.2.2 Percolation Testing
Percolation testing was undertaken in accordance with the EPA Code of Practice (2021) to assess the drainage
and attenuation characteristics of the soils at the site. The results indicate a subsoil percolation value (T -test) of
42.32 min/25mm and a topsoil percolation value (P-test) of 35.41 min/25mm. These values are indicative of
moderately low permeability conditions, consistent with the clay-rich glacial till identified during site
investigations. The results demonstrate that the soils are neither excessively permeable nor poorly draining,
providing an appropriate balance between drainage and contaminant attenuation. From a hydrogeological
perspective, These permeability characteristics provide an effective balance between drainage and
attenuation, ensuring that potential contaminants are retained and treated within the subsoil profile, thereby
protecting underlying groundwater, as they limit rapid vertical migration of potential leachate while preventing
waterlogging within burial plots. The percolation characteristics therefore support the conclusion that the site
poses a low risk to groundwater, subject to compliance with standard burial depth and separation requirements.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
17
Figure 11: Location of trial holes excavated within the proposed extended graveyard
The topsoil encountered in the trial hole was loose dry brown sandy gravel which was underlain by fine loamy
drift with siliceous stones. Within the trial holes, Excavation depths were limited by anticipated seasonal
groundwater levels inferred from soil conditions; however, no groundwater ingress was observed during trial hole
inspections. There was no groundwater ingress in any trial pit. No evidence of mottling, gleying or water ingress
was observed in trial pits, indicating that seasonal groundwater levels are unlikely to rise significantly within the
depth of investigation. Overall, the subsoils examined to 3.0m BGL in the trial pit excavation and did not
encounter groundwater indicating site suitable for burial.
Trial Pit Depth (m) Subsoil Groundwater Bedrock
TP1 3.0 Clay till Not encountered Not encountered
TP2 3.0 Clay till Not encountered Not encountered
TP3 3.0 Clay till Not encountered Not encountered
TP4 3.0 Clay till Not encountered Not encountered
TP5 3.0 Clay till Not encountered Not encountered
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
18
6.2.3 Subsoil Description
The subsoil beneath the site comprises a clay-rich glacial till with occasional gravel lenses occurring sporadically
throughout the area. The till is generally cohesive and fine-grained, consistent with glacial deposits widely
encountered across County Monaghan. The gravel content is minor and irregularly distributed, resulting in only
localised variations in permeability. The deposit is poorly sorted and exhibits a dense, over-consolidated structure
typical of clay-dominated glacial materials.
6.2.4 Factors Influencing Permeability
The permeability of subsoil sediments is primarily influenced by:
1. Grain size distribution – finer materials such as clay impede water movement, while coarser materials like
gravel enhance local permeability.
2. Clay content and cohesion – higher clay content reduces permeability due to the cohesive nature of
the material.
3. Structure and compaction – the dense, compact nature of glacial clay limits water infiltration.
4. Secondary features – root channels, desiccation cracks, and occasional gravel lenses can create
localized pathways for water, but these are limited in extent.
6.2.5 Permeability Classification
Based on field observations and standard soil classification methods (BS 5930:1999), the clay -dominated nature
of the subsoil indicates generally low permeability. Supporting evidence includes:
• Fine-grained, cohesive composition throughout most of the site.
• Limited gravel content, insufficient to significantly enhance drainage.
• Lack of mottling or other signs of high-water movement, indicating slow infiltration and good moisture
retention.
• Recharge and drainage indicators in surrounding fields, which are consistent with slowly permeable
soils.
Regional mapping (GSI Groundwater Protection Scheme) classifies the till as having moderate permeability;
however, site-specific observations indicate a clay-dominated matrix with limited granular horizons. Based on
typical values for such materials, hydraulic conductivity is likely in the order of 10⁻⁸ to 10⁻⁹ m/s, indicating low
permeability at the site scale.
Based on BS5930 classification and field observations, the subsoil is classified as LOW permeability. The cohesive,
fine-grained nature of the material significantly restricts infiltration and reduces the potential for contaminant
migration.
6.2.6 Summary
Overall, the subsoil at the site comprises a cohesive, clay-rich glacial till with minor gravel inclusions, resulting in
predominantly low permeability conditions. Any localised gravel lenses may facilitate limited groundwater
movement; however, the overall behaviour of the deposit is characterised by slow drainage and high-water
retention, consistent with clay-dominated tills encountered across County Monaghan.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
19
6.3 Conceptual Model of the Site
The desk study, walkover survey and trial hole investigations allow the following conceptual model to be
developed:
• Subsoil thickness: >2.1–3.0 m.
• Groundwater: not encountered to 3.0 m BGL
• Groundwater flow: inferred based on topography.
• Aquifer classification: Poor
• Groundwater vulnerability: Low
These conditions provide a high level of natural protection to groundwater.
7.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL RISK REGISTER
A Source–Pathway–Receptor model has been applied in accordance with EPA and GSI guidance to assess
potential risks to groundwater. Risk ratings are based on professional judgement informed by site investigation
results, receptor proximity, and the inferred hydrogeological setting, including low-permeability subsoils and
limited groundwater connectivity.
1) Risk scoring system - Likelihood scale (L)
Score Description Typical interpretation (graveyards)
1 Rare Only under exceptional conditions
2 Unlikely Could occur, but not expected
3 Possible Might occur under normal conditions
4 Likely Will occur in many circumstances
5 Almost certain Expected to occur frequently
Consequence scale (C)
Score Description Groundwater / receptor impact
1 Insignificant No measurable impact
2 Minor Localised, short duration; no receptor exceedance
3 Moderate Measurable deterioration; could affect a local well/stream
4 Major Exceedance likely; multiple receptors potentially affected
5 Severe Widespread contamination; public supply or significant well impacts
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
20
Risk rating = L × C
Score Class
1–5 Low
6–10 Medium
11–15 High
16–25 Very High
2) Risk matrix
Consequence (C) →
Likelihood (L) ↓ 1 2 3 4 5
5 5 10 15 20 25
4 4 8 12 16 20
3 3 6 9 12 15
2 2 4 6 8 10
1 1 2 3 4 5
(Then classify using the 1–5 Low / 6–10 Medium / 11–15 High / 16–25 Very High bands.)
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Proposed Graveyard Extension, St Mary’s Church, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan.
Ref Source
(Hazard) Pathway Receptor Likelihood
(Pre)
Consequen
ce (Pre) Risk (Pre) Mitigation / Control Measures Likelihood
(Post)
Consequence
(Post) Residual Risk
HR1
Leachate
from
decomposi
tion of
human
remains
Vertical
percolatio
n through
subsoil
Ground
water 3 3 9 (Med)
Thick clay-dominated subsoils (>2.1–3.0 m);
poor aquifer bedrock; burial depth
control; minimum unsaturated zone
maintained
1 2 2 (Low)
HR2
Seasonal
rise in
groundwat
er table
Direct
contact
with grave
base
Ground
water 2 4 8 (Med)
Groundwater not encountered in trial
holes dug to 3.0m; burial depth limited to
≤2.0 m; perimeter drainage to maintain
separation.
1 3 3 (Low)
HR3
Preferential
flow
through
isolated
gravel
lenses
Localised
rapid
percolatio
n
Ground
water 3 3 9 (Med)
Gravel lenses occasional and
discontinuous within dominant clay matrix;
controlled excavation and reinstatement
2 2 4 (Low)
HR4
Migration
of
contamina
nts to
private
wells
Groundwat
er flow
Private
wells 2 4 8 (Med)
Nearest well located >80 m from burial
area; compliance with ≥50 m setback;
groundwater flow inferred away from the
wells.
1 3 3 (Low) RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
22
Ref Source
(Hazard) Pathway Receptor Likelihood
(Pre)
Consequen
ce (Pre) Risk (Pre) Mitigation / Control Measures Likelihood
(Post)
Consequence
(Post) Residual Risk
HR5
Surface
runoff from
burial area
Overland
flow
Surface
waters 1 3 3 (Low)
No rivers, streams, wetlands, or springs
were identified on or immediately
adjacent to the site based on site
inspection and available mapping. Lough
Muckno >50m from the site.
1 2 2 (Low)
HR6
Long-term
cumulative
burial
loading
Diffuse
recharge
Ground
water 2 3 6 (Med)
Pollutant load reduces rapidly over time;
phased development; low-intensity land
use
1 2 2 (Low)
HR7
Accidental
contamina
tion during
maintenan
ce (fuel,
oils)
Soil
infiltration /
drains
Ground
water 2 3 6 (Med) Controlled refuelling; no chemical storage;
good site management practices 1 2 2 (Low)
HR8
Extreme
rainfall
events
Increased
recharge
Ground
water 3 3 9 (Med)
Clay-rich subsoil restricts percolation;
perimeter drainage; burial capped and
reinstated promptly.
2 2 4 (Low)
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
8.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUITABILITY
Having regard to the geological setting, subsoil characteristics and groundwater conditions, the site is considered
suitable for burial development, subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined. No significant
source–pathway–receptor linkage has been identified.
9.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND OPERATIONAL CONTROLS
The following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1. A minimum unsaturated subsoil thickness of at least 1.0 m shall be maintained beneath all graves.
2. A minimum separation of 1.2 m shall be maintained between grave base and seasonal high
groundwater level. Trial holes were dug to 3.0m with no evidence of seasonal high groundwater levels.
3. Appropriate setback distances from wells, surface water features and other receptors shall be
maintained.
4. Site drainage shall be managed to prevent groundwater ingress into burial areas.
5. All works shall be carried out in accordance with EPA, GSI and Local Authority guidance.
6. Burials will be restricted to areas where minimum unsaturated subsoil thickness is confirmed, and no
burials will occur in low-lying or potentially waterlogged areas.
7. A petrol oil water separator should be installed for any areas which will be used for Car parking.
These measures reduce all identified risks to LOW.
10.0 CONCLUSION
The proposed development represents a LOW hydrogeological risk and is acceptable from a groundwater
protection perspective. Groundwater was not encountered in trial pits to depths of up to 3.0 m BGL, indicating a
significant unsaturated zone. Combined with the presence of low-permeability clay-rich subsoils, this provides
effective natural protection to underlying groundwater. The underlying bedrock is classified as a Poor Aquifer,
and the site is located within an area of Low groundwater vulnerability. The site is located within the Louth
Groundwater Body (IEGBNI_NB_G_019), which is classified as having Good Chemical Status and Good
Quantitative Status under the Water Framework Directive. Identified receptors, including private wells and
surface water features, are sufficiently distant and are not considered to be hydraulically connected to the site.
The development is therefore compliant with the objectives of the Water Framework Directive.
Subject to the implementation of standard mitigation measures, no adverse impacts on groundwater quality,
groundwater quantity or surrounding surface water features are anticipated. The development complies with
EPA, GSI and Development Plan requirements and is considered suitable for burial use. Given the
hydrogeological setting and absence of a viable pollutant pathway, the risk of any measurable impact on
groundwater or surface water receptors is negligible.
Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Nevin Traynor
Qualifications BSc. Env, H. Dip I.T, Cert SHWW, EPA/FAS Cert. RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
24
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF LANDS
COMPLETED BY
TRAYNOR ENVIRONMENTAL LTD
APPENDIX 1 – TRIAL HOLES
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Trial Hole (Test Area No. 1)
Depth of Trial Hole 3.0m BGL
Depth from Ground Surface to bedrock
(m) if Present
None
Encountered Depth from Ground Surface to
Water Table (m) if Present
None
Encountered
Depth of water ingress None
Encountered Rock Type if Present None
Encountered
Date and Time of Excavation 10.03.26 09.00 Date and Time of
Examination 12.03.26 09.30
Depth of
Subsurface
& Surface
Soil/Subsoil
Texture
Classification
Plasticity and
Dilatancy
Soil
Structure
Density
Compactness Colour Preferential
Flow paths
0.1m Silt/Clay Ribbons Crumb Low Brown
0.2m 10.10.10
0.3m 1,1,1Threads
0.4m
0.5m Clay intermixed Ribbons Blocky Medium Brown
0.6m With stone 40.40.50
0.7m 5,5,6Threads
0.8m
0.9m
1.0m
1.1m
1.2m
1.3m
1.4m
1.5m
1.6m
1.7m
1.8m
1.9m
2.0m
2.1m
2.2m
EVALUATION:
Weather conditions: Mild
According To the Flowchart for Describing Subsoils based on BS5930:1999, the subsoil is best described as Clay
intermixed with stone.
Groundwater was not encountered in the trial hole. Bedrock was not encountered in the trial hole.
Likely Subsurface Percolation
Value:
>20.00
min /25mm
*Note: Depth of percolation test holes should be indicated on
log above (Enter Subsurface & Surface Depths as appropriate)
* See Appendix E for BS5930 Classification
** 3 samples to be tested
*** All signs of mottling should be recorded.
Likely Surface Percolation
Value:
>20.00
min /25mm
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Trial Hole 1 Photographs Cross Sections
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Trial Hole (Test Area No. 2)
Depth of Trial Hole 3.00m BGL
Depth from Ground Surface to bedrock
(m) if Present
None
Encountered Depth from Ground Surface to
Water Table (m) if Present
None
Encountered
Depth of water ingress None
Encountered Rock Type if Present None
Encountered
Date and Time of Excavation 10.03.26 09.10 Date and Time of
Examination 12.03.26 09.40
Depth of
Subsurface
& Surface
Soil/Subsoil
Texture
Classification
Plasticity and
Dilatancy
Soil
Structure
Density
Compactness Colour Preferential
Flow paths
0.1m Silt/Clay Ribbons Crumb Low Brown
0.2m 10.10.10
0.3m 1,1,1Threads
0.4m
0.5m Clay intermixed Ribbons Blocky Medium Brown
0.6m With stone, 60.60.50
0.7m 4,5,4Threads
0.8m
0.9m
1.0m
1.1m
1.2m
1.3m
1.4m
1.5m
1.6m
1.7m
1.8m
1.9m
2.0m
2.1m
2.2m
EVALUATION:
Weather conditions: Mild
According To the Flowchart for Describing Subsoils based on BS5930:1999, the subsoil is best described as Clay
intermixed with stone
Groundwater was not encountered in the trial hole. Bedrock was not encountered in the trial hole.
Likely Subsurface Percolation
Value:
>20.00
min /25mm
*Note: Depth of percolation test holes should be indicated on
log above (Enter Subsurface & Surface Depths as appropriate)
* See Appendix E for BS5930 Classification
** 3 samples to be tested
*** All signs of mottling should be recorded.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Trial Hole 2 Photographs Cross Sections
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Trial Hole (Test Area No. 3)
Depth of Trial Hole 3.00m BGL
Depth from Ground Surface to bedrock
(m) if Present
None
Encountered Depth from Ground Surface to
Water Table (m) if Present
None
Encountered
Depth of water ingress None
Encountered Rock Type if Present None
Encountered
Date and Time of Excavation 10.03.26 11.00 Date and Time of
Examination 12.03.26 12.15
Depth of
subsurface
& surface
Test
Soil/Subsoil
Texture
Classification
Plasticity and
Dilatancy
Soil
Structure
Density
Compactness Colour Preferential
Flow paths
0.1m Silt/Clay Ribbons Crumb Low Brown
0.2m 10.10.10
0.3m 1,1,1Threads
0.4m
0.5m Clay intermixed Ribbons Blocky Medium Brown
0.6m With stone, 20.20.30
0.7m 2,2,3Threads
0.8m
0.9m
1.0m
1.1m
1.2m
1.3m
1.4m
1.5m
1.6m
1.7m
1.8m
1.9m
2.0m
2.1m
EVALUATION:
Weather conditions: Dry & Mild
According To the Flowchart for Describing Subsoils based on BS5930:1999, the subsoil is best described as Silt/Clay
intermixed with stone
Groundwater / Winter Groundwater was not encountered in the trial hole. Bedrock was not encountered in the trial hole.
Likely Subsurface Percolation
Value:
<40.00
min /25mm
*Note: Depth of percolation test holes should be indicated on
log above (Enter Subsurface & Surface Depths as appropriate)
* See Appendix E for BS5930 Classification
** 3 samples to be tested
*** All signs of mottling should be recorded.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Trial Hole 3 Photographs Cross Sections
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Trial Hole (Test Area No. 4)
Depth of Trial Hole 3.00m BGL
Depth from Ground Surface to bedrock
(m) if Present
None
Encountered Depth from Ground Surface to
Water Table (m) if Present
None
Encountered
Depth of water ingress None
Encountered Rock Type if Present None
Encountered
Date and Time of Excavation 10.03.26 11.00 Date and Time of
Examination 12.03.26 12.15
Depth of
subsurface
& surface
Test
Soil/Subsoil
Texture
Classification
Plasticity and
Dilatancy
Soil
Structure
Density
Compactness Colour Preferential
Flow paths
0.1m Silt/Clay Ribbons Crumb Low Brown
0.2m 10.10.10
0.3m 1,1,1Threads
0.4m
0.5m Clay intermixed Ribbons Blocky Medium Brown
0.6m With stone 20.20.30
0.7m 2,2,3Threads
0.8m
0.9m
1.0m
1.1m
1.2m
1.3m
1.4m
1.5m
1.6m
1.7m
1.8m
1.9m
2.0m
2.1m
EVALUATION:
Weather conditions: Dry & Mild
According To the Flowchart for Describing Subsoils based on BS5930:1999, the subsoil is best described as Silt/Clay
intermixed with stone
Groundwater / Winter Groundwater was not encountered in the trial hole. Bedrock was not encountered in the trial hole.
Likely Subsurface Percolation
Value:
<40.00
min /25mm
*Note: Depth of percolation test holes should be indicated on
log above (Enter Subsurface & Surface Depths as appropriate)
* See Appendix E for BS5930 Classification
** 3 samples to be tested
*** All signs of mottling should be recorded.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Trial Hole 4 Photographs Cross Sections
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Trial Hole (Test Area No. 5)
Depth of Trial Hole 3.00m BGL
Depth from Ground Surface to bedrock
(m) if Present
None
Encountered Depth from Ground Surface to
Water Table (m) if Present
None
Encountered
Depth of water ingress None
Encountered Rock Type if Present None
Encountered
Date and Time of Excavation 10.03.26 11.00 Date and Time of
Examination 12.03.26 12.15
Depth of
subsurface
& surface
Test
Soil/Subsoil
Texture
Classification
Plasticity and
Dilatancy
Soil
Structure
Density
Compactness Colour Preferential
Flow paths
0.1m Silt/Clay Ribbons Crumb Low Brown
0.2m 10.10.10
0.3m 1,1,1Threads
0.4m
0.5m Clay intermixed Ribbons Blocky Medium Brown
0.6m With stone, 20.20.30
0.7m 2,2,3Threads
0.8m
0.9m
1.0m
1.1m
1.2m
1.3m
1.4m
1.5m
1.6m
1.7m
1.8m
1.9m
2.0m
2.1m
EVALUATION:
Weather conditions: Dry & Mild
According To the Flowchart for Describing Subsoils based on BS5930:1999, the subsoil is best described as Silt/Clay
intermixed with stone
Groundwater / Winter Groundwater was not encountered in the trial hole. Bedrock was not encountered in the trial hole.
Likely Subsurface Percolation
Value:
<40.00
min /25mm
*Note: Depth of percolation test holes should be indicated on
log above (Enter Subsurface & Surface Depths as appropriate)
* See Appendix E for BS5930 Classification
** 3 samples to be tested
*** All signs of mottling should be recorded.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Trial Hole 5 Photographs Cross Sections
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF LANDS
COMPLETED BY
TRAYNOR ENVIRONMENTAL LTD
APPENDIX 2 – METHODOLOGY FOR BURIAL GROUND RISK ASSESSMENT
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
METHODOLOGY FOR BURIAL GROUND RISK ASSESSMENT
In Ireland, there has been little attention given to the risk assessment of cemeteries. A preliminary study was conducted for
Cork County Council in 1998 by David Ball, Consultant Hydrogeologist, for a proposed burial ground development at Killeen
in County Cork, which gives an excellent basis for risk assessment under Irish conditions and was referred to in this current study.
As well as this, the author has prepared a risk assessment for a proposed cemetery extension at St Mary’s Church,
Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan.
The Environment Agency Guidance Document (2004) provides much of the material required to structure a risk assessment
under Irish conditions. A three-tiered approach to assessing the risk from cemeteries is recommended. Each tier of the risk
assessment involves the same series of stages, namely:
- hazard identification.
- identification of consequences.
- magnitude of consequences.
- probability of consequences.
- significance of risk.
The three tiers are the risk screening tier (desk study), the preliminary quantitative risk assessment tier (detailed desk study and
preliminary site investigation), and a detailed quantitative risk assessment. Sites are ranked as having low, intermediate
(moderate) or high risk. Only sites which comes up as intermediate risk or higher in tier 1 qualify for tiers 2 and 3, and only those
sites considered high/uncertain risk in tier 2 qualify for tier 3 assessment.
It is notable that these recommendations do not take into account the flow direction of groundwater. Risk assessments in
Ireland, for example that for On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems and for Landfills, use the Source-Pathway-Receptor Model
for Risk Assessment, which always takes into account groundwater flow direction. This means a more knowledge-based (and,
eventually, less restrictive) approach to the screening of sites at risk. From this, a combination of the relevant portions o f the
Environment Agency report, as well as utilising some of the methodology of Irish Site Characterisation and Assessment, were
used in this study at St Mary’s Church, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan. The three-tier assessment procedure was employed,
involving desk study, site characterisation and risk quantitative assessment, and buffers were considered using an assessment
of groundwater flow direction as for assessments for installations such as On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems and Landfills.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF LANDS
COMPLETED BY
TRAYNOR ENVIRONMENTAL LTD
APPENDIX 3 – QUANTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANT LOADING IN PROPOSED BURIAL
GROUND AT CASTLEBLAYNEY, CO. MONAGHAN
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
Data as supplied by the British Environment Agency in their Guidance Document (2004) on the composition
rate of corpses and potential pollution releases, reproduced in Table 1.
Table 1: Composition and elemental components of an average human body (70kg).
Composition Percentage Weight
Water 64
Protein 20
Carbohydrate 1
Mineral salts 5
Fat 10
Elemental Component Mass (g)
Oxygen 43000
Carbon 16000
Hydrogen 7000
Nitrogen 1800
Calcium 1100
Phosphorous 500
Sulphur 140
Potassium 140
Sodium 100
Chlorine 95
Magnesium 19
Iron 4.2
Copper 0.07
Lead 0.12
Cadmium 0.05
Nickel 0.01
Uranium 0.00009
Total body mass 70000
These pollutants derived from bodies are found as dissolved and gaseous organic compounds and dissolved nitrogenous
forms (particularly ammoniacal nitrogen).
When examining bodies in terms of their rate of degradation, it is seen that 60% of the material is readily degradable, 15% i s
moderately degradable, 20% is slowly degradable and 5% is non-degradable. Those proportions that are non-degradable,
as well as much that is slowly degradable, may be considered inert (ashes forming final stable residue, and bones). RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
39
The primary process governing the production, release and potential migration of pollutants from a buried corpse is
microbial decay. The rate of decay depends on the extent of microbial growth and activity, which is in turn affected
by the availability of nutrients and moisture, climate, soil lithology and burial practice. Therefore, in Irelands’ wet,
temperate climate, the vast majority of the mass of a human body is readily degradable, given that a well-drained,
porous subsoil medium forms the receiving environment.
The die off of pathogens will occur naturally and will rapidly decrease in concentration with increasing distance from
the grave.
A human corpse normally decays within 10 to 12 years. It is estimated that over half of the pollutant load leaches
within the first year and halves year on year (Environment Agency, 2004). Less than 0.1% of the original loading may
remain after 10 years.
Table 2: Potential contaminant release (kg) from a single 70kg human burial.
Year TOC NH4 Ca Mg Na K P SO4 Cl Fe
1 6.00 0.87 0.56 0.010 0.050 0.070 0.250 0.210 0.048 0.020
2 3.00 0.44 0.28 0.005 0.025 0.035 0.125 0.110 0.024 0.010
3 1.50 0.22 0.14 0.003 0.013 0.018 0.063 0.054 0.012 0.005
4 0.75 0.11 0.07 0.001 0.006 0.009 0.032 0.027 0.006 0.003
5 0.37 0.05 0.03 <0.001 0.003 0.004 0.016 0.012 0.003 0.001
6 0.19 0.03 0.02 <0.001 0.002 0.002 0.008 0.006 0.002 <0.001
7 0.10 0.01 0.01 <0.001 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.003 <0.001 <0.001
8 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.001 <0.001 <0.001
9 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
10 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
Hydrogeological Assessment
40
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF LANDS
COMPLETED BY
TRAYNOR ENVIRONMENTAL
LTD
APPENDIX 4 – EPA SITE SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
1
SOIL CHARACTERISATION AND SITE SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT TE REF: 26/139 TE
ST MACARTANS DIOCESAN TRUST
PROPOSED GRAVEYARD EXTENSION
ST MARY’S CHURCH
CASTLEBLAYNEY
CO. MONAGHAN
IN ACCORDANCE WITH
EPA CODE OF PRACTICE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
SYSTEMS SERVING SINGLE HOUSES 2021
Traynor Environmental Ltd
Belturbet Business Park, Creeny, Belturbet
Co. Cavan
Tel: +353 49 9522236
Fax: +353 49 9522808
Web: www.traynorenvironmental.com
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
2
SITE CHARACTERISATION FORM FOR AN ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
CONTENTS
1.0 GENERAL DETAILS
2.0 GENERAL DETAILS
3.0 ON SITE ASSESSMENT
3.1 VISUAL ASSESSMENT
3.2 TRIAL HOLE ASSESSMENT
3.3a Subsurface Percolation Test for Subsoil
Step 1 Test Hole Preparation
Step 2 Pre-Soaking Test Holes
Step 3 Measuring T100
Step 4 Standard Method (where T100 ≤ 210min)
3.3b Surface Percolation for Soil
Step 1 Test Hole Preparation
Step 2 Pre-Soaking Test Holes
Step 3 Measuring T100
Step 4 Standard Method (where T100 ≤ 210min)
4.0 CONCLUSIONS OF SITE CHARACTERISATION
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
6.0 TREATMENT SYSTEM DESIGN DETAILS
7.0 SITE ASSESSORS DETAILS
8.0 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE
9.0 EPA/FAS CERTIFICATE
10.0 INSURANCE DETAILS.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
3
1.0 GENERAL DETAILS (From planning application)
Name(S) St Macartans Diocesan Trust
Address of Correspondence
Site Location and Townland
c/o St Mary’s Church
Castleblayney
Co. Monaghan
St Mary’s Church
Castleblayney
Co. Monaghan
Number of Bedrooms N/A Maximum Number of Residents: N/A
Comments on population equivalent
n/a
Proposed Water Supply:
Mains: Private Well/Borehole Group Well/Borehole
2.0 GENERAL DETAILS (From planning application)
Soil Type, (Specify Type): Soil Association 29
Acid Brown Earths (75%), Interdrumlin Peat & Peaty Gleys (25%)
Subsoil, (Specify Type): Sandstone and shale till (Lower Palaeozoic)
Bedrock Type: Silurian Metasediments and Volcanics
Aquifer Category: Regionally Important Locally Important Poor
Vulnerability: Extreme High Moderate Low
Groundwater Body: IEGBNI_NB_G_019 Status Not at Risk
Name of Public/Group Scheme Water Supply within 1km: Unknown
Source Protection Area: ZOC SI SO Groundwater Protection Response: R1
Presence of Significant sites
(Archaeological, natural and historical): None evident within the locality
Past experience in the area: Variable percolation characteristics of the topsoil and subsoil
materials.
R1 = Acceptable subject to normal good practice. Site may be suitable for discharge to ground, if the minimum
depths are met on the site and if there exists suitable percolation. As the soil type in the area is Acid Brown Earths
(75% of the land area), and as the area is mapped as ‘Low’ Vulnerability. Groundwater as a resource will be at
risk if the minimum depths required are not achieved on the site, or if the percolation rate is too rapid. Older
wells in the area may also be at risk, if the minimum separ ation distances are not adhered to. Groundwater and
wells are therefore the main targets, following the desk study. Given the response and the aquifer type, the site
is potentially suitable for a conventional septic tank system if the minimum depths requi red are met on the site,
if the minimum separation distances can be met, and if the percolation rate is adequate.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
4
3.0 ON-SITE ASSESSMENT
3.1 Visual Assessment
Landscape Position Steep
Slope Steep <1:5 Shallow 1.5 to 1.20 Relatively Flat
Slope Comment West Direction
Surface features within a minimum of 250 metres (Distances to features should be noted in metres)
Houses Neighbouring house located 136m northwest & Castleblayney College located
123m west from test location.
Existing Land Uses None
Vegetation Indicators Overgrown grass is the predominant vegetation in the test area and
throughout the site.
Groundwater Flow Directions West Direction
Ground Condition Ground conditions are best described as dry and firm in the test area and
throughout the site.
Site Boundaries Existing graveyard is located to north of the test area.
Roads None occur within 10m of the test area.
Outcrops (Bedrock and/or
subsoil) None Identified or Evident within the locality.
Surface water ponding
No surface water ponding was evident in the test area when examined on
12.03.26. It must be noted that weather conditions prior to the site assessment
taking place was generally dry and mild conditions.
Lakes None occur within 50m of the test area.
Beaches/Shellfish Areas None occur within 200m of the test area.
Wetlands None occur within 200m of the test area.
Karst Features None occur within 200m of the test area.
Watercourses/Streams None occur within 10m of the test area.
Drainage Ditches None occur within 10m of the test area.
Springs None occur within 50m from the test area.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
5
Integrate the information above in order to comment on:
1. The potential suitability of the site:
The site still seems suitable for discharge to ground.
2. Potential targets at risk:
Following the desk study surface water was thought not to be at risk; this was corroborated during the visual
assessment.
There appears to be few issues with respect to impermeability. From this, surface water does not seem to be a
potential target,
Groundwater is still a target following the visual assessment, unless the minimum depths required are met on
the site and there exists adequate percolation.
3. The suitability of the site to treat the wastewater:
Following the visual assessment it is seen that all appropriate separation distances can be met and the site
seems well drained, and pending confirmation of the presence of adequate depths of unsaturated soil and
subsoil within the percolation area, as well as sufficient percolation rates under the site, the site should be
suitable for treating wastewater adequately.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
6
Sketch of site showing measurement to Trial Hole location and Percolation test Hole locations, wells
and direction of ground water flow, proposed house (incl. distances from boundaries) adjacent
houses, watercourses, significant sites and other features. N orth point should always be included.
SITE LAYOUT DRAWING SHOWING TEST HOLE LOCATIONS
Approximate Location of Trial Hole & Percolation
Test Holes Examined on 12.03.26
.19
Groundwater Flow
Direction
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
7
3.2 Trial Hole
Should be a minimum 2.10m deep
Depth of Trial Hole 2.20m BGL
Depth from Ground Surface to
bedrock (m) if Present
None
Encountered Depth from Ground Surface to
Water Table (m) if Present
None
Encountered
Depth of water ingress None
Encountered Rock Type if Present None
Encountered
Date and Time of
Excavation 10.03.26 11.00 Date and Time of
Examination 12.03.26 12.15
Depth of
subsurface
& surface
Test
Soil/Subsoil
Texture
Classification
Plasticity
and
Dilatancy
Soil
Structure
Density
Compactness Colour Preferential
Flowpaths
0.1m Depth of
surface Silt/Clay Ribbons Crumb Low Brown
0.2m Test 10.10.10
0.3m 1,1,1Threads
0.4m
0.5m Depth of Silt/Clay
intermixed
Ribbons Crumb Medium Brown
0.6m subsurface With stone & 20.20.30
0.7m Test Gravel 2,2,3hreads
0.8m
0.9m
1.0m
1.1m
1.2m
1.3m
1.4m
1.5m
1.6m
1.7m
1.8m
1.9m
2.0m
2.1m
2.2m
EVALUATION:
Weather conditions: Dry & Mild
According To The Flowchart For Describing Subsoil’s based on BS5930:1999, the subsoil is best described as
Silt/Clay intermixed with stone & gravel
Groundwater / Winter Groundwater was not encountered in the trail hole. Bedrock was not encountered in the
trial hole.
Likely Subsurface Percolation
Value:
<40.00
min /25mm
*Note: Depth of percolation test holes should be indicated
on log above (Enter Subsurface & Surface Depths as
appropriate)
* See Appendix E for BS5930 Classification
** 3 samples to be tested
*** All signs of mottling should be recorded.
Likely Surface Percolation
Value:
<40.00
min /25mm
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
8
3.3a Subsurface Percolation Test for Subsoil
Step 1 Test Hole Preparation
Percolation Test Hole 1 2 3
Depth from ground surface
to top of hole (mm) (A): 300 300 300
Depth from ground surface
to base of hole (mm) (B): 700 700 700
Depth of hole (mm) (B-A): 400 400 400
Dimensions of hole [length
x breadth (mm)]: 300 x 300 300 x 300 300 x 300
Step 2 Pre-Soaking Test Holes
Pre-soak
start
Date 11.03.26
11.03.26
11.03.26
Time 10.10 10.11 10.12
2nd pre-soak
start
Date 11.03.26
11.03.26
11.03.26
Time 16.20 16.21 16.22
Each hole should be pre-soaked twice before the test is carried out. Each hole should be empty before
refilling.
Step 3 Measuring T100
Percolation Test Hole 1 2 3
Date of Test 12.03.2026 12.03.2026 12.03.2026
Time Filled to 400mm 12.15 12.16 12.17
Time Water Level at
300mm 14.49 14.54 15.00
Time to drop 100mm (T100) 154.00 158.00 163.00
Average T100 158.30
If T100 >480mins then Subsurface Percolation value >120 – site unsuitable for discharge to ground
If T100 ≤ 210mins then go to Step 4
If T100 ≥ 210mins then go to Step 5 RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
9
Step 4 Standard Method (where T100 ≤ 210min)
Percolation
Test Hole
1 2 3
Fill No.
Start
Time at
300mm
Finish
Time at
200mm
∆t
(min)
Start
Time at
300mm
Finish
Time at
200mm
∆t
(min)
Start
Time at
300mm
Finish
Time at
200mm
∆t (min)
1 14.50 17.28 158.00 14.55 17.38 163.00 15.01 17.49 168.00
2 17.29 20.13 164.00 17.39 20.28 169.00 17.50 20.44 174.00
3 20.14 23.05 171.00 20.29 23.25 176.00 20.45 23.47 182.00
Average ∆t 164.30 169.30 174.60
Average ∆t/4 =
[Hole No. 1]
41.08
Average ∆t/4 =
[Hole No. 2]
42.30
Average ∆t/4 =
[Hole No. 2]
43.60
Result of Test: Subsurface
Percolation Value:
42.32 min/25mm
Result of Test: Subsurface Percolation Value = 42.32 min/25mm.
Comments
Average Percolation Characteristics of the Subsoil Material.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
10
3.3bSurface Percolation for Soil
Step 1 Test Hole Preparation
Percolation Test Hole 1 2 3
Depth from ground surface
to top of hole (mm) (A): 0 0 0
Depth from ground surface
to base of hole (mm) (B): 400 400 400
Depth of hole (mm) (B-A): 400 400 400
Dimensions of hole [length x
breadth (mm)]: 300 x 300 300 x 300 300 x 300
Step 2 Pre-Soaking Test Holes
Pre-soak
start
Date 11.03.26
11.03.26
11.03.26
Time 10.13 10.14 10.15
2nd pre-soak
start
Date 11.03.26
11.03.26
11.03.26
Time 16.23 16.24 16.25
Each hole should be pre-soaked twice before the test is carried out. Each hole should be empty before
refilling.
Step 3 Measuring T100
Percolation Test Hole 1 2 3
Date of Test 12.03.2026 12.03.2026 12.03.2026
Time Filled to 400mm 12.21 12.22 12.24
Time Water Level at
300mm 14.29 14.35 14.40
Time to drop 100mm
(T100) 128.00 133.00 136.00
Average T100 132.30
If T100 >480 minutes then Surface Percolation value >90 – site unsuitable for discharge to ground
If T100 ≤ 210mins then go to Step 4
If T100 ≥ 210mins then go to Step 5
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
11
Step 4 Standard Method (where T100 ≤ 210min)
Percolation
Test Hole
1 2 3
Fill No.
Start
Time at
300mm
Finish
Time at
200mm
∆t
(min)
Start
Time at
300mm
Finish
Time at
200mm
∆t
(min)
Start
Time at
300mm
Finish
Time at
200mm
∆t (min)
1 14.30 16.41 131.00 14.36 16.53 137.00 14.41 17.01 140.00
2 16.42 18.58 136.00 16.54 19.16 142.00 17.02 19.28 146.00
3 18.59 21.21 142.00 19.17 21.45 148.00 19.29 22.02 153.00
Average ∆t 136.30 142.30 146.30
Average ∆t/4 =
[Hole No. 1]
34.08
Average ∆t/4 =
[Hole No. 2]
35.58
Average ∆t/4 =
[Hole No. 2]
36.58
Result of Test : Surface Percolation
Value
35.41 min/25mm
Result of Test: surface Percolation Value = 35.41 min/25mm.
Comments
Average Percolation Characteristics of the Surface Material.
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
12
4.0 CONCLUSIONS of SITE CHARACTERISATION:
Integrate the information from the desk study and on-site assessment (i.e. visual assessment, trial hole and
percolation tests) above and conclude the type of system(s) that is (are) appropriate. This information is also used
to choose the optimum final disposal route of the treated wastewater.
Slope of Proposed Infiltration/treatment area N/A
Are all minimum separation distance met? N/A
Depth of unsaturated soil and/or subsoil beneath invert of gravel
(or drip tubing in the case of drip dispersal system)
N/A
Percolation test results: Surface: 35.41min/25mm Sub-surface: 42.32min/25mm
Not suitable for Development Suitable for Development
Identify all suitable options Discharge Route
1. Septic tank System (Septic tank and percolation area)
(Chapter 7) N/A Groundwater
2. Secondary Treatment System (Chapters 8 and 9) and soil
polishing filter (Section 10.1) N/A
3. Tertiary Treatment System and Infiltration/treatment area
(Section 10.2) N/A
5.0 RECOMMENDATION:
Propose to install N/A
And discharge to N/A
Invert level of the trench/bed
gravel or drip tubing (m) N/A
Site Specific Conditions (if any) e.g. special works, Site Improvement Works, Testing etc.
N/A
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
13
6.0 TREATMENT SYSTEM DETAILS
SYSTEM TYPE: Septic Tank System (Chapter 7)
Tank Capacity (m2) N/A Percolation Area Mound Percolation Area
No. of Trenches N/A No. of Trenches N/A
Length of Trenches (m) N/A Length of Trenches (m) N/A
Invert Level (m) N/A Invert Level (m) N/A
SYSTEM TYPE: Secondary Treatment System (Chapters 8 and 9) and polishing filter (Section 10.1)
Secondary Treatment Systems receiving septic tank effluent (Chapter 8) Package Treatment Systems
Media Type Area (m2) Deep of Filter
(m) Invert Level
(m) receiving raw wastewater
(Chapter 9)
Sand/Soil N/A N/A N/A Type N/A
Soil N/A N/A N/A Capacity PE N/A
Constructed
Wetland N/A N/A N/A Sizing of Primary Compartment
Other N/A N/A N/A N/A m2
Polishing Filter: (Section 10.1)
Surface Area Sand Filter (m2) N/A No. of Trenches N/A
Option 1 – Direct Discharge Surface area (m2) N/A Length of Trenches (m) N/A
Option 2 – Pumped Discharge Surface Area (m2) N/A Invert Level (m) N/A
SYSTEM TYPE: O’Reilly Oakstown Septic tank and infiltration/ treatment area (section 10.2)
Identify purpose of tertiary treatment.
Provide performance information.
demonstrating system will provide
required treatment levels
Provide design information
N/A N/A N/A
DISCHARGE ROUTE:
Groundwater Hydraulic Loading Rate (l/m2. d) N/A Surface Area (m2) N/A
Surface Water Discharge Rate (m3/hr) N/A
QUALITY ASSURANCE:
Installation & Commissioning On-going Maintenance
Recommend to be overseen by plant supplier.
Maintain and de-sludge annually RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
14
7.0 SITE ASSESSOR DETAILS
Company: Traynor Environmental Ltd
Prefix: Mr. First Name: Nevin Surname: Traynor
Address:
Belturbet Business Park,
Creeny,
Belturbet,
Co. Cavan.
Qualifications/Experience: BSc. Env, H.Dip I.T, Cert SHWW, EPA/FAS Course Certified
Professional Indemnity Insurance Holder (€1 million cover)
Date of Report: 19.03.26
Phone: 049 9522236 Fax: 049 9522808 E-mail: nevin@traynorenvironmental.com
Indemnity Insurance Number: 24/1/03161 (Renewed 12th July 2025)
Signed:
Nevin Traynor
BSc. Env, H.Dip I.T, Cert SHWW, EPA/FAS Cert.
For Traynor Environmental Ltd
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
15
8.0 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Trial Hole – Front View Trial Hole – Side View
Percolation (“T”) Test 1 Percolation (“T”) Test 2
Percolation (“T”) Test 3 Percolation (“P”) Test 1
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
16
Percolation (“P”) Test 2
Percolation (“P”) Test 3
Maps Used As Part of the EPA Site Suitability Assessment
Groundwater/Aquifer Map
From the GSI Groundwater
Aquifer Map Site is
classified as PI-Poor Aquifer
- Bedrock which is
Generally Unproductive
except for Local Zones
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
17
Vulnerability Map
From the GSI Vulnerability
Map Site is classified as
Low
Bedrock Map
From the GSI Bedrock Map
Site is classified as Silurian
Metasediments and
Volcanics
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
18
Teagasc Subsoil Map
From the Teagasc Subsoil
Map Site is classified as
Sandstone and shale till
(Lower Palaeozoic) RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
19
9.0 EPA/FAS CERTIFICATE
RECEIVED: 22/05/2026
20
10.0 P.I INSURANCE RECEIVED: 22/05/2026