OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY INSPECTOR S … · particulates from the biomass boiler. OEE has stipulated that the licensee carry out monthly monitoring of the biomass boiler

1

This Report has been cleared for submission to the Board by Programme Manager, Marie O’Connor.

Signed: Date: 3rd October 2019

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

INSPECTOR’S REPORT ON AN INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS LICENCE REVIEW, LICENCE REGISTER NUMBER P0802-03

TO: DIRECTORS

FROM: JENNIFER COPE DATE: 03 October 2019

Licensee: Aurivo Dairy Ingredients Limited

CRO number: 356156 (status: normal)

Location/address: Connaught Gold Dairy Ingredients, Dublin Road, Ballaghadereen, Co. Roscommon, F45 K193

Application date: 31 May 2018

Class of activity (under EPA Act 1992 as amended):

7.2.1 The Treatment and processing of milk, the quantity of milk received being greater than 200 tonnes per day (average value on a yearly basis).

Category of activity under

IED (2010/75/EU):

6.4 (c) Treatment and processing of milk only, the quantity of milk received being greater than 200 tonnes per day (average value on an annual basis).

EPA GHG Permit: IE-GHG154-10423-3

Main BREF document: Food, Drink and Milk Industries BAT Reference Document (2006).

European legislation relevant to this assessment is listed in Appendix 3 of this report.

Activity description: Aurivo Dairy Ingredients Ltd operate a milk processing installation, which processes greater than 200 tonnes per day.

Additional information received:

Yes (09/08/2018, 10/10/2018, 13/05/2019, 15/08/2019)

No. of submissions received: One (HSE, 23/07/2018)

EIAR submitted: Yes (18/02/2019) NIS submitted: Yes (07/02/2019)

Site visit: 08/08/2019 Site notice check: 28/06/2018

2

1. Activity description/background

Aurivo Dairy Ingredients Limited is an existing installation which operates a milk processing installation. The processing capacity of the installation is 63 million gallons of milk equivalent per annum. The installation received 820 tonnes of milk per day in 2017. The installation is located on a 21 hectare site on the Dublin Road,

approximately 0.5 miles east of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon.

The site was initially developed in 1971 and has expanded to increase production capacity and diversify the product range since that time. The site is divided into three main areas, the processing buildings, the waste water treatment plant (WWTP) and

the lagoon/wetland area.

The area to the north of the site is predominantly agricultural land, directly south of the site is the N5 national primary route and to the west of the site is agricultural land, beyond which are houses located on the outskirts of Ballaghaderreen town (approximately 350 metres west of the installation).

The licensee operates the installation 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during peak production (March to September). This period is approximately 240 days per year. The company employs 65 people during peak production.

The licensee was first granted an IPPC licence on 25 June 2008.

2. Scope of Review

Proposed change Details/comment

Installation of a new spray dryer and LNG burner and associated emission points (A2-4 and A1-4 respectively).

Installation of a new 5 tonne per hour spray dryer and an associated 6,100 kW LNG burner for heat transfer.

A2-1 Biomass boiler

Removal of carbon monoxide

emission limit value.

Increase in the emission limit

value for particulates from 30

mg/m3 to 50 mg/m3.

No requirement in the Medium Combustion Plant Directive for a CO ELV in biomass boilers.

Reintroduction of an old HFO boiler (A1-3) for use as back-up.

There are currently 2 boilers on site. The licensee requires a backup boiler in the event one of the boilers is not operational.

3

3. Licence History

Licence Details Date

P0802-02 TA(B) Technical Amendment to remove the limitation in Schedule A that only one boiler could operate at any one time.

13/08/2014

P0802-02 TA(A) Technical Amendment in relation to provide for the replacement of an existing back-up boiler with a new 12 MW biomass (woodchip) boiler

11/03/2014

P0802-02 IE Amendment

IE Amendment to bring it into conformity with the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (2010/75/EC).

16/12/2013

P0802-02 To incorporate a new outfall route with the diversion of cooling water discharges to an existing drain.

16/03/2011

P0802-01 Original IPPC licence issued. There have been no amendments, reviews or transfers of this licence.

25/06/2008

4. Compliance and Complaints Record

Compliance and complaints under existing licence

Since 2015, 15 incidents have been reported to OEE by the licensee such as exceedances of air and water emission limit values, waste water treatment plant

WWTP malfunction and fires, which have been closed by OEE.

Four compliance investigations were opened in 2018 in relation to the waste water treatment plant (WWTP) malfunction, exceedances of emissions to water emission limit values, incident notification and exceedances of air emission limit value for particulates from the biomass boiler.

OEE has stipulated that the licensee carry out monthly monitoring of the biomass boiler emission point A1-2 due to exceedances of air emission limit value for particulates. The licensee has applied for an increase in emission limit value for total particulate from 30 mg/m3 to 50 mg/m3. This is addressed in the Emissions to Air

section of this report.

One complaint was received by OEE in 2017 and in 2018, both in relation to water quality. These complaints have been closed by OEE.

The licensee was prosecuted and convicted under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 as amended on 12 April 2019. The licensee was prosecuted and

convicted for two offences permitting a specified emission from the installation which exceeded the emission limit values set out in the licence relating to emissions to water and failure during the incident to isolate the source of the emission to identify and execute measures to minimise the emissions/malfunction and the effects thereof, within the period commencing on 3rd March 2018 and 7th March 2018.

The licensee was prosecuted and convicted under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 as amended on 14 October 2011. The licensee was prosecuted and convicted for two offences for diverting emissions from the installation to the

4

lagoon/wetland and permitting a specified emission from the installation which exceeded the emission limit values set out in the licence relating to emissions to water. On hearing the details for the offences, the Judge imposed a fine of €500 on each of the charges and the Agency costs were awarded.

5. Best Available Techniques

BAT for IED installations

Section 86A(3) of the EPA Act 1992 as amended, requires that the Agency shall apply BAT conclusions as a reference for attaching one or more conditions to an IED licence. When a Commission Implementing Decision (CID) on BAT conclusions is published,

the EPA must ensure that within four years, ‘all permit/licence conditions are reconsidered, and where necessary updated’’ to comply with the BAT conclusions (including BAT associated emission levels (AELs)).

The Food, Drink and Milk Industries (FDM) BAT Reference document (BREF) is the main BREF for the installation. The BREF is currently under review therefore a CID has not been published. In the absence of a CID the BAT associated emission levels (AELs) are taken from the National BAT Guidance Note for the Dairy Sector.

Table 5.1 sets out a summary of how the BAT Conclusions have been taken into account in the Recommended Determination (RD). Table 5.1 Conditions in RD to address BAT Conclusion requirements

CID/BREF/BAT Document

Additional Requirements introduced into RD. Condition/ Schedule

BREF Document for

Food, Drink and Milk Industries

Inclusion in Environmental Management

System (EMS) the reduction of wastewater generated, optimisation of Cleaning-in Place (CIP), steam and cooling water systems and reduction in emissions to water.

Condition 2

Inclusion of requirement to address ‘Fire Prevention’ in the Accident Prevention Policy.

Condition 9

BREF Document on Energy Efficiency

Inclusion of Energy Efficiency Management system in EMS.

Condition 2

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing BAT conclusions for large combustion plants does not apply. The European Union (Medium Combustion Plants) Regulations 2017 (SI 95/2017) apply to the boilers (with thermal

input ≥1 MW). The assessment has demonstrated that the installation will comply with all applicable BAT Conclusion requirements and BAT AELs specified in the relevant BREF Documents

and BAT Notes. I consider that the applicable BAT Conclusion requirements are addressed through: (i) the technologies and techniques as described in the licence review application; (ii) the standard conditions specified in the Recommended Determination (RD); and (iii) the inclusion of additional conditions (Table 5.1).

5

6. Planning Permission, EIS and EIA Requirements

6.1 EIA Screening

The licence review application was submitted to the Agency after 16 May 2017, the

date for transposition of Directive 2014/52/EU amending the 2011 EIA Directive. The Directive has not been fully transposed into Irish legislation to date. In accordance with the advice on administrative provisions in advance of transposition contained in the Department of Housing, Planning Community and Local Government Circular Letter PL1/2017, it is proposed to apply the requirements of Directive 2014/52/EU.

The application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) as requested by the Agency, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 as amended.

The activity is of a type of project specified in Schedule 5, Part 2 of the Planning and

Development Regulations 2001 as amended:

7 (c) Installations for manufacture of dairy products, where the processing capacity would exceed 50 million gallons of milk equivalent per annum.

In accordance with Section 83(2A) of the EPA Act 1992 as amended, the Agency must ensure that before a licence or revised licence is granted, that the application is made

subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), where the activity meets the criteria outlined in Section 83(2A)(b) and 83(2A)(c). In accordance with the EIA Screening Determination, the Agency has determined that the activity is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and accordingly is carrying out an assessment

for the purposes of EIA.

6.2 Planning Status

A number of planning applications have been made by the licensee for the area within the installation boundary. Details of these planning applications and permissions have been provided in the application form. The most recent planning permission was

granted on 27/04/2018 (Ref No PD/18/6) for the construction of an extension to the existing spray dryer facility to contain a new replacement spray dryer plant and alterations to the existing car park to accommodate the new extension together with associated local underground drainage and miscellaneous site works.

An EIS/EIAR was not submitted in support of any planning applications since 2005.

6.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

Having specific regard to EIA, this Inspector’s report as a whole is intended to identify, describe and assess for the Agency the likely significant direct and indirect effects of the proposed activity on the environment, as respects the matters that come within

the functions of the Agency, for each of the following environmental factors: population and human health, biodiversity, land, soil, water, air and climate; the landscape, material assets and cultural heritage.

This Inspector’s report addresses the interaction between those effects and the related development forming part of the wider project. The cumulative effects, with other

developments in the vicinity of the activity have also been considered, as regards the combined effects of emissions. In addition, the vulnerability of the activity to risks of major accidents and/or disasters has been considered. The main mitigation measures proposed to address the range of predicted significant effects arising from the activity

6

have been outlined. This Inspector’s report proposes conclusions to the Agency in relation to such effects.

While the environmental factors have been considered throughout my entire assessment, the following table identifies, for ease of reference, the sections of this

report where each environmental factor has been predominantly discussed. See also Section 14 Environmental Impact Assessment of this report.

Table of Environmental Factors

Environmental Factor Addressed in the following Sections:

Population and Human Health

Emissions to air, discharges to water and ground, noise, waste, prevention of accidents

Biodiversity Emissions to air, water and ground, noise, waste, prevention of accidents, appropriate assessment

Land Discharges to water and ground

Soil Discharges to water and ground, prevention of accidents

Water Discharges to water and ground, prevention of accidents

Air Emissions to air, prevention of accidents

Climate Emissions to air, prevention of accidents

Landscape Landscape, material assets & cultural heritage

Material assets Use of resources, landscape, material assets & cultural heritage

Cultural heritage Landscape, material assets & cultural heritage

6.4 Consultation with Competent Authorities

Consultation was carried out between Roscommon County Council and the Agency under the relevant section of the EPA Act 1992 as amended.

Roscommon County Council provided a record of the planning history of the site, including the planning permission which was granted for the construction of an

extension to the existing spray dryer facility to contain a new replacement dryer plant. The planning authority had no observation to make in relation to the licence application and EIAR.

7. Submission

One valid submission was made on this licence review application, see details below.

Submission

1 Name & Position:

Helen Gilchrist, Senior Environmental Health Officer

Organisation:

HSE, Health Centre, Boyle, Co. Roscommon

Date received:

23 July 2018

The HSE have no comments to make on the licence review application for P0802-03.

7

8. Emissions to Air

This section addresses the following:

- channelled emissions to air

- Greenhouse gases and climate impact

- Odour

8.1 Channelled Emissions to Air

Assessment

The main emissions to air are NOx, SOx and particulates which arise from four combustion plants, and particulates which arise from three dryers.

Combustion Plants

The biomass boiler (A1-2) is the primary source of the process steam and hot water and supplemented by steam from the heavy fuel boiler (A1-1). The two boilers (A1-2 and A1-1) operate simultaneously at the installation. The licensee has applied for the reintroduction of a standby heavy fuel oil boiler (A1-3) as an emergency back-up (breakdown, maintenance, servicing).

Table 8.1 below provides details on the combustion plants at the installation and the changes proposed from the current licence.

Table 8.1 Combustion plant emissions to air

Ref

no. Description Thermal

input MW

Parameter Current licence

requirements

Requested

licence changes

A1-1 Boiler (HFO) 25.24 Flow 30,000 m3/hour 16,000 m3/hour

A1-2 Boiler (Biomass - Woodchip)

11.20 Particulates 30 mg/m3 50 mg/m3

CO 125 mg/m3 Removal of CO limit

A1-3 Boiler (HFO) 11.78 Flow - 8,000 m3/hour

NOx - 1,000 mg/m3

SOx - 1,700 mg/m3

A1-4 Dryer Burner (LNG)

6.05 Flow - 8,000 m3/hour

NOx - 200 mg/m3

8

Dryers

There are currently two dryers in operation at the installation which provide heat to dry the product. The licensee proposes to install a new third dryer (SPX spray dryer (A2-4)) which will have an integrated and dedicated liquefied natural gas (LNG) burner (A1-4). The Ring Dryer – Casein (A2-2) has been decommissioned and therefore not

included in the RD.

Air Dispersion modelling

As part of the application, air dispersion modelling was carried out to predict the ambient pollutant concentrations resulting from all main emissions.

The modelling used was in accordance with published Agency guidance and was considered sufficiently detailed and conservative to adequately assess the impact of the main emissions to air.

Nitrogen dioxide

Modelling of NO2 was carried out at an emission concentration of 1,000 mg/m3 NOx

(as NO2) for the HFO boilers (A1-1 and A1-3) and 600 mg/m3 NOx (as NO2) for the biomass boiler (A1-2). The air dispersion model assessment showed that the maximum predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) are well below the air quality standards for NO2 (33.3% of annual average of 40 µg/m3, 40% of 99.8% hourly 200 µg/m3) specified in the Air Quality Standard Regulations (SI180/2011).

HFO boilers

The current licence limit is 1,000 mg/m3 NOx for emission point A1-1. However, as monitoring results indicate the boiler (A1-1) can currently meet the MCP limit of 650 mg/m3, the RD specifies an emission limit of 650 mg/m3 for emission point (A1-1).

The RD specifies a limit 1,000 mg/m3 NOx for emission point A1-3, with a requirement to meet 650 mg/m3 from 1 January 2025 in compliance with the MCP Regulations. The RD requires that the licensee shall operate the standby HFO boiler A1-3 only as an emergency back-up when the HFO boiler (A1-1) or biomass noiler (A1-2) is out of service due to breakdown, or maintenance.

Biomass boiler

The current licence emission limit of 600 mg/m3 NOx (as NO2) for the biomass boiler (emission point reference A1-2) is carried forward in the RD and is in compliance with the MCP Regulations.

Dryer burner

The RD requires an emission limit of 200 mg/m3 NOx (as NO2) for the LNG burner (emission point reference A1-4) which is in compliance with the MCP Regulations.

Sulphur dioxide (SO2)

Modelling of SO2 was carried out at a concentration of 1,700 mg/m3 SO2 for the HFO

boilers and 700 mg/m3 SO2 for the biomass boiler. The air dispersion model assessment showed that the maximum predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) when both HFO boilers are in operation are below the air quality standards for SO2 (49% of annual average of 20 µg/m3, 69% of hourly 350 µg/m3 and 73% of daily 125 µg/m3) specified in the Air Quality Standard Regulations (SI180/2011). The air

dispersion model assessment showed that the maximum predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) for the normal operating scenario of the HFO boiler (A1-1) and the Biomass boiler (A1-2) in operation are below the air quality standards for SO2

9

(41% of annual average of 20 µg/m3, 63% of hourly 350 µg/m3 and 60% of daily 125 µg/m3) specified in the Air Quality Standard Regulations (SI180/2011).

HFO boilers

The current licence limit of 1,700 mg/m3 SO2 for emission point A1-1 is carried forward

to the RD, with a requirement to meet 350 mg/m3 from 1 January 2025 in compliance with the MCP Regulations.

The HFO boiler (A1-3) is an 11.78 MW existing boiler that is proposed to be reintroduced as a back-up boiler for emission point A1-1 or A1-2. The RD sets an emission limit of 1,700 mg/m3 SO2 for emission point A1-3 (HFO boiler) until 31

December 2024. In accordance with the MCP Regulations requirements for HFO boiler rated thermal inputs greater than 5 MW and less than or equal to 20 MW, the RD specifies an emission limit value of 850 mg/m3: applicable from 01 January 2025 until 1 January 2030, and 350 mg/m3 thereafter.

Biomass boiler

In accordance with the Medium Combustion Plant Regulations an emission limit value for SO2 does not apply in the case of existing medium combustion plants firing exclusively woody solid biomass. The licensee confirms that the biomass boiler (A1-2) only operates woody biomass and therefore, the emission limit value for SO2 does not

apply when the biomass boiler is firing exclusively woody solid biomass. While the licensee has no plans to change biomass fuel to be burned in this boiler, in order to provide flexibility,the RD specifies an ELV of 200 mg/m3 which is applicable from 1 January 2025 in the case the biomass boiler is not firing exclusively woody solid biomass.

Carbon monoxide (CO)

Biomass Boiler

The licensee requests the removal of the emission limit value for CO in the revised licence. The air dispersion model assessment showed that the maximum predicted

environmental concentration (PEC) is well below the air quality standards for CO (10,000 µg/m3) specified in the Air Quality Standard Regulations (SI180/2011). The RD does not include an emission limit value for CO, as the MCP Regulations do not specify an emission limit value for CO and modelling shows that there will be no significant impact. The RD specifies biannual combustion efficiency monitoring which

should act as a driver to minimise CO emissions.

Boilers (HFO and biomass) and dryer burner

The RD requires the licensee to monitor the combustion efficiency (to include carbon monoxide measurement) biannually for the boilers and the dryer burner (emission

points A1-1 to A1-4) in accordance with the MCP Regulations.

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

All particulate emissions in the model are assumed to be in the form of PM10 or PM2.5 for comparison with the AQS. The air dispersion model showed that the maximum predicted concentrations (PEC) are below the air quality standards for PM (77% of

daily PM10, 44% of annual PM10 and 38.5% of annual PM2.5) specified in the Air Quality Standard Regulations (SI180/2011). It is assumed that all particulates are PM10 or PM2.5 and the licensee modelled all the boilers and dryers in operation at the one time for both parameters; however only two boilers may operate at any one time, so the predictions are conservative. The RD specifies that the licensee shall operate only two

10

boilers (associated with emission points A1-1, A1-2 and A1-3) at any one time, except for planned testing. The MCP limits for total particulates have been applied in the RD.

Biomass boiler

The licensee has requested an increase in the total particulates emission limit value

from 30 mg/m3 to 50 mg/m3 for emission point A1-2 (biomass boiler) in accordance with the emission limit value specified in the MCP Regulations (SI 595/2017). The model results at 50 mg/m3 indicate that the PEC for annual PM10 and PM2.5 are below the air quality standards. Monitoring results for the A1-2 (biomass boiler) indicate that the results on one occasion exceeded the emission limit value of 30 mg/m3 for total

particulates set in their current licence in 2018.

The licensee states that there have been issues with the bag filtration system being damaged by the biomass boiler. The licensee has introduced a pre-treatment step of a cyclone filter which has been effective, however the bags continue to be subject to

damage with much shorter lifespans than expected.

It is proposed that alternative technologies may be assessed to find a more suitable abatement system for this process; however, to include all technologies it is requested that the current limit be increased in line with the Medium Combustion Plant Regulations.

Based on the above the RD specifies an emission limit value of 50 mg/m3 for total particulates for emission point A1-2 (biomass boiler) in line with the MCP Regulations.

Dryers

Monitoring results for the dryers A2-1 and A2-3 indicate that the results are below the emission limit values set for the current licence of 50 mg/m3 and 20 mg/m3

respectively. The ELVs for total particulates for dryers A2-1 and A2-3 have been carried forward in the RD.

The publication of the Commission Implementation Decision for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries (CID FDM) is due to be published in 2019, which specifies a BAT

associated emission level (BAT-AEL) for channelled dust emissions to air from drying at <2 – 10 mg/m3. The upper end of the range is 20 mg/m3 for drying demineralised whey powder, casein and lactose. The licensee will have a 4-year period from the date of publication of the CID FDM to take the necessary measures to meet the more stringent emission limit value range of <2- 10 mg/m3.

The licensee states that the bag filtration system for the SPX Dryer is rated to give emissions concentrations for total particulates of 10 mg/m3. Therefore, in line with the specifications for the new SPX dryer and the imminent publication of the CID FDM, the RD specifies an ELV of 10 mg/m3 for the new SPX dryer (A2-4).

As outlined, the modelling demonstrates adequate dispersion and that emissions will not cause any breach of the relevant air quality standards.

To accommodate the reintroduction of the HFO boiler A1-3, the volumetric flow limit for emission points A1-1 and A1-3 (HFO boilers) have been reduced in the RD. As the flow has been reduced below the maximum flow capacity of the HFO boilers, the RD

requires the licensee to monitor the volume flow rate continuously to verify compliance with the flow limits within six months of the date of grant of the licence. The licensee proposes to operate only two boilers (associated with emission points A1-1, A1-2 and A1-3) at any one time, with the exception of planned testing, which has been limited in Schedule A: Limitations of the RD. The RD requires the licensee to maintain a record

of operation of the boilers (emissions points A1-1, A1-2 and A1-3).

11

The RD includes the following requirements for the control of emissions to air:

Emission limits have been specified in accordance with what was modelled. Concentration limits also comply with the EU Medium Combustion Plant Regulations (SI595/2017).

Schedule C of the RD requires SOx, NOX, total particulates and combustion efficiency monitoring for combustion plants and particulates monitoring for the dryer emission points.

Schedule C.1.1 specifies control parameters for the cyclones and bag filters. The installation meets the requirements of BAT.

In addition, the RD specifies emission limit values, abatement controls, monitoring

requirements, and other licence conditions, which will ensure the emissions to air will not negatively impact on air quality and will minimise the potential risk to population and human health, soil and biodiversity. Considering the conservative assumptions in modelling and the requirements in the RD, it is unlikely that air emissions from the installation will have a significant impact on the environment. At the limit values in the

RD the predicted ambient concentrations do not exceed the air quality standards.

Accidental air emissions could occur if an air abatement system was to fail, causing a release of particulates or combustion gases or there was a fire on-site. However, the likelihood of accidental emissions is considered low in light of the measures outlined

in Section 13.1 Prevention of Accidents, and the conditions in the RD. Based on the assessment above, it is considered that air emissions from the installation are not likely to cause a significant direct impact.

8.2 Odour

The waste water treatment plant (WWTP) is a potential source of odour. Odours

arising from the activity could have the potential to cause nuisance for those living nearby.

Assessment

There was one complaint (in 2013) received by the Agency since the licence was

issued in 2011 in relation to odour from the installation, the likely cause was the WWTP. There have been no odour related complaints received since the one in 2013.

Odour is not expected to be a significant issue at the installation as the odour complaints were attributed to the off-site MWWTP.

Controls

The installation has an odour monitoring procedure and plan. Odours from the WWTP are controlled and managed under an odour control programme implemented at the installation. The controls include continuously washing through the influent lines to prevent stagnating water, balance tanks are continuously aerated, and fat is removed in the Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) unit prior to pumping water to the biotowers.

The RD requires an Odour Management Plan, which was not a requirement of P0802-02. This shall as a minimum address operation of the WWTP, sludge treatment and storage to ensure odorous emissions to air are minimised. The RD requires that no emissions, including odour, shall result in an impairment of, or an interference with

amenities or the environment beyond the installation boundary.

12

9. Discharges to Water and Ground

This section addresses the following:

- Emissions to Waters

- Storm water discharges

- Emissions to ground/groundwater

9.1 Discharges to Waters

9.1.1 Emissions to Waters

Assessment

The table below gives details on installation’s direct emissions to waters; the processes which contribute to the emissions, the type of on-site treatment (if any), and the

proposed maximum daily flows (where relevant), as well as details of the receiving water.

Process emissions

Emission Reference

Proposed / Existing

Process Description Abatement Proposed max. flow

SW1

Existing Final effluent from the WWTP

Biological treatment 2,100 m3/day

SW2/

SW2a

Existing Cooling water/condensate - 6,000 m3/day

Details of the receiving water

Receiving water name and code: Lung_050 (IE_SH_26L030400)

Waterbody type: River

WFD status: Good WFD risk: not at risk

WFD protected areas:

Drinking water river (IEPA1_SH_26L030400) which is located approximately 4.5 km downstream of the installation’s discharge point.

Lough Gara (IEPA1_SH_26_728) is a drinking water lake, which is located approximately 4.96 km downstream of the installation’s discharge point.

Q value status:

Q4 in 2017 (station code: RS26L030350) (320 m upstream of SW1)

Q4 in 2017 (station code: RS26L030400) (4.5 km downstream of SW1)

EPA Catchment Science Unit, 2018, Upper Shannon (Boyle) Catchment Assessment 2010-2015 (HA 26B) report: The river water body (Lung 040: IE_SH_26L030350) has a high-status environmental objective. In 2015, this water body was at high status. The Lung_040 ends approximately 40.8 m upstream of station code: RS26L060400 (Lung_050).

SW1 discharges to the river Lung via an Irish Water pipeline. The licensee does not propose any increases in emission limit values or flow limits. The current licence

13

P0802-02 issued on 16/03/2011 incorporated the requirements of the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009, as amended (Surface Water Regulations) and The European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations 2010 (Groundwater Regulations), as amended. In granting of the current licence (Reg. No. P0802-02), the Agency was satisfied that the discharge would not cause significant pollution at SW1 and SW2a.

The emission limit values for SW1 and SW2 and SW2a remain unchanged from that specified in the current licence (Reg. No. P0802-02) with the exception of the ELV for COD for emission point SW1. The RD reduces the emission limit value for COD from

150 mg/l to 125 mg/l for emission point SW1. This is in line with the pending Commission Implementation Decision for the Food, Drink and Milk Industries (CID FDM) and the licensee monitoring results indicate that this is achievable.

Cooling water/condensate

Cooling water is abstracted from the River Lung and is discharged back to the river downstream along with condensate from the evaporators and dryers. The cooling water discharges a thermal load to the River Lung. The current licence limits the volume to be discharged (6,000 m3/day) and an emission limit value for temperature (27°C (max) subject to condition 5.5). Condition 5.5 of their current licence requires

that the discharges will not result in a temperature increase at the edge of the mixing zone of greater than 1.5 oC. The requirements as regards the mixing zone have applied to these discharges since the first licence in June 2008 (P0802-01).

In relation to temperature, the mixing zone is not delineated in the current licence. However, the licensee was required to submit a proposal to the satisfaction of the

Agency, on the means by which compliance with Condition 5.5.1 shall be verified on an ongoing basis. A summary report of compliance measurements was required to be submitted as part of the AER. Condition 5.5.1 requires the following:

No effluent shall be discharged that results in:

(i) A temperature increase at the edge of the mixing zone of greater than 1.5oC in the receiving system, or

(ii) A temperature at the edge of the mixing zone that exceeds 21.5oC, or 10oC during the period from 1st November to 30th April, as per S.I. No. 293 of 1988.

This requirement applied to this discharge since the first licence in June 2008 and has

not been submitted to the Agency to date. The licensee does carry out continuous temperature monitoring at emission point SW2a.

The RD requires the licensee to propose ambient monitoring and/or predictive methods to determine the extent of the mixing zone such that compliance can be

verified. The Surface Waters Regulations 2009, as amended provides information relating to the mixing zones extent, the procedures and methodologies to delineate such zones, to ensure compliance with the prescribed EQSs is not compromised in relation to the remainder of the water body and the delineation of mixing zones.

Condition 6.14.2 of the current licence requires the licensee, within six months of

grant of this licence, to submit a proposal for the installation of an ambient monitoring point downstream of SW2a (Cooling water/condensate discharge) to replace SW5 (River Lung downstream of final effluent discharge) for agreement with the Agency. This proposal was submitted on 26/11/2012; and the licensee monitors the river Lung at an emission point downstream of SW2a entitled SW5a. The requirements of

Condition 6.14.2 of the current licence to install an ambient monitoring point downstream of SW2a has been completed and therefore is not included in the RD.

14

The RD includes the new emission point in Schedule C.6.1 Intake and Receiving Water Monitoring.

Biological water quality

The EPA 2017 biological data shows there has been no change in the water quality

(Q4 unpolluted) of the River Lung upstream (0350) and downstream (0400) of the installation. However, the EPA monitoring point (0400) is approximately 4.5 km downstream of where SW1 and SW2a discharges enter the River Lung, so it is not possible to draw clear conclusions. The licensee has carried out a biological water quality survey of the River Lung upstream and downstream of the process effluent

and downstream of process effluent and cooling water/condensate discharges, the results show that the water quality was Q4 (unpolluted) upstream, Q3-4 (slightly polluted) downstream of the process effluent and Q3-4 (slightly polluted) downstream of the process effluent and cooling water/condensate discharge in 2018. The report

states that “all three monitoring points were the same rating as 2017”. Condition 6.14.1 of the current licence requires the licensee to carry out an annual biological and chemical water quality survey of the River Lung immediately above and below the process effluent and cooling water/condensate. Following consultation with the EPA’s Office of Environmental Assessment, the RD requires the licensee to carry out Small

Stream Risk Score (SSRS) Assessment by an appropriately qualified person annually.

WWTP

Sources of process effluent arising at the installation are cleaning-in-place operations, and truck wash. The WWTP comprises of a two-stage biological treatment system, biofiltration followed by activated sludge. The system consists of the following; two

balancing tanks in sequence, pH correction (if required), dissolved air flotation (DAF), high rate biofilters, aeration tank with anoxic zone, two clarifiers, sludge thickener, thickened sludge holding tank and sludge dewatering plant. Condition 6.23 of the current licence requires the licensee to prepare a WWTP optimisation programme, in

order to improve the on-site treatment of the wastewaters generated by the installation and this report was to be submitted within six months of date of grant of the licence (16 March 2011).

As outlined above the licensee was prosecuted and convicted under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 as amended on 12 April 2019 for two offences: permitting

a specified emission from the installation which exceeded the emission limit values set out in the licence relating to emissions to water and failure during the incident to isolate the source of the emission to identify and execute measures to minimise the emissions/malfunction and the effects thereof, within the period commencing on 3rd March 2018 and 7 March 2018. The licensee submitted a proposal entitled

“Modification to effluent discharge arrangements proposal” to the Agency on 26/10/2018, which was approved by the Office of Environmental Enforcement on 12/11/2018 and was due to be completed by 11/02/2019. The compliance investigation was closed on 10/04/2019.

The upgrade works to the WWTP to address the above non-compliances included a new mix & delay chamber which is located between the two clarifiers (S2 and S3) and the existing pumping chamber. When the effluent returns to an acceptable turbidity level the monitor in the delay chamber will command the pump to stop pumping.

The upgrade works include stop valves (STV1 & STV2) fitted on the pipelines from

both clarifiers S2 & S3 to allow the isolation of one clarifier if required. I consider that the WWTP meets the requirements of BAT for the Dairy Sector and the concentration emission limit values for the emissions to water are in line with the BAT Guidance for

15

the Dairy Sector (see table 9.1 above) and the Surface Water Regulations. Therefore, the RD does not carry forward the requirement to prepare a WWTP optimisation programme.

Condition 6.16 of the current licence requires the licensee, by December 2015, to

complete an assessment of the water quality status of the River Lung which shall demonstrate the effectiveness of the emission limit values for SW1 and SW2 and identify further upgrades necessary to contribute to the River Lung achieving ‘Good Status’ by 2021. The River Lung is at ‘Good Status’ and based on the above improvement works at the WWTP, the requirements of this condition have not been

carried forward in the RD.

Mitigation

The limits and controls specified in the licence (P0802-02) on process emissions to surface waters aimed to achieve the environmental objectives and standards

established in the Surface Water Regulations.

The RD does not propose any changes to existing aqueous discharge limits in the licence and there has been no change to any relevant environmental quality standards and objectives since the last review of the licence. These objectives and standards are for the protection of water (as a resource), water quality and water dependant

habitats and indirectly protect fauna dependant on these habitats. In short there have been no noteworthy changes at the installation or in the environment since the last review of the licence.

The mitigation measures outlined above are BAT. No additional stricter measures have been identified as necessary for the protection of receptors. The RD carries

forward all the limits, controls and monitoring requirements set out in the current licence. In addition, the RD requires the licensee to monitor temperature at SW2 and propose ambient monitoring and/or predictive methods to determine the extent of the mixing zone (see above for further details).

9.1.2 Storm water discharges to waters

All storm water consists of run-off from clean hardstanding and non-process areas. Rain water run-off from areas used for the storage of waste or run-off from process areas likely to be contaminated is all collected and diverted to the WWTP for processing.

The table below gives details on installation’s storm water discharges to waters; the sources of potential contamination of these discharges, the type of on-site abatement (if any), as well as details of the receiving water.

16

Stormwater discharge point details

Emission Reference

Proposed / Existing

Monitored parameters (monitoring frequency) Trigger levels established (Y/N)

SW6 Existing Visual, pH, COD, conductivity (weekly); orthophosphate, total ammonia, total nitrogen (monthly)

Y

SW7 Existing Visual, pH, COD, conductivity (weekly); orthophosphate, total ammonia, total nitrogen (monthly)

Y

Drainage areas: SW6 and SW7 storm water from the site.

Abatement: Silt trap on the east drain and west drain.

Receiving water: River Lung via the Ballaghaderreen river

Automatic diversion in place:

Yes

Assessment

The east drain serves a small section of the east side of the installation (SW7), due to

low flows in this drain, OEE has approved its diversion to the WWTP. The system of collection and treatment of storm water drainage in the on-site WWTP has been employed by the licensee to prevent any contaminated run-off storm water from the site entering the River Lung. The west drain collects all the storm water from the west side of the site flows through an inspection chamber fitted with a turbidity meter

(SW6). If the solids are above a trigger value the surface water line diverts to the WWTP. There are silt traps on both drains (SW6 and SW7).

Mitigation

In the event of storm water contamination, SW6 is diverted to the WWTP.

Below are the mitigation measures and controls specified in the RD.

The RD requires that all storm water discharge is visually inspected weekly and

monitored for pH, COD and Conductivity weekly, orthophosphate, total

ammonia, total nitrogen monthly for emission points SW6 and SW7.

The RD requires the licensee to maintain trigger levels and a response

programme to address exceedances.

The RD contains standard conditions in relation to the storage and

management of materials and wastes.

The RD also requires that accident and emergency response procedures are put in place. The controls pertaining to accidents and emergencies are addressed in section 13 below. These measures will help control any impacts which could occur should

any mitigation measures fail. It is therefore considered that direct effects as a result of storm water emissions are considered to be neither likely nor significant.

17

9.2 Emissions to Sewer

9.2.1 No Process emissions to sewer

There are no process emissions to sewer at the installation.

9.3 Discharges to ground/groundwater

9.3.1 No Emissions to ground/groundwater

Lagoon/wetland

There is a 16.5-hectare lagoon/wetland area to the rear of the effluent treatment plant. The lagoon had been used extensively to accept process effluent until the year 2000. It was being used as an “emergency route for discharge of untreated/poorly

treated effluent” from the WWTP at the time of the original licence application (Reg. No. P0802-01). It was used three times in the period July 2009 to July 2010 for the acceptance of process effluent from the WWTP. The original licence (Reg. No. P0802-01) required the licensee to cease the diversion of emissions from the installation to

the lagoon/wetland and required the decommissioning of the lagoon/wetland to be completed by 31 December 2009.

At the site visit carried out on 8 July 2010 it was noted that the lagoon effluent pipeline from the WWTP had been cut off and effluent is diverted to balancing tank 2 if it does not meet emission limit values for SW1. As per the current licence, the RD does not

permit any process emission from the activity to be discharged to the lagoon/wetland. The surface water from the lagoon overflows into the ‘open ditch’ for the cooling water/condensate discharge at SW3. The RD carries forward the current licence requirements in relation to monitoring of the emissions from SW3 (lagoon discharge). The current licence (P0802-02) required the licensee to submit a comprehensive

hydrogeological investigation of the lagoon/wetland area (condition 6.18) and a revised lagoon decommissioning plan (Condition 10.5), which were received by the Agency on 19/01/2012, 29/03/2012 and 19/06/2012 and approved by the Agency on 09/08/2012. Therefore, this requirement has not been carried forward in the RD.

10. Noise

The main sources of noise at the installation include ventilation extraction fans, delivery truck events, fork lift operation. The nearest receptor consists of residential dwelling to the west of the installation, approximately 135 m from the installation boundary.

Assessment

There have been no noise complaints received by the Agency in relation to the operation of this installation under the current IE licence. The licensee undertook a noise modelling assessment of the impact of noise sources (report prepared 06 June 2017) from the installation. The noise modelling assessment considered the expected

noise levels at one noise sensitive location (NSL1). The noise levels at the noise sensitive location are within the day and night-time limits (55 dB and 45 dB LAeq respectively) at the noise sensitive location. There was no audible impulsive component to the noise emissions from the site at any measurement location. Tonal

noise was not detected at any location. The RD updates noise limits to include an evening time noise limit of 50 dB LAr, T (30 minutes) at the noise sensitive locations in accordance with EPA’s Guidance Note for Noise: Licence Applications, Surveys and Assessments in Relation to Scheduled Activities (NG4) (2016). The current licence requires an annual noise survey and following consultation with OEE this frequency

has been changed to as required by the Agency in the RD.

18

Mitigation

The noise emission from the installation are reduced through a combination of techniques including silencers on A2-1, noise abatement on numerous pumps and fans, noisy equipment mainly stored indoors. Standard noise conditions and emission

limit values, which apply at the noise sensitive location(s), have been included in the RD.

11. Waste Generation

Assessment

The activity does not produce significant quantities of waste. There are no waste

disposal or recovery activities undertaken on-site. Hazardous waste generated includes waste oil, lubricant, fluorescent tubes, laboratory chemicals, batteries and transformers. Non-hazardous waste generated on-site includes sludge from the WWTP, plastic packaging, wooden packaging, paper and cardboard and mixed

municipal waste. WWTP sludge generated by the activity will be sent off-site for use as fertiliser in accordance with the European Union (Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Waters) Regulations 2017, SI 605/2017 and European Union (Animal By-Products) Regulations 2014, SI 187/2014, (Animal by-products Regulation) will be monitored and controlled by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and

local authorities. The IE licence relates to the installation of the activity for which the licence application is made and does not extend to the lands on which organic fertiliser may be used as fertiliser.

The RD reduces the requirement to provide a minimum 22 weeks storage for organic

fertiliser/organic sludge to 18 weeks in line with the requirements of the Nitrates Regulations.

Mitigation

Waste materials are segregated on-site into appropriate categories and stored appropriately.

If dealt with in accordance with the conditions of the RD, the management of waste generated at the facility will be in accordance with the requirements of Article 11(e) of the Industrial Emissions Directive. There are standard conditions in the RD pertaining to the storage and management of waste generated by the activity.

12. Use of Resources

The licensee has provided a comprehensive list of resources consumed at the installation; these are listed in the review application form.

The operation of the installation involves the consumption of water, oil, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and electricity. The estimated annual consumption quantities are

given in the table below.

Resource Quantity per annum

Electricity 142,732 MWh

Water -surface water (cooling water) 1,337,990 m3

Water - groundwater 64,500 m3

Water – public supply 173,789 m3

19

Resource Quantity per annum

Heavy Fuel Oil 4,817 m3

Biomass 48,621 tonnes

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 36,299 MWh

Assessment

The River Lung is a water resource that is affected by abstraction for cooling water purposes. The abstracted water used as cooling water is discharged back to the river

downstream, so the impact is minimal. The RD carries forward the emission limits and controls from the current licence regarding cooling water/condensate discharge. In accordance with the European Union (Water Policy) (Abstractions Registration) Regulations 2018 the licensee has registered (R00103-01) this river water abstraction as they abstract 25 cubic meters (25,000 litres) of water or more each day.

Groundwater is abstracted to provide clean water for use in the production facility.

The RD specifies a number of requirements in line with BAT to ensure energy is used efficiently.

Hazardous Materials

Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) (150 tonnes) is stored on-site for use in the HFO boilers. Additional hazardous substances stored on-site include clean in place chemicals (nitric acid, sodium hydroxide, caustic soda), cleaning materials, waste water treatment plant chemicals and laboratory chemicals.

The main substance of concern to the activity is HFO (hazard statement H350- may

cause cancer, H400- very toxic to aquatic life and H410- very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects).

None of the above substances are emitted directly to the environment. The likelihood of accidental releases of these substances to the environment, as a result of the licensable activity is low. Furthermore, as part of the Environmental Management

System (Conditions 2 and 7 of the RD) the licensee must annually review of all operations and processes with respect to cleaner production and the efficient use of raw materials.

Mitigation

Condition 7 of the licence provides for the efficient use of resources and energy

in all site operations. This condition also requires an energy audit to be carried

out and repeated at intervals as required by the Agency.

The RD provides for the inclusion of Energy Efficient Management as part of

the EMS, which is in accordance with the BREF on Energy Efficiency.

The RD specifies that the EMS Schedule of Environmental Objectives and

Targets shall include an evaluation of options for the use of cleaner technology

and cleaner production.

13. Accidents and Cessation

This section addresses any likelihood of accidents at the installation, as well as the

measures required to protect the environment in the event of the closure of the activity.

20

13.1 Prevention of Accidents

Potential accidents & measures for prevention/limitation of consequences

Potential for an accident or hazardous/ emergency situation to arise from activities at the installation.

Fire/explosion from fire risk areas e.g. dryers.

Fuel spill from HFO storage tanks.

Chemical spills.

Milk spill during unloading, storage and processing.

Gas leak from the forklift filling gas tanks, boiler

ignition/office heating gas tanks and the gas

pipeline.

Heavy rain to affect the efficient operation of the

WWTP in the event large quantities of storm water

being diverted to effluent.

Uncontrolled discharge. Spill or leak from the

WWTP.

Preventative/Mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of accidents and mitigate the effects of the consequences of an accident at the installation.

Fire control equipment and systems on-site.

Dryers systems are fitted with explosion doors which

are emergency operated suppression systems.

Silt traps.

Bund and pipeline integrity testing, repairs and

maintenance.

Spill response measures, procedures and training.

COD measuring system for process drains.

Control and maintenance of the WWTP.

Additional measures provided for in the RD.

Accident prevention and emergency response

requirements and measures to be taken in the case

of an incident (Condition 9).

Bunding requirements for tank, container and

drum storage areas for liquid fuels and bulk

chemicals

Integrity testing of tanks, bunds and pipelines is

required every 3 years with maintenance as required

(Condition 3).

High liquid level alarms on pumps, sumps, tanks and

other treatment plant chambers.

Maintain suitable storm water trigger levels

(Condition 6).

Reporting requirements in event of an incident.

Implementation of an Environmental Management

System.

Firewater risk assessment (Condition 3).

Assessment

The risk of accidents and their consequences, and the preventative and mitigation measures listed in the table above, have been considered in full in the assessments carried out throughout this report.

It should be noted that the quantities of Dangerous Substances used are below the

thresholds which would make the installation subject to the additional controls for

21

major accident prevention and emergency response, specified in the Seveso III Directive (2012/18/EU).

Mitigation

Condition 9 of the RD requires procedures to be put in place to prevent accidents with

a possible impact on the environment and to respond to emergencies so as to minimise the impact on the environment. The licensee submitted an ELRA dated 12/11/2014, which was approved by the Office of Environmental Enforcement (see Fit and Proper Person Assessment section below for further details).

13.2 Cessation of activity

The application details a range of measures to be employed upon cessation of the activity. These include:

Decontamination and decommissioning of production buildings using standard clean in place procedures. All wash waters will be diverted to the WWTP for treatment. Removal of residual waste to waste storage areas.

Raw materials used, returned to supplier or transferred to other sites.

Empty, decontamination and decommissions of silos, raw material tanks and

pipelines.

Decontamination of all process and plant equipment

Decommissioning and closure of boilers

Decommissioning of HFO storage tanks and lines and chiller units.

Condition 10 of the RD requires the proper closure of the activity with aim of protecting the environment. The licensee submitted an ELRA dated 12/11/2014, which was approved by the Office of Environmental Enforcement on 14/11/2014. (see Fit and

Proper Person Assessment section below for further details).

13.3 Baseline Report

Assessment

Article 22(2) of the IED requires that where the 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 the installation, the operator shall prepare and submit to the competent authority a baseline report before revision of a licence.

The baseline report is a tool that permits, as far as possible, a quantified comparison

between the state of the site described in that report and the state of the site upon definitive cessation of activities, in order to ascertain whether a significant increase in pollution of soil or groundwater has taken place.

A baseline report (ref: Regulation 10(2)(b)(ii) reply dated 13/05/2019, report

reference: 4230-19-04 and date: 03/05/2019) was submitted with the application. The installation has been in operation since 1972 and the site has been developed over the intervening years. The majority of the site is covered with concrete hardstanding. The main pathway for hazardous substances is identified as the site surface water drainage system on both sites. The licensee has stated that there are no known

ongoing ground and/or groundwater contamination issues.

The main hazardous substance used on-site is heavy fuel oil. Heavy fuel oil is used in two of the boilers on-site, the tank capacity is 150 tonnes and it is stored in a bunded area. Ground water and soil sampling was carried out for relevant hazardous

22

substances on 29/03/2019 and 04/04/2019 respectively. The report refers to data from 2019 groundwater and soil analysis.

Mitigation

Condition 10 of the RD requires the licensee to affect the proper closure of the activity

to the satisfaction of the Agency by decommissioning, rendering safe or removing for disposal/recovery, buildings, plant or equipment, or any waste, materials or substances that may result in environmental pollution.

The RD requires groundwater monitoring for relevant hazardous substances to be carried out every 5 years, and soil monitoring to be carried out every 10 years as per

the Baseline report and any other monitoring location(s) approved by the Agency. The substances for monitoring shall be identified by undertaking a risk-based assessment in accordance with the requirements of the IED.

14. Environmental Impact Assessment

14.1 Statutory Provisions

This assessment is being undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2014/52/EU amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

This EIA has had regard to the information provided by the licensee, received through

consultation, written submission, as well as considering any supplementary information where appropriate and includes the licence assessment completed in this Report.

I have carried out an examination, analysis and evaluation of the information provided by the licensee, including the EIAR, received through consultation, written submission, as well as considering any supplementary information, where appropriate. A summary of the submission made by the planning authorities is provided in Section 6 of this report. A summary of the submission made by third parties has been set out at Section

7 of this report.

Having regards to the requirements of the EIA Directive 2014/52/EU, I am satisfied that:

(i) the environmental effects arising as a consequence of the proposed activity have been satisfactorily identified, described and assessed in accordance with the

requirements of Article 3; (ii) the information contained in the EIAR has been prepared by competent experts and complies with the provisions of Article 5; (iii) the EIAR contains a non-technical summary in accordance with the

requirements of Article 5; (iv) the public have been given early and effective opportunity to participate in the environmental decision-making procedure.

14.2 Alternatives

Article 5(1)(d) of the Directive 2014/52/EU requires:

(d) a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the developer, which are relevant to the project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the effects of the project on the environment;

23

Annex IV of the Directive (Information for the EIAR) provides more detail on ‘reasonable alternatives’:

2. A description of the reasonable alternatives (for example in terms of project design, technology, location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects.

The matter of alternatives is addressed in Chapter 1.7 of the EIAR. Aurivo Dairy Ingredients is an existing development and in operation since 1972. The proposed

new dryer will be gas fired and will deliver significant energy savings. The EIAR states that there is no feasible alternative that could be considered. The “Do nothing’ scenario” would mean that both energy and carbon emissions would be at higher levels.

In this regard, I consider that the matter of the examination of alternatives has been satisfactorily addressed.

14.3 Likely Significant Direct and Indirect Effects

The likely significant direct and indirect effects of the development are considered in this Inspector’s Report under the following headings, after those set out in Article 3

of the EIA Directive 2014/52/EU:

(a) population and human health;

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC;

(c) land, soil, water, air and climate;

(d) material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape;

(e) the interaction between the factors referred to in points (a) to (d).

14.3.1 Population & human health

Population and human health are addressed in Chapter 3 of the EIAR. The EIAR

evaluates potential impacts from the proposed development on land-use, employment, amenities and recreation, human health and unplanned events. The impacts associated with the continued operation of the installation are considered positive in terms of employment. No negative impacts are anticipated in relation to land-use, amenities and recreation, economy and tourism or human health. Potential

impacts to human health have been addressed in sections 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 of this report.

The likely significant direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the development on population and human health have been identified, described and assessed, in

sections 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 of this report.

Conclusions

I have examined all the information on population and human health, provided by the licensee, received through consultations, written submissions, as well as considering any supplementary information, where appropriate. I am satisfied that the potential

effects identified will be avoided, managed and mitigated by the measures identified and through the proposed conditions of the Recommended Determination. I am, therefore, satisfied that the operation of the activity is not likely to have any unacceptable direct, indirect or cumulative effects in terms of population and human health.

24

14.3.2 Biodiversity (including Flora and Fauna)

Biodiversity (including Flora and Fauna) are presented in Chapter 4 of the EIAR. Note that in addition to the Biodiversity Chapter of the EIAR, a separate determination of Appropriate Assessment (AA) under Article 6 of EU Habitats Directive was also

required to support this application. The licensee has provided the following AA documentation as part of the application:

Natura Impact Statement (NIS received by the Agency on 07 February 2019)

As outlined in Section 15 of this report an Inspector’s Appropriate Assessment has been completed and has determined, based on best scientific knowledge in the field and in accordance with the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 as amended, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, that

the activities, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, will not adversely affect the integrity of any European Site, in particular those site specified in Appendix 2, having regard to their conservation objectives and will not affect the preservation of these sites at favourable conservation status if carried out in accordance with this Recommended Determination and the conditions attached

hereto.

Potential impacts to biodiversity (including flora and fauna) have been addressed in sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of this report. The likely significant direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the development on biodiversity has been identified, described and assessed in Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of this report.

Conclusions I have examined all the information on biodiversity provided by the licensee, received through consultation, written submission, as well as considering any supplementary information, where appropriate. I am satisfied that the potential effects identified will

be avoided, managed and mitigated by the measures identified and through the proposed conditions of the Recommended Determination. I am, therefore, satisfied that the operation of the activity is not likely to have any unacceptable direct, indirect or cumulative effects in terms of biodiversity, flora and fauna.

14.3.3 Land and soil (including Geology, emissions to ground

and groundwater)

Chapter 5 of the EIAR addresses Land, Soil and Geology. The environmental factors potentially affected by discharges to ground and groundwaters include: groundwater quality, soil, biodiversity, and population & human health.

The potential impacts to ground, groundwater and land and soil are addressed in Section 9, 11, 13 and 14 of this report. The installation’s emissions to ground and groundwater are assessed in Section 9 of this report. There are no process emissions to ground/groundwater at the installation and there are no storm water discharges to ground authorised in the RD. There is no evidence of historical contamination of soil

or groundwater. There are no known areas of soil contamination on the site (see section 13 of this report for further details). The licensee submitted a hydrogeological investigation of the lagoon/wetland area and a revised lagoon decommissioning plan which were received by the Agency on 19/01/2012, 29/03/2012 and 19/06/2012 and approved by the Agency on 09/08/2012 (see section 9 of this report for further

details). The likely significant direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the development on land and soil have been identified, described and assessed in Sections 9, 11, 13 and 14 of this Report and are detailed below.

Direct and indirect effects

25

Should any accidental emission, such as a chemical spill because of bund failure, occur it has the potential to discharge to ground and/or groundwater. This could have the potential to affect groundwater quality, soil, biodiversity and population & human health.

Cumulative effects

It is considered that there will be no significant cumulative effect from any accidental emissions to ground and groundwater and other activities/developments in the area.

Conclusions I have examined all the information on land, soil, geology emissions to ground and

groundwater provided by the licensee, received through consultations, written submissions, as well as considering any supplementary information, where appropriate. I am satisfied that the potential effects identified will be avoided, managed and mitigated by the measures identified and through the proposed

conditions of the Recommended Determination. I am, therefore, satisfied that the operation of the activity is not likely to have any unacceptable direct, indirect or cumulative effects in terms of on land, soil and geology.

14.3.4 Water (including Emissions to water, storm water)

Chapter 6 of the EIAR addresses Water. The potential impacts to water include water

quality, soil, biodiversity and population & human health and are addressed in sections 9, 13 and 14 of this report. The likely significant direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the development on water have been identified, described and assessed in Sections 9, 13 and 14 of this Report and are detailed below.


Should emission levels in the discharge cause an exceedance of Water Quality Standards, or any accidental emission, e.g. a chemical spill because of bund failure, occur it has the potential to discharge through the emissions to water or storm water emission points. This could have the potential to affect surface quality downstream,

as well as aquatic habitats within that surface waters. I consider that no indirect effects are likely as a result of these process emissions to water and storm water emissions from the activity.

Cumulative effects

The storm water emissions consist of rain water run-off from roofs and non-process

areas. The discharges to River Lung remain unchanged from what is permitted in the current licence P0802-02. It is considered that there will be no significant cumulative effect from the process emissions to water and storm water emissions and other activities/developments in the area.

Conclusions

I have examined all the information on water (including emissions to water, storm water) provided by the licensee, received through consultations, written submissions, as well as considering any supplementary information, where appropriate. I am satisfied that the potential effects identified will be avoided, managed and mitigated

by the measures identified and through the proposed conditions of the Recommended Determination. I am, therefore, satisfied that the operation of the activity is not likely to have any unacceptable direct, indirect or cumulative effects on water (including Emissions to water, storm water).

26

14.3.5 Air and Climatic Factors (including Odour and Noise)

Chapter 7 of the EIAR addresses climate, air quality, odour and noise. The environmental factors potentially affected by emissions to air, noise and dust emissions include population and human health, biodiversity, air and climate.

The potential impacts to air, noise and climate are addressed in sections 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of this report. The likely significant direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the development from emissions to air, noise and climate have been identified, described and assessed in sections 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of this report.

Climate

Climate change is a significant global issue which affects weather and environmental conditions (air, water and soil) which consequently affects population and human health, material assets, cultural heritage and biodiversity. Climate change is caused by warming of the climate system by enhanced levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) due to human activities.

In June 2019 the Irish Government released the ‘Climate Action Plan, 2019’. The Plan outlines the current state of play across key sectors in Ireland and charts a course

towards decarbonisation targets. A key action item (Action 34) in relation to the food and drink industry is to engage with the sector to identify measures to support the achievement of identified potential abatement. Action 35 is to drive innovation and efficiency in companies by promoting wider take-up of Excellence in Energy Efficiency Design (EXEED), delivering efficiencies in at least 80 companies. The EXEED

programme is managed by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) to facilitate energy efficiency in businesses. The RD requires the licensee to carry out a feasibility study to identify decarbonisation opportunities in line with the Climate Action Plan for 2019, in particular switching from the use of Heavy Fuel oil to lower-carbon

fuel sources.

The source of emissions of climate altering substances from the installation will be the two HFO boilers (emission points A1-1 and A1-3, 25.24 and 11.78 MW respectively), the biomass boiler (emission point A1-2, 11.2 MW) and the LNG burner (emission point A1-4 6.05 MW) on-site.

The installation operates under a GHG emission permit (IE_GHG154-10423-3), which is the principal legislative limitation on the installation’s climate impact. Regulation 23 of European Communities (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading) Regulations 2004 (SI 437/2004) requires that the Agency shall not have regard to IED emission limit values, BAT or require a licence review, with respect to greenhouse gases unless it is

necessary to ensure no significant local pollution.

The installation is operating within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. The installation is subject to statutory monitoring and reporting of carbon dioxide emissions from combustion sources according to a monitoring and reporting plan under the

installation’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) permit. Emissions from combustion make up the majority of the installation’s GHG emissions.

Regarding reducing the climate impact of the installation under IED, the RD requires energy efficiency and use of cleaner production to be addressed as part of the Environmental Management System. It also requires an energy efficiency audit and

an assessment of resource use efficiency to be undertaken in accordance with Condition 7.

27

It is considered that the likelihood of accidental emissions occurring which could affect climate is low in light of the measures outlined in the “Prevention of Accidents” section below and the proposed conditions in the RD.

I consider that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from this installation are

primarily controlled and addressed by its GHG permit under the EU Emission Trading Scheme. The mitigation measures outlined above will minimise the releases of GHG emissions from the installation and therefore reduce its contribution to global warming.


The assessment of the air dispersion modelling and the assessment of the installation’s

GHG emissions indicates that air emissions from the normal operation are not likely to

cause a significant direct effect on population and human health, material assets,

cultural heritage and biodiversity.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative impacts on climate can arise from the combustion of HFO, biomass and

LNG due to emissions of GHG.

However, any discussion of GHG emissions must be extended to national and global climate impact. It cannot be concluded that the combined emissions from all industrial combustion processes will not have a significant cumulative impact on climate change.

Air quality

Assessment of Emissions to Air was carried out in Section 8 of this report. Should emission levels cause an exceedance of Air Quality Standards (AQS), this could have implications for population & human health, air quality and the health status of biodiversity beyond the installation boundary.


The above assessment of the installation’s air dispersion model, indicates that air emissions from the installation under normal operation are not likely to cause a significant direct effect on the above environmental factors. It is also considered that no secondary or indirect effects are likely as a result of these air emissions from the

activity.

In relation to the odour emissions, the above assessment would indicate that the odour emissions are not likely to have a significant effect on the environment when the installation is operating in accordance with the conditions of the Recommended

Determination.

Cumulative effects

For emissions other than GHG (incl. NOx, SO2 and particulates) air modelling has taken account of the background levels and it is considered that there is not likely to be a significant cumulative effect from air emissions from the installation and other

emissions generated by other activities/developments in the area.

The installation’s main processing site is located on the Dublin Road, approximately 0.5 miles east of Ballaghaderreen. The MWWTP is located approximately 500 m from the installation boundary which has the potential to give rise to odours. It is considered

that there is not likely to be a significant cumulative effect from odour emissions from the installation and other emissions generated by other industries or developments in the area.

28

Noise

Assessment of noise was carried out in Section 10 of this report.

Direct and Indirect effects

Noise arising from installation could have the potential to cause nuisance for those

living in the vicinity of the activity or on noise sensitive species near the installation. The likelihood of accidental noise emissions occurring is considered low considering the measures outlined and the conditions discussed above.

I consider that direct significant effects and indirect effects as a result of noise from the activities are unlikely.

Cumulative effects

The installation is in a approximately 0.5 miles east of Ballaghdereen, County Roscommon. The area to the north of the site is predominantly agricultural land, directly south of the site is the N5 national primary route and to the west of the site

is agricultural land, beyond which are houses located on the outskirts of Ballaghaderreen town (approximately 350 metres west of the installation).

Monitoring of noise levels from the activity at the nearest noise sensitive location (NSL 1) is considered to comply with the day and night values of 55 dB and 45 dB LAeq. There have been no noise complaints received by the Agency in relation to the

operation of this installation under the current IE licence. I consider that the cumulative effects are not significant.

Conclusions

I have examined all the information on air and climatic factors (including odour and noise) provided by the licensee, received through consultations, written submissions,

as well as considering any supplementary information, where appropriate. I am satisfied that the greenhouse gas emissions from this installation are primarily controlled and addressed by its GHG permit under the EU ETS. I am satisfied that the potential effects identified will be avoided, managed and mitigated by the measures

identified and through the proposed conditions of the Recommended Determination. I am, therefore, satisfied that the operation of the activity is not likely to have any unacceptable direct, indirect or cumulative effects in terms of air and climatic factors (including odour and noise).

14.3.6 Material Assets (including resource use and waste

generation), Cultural Heritage and the Landscape (Including Architectural and Archaeological Heritage as appropriate)

Material Assets

Chapter 9 of the EIAR addresses material assets. The likely significant direct, indirect

and cumulative effects of the development on material assets have been identified, described and assessed below.


There will be no alteration in land use as part of the proposed changes to the installation.

Cumulative effects

It is considered there will be no significant cumulative effects on the environment from the generation of waste by this installation and other developments in the area. The installation and activities are unchanged since the original application.

29

Resource use

Chapter 9 of the EIAR addresses resource use. Section 12 of this report addresses the use of resources at the installation. The environmental factors potentially affected by resource use include material assets, biodiversity, soil, land and water.

Based on the above assessment of the installation’s use of resources, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects have been identified, described and assessed, and are detailed below.


The likelihood of accidental releases of these substances to the environment is low in

light of the measures outlined in this report and in Section 13.1 Prevention of Accidents and the conditions of the RD discussed above.

Cumulative effects

Significant cumulative effects on the environment from the use of water (cooling

water, groundwater and potable water) and hazardous substances such as fuel oil, by this installation and other developments are not likely.

Waste generation

Chapter 2.8 of the EIAR addresses Waste Management. Section 11 of this report addresses waste generation at the installation. The environmental factors potentially affected by waste generated by the activity include: population and human health,

air, water, material assets and biodiversity.

Based on the above assessment of waste generated by the activity, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects have been identified, described and assessed, and are detailed below.


The controls in the RD in relation to waste will prevent the occurrence of possible direct and indirect negative effects on the environment.

Cumulative effects

Significant cumulative effects on the environment from the generation of wastes by

this installation and other developments are not likely. I am satisfied that there will be no significant cumulative effects on the environment from the generation of waste by this installation and other developments.

Landscape and visual impact

Chapter 9 of the EIAR addresses Landscape and visual impact. The likely significant

direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the development on landscape and visual impact have been identified, described and assessed below.

Any disturbance of the landscape or the cultural heritage of an area has the potential to impact on population and human health and the enjoyment of the surrounding

area.


It is very difficult to envisage any pathway by which emissions from the operation of the activity could impact any feature which may be present.

30

The decision of planning authorities to grant permission for the developments on site deals with any direct or indirect effects in relation to landscape and visual impact as part of their assessment.

Cumulative effect

The planning authority deals with any cumulative effects in relation to landscape and visual impact as part of their assessment.

Cultural effects including archaeology and architecture

Chapter 10 of the EIAR addresses Cultural Heritage. The likely significant direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the development on cultural heritage have been

identified, described and assessed below.

There are no buildings or features of architectural significance and no known archaeological features at the installation. The closest recoded protected structure is a rath/ring located 200m north of the installation. The nearest architectural site is

400m west of the installation.


It is very difficult to envisage any pathway by which emissions from the operation of the activity could impact any feature which may be present.

The decision of planning authorities to grant permission for the developments on site

deals with any direct or indirect effects in relation to cultural effects including archaeology and architecture as part of its assessment.

Cumulative effect

The planning authority deals with any cumulative effects in relation to cultural effects including archaeology and architecture dealt with as part of its assessment.

Conclusions

I have examined all the information on material assets (including resource use and waste generation), cultural heritage and the landscape provided by the licensee, received through consultations, written submissions, as well as considering any

supplementary information, where appropriate. I am satisfied that the potential effects identified will be avoided, managed and mitigated by the measures identified. I am, therefore, satisfied that the operation of the activity is not likely to have any unacceptable direct, indirect or cumulative effects in terms of material assets (including resource use and waste generation), cultural heritage and the landscape.

14.3.7 Interactions between factors

Chapter 11 of the EIAR addresses Interaction between factors. The interaction between factors as a result of the operation of the installation, and as addressed in the earlier parts of this report, is summarised below:

Population and human health and biodiversity Negative impacts on air quality could affect human health and biodiversity through HFO and biomass combustion, dryer emissions and greenhouse emissions. Noise arising from the installation could have the potential to cause nuisance for those living in the vicinity of the activity or on noise sensitive species near the site. Emissions to

water have the potential to affect the surface water quality and the aquatic habitats and species within these surface water. As demonstrated in earlier parts of this report such effects are not considered significant.

Water, soil, biodiversity and population & human health

31

Accidental discharges or spills may directly and indirectly effect soil, ground water quality, surface water quality downstream, aquatic habitats and aquatic flora and fauna. As demonstrated above, in earlier parts of this report such effects are considered not to be likely or significant.

Conclusions

I have considered the interaction between population and human health, biodiversity, land, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets, cultural heritage and the interaction of the likely effects identified throughout this report. I am satisfied that the potential effects identified will be avoided, managed and mitigated by the

measures proposed and through the conditions of the Recommended Determination. I am, therefore, satisfied that the operation of the activity is not likely to have any unacceptable direct or indirect effects in terms of the interaction between the foregoing environmental factors.

14.3.8 Vulnerability of the Project to Risks of Major Accidents and or Disasters

The EIAR describes the expected effects deriving from the vulnerability of the activity to risks of major accidents and/or disasters that are relevant to the project concerned.

This is dealt with in Chapter 3, 5, 6 and Vol III – Appendix 8.0 of the EIAR. The vulnerability of the project to risks of major accidents and/or disasters has been identified, described and assessed below.

The Seveso Directive and Regulations are not applicable at the installation. The risks of accidents associated with the activity are dealt with in Section 13 of this report.

Consequently, no specific mitigation measures have been proposed in relation to these effects.

The vulnerability of the installation to natural disasters has been examined. Flooding was considered to be the principle natural disaster possibly impacting this installation.

As part of the EIAR, the licensee carried out a desktop assessment which showed that no flood has been recorded at the installation since records began. According to the EIAR:

The processing area of the installation are not in Flood Zone A or B.

The latest flood mapping data from the Office of Public Works shows

there is no probability of river flooding in the area.

The Local Area Plan suggests that the Wastewater Treatment Plant to

the north of the installation is subject to flooding, however local

knowledge does not support this view.

The Planning Authorities have assessed and considered the effect to be acceptable.

No mitigation measures have been proposed in the RD. Therefore, it is considered that the installation is not vulnerable to flooding.

A risk assessment was carried out by the licensee to identify the risk of emergency situations (fire, chemical spill, fuel oil spill, milk spill, explosion, gas leak and flooding), the likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the consequences of each risk

scenario.

The environmental factors potentially affected by accidents at the installation, or from the cessation of the activity, include: material assets, population and human health, biodiversity, air, soil and water.

32

Based on the above assessment of accidents the direct, indirect and cumulative effects have been identified, described and assessed, and are detailed below.


Accidental emissions are addressed in this report (sections on air, water, noise, waste

generation, use of resources, prevention of accidents). It is considered that the conditions of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the likelihood of accidental emissions occurring and limit the environmental consequences of an accidental emission should one occur.

Cumulative effect

It is considered very unlikely that accidents would occur concurrently in the area that would give rise to significant effects on the environment.

Conclusions

I have examined all the information on major accidents and/or disasters provided by

the licensee, received through consultations, written submissions, as well as considering any supplementary information, where appropriate. I am satisfied that the potential effects identified will be avoided, managed and mitigated by the measures identified and through the proposed conditions of the Recommended Determination. I am, therefore, satisfied that the operation of the activity is not likely

to have any unacceptable direct, indirect or cumulative effects in terms of major accidents and/or disasters.

14.4 Reasoned Conclusion on the significant effects

Having regard to the examination of environmental information contained above, and in particular to the content of the EIAR and supplementary information provided by

the licensee, and the submission from the planning authority, and a third party in the course of the application, it is considered that the significant direct and indirect effects of the activities on the environment are as follows:

Generation of process emissions to water and discharges to the River Lung.

Emissions to air from the combustion plant and dryers. Accidental leakages or spills.

Having assessed those potential effects, the Agency has concluded as follows:

Generation of process emissions to water and discharges to River Lung will be mitigated through: imposing emission limit values to comply with environmental quality standards and implementing monitoring control

measures;

Emissions to air will be mitigated through: operation of abatement, imposing emission limit values to comply with ambient air quality standards; and

implementing monitoring, maintenance and control measures;

Accidental leakages or spills will be mitigated through inspection and maintenance of bunds and tanks and accident and emergency requirements specified in the licence.

14.4.1 Reasoned Conclusion

Having regard to the effects (and interactions) identified, described and assessed throughout this report, I consider that the monitoring, mitigation and preventative

measures proposed will enable the activity to operate without causing environmental pollution, subject to compliance with the licence.

33

Accordingly, if the activity is carried out in accordance with the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The conditions of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the likelihood of accidental emissions occurring and limit the environmental

consequences of an accidental emission should one occur.

15. Appropriate Assessment

Appendix 2 lists the European Sites assessed, their associated qualifying interests and conservation objectives along with the assessment of the effects of the activity on the European Sites.

A screening for Appropriate Assessment was undertaken to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge and the conservation objectives of the site, if the activity, individually or in combination with other plans or projects is likely to have a significant effect on any European Site. In this context, particular attention was paid to the

European Site(s) at Tullaghanrock Bog SAC, Callow Bog SAC and Lough Gara SPA.

The activity is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of any European Site and the Agency considered, for the reasons set out below, that it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that the activity, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, will have a significant effect on any European

Site and accordingly determined that an Appropriate Assessment of the activity was required, and for this reason determined to require the licensee to submit a Natura Impact Statement.

This determination has been made based on the hydrological connectivity, the nature

and scale of air emissions from the installation and the distance to European sites.

An Inspector’s Appropriate Assessment has been completed and has determined, based on best scientific knowledge in the field and in accordance with the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 as amended, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, that the activity, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, will not adversely affect the integrity of any European

Site, in particular Tullaghanrock Bog SAC, Callow Bog SAC and Lough Gara SPA, having regard to their conservation objectives and will not affect the preservation of these sites at favourable conservation status if carried out in accordance with this recommended determination and the conditions attached hereto for the following

reasons:

Air dispersion modelling demonstrates that the impact of emissions from the

installation will be below relevant air quality standards and standards for

protection of vegetation.

The licence specifies emission limit values and controls for emissions to air.

There will be no increase in noise emissions compared to what is currently

licensed. The licence specifies noise emission limit values at any noise sensitive

locations and noise modelling assessment demonstrated that these limits can

be complied with to avoid disturbance of qualifying interest species.

There will be no change to the nature and quantity of discharges to water. The

licence specifies emission limit value for process emissions to water.

The licence requires the licensee to maintain trigger levels for storm water

emissions and a response programme to address exceedances.

Storm water flows via silt traps prior to discharge.

34

The licence contains standard conditions in relation to the storage and

management of materials and wastes.

Condition 9 requires the licensee to maintain a documented Accident

Prevention Procedure that addresses the hazards on-site, particularly in

relation to the prevention of accidents with a possible impact on the

environment.

No significant in-combination effects are predicted; therefore, no additional

mitigation measures are required.

In light of the foregoing reasons no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of those European Sites Tullaghanrock Bog

SAC, Callow Bog SAC and Lough Gara SPA.

16. Fit & Proper Person Assessment

The Fit & Proper Person test requires three elements of examination:

Technical Ability

The licensee has provided details of the qualifications, technical knowledge and experience of key personnel. The licence application also includes information on the on-site management structure. It is considered that the licensee has demonstrated the technical knowledge required.

Legal Standing

Neither the licensee nor any relevant person has relevant convictions under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, as amended, or under any other relevant environmental legislation.

A prosecution was taken against the licensee for the non-compliances in relation to diverting emissions from the installation to the lagoon/wetland and permitting a

specified emission from the installation which exceeded the emission limit values set out in the licence relating to emissions to water. The case concluded on 14 October 2011, on hearing the details for the offences the Judge imposed a fine of €500 on each of the charges and the Agency costs were awarded.

Financial Provision/Strength

ELRA, CRAMP & FP required

The licensee submitted an ELRA dated 12/11/2014, which was approved by the Office of Environmental Enforcement on 14/11/2014. The licence category and installation were assessed for the requirements of Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment

(ELRA), Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP) and Financial Provision (FP), in accordance with Agency guidance. Under this assessment it has been determined that ELRA, CRAMP and FP are not required.

Fit & Proper Conclusion

It is my view, that the licensee can be deemed a Fit & Proper Person for the purpose of this licence review.

17. Cross Office Consultation

I consulted OEE Inspector, Aisling Ryan in relation to this site and in relation to individual licence conditions, Larry Kavanagh in relation to charges and Niall Dunne in

relation to financial provisions In general, the OEE have no significant concerns

35

regarding the proposed changes to the activity. I consulted with Catherine Bradley, OEA in relation to the biological water quality of the River Lung.

18. Charges

The annual enforcement charge recommended in the RD is €13,835, which reflects

the anticipated enforcement effort required and the cost of monitoring.

19. Recommendation

The RD specifies the necessary measures to provide that the installation shall be operated in accordance with the requirements of Section 83(5) of the EPA Act 1992

as amended and has regard to the AA and EIA. The RD gives effect to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency Acts 1992 as amended and has regard to submissions made.

I recommend that a Proposed Determination be issued subject to the conditions and for the reasons as drafted in the RD.

Signed

Jennifer Cope

Procedural Note

In the event that no objections are received to the Proposed Determination on the application, a licence will be granted in accordance with Section 87(4) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 as amended, as soon as may be after the expiration of the appropriate period.

36

Appendices

Appendix 1.1: Site location

P0802-03 Aurivo

River Lung

37

Appendix 1.2: Aurivo Site Plan

SW1 – Final effluent (monitoring point) from WWTP

Lagoon/wetland

SW2a - cooling water/condensate discharge to the river

SW3- Lagoon discharge to ‘open ditch’

Outfall route (open ditch) for the cooling water/condensate discharge prior to discharging to the River Lung at SW2a

River Lung

Roscommon County Council final effluent outfall where SW1 discharge enters the River Lung

38

Appendix 1.3 Map of the surface water and storm water emission points

SW5a

SW2a

SW3

SW7 SW6

39

Appendix 2: List of European Sites assessed, their associated qualifying interests and conservation objectives.

Site Name (site code)

Distance To (km)

Qualifying Interests (* denotes a priority habitat)

Conservation Objectives

Assessment

Tullaghanrock Bog SAC (002354)

2.1 Habitats 7110 Active raised bogs* 7120 Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration 7150 Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion

NPWS (2015). Conservation Objectives: Tullaghanrock Bog SAC 002354. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

Emissions to Water

Process effluent from the installation is directed to the on-site WWTP for treatment. The WWTP discharge is to the River Lung. Cooling water/condensate discharges to the River Lung. Storm water emissions discharge either to the River Lung via the WWTP or River Lung via the Ballaghaderreen river.

The main potential impact would arise from changes in water quality

which could affect the habitats and species directly or could affect the water dependent prey on which the qualifying species depend. Refer to Section 9.

Mitigation

The RD, as proposed, requires that the following controls are in place to protect the qualifying interests of the SAC:

Emissions may be made from specified emission points set

out in Schedule B: Emission Limits, subject to compliance

with the Emission Limit Values specified in that Schedule.

The licensee shall maintain silt traps and oil separators at

the installation.

The licensee shall maintain suitable trigger levels for storm

water discharges.

Requirements for bunding and integrity testing.

40


Distance To (km)



Assessment

Refer to Section 9 Discharges to Water and Ground of this report. Emissions to Air

There are seven main emission points to air. There is potential for fugitive emissions during operational phases of the activities.

The main potential impact would arise from changes in air quality which could affect habitats directly. Refer to Section 8. Air modelling demonstrates that the impact of emissions from the installation will be below the relevant air quality standards. Noise modelling demonstrates that the activities can comply with the

limits specified in the licence to avoid disturbance of qualifying interest (refer to section 10).

Mitigation

The RD, as proposed, requires the following controls are in place to protect the qualifying interests of the SAC.

Emissions may be made from specified emission points

set out in Schedule B: Emission Limits, subject to

compliance with the Emission Limit Values in that

Schedule.

The licensee shall carry out a noise survey as required by

the Agency.

Potential for Accidents to Arise

41


Distance To (km)



Assessment

There is the potential for accidents/hazardous and emergency situations arising from the operation of this installation which could affect the habitats and species. Refer to Section 13.

Mitigation


A documented Accident Prevention Procedure is in place that

addresses the hazards on-site, particularly in relation to

prevention of accidents with a possible impact on the

environment.

A documented Emergency Response Procedure in place that addresses any emergency situation on-site which should include provision for minimising the effects of any emergency on the environment.

All tank, container and drum storage areas shall be rendered impervious to the materials stored therein. Bunds shall be designed having regard to Agency guidelines ‘Storage and Transfer of Materials for Scheduled Activities’ (2004), which will minimise the potential for contamination of soil/groundwater.

42


Distance To (km)



Assessment

Callow Bog SAC (000595)

2.97 Habitats 7110 Active raised bogs* 7120 Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration 7150 Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion

NPWS (2016). Conservation Objectives: Callow Bog SAC 000595. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

Emissions to Water


The main potential impact would arise from changes in water quality which could affect the habitats and species directly or could affect the water dependent prey on which the qualifying specie depend. Refer to Section 9.

Mitigation

The RD, as proposed, requires that the following controls are in place to protect the qualifying interests of the SAC:





the installation.


water discharges.



43


Distance To (km)



Assessment


The main potential impact would arise from changes in air quality which could affect habitats directly. Refer to Section 8. Air modelling demonstrates that the impact of emissions from the installation will be below the relevant air quality standards. Noise modelling demonstrates that the activities can comply with the limits specified in the licence to avoid disturbance of qualifying interest (refer to section 10).

Mitigation





Schedule.


the Agency.



Mitigation

44


Distance To (km)



Assessment





environment.


All tank, container and drum storage areas shall be rendered impervious to the materials stored therein. Bunds shall be designed having regard to Agency guidelines ‘Storage and Transfer of Materials for Scheduled Activities’ (2004), which will minimise the potential for contamination of soil/groundwater.

Lough Gara SPA (004048)

4.96 Birds A395 Greenland White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris) A038 Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus)

NPWS (2018). Conservation objectives for Lough Gara SPA [004048]. Generic Version 6.0. Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

Emissions to Water


45


Distance To (km)



Assessment

The main potential impact would arise from changes in water quality which could affect the habitats and species directly or could affect the water dependent prey on which the qualifying species depend. Refer to Section 9.

Mitigation

The RD, as proposed, requires that the following controls are in place to protect the qualifying interests of the SPA:





the installation.


water discharges.




The main potential impact would arise from changes in air quality which could affect habitats and species directly or could affect the prey on which the qualifying species depend. Refer to Section 8. Air modelling demonstrates that the impact of emissions from the

46


Distance To (km)



Assessment

installation will be below the relevant air quality standards. Noise modelling demonstrates that the activities can comply with the limits specified in the licence to avoid disturbance of qualifying interest (refer to section 10).

Mitigation

The RD, as proposed, requires the following controls are in place to protect the qualifying interests of the SPA.




Schedule.


the Agency.



Mitigation

The RD, as proposed, requires the following controls are in place to protect the qualifying interests of the SPA.



47


Distance To (km)



Assessment


environment.


All tank, container and drum storage areas shall be rendered impervious to the materials stored therein. Bunds shall be designed having regard to Agency guidelines ‘Storage and Transfer of Materials for Scheduled Activities’ (2004), which

will minimise the potential for contamination of soil/groundwater.

48

Appendix 3: Relevant European (and international) legal instruments

The following Irish and European and international legal instruments are regarded

as relevant to this application assessment and have been considered in the drafting of the Recommended Determination.

Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (2010/75/EU)

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (85/337/EEC, as amended)

Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) & Birds Directive (79/409/EC)

Water Framework Directive [2000/60/EC]

Air Quality Directives (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC)

Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/CE)

Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) and 2006/118/EC

Dangerous Substances Directive (2006/11/EC)

Medium Combustion Plant Directive (EU) 2015/2193

Appendix 4: Other BREF documents and National BAT notes relevant to this

assessment

Sectoral BREF Publication date

Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques in the Food, Drink and Milk Industries

August 2006

Horizontal BREF Publication date

Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques on Emissions from Storage

July 2006

Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Energy Efficiency February 2009

Reference Document on the application of Best Available Techniques to Industrial Cooling Systems

December 2001

National BAT notes Publication date

BAT Guidance Note for Dairy Sector 2008