The document provides details of upcoming branch events for various quarrying associations in September. It also provides information on an upcoming webinar titled "Water Quality Monitoring: Making it High Quality and Cost Effective" presented by Dr. Craig Speed. The webinar will discuss how to optimize the quality of water quality monitoring programs while reducing costs to achieve cost effectiveness. It will cover monitoring design, quality control and quality assurance measures, and how to strategically reduce sampling frequency and parameters to lower expenses. A case study example is also provided.

2. Upcoming branch events
Derbyshire 18th September Tyre Management by Paul Ackroyd, KalTire
Devon & Cornwall 17th September TBC
Northern Ireland 8th – 10th September Field Trip to Breedon Hope works and JCB Factory, Derbyshire.
North Wales 24th September TBC
North of England 27th September Annual Dinner Dance
Scottish 10th September Mike Tetley, HSE - Drill & Blast Issues
West of England 9th September QNJAC - Ensuring Geotechnical Safety & Compliance by Rob Palmer,
Tarmac & Adrian Wilkinson, Land & Minerals Consulting
Yorkshire 19th September Annual H&S Day at the Scotch Corner
Branch contact details are available at quarrying.org

3. Water Quality Monitoring
Making it High Quality and Cost Effective
Dr Craig Speed
Associate Director, Water Team, Wardell Armstrong

4. What stops water quality
monitoring from being high
quality and cost effective?
 Monitoring design pitfalls.
 Reduced confidence in your
data though lack of quality
control checks and quality
assurance samples.
 Failing to deliver cost
effectiveness by cutting the
wrong costs.

5. Introduction
 Quarry operators undertake lots of monitoring.
 Purpose of monitoring:
 Baseline monitoring prior to quarrying (or landfilling)
 Permit compliance monitoring
 Investigative monitoring
 Day-to-day operational control
 Need to ensure that monitoring is a balance of Quality
(sampling methodology, analysis method, quality control
and quality assurance) and Cost.
 Aim of webinar: Look at maximising quality of your
monitoring and the best ways to reduce cost, to optimise
Cost Effectiveness.

6. Monitoring
Design
Some pitfalls to avoid to optimize quality.

7. Monitoring Design Pitfall 1:
Failure to take field
measurements.
 Sampling is not just filling a bottle
and sending it to the laboratory.
 You should:
 Take field measurements of
Temperature, pH, electrical
conductivity, dissolved oxygen (&
turbidity, redox potential?).
 Use regularly calibrated hand held
multimeter (various manufacturers).
 Record description of the sample
appearance/odour.
 If you fail to do this:
 Miss out on the full picture of
chemistry/pollution of the water
sample.
 Cannot do quality control of the
laboratory data
(pH/conductivity/turbidity/redox
potential).
 If you do this, you have good, early
information on the sample, condition
of the water and pollution.

8. Monitoring Design Pitfall 2:
Choice of sampling
methodology.
 Again, sampling is not just filling a bottle
and sending it to the laboratory.
 Bottles for certain parameters require
preservatives e.g. Ammonium,
Cyanide, Sulphide and Dissolved Metals
(Iron, Manganese and Heavy Metals).
 Filtration to be done in the field (Iron,
Manganese and Heavy Metals).
 The choice of laboratory often
determines sampling methods.
 Best practice sample methodology
outlined in British Standard EN ISO
5667-3:2018. Samplers should know
about this.
 Failure to do this results in
inaccuracies in results produced,
impacting data quality and
interpretation.

9. CASE STUDY :
DIFFERENT DISSOLVED METAL METHODOLOGIES

10. Having
Confidence in
Your Data
Quality Control and Quality Assurance

11. Why having Confidence in Your Data Is Essential
Failure of the Quality Control and
Quality Assurance (QC/QA)
systems leads to:
• Errors
• Mis-interpretation
• Need for repeat work
Proper QC/QA requires:
• Thorough review of the data
after each monitoring round.
• Appreciation of potential
problems.
• Good communication channels
with the samplers/laboratory.
There are two main types of
procedure:
1. Quality Control of
monitoring data (field
measurements & lab data)
2. Analysis of Quality
Assurance Samples
(duplicates, blanks etc).

12. Why having Confidence in Your Data Is Essential
Failure of the Quality Control and
Quality Assurance (QC/QA)
systems leads to:
• Errors
• Mis-interpretation
• Need for repeat work
Proper QC/QA requires:
• thorough review of the data
after each monitoring round.
• Appreciation of potential
problems.
• Good communication channels
with the samplers/laboratory.
There are two main types of
procedure:
1. Quality Control of
monitoring data (field
measurements & lab data)
2. Analysis of Quality
Assurance Samples
(duplicates, blanks etc).

13. Quality Control – Simple Data Checks (1/2)
Simple data validation checks, can be made to
detect/explain erroneous results, including the following:
• Comparison of field and lab values (e.g. pH, EC).
• Check Ionic Balance – should be less than 5% imbalance
between anions and cations.
• Total Dissolved Solids versus Electrical Conductivity –
most groundwater will have Total Dissolved Solids 0.55-
0.75 times the Electrical Conductivity (in µS/cm).
• High dissolved Aluminium concentrations – only
possible at acidic or alkaline pHs (not pH7).

14. Quality Control – Simple Data Checks (2/2)
 Incompatible ions – NO3 in presence of Fe2+ or
NO3 in the absence of dissolved oxygen.
 Unspecified form of units e.g.
• Nitrate as N, Nitrate as NO3 NOT JUST NO3 (mg/l).
• Ammoniacal Nitrogen (NH4 as N) NOT JUST NH4
(mg/l)
• Bicarbonate Alkalinity or Carbonate Alkalinity as
CaCO3, NOT JUST Bicarbonate Alkalinity (mg/l).
 A Total Metal concentration less than Dissolved
Metal concentration.
 Level of detection above the water quality
standard (e.g. EQS, DWS) – check this when
you’re organising the analyses.
NO3
-
Fe2+
Donald Langmuir, 1997.

15. Quality Assurance Samples - Introduction
 Duplicates and blanks;
 QA samples should be obtained and comprise 10% of
samples;
 For high importance samples (e.g. to support
legal/expert witness) the percentage QA samples should
be increased.

16. Quality Assurance Samples - Types
Group Type Description Assessment Purpose
Field Blanks Trip Blank Water sent by Lab Volatiles
Field Blank Sample prepared in
field
Sample contamination.
Equipment
Blank
Sample using
decontaminated field
equipment
Decontamination
process
Lab Blanks Instrument
Blank
Blank analysed with
samples
Instrument
contamination
Method Blank Reagents/internal
standards analysed
Lab
background/reagent
contamination
Quality
samples
Duplicate
Samples
Samples made by
splitting sample.
Processing/instrument
variability
Spiked
Samples
Spike of solution
added to sample.
Identify organic
compounds with
variable recovery.
Adapted from Trick et al 2008

17. Blank Samples
 Check of sample contamination.
 Need to use laboratory grade de-ionised (distilled) water.
 Types:
 Field Blanks – sample of de-ionised water prepared at randomly chosen sample
location, then analysed at lab. Represents assurance of no sample contamination
during sample preparation or laboratory processes.
 Trip Blanks – sample of de-ionised water prepared at laboratory, goes on sample
round with sample bottles, then analysed at lab. Represents assurance of no
contamination by Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
 If anything is detected, should first be checked with the laboratory for errors
and check by repeat analysis.

18. CASE STUDY: Naphthalene (C10H8) in
Samples and Field Blanks

19. Duplicate Samples
 Check of analytical precision for the sample round.
 Two (or more) samples collected at the same
monitoring point.
 Types:
 Consecutive duplicates – two samples collected at the
same monitoring point one after the other. Represents
precision of analysis plus environmental variability.
 Split duplicates – two samples from the same monitoring
point prepared by collecting one large sample (e.g. 2
litres), mixing it well and decanting it into two bottles.
Represents precision of laboratory analysis only.
 Should be anonymised / not identified as a duplicate
on label.
 Checked using Relative Percentage Difference (%) or
RPD. Should be <10%. Any exceedance should be
checked with the laboratory.

20. Achieving
Sensible Cost
Reductions
Using a good Monitoring Strategy

21. Achieving Sensible Cost
Reductions
 A high quality approach should lead to Cost Effectiveness
(avoid unnecessary costs due to errors etc).
 Any parameter (or group of parameters) should have a
purpose, whether that be compliance, conceptual model
understanding or quality control.
 Problem:
 How to achieve cost reductions in sampling?
 Possibilities include reducing number of sampling
points, number of parameters sampled or sample
frequency.
 However, reducing sampling points not good for
understanding of the site and reducing parameters
narrows down the chemical picture.
 Solution
 Reductions in sample frequency under agreement with
the Environment Agency (if necessary) is best.
 See Case Study….

22. Achieving Sensible Cost Reductions:
CASE STUDY – Monthly Compliance
Monitoring.
Introduction
 Hypothetical
 Baseline monitoring required by the Environment Agency
 Monthly over 12 months.
 5 samples are required each round.
 Parameters needed to include pH, chloride, sediment, hydrocarbons, PAHs
and heavy metals.
 Laboratory analysis costs are indicative.

23. CASE STUDY –
Monthly Compliance Monitoring
Month Parameters January February March April May June July August September October November December
Number of samples 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Basic Monitoring Field Physico-chem (pH etc)
Lab Physico-chem (pH etc)
Suspended Solids (TSS)
Major Ions
Hydrocarbons
Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Heavy Metals
Sampling Strategy Field Physico-chem (pH etc)
2 frequencies Lab Physico-chem (pH etc)
-Monthly Suspended Solids (TSS)
-Quarterly Major Ions
Hydrocarbons <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
Heavy Metals <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
Sampling Strategy Field Physico-chem (pH etc)
Response to Lab Physico-chem (pH etc)
Detections Suspended Solids (TSS)
Major Ions
Hydrocarbons <LOD <LOD <LOD Detect Detect <LOD
Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) <LOD <LOD <LOD <LOD
Heavy Metals <LOD Detect Detect Detect Detect Detect <LOD <LOD

24. CASE STUDY –
Monthly Compliance MonitoringMonth Parameters January February March April May June July August September October November December TOTAL
Number of samples 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 % Reduction
Basic Monitoring Field Physico-chem (pH etc) £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00
Lab Physico-chem (pH etc) £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94
Suspended Solids (TSS) £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61
Major Ions £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81
Hydrocarbons £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21
Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00
Heavy Metals £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22
Subtotal £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £6,047.40
Sampling Strategy Field Physico-chem (pH etc) £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00
2 frequencies Lab Physico-chem (pH etc) £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94
-Monthly Suspended Solids (TSS) £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61
-Quarterly Major Ions £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81
Hydrocarbons £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21
Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00
Heavy Metals £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 28.1%
Subtotal £503.95 £291.80 £291.80 £503.95 £291.80 £291.80 £503.95 £291.80 £291.80 £503.95 £291.80 £291.80 £4,350.20
Sampling Strategy Field Physico-chem (pH etc) £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00
Response to Lab Physico-chem (pH etc) £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94
Detections Suspended Solids (TSS) £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61
Major Ions £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81
Hydrocarbons £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21
Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00
Heavy Metals £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 21.7%
Subtotal £503.95 £291.80 £291.80 £503.95 £337.90 £337.90 £503.95 £337.90 £337.90 £503.95 £392.85 £392.85 £4,736.70

25. CASE STUDY –
Monthly Compliance MonitoringMonth Parameters January February March April May June July August September October November December TOTAL
Number of samples 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 % Reduction
Basic Monitoring Field Physico-chem (pH etc) £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00
Lab Physico-chem (pH etc) £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94
Suspended Solids (TSS) £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61
Major Ions £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81
Hydrocarbons £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21
Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00
Heavy Metals £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22
Subtotal £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £503.95 £6,047.40
Sampling Strategy Field Physico-chem (pH etc) £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00
2 frequencies Lab Physico-chem (pH etc) £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94
-Monthly Suspended Solids (TSS) £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61
-Quarterly Major Ions £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81
Hydrocarbons £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21
Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00
Heavy Metals £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 28.1%
Subtotal £503.95 £291.80 £291.80 £503.95 £291.80 £291.80 £503.95 £291.80 £291.80 £503.95 £291.80 £291.80 £4,350.20
Sampling Strategy Field Physico-chem (pH etc) £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00 £50.00
Response to Lab Physico-chem (pH etc) £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94 £1.94
Detections Suspended Solids (TSS) £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61 £2.61
Major Ions £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81 £43.81
Hydrocarbons £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21 £20.21
Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) £13.00 £13.00 £13.00 £13.00
Heavy Metals £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 £9.22 21.7%
Subtotal £503.95 £291.80 £291.80 £503.95 £337.90 £337.90 £503.95 £337.90 £337.90 £503.95 £392.85 £392.85 £4,736.70
Results
 20-30% reduction in cost using a variable-frequency monitoring strategy.
 Without losing any parameters from the strategy.
 Efficiencies for savings or to contribute to other investigations.

26. Conclusions
Key Thoughts/Questions:
 Think of monitoring as cyclic.
 Data quality starts at the design
stage.
 There are numerous pitfalls to
designing and implementing
monitoring.
 Quality control of data is essential.
 Sampling should include quality
assurance samples to provide
confidence.
 Cost effectiveness starts with high
quality methods.
 Cost reduction is best achieved by
a dual frequency monitoring
strategy.
Monitoring Design
Monitoring
Implementation
Review of
Monitoring Data
Review and
Amend Design

27. Any questions?
For any queries please contact: Craig Speed cspeed@wardell-armstrong.com

28.  British Standard EN ISO 5667-3:2018. Water quality – Sampling Part 3:
Preservation and handling of water samples.
 Donald Langmuir, 1997. Aqueous Environmental Geochemistry (The Redox
Behaviour of Natural Systems).
 Trick, J.K.; Stuart, M.; Reeder, S. 2008 Contaminated groundwater sampling
and quality control of water analyses. In: de Vivo, B.; Belkin, H.E.; Lima, A.,
(eds.) Environmental geochemistry: site characterization, data analysis and
case histories. London, UK, Elsevier, 29-57.
References