Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NRGE Ltd. Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
In respect of the expansion of a PIG FARM DEVELOPMENT
for
Tankerstown Pig & Farm Enterprises Ltd.
at
Tankerstown, Bansha, Co. Tipperary
Prepared by
NRGE Ltd.
Mooresfort, Lattin, Co. Tipperary
Date: Revised April 2013
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:48
NRGE Ltd. Page 2
PROJECT TEAM
MICHAEL McENIRY B.Eng CIWM NRGE Ltd., MOORESFORT,
LATTIN, CO. TIPPERARY
JER KEOHANE M.Sc MIEI GEOTECHNICAL & SERVICES
LTD., CARLOW RTC, CO. CARLOW
MICHAEL SWEENEY NRGE Ltd., MOORESFORT, LATTIN, CO.
TIPPERARY
JOHN McENIRY BEng. MIEI, MAIN ST. BALLYPOREEN, CO.
TIPPERARY
DERMOT LEAHY B.Agr. Sc NRGE Ltd., MOORESFORT,
LATTIN, CO. TIPPERARY
JONAS RONAN DOMONIC DELANEY & ASSOCIATES
UNIT 3, HOWLEY COURT
ORANMORE Co GALWAY
M.Sc AML Archaeology
MERVIN RICHARDSON JETWASH Ltd.
LARS BO ADAMSEN M.Sc ANIMAL HOUSE DESIGN
CONSULTANT SKIOLS A/S, Saeby, DENMARK
JULIANNE O BRIEN BSCM, PDip (EnvPro), NRGE Ltd.,
MOORESFORT, LATTIN, CO TIPPERARY
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:48
NRGE Ltd. Page 3
Table of Contents
1. Non-Technical Summary 9
2. Introduction 15
2.1 Relevant Regulations for Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) 15
2.2 National and E.C. Policy 15
2.3 Organisations and Bodies Consulted 16
2.4 Difficulties encountered in compiling the required information 17
3. Description of Project 18
3.1 Overall Description 18
3.2 Size and Scale of the proposed Development 18
3.2.1 Production 18
3.2.2 Procedures of Production 19
3.2.3 Scale of the Development 20
3.3 Siting, Design, Construction and Structural Details 20
3.3.1 Detailed Drawings 20
3.3.2 Design 21
3.3.3 Drainage 21
3.4 Types and Quantities of Wastes Produced 22
3.4.1 Pig Manure 22
3.4.2 Animal Tissue 23
3.4.3 Air Emissions 23
3.5 Pig Manure Use Proposals 24
3.5.1 Domestic Sewage 25
3.5.2 Feed Waste 25
3.5.3 Veterinary Waste 25
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:48
NRGE Ltd. Page 4
3.5.4 Maintenance Waste 25
3.5.5 Manure Storage 26
3.6 Plant and Equipment Available 26
3.7 Customer Farms 26
3.8 Services 26
3.9 Maximum soil contaminants concentration 27
4. Description of Alternatives Considered 27
4.1 Alternatives Sites Considered 27
4.2 Alternatives Site Layout & Designs 28
4.3 Alternative Processes Considered 28
5. Description of Existing Environment 28
5.1 Locations of Structures 28
5.2 Deliveries to Customer Farms of Pig Manure which is currently used as a 28
fertiliser and where it is proposed to apply manure
5.3 General Description of the Existing Environment 29
5.3.1 Land Use and Cropping History 29
5.3.2 Water Quality Analysis 29
5.3.3 Air Quality 30
5.3.4 Noise Levels 30
5.3.5 Traffic Levels 30
5.3.6 Flora and Fauna 31
6. Description of Impacts & Mitigation Measures 32
6.1 Human Beings 32
6.2 Flora and Fauna 33
6.3 Soils and Geology 35
6.4 Water 37
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 5
6.4.1 Surface Water 37
6.4.2 Groundwater 40
6.4.3 Customer Farmlands 41
6.5 Air 42
6.6 Climate Factors 43
6.7 Landscape 44
6.7.1 Effects on Landscape Character 44
6.7.2 Landscape Impacts 45
6.7.3 Landscape Receptor Sensitivity 45
6.8 Material Assets 45
6.9 Traffic 45
6.10 Noise 48
6.11 Cultural Heritage 49
6.11.1 Cultural Heritage in the existing environment 49
6.11.2 Monuments within Site Boundary 52
6.11.3 Monuments within 2Km of site boundary 52
6.11.4 Potential Impacts 52
6.11.4.1 Do Nothing Impacts 52
6.11.4.2 Worst case Impact 52
6.11.4.3 Cumulative Impacts 53
6.11.4.4 Predicted impacts of Proposal 53
6.11.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures 53
6.11.5.1 Archaeological Testing 53
6.11.5.2 Archaeological Monitoring 53
7. Inter-Relationship between Factors 54
7.1 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Water 55
7.2 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Air 55
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 6
7.3 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Noise 56
7.4 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Climate 56
7.5 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Landscape 56
7.6 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Traffic 57
7.7 Inter-Relationship between Flora and Fauna and Water 57
7.8 Inter-Relationship between Flora and Fauna and Landscape 57
7.9 Inter-Relationship between Soils and Geology and Water 57
7.10 Inter-Relationship between Soils and Geology and Landscape 58
7.11 Inter-Relationship between Soils and Geology and cultural heritage 58
7.12 Inter-Relationship between Air and Climate 58
7.13 Inter-Relationship between Air and Traffic 58
7.14 Inter-Relationship between Traffic and Noise 58
8. Monitoring 61
8.1 Drainage from the Site 61
8.2 Groundwater & Surface Water 61
8.3 Pig Manure Use 61
8.4 Other Wastes 61
8.5 Accidental Spillages 62
8.6 Control of Rodents 62
9. Environmental Management Programme 62
9.1 Introduction 62
9.2 Management of Co-Product Use 62
9.3 Periods and Rates of Use of Pig Manure 62
9.4 Reduction of Risk of Risk of Disease Spread 62
9.5 De-Commissioning/Life Span of Development 62
9.6 Depopulation 62
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 7
10. Measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and if possible 64
Remedy significant adverse effects
Tables Table 1: Planning Permission Record Table 2: Summary of Organisations & Bodies consulted Table 3: Current Stock Levels Table 4: Existing Animal Houses Table 5: Proposed Housing Buildings Table 6: Calculation of Pig Manure Volumes Table 7: Mortality & Animal Tissue Table 8: Current Traffic Volumes Table 9: Expected Traffic Volumes with Proposed Development Table 10: Inter Relationship between Factors
Appendices
1. Location Maps
2. Drawings of the pig farm
3. Farm Structures Table
4. Water Quality Analysis
5. Noise Report
6. Appropriate Assessment Screening
7. Archaeological Report
8. Geological & Hydrogeological Report
9. Construction Waste Management Plan
10. Slurry Production Calculations
11. Response procedures
12. Waste Management Plan
13. Traffic Impact Assessment
14. Landscaping Proposal
15. Pig Slurry Export Register
16. Stormwater Visual Inspection Register
17. Slurry Storage Capacity Register
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 8
18. Waste Registers
19. Odour sensitive receptors
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 9
1. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
This is the summary of the information contained within the Environmental Impact Statement
which reports the findings of the assessment into the environmental effects associated with
the proposed expansion of the Pig Farm Facility at Tankerstown, Bansha, Co. Tipperary.
The Environmental Impact Assessment, prepared by NRGE Ltd. as a submission to be
included in support of a Planning Application to South Tipperary County Council and an
IPPC Licence Application to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Environmental
Impact Assessment has been produced in accordance with the European Community
Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment and the Regulations implementing the
Directive in Ireland.
The Environmental Impact Assessment has involved consultations with statutory bodies and
regulatory authorities in an attempt to identify and predict any likely environmental effects of
the development, and the evaluation of these effects against specified criteria such as legal
guidelines and limits.
It is the intention of this summary to provide all the relevant information contained within the
Assessment, in a non-technical and comprehensive manner. The Environmental Assessment
is an evaluation of the potential significant likely environmental impacts that this
development will have on the locality.
Michael Dalton, Tankerstown Farm & Pig Enterprises Ltd, operates a 700 sow integrated Pig
Unit at Tankerstown, Bansha. The applicant is the second generation pig farmer on the
facility. The pig production facility has operated in the site since the 1960’s.
A recent Judgement of the European Court has ruled that Served Gilts on the farm are to be
counted as sows and therefore the operational sow numbers on the farm as result of the
Judgement is 900 sows, the applicant considers that in order to allow a degree of flexibility in
production numbers to make a planning application for 1000 sows integrated capacity.
The proposed planning application consists of the demolition of 3 No existing fattening
houses, and 1 No existing machinery shed; to construct 8 No new pig fattening houses, a
loading bay, new machinery shed to provide additional space for all stock numbers, a mill
and bin enclosure, rainwater harvesting tanks; all to comply with animal welfare regulations.
This development comprises of an activity in relation to which an Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control License (IPPCL) under Part IV of the Environmental Protection
Agency Act 1992 as amended by the Protection of the Environmental Act 2003 is required.
The proposed additional housing consists of 7No Fattening House Units Reference Numbers 27
to 33. Of these Houses 27, 28 and 29 are sited on the footprint of the Jordan Type Pig Houses
they are replacing. In constructing additional fattening accommodation, the proposal would be to
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 10
add 2 No fattening Units first (Nos 30 & 31). These provide fattening spaces for 1266 pigs and
1519m3 of manure storage capacity to the east of the existing similar type unit, Ref no 6. Once
these are completed they can replace fattening stock that will be housed in the Jordan Unit No 7
holding 1015 pigs and 31m3 of manure capacity. This would allow the Jordan unit No 7 to be
demolished and replaced with new fattening Units as indicated on diagrammatically below.
TITLE STATUS CLASS STRU CTURE AREA
Manure Capacity
Fattening Places
LGT (M)
WTH (M)
SQ MTS Capacity
Jordan Fat House 7 For Demolition 7 65.2 11.67 760.9 31.3 1015
Jordan Fat House 8 For Demolition 7 47.1 9.0 423.9 3.7 565
35.0 1580
Fattening House 29 Proposed 7 38.9 12.2 474.6 759.3 633
Fattening House 30 Proposed 7 38.9 12.2 474.6 759.3 633
Fattening House 31 Proposed 7 38.9 12.2 474.6 759.3 633
2278.0 1898
A search of the Planning Register shows that there are a number of planning permissions and
applications on the holding, details of which are shown on the following page.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 11
Table 1: Planning Permission Record
Planning
Ref No Description Date
12/234
Retention Permission to retain the North Weaner
House Extension and (b) Retention Permission to
retain the South Weaner House Extension -
constructed on site (c) Permission to construct new
Dry Sow House (d) Permission to construct new
extension to Farrowing House: with all associated site
works; In order to comply with animal welfare
regulations - as per S.I. No. 48 of 2003. These
developments are for the purpose of an activity in
relation to which an integrated pollution control
licence is required (Note: This application and
Proposed development will not increase the number of
animals on site)
Current
P310558
conversion of existing farm building to abattoir,
service unit, septic tank, effluent tank, service roads
and yards, boundary walls and entrance
14/01/1987
P33653
Dwelling
28/12/1975
The documentation submitted to the planning department supporting the P3 10558 planning
application shows the pig accommodation on the facility.
Facilities
The buildings and their layout will be state of the art for the industry. A thorough review was
undertaken of best available techniques to minimise emissions from the proposed
development, and to maximise welfare conditions for animals and staff alike on site. The
proposed animal houses are compliant with BAT. All run-off water from the site, is collected
via the storm-water collection system (See Site Plan 001, in Appendix 2), all run-off water
from the Pig Rearing Yard will be routed to a single storm water monitoring point SW1
discharging to a watercourse to the River Aherlow. The proposed structures will have an
independent leak detection system, with an individual inspection chamber, which will be
connected to 1 No site inspection chambers on the Pig Rearing Yard identified as LD1 on the
Site Plan.
Employment
The pig farm currently gives direct employment to 5 full time staff and indirectly provides
employment amounting to a total of 35 full time jobs. The expansion will lead to 2 Jobs on
the farm.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 12
Manure storage capacity
Annual, neat pig slurry production and extraneous water (5% and 8%) is 15,443m3.
Underground storage amounts to 15,117m3 (net of free-board reduction of 200mm for gasses
accumulation under slat) equivalent to 50 weeks manure storage capacity, which is well in
excess of the 26 weeks requirement.
Land-spreading Areas
The agricultural lands whereupon the pig slurry from this farm is used as fertiliser, are
situated in the Bansha / Tankerstown area of South West Tipperary. The pig farm is located
12.71 km South East of the town of Tipperary.
Manure Spreading
This facility is entitled to supply manure to any local farmer who wants it, and is obliged to
record all dispatches from the holding and the farmers acquiring manure are obliged to record
all consignments acquired and to use it in compliance with the regulations. Manure will not
be supplied to customer farms between 15th October and 12th January in any year except
with the consent of the local authority, or any other relevant authority. Outside that period,
manure will be supplied from the site to a customer farmer, only in response to an order.
Managed and used in this way, manure produced at this facility will not have any adverse
impact on environmental parameters either inside or outside the site.
Application methods
The application of pig slurry is carried out using a vacuum tanker fitted with a low trajectory
splash plate, and/or dribble bar system.
Storm/clean surface water
All clean water is separated from soiled water. Roof water is collected via galvanised gutters
and downpipes and piped underground to a nearby watercourse, the River Aherlow which is
part of the Lower River Suir SAC via Storm Water Monitoring Point SW1.
Areas of animal movement are the main sources of the soiled water. This soiled water is
discharged to the underground storage tanks.
Surface Water
A sample of the private well water from the on-site well, and the storm-water runoff from the
farm were taken and submitted to an independent laboratory on 19th
June 2012 for analyses.
The results from Water Technology Ltd are included in Appendix 4.
Traffic
An assessment of sightlines at the entrance to this facility was undertaken by Mr. John Mc
Eniry in order to ascertain that adequate sightlines were available to support an increase in
the level of traffic movement due to the proposed increase in the level of manure produced.
This report is included in full in Appendix 13.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 13
Noise & Odour
This farming operation has no significant effect on noise or odour. To date there has been no
noise or odour related complaints from the existing pig farm.
Archaeological Features
An assessment of Archaeological Features in the vicinity of the proposed development has
been carried out by Dominic Delany & Associates Archaeology. It is considered unlikely that
there are any unknown archaeological remains or features in the vicinity of the proposed
development, or that the development will impact, either physically or visually, on the
archaeological heritage of this area.
Heritage Areas
The pig farm does not impinge on any Heritage areas.
Cultural Heritage and Material Assets
Farming traditions in the area have been stock rearing, milk production and pig production.
Animal manures were recycled onto the land reducing the cost of production.
Climate
Pigs are non-ruminants and have a minimal effect on atmospheric carbon levels. The
predicted impact on the climate is therefore insignificant.
Population
The development will have a positive impact on human beings from the increased
employment it will create, and the resultant reduction of existing impacts from emissions.
The development is located in an agricultural area; the buildings will blend into the
surrounding area. Also, the development will be landscaped with a screening of trees, shrubs
and flowers. Thus, there will be no nuisance or loss of amenity.
Effects of the development on air are insignificant outside the buildings and adjoining yards.
The ventilation system will ensure that foul air is dispelled high into the atmosphere where it
will mix with fresher air and thus minimise odour. Mitigation measures taken will minimise
the effects of odour on the days of slurry spreading. Low protein diets are being utilised on
site, which can achieve a reduction of 30%, of emissions from the site. Inserting the slurry
tankers armoured suction hose in a fixed pipe in the walls of the pig manure tanks will
minimise the effects of odour as will the use of a low trajectory splash-plate and/or band
spreader, and adhering to the Code of Good Practice for Spreading of Slurry.
This report was prepared in accordance with the EPA publication (Odour Impacts and Odour
Emission Control Measures for Intensive Agriculture).
Noise levels from the development are unlikely to be a nuisance. The main sources of noise
on the development will be at feeding time (10-15 minutes) and from feed delivery vehicles.
However, at a distance of 100 metres from the development noise levels are not greatly above
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 14
background noise levels. The dominant source of Noise in the vicinity of the facility is Road
Traffic on the N24 and intermittently from rail traffic to the rear of the facility.
The development will have an insignificant effect on the climate of the area.
Thus the measures that have been put in place will ensure that impact/effects of the
development on human beings, noise, air, climate and the interaction of human beings, fauna,
soils, air, water, climate, landscape and material assets will be minimised.
This proposed development has the potential to provide an economic outlet for crops grown
by customer farmers in the area, on lands that may not otherwise be utilised fully. These
crops can be fertilised in turn by the pig slurry produced.
Monitoring and Register
Proposals for monitoring storm water emissions at the site and for monitoring soil fertility are
set down in the Environmental Report. A register of slurry quantities, rates and locations of
spread-lands will be maintained for inspection and monitoring by the Environmental
Protection Agency, South Tipperary County Council and other Regulatory Bodies.
An Annual Environmental Report will be submitted annually to the Environmental Protection
Agency, in accordance with the requirements of an Integrated Pollution Prevention Control
Licence (IPPCL).
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 15
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Relevant Regulations for Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Regards the development of an installation that is above the threshold in a class listed in
Schedule 5 Part 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, a submission of an
Environmental Impact Assessment is not a mandatory requirement. The scale of the proposed
development is above the threshold for Class 1(e) (ii) activity, “Installations for intensive
rearing of pigs not included in Part 1 of this Schedule which would have more than 2000
places for production pigs (over 30 Kilograms), in a finishing unit, more than 400 places for
sows in a breeding unit or more that 200 places for sows in an integrated unit”
• Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements, (EPA,
2002).
• Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements),
(EPA, 2003).
• Environmental Noise Survey-Guidance Document, (EPA, 2003).
2.2 National and E.C. Policy
National level
The proposed development is in line with national policy, (i) as expressed by the Minister for
Agriculture on 10/7/1987 in a Development Plan for the Irish Pig Industry (ii) as expressed in
the Pig Production Group Report of 1988 and (iii) is in line with projected slaughtering of
pigs at meat plants by the IDA, aimed at increasing the competitiveness of Irish pig meat in
overseas markets. The Irish Government and the EC have updated Irish Meat Plants in
accordance with National and E.C. policy, entailing the expenditure of large sums of money
by the promoters and substantial capital grant-aid.
As recently as mid 1997 Teagasc launched a plan (Development of the National Pig Industry)
to increase pig production in Ireland from 3.29 million pigs in 1996 to 4 million by the year
2000.
The Food Harvest (A vision for Irish Agri Food and Fisheries) 2020, targets a 50% growth in
the value of output by 2020. This proposed development will support and aid the
achievement of this target.
Currently the Department of Agriculture and Food is providing grant aid for the construction
of new animal houses, to help ensure compliance with new Animal welfare Regulations, as
well as grant aid to improve facilities, structures, and equipment to ensure compliance with
the Nitrate Directive Regulations.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 16
Local Level
This enterprise presently provides employment for five full time stock persons; this will
expand to seven stock persons with the construction of the proposed extension. Maintenance
contracts and repairs involving welders, builders and electricians are the equivalent of one
full time employee. Professional services are required of veterinarians, an accountant and an
agricultural consultant on an ongoing basis. In addition, the enterprise supports full time jobs
in meat processing, feed compounding and services. According to I.F.A. figures, 12,000
people are employed in the pig industry, based on a national sow herd of 175,000 sows. This
means that every 15 sows provide full time employment for one person.
Context:
The scoping exercise of the EIS was carried out in line with previous submissions to South
Tipperary County Council in regard to Planning Application No P310558 and 12/234
submitted to South Tipperary County Council on behalf of Tankerstown Pig and Farm
Enterprises Ltd and the Dalton Family.
Present structures are illustrated in Appendix 3. Buildings with planning approval and the
proposed structures are colour - coded
2.3 Organisations and Bodies consulted
Geological Survey of Ireland
The Heritage Service
South Tipperary County Council
Environmental Protection Agency
Met Éireann
UCD
Dept. of Environment
Dept of Agriculture Food & Rural Development
Teagasc
Irish Farmers Association
Danish Pig industry Advisory Service
Table 2: Summary of Organisations and Bodies consulted
Organization Consulted Discipline
Means of Consultation Information obtained
G S I Geology /Hydrogeology Overview of Groundwater and Geological Maps
Assess G.W . Vulnerability
The Heritage
Service
Archaeology Mapping overview of Potential Heritage Sites for initial site selection
South Tipperary Planning/ Environment Review County Development Plan and Waste Management
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 17
County Council Plan
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Environment & IPPC Licensing requirements
Internet Document Review of Guidance Notes
BAT Notes on Intensive Agriculture, Guidance Notes on materials movement
Met Eireann Climate Internet access Wind and Rainfall data to correlate with Dust and Noise Assessments
UCD Nutritional Consultancy Use of Diet for odour abatement,
Dept. of
Environment
Environment/Planning Review of Planning / Environment Legislation and Regulations
Dept of
Agriculture Food
& Rural
Development
Agriculture / Food Review of Legislation and Regulations in respect of Animal By-products, Nitrate Directives, Animal Welfare, in the overall context of Harvest 2020 targets
Teagasc Farm Advisory Contact with Farm Advisor
Items relating to Animal Welfare
Irish Farmers
Association
Farm Representative Organization
Contact with Pig Sector Secretary
Policy in relation to the development of the Pig Sector and the Bioenergy sector
Danish Pig
industry
Advisory Service
Consultancy Contact with Specialist
Information on Pig House Design
2.4 Difficulties countered in compiling the required information
The processes and technology involved in the construction and operation of the proposed
developments are standard for agricultural developments and well understood. The technical
information on which to base an assessment of impact on environmental parameters is readily
available in the public domain and there were no particular difficulties encountered in
compiling the required information.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 18
3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
3.1 Overall Description
The existing farm complex consists of Dry Sow Houses, Farrowing Houses, Weaner
Houses, Fattening Houses, manure storage structures, services buildings and associated feed
storage and preparation structures.
The facility is situated in a rural location where agriculture is the main industry. The site is
located in a natural hollow, surrounded on all sides by open countryside/agricultural land.
The Facility is located approximately 300m off the N24, the Limerick – Waterford
National Primary Route.
3.2 Size and Scale of the Proposed Development
The Applicant intends to apply to the Planning authority for planning permission to construct
eight new Fattening Houses and the demolition of two numbers of the current fattening
houses. This will allow for space for a one thousand sow pig unit in accordance with the
requirements of Welfare Regulations as per SI No. 48 of 2003. Drawings of the proposed
new structures are presented in Appendix 2.
In full production the pig population at this site will comprise at any one time of the
following maximum stock numbers 200 Farrowing Sows, 800 Dry Sows, 5000 Weaners,
5000 Fatteners, 150 S Gilts, 150 M Gilts and 50 boars.
3.2.1 Production
The production process starts with serving 51 breeding animals per week, mainly by artificial
insemination. The farrowing rate success of 87%, results in an average of 45 farrowings per
week. The young are born in the farrowing rooms which have supplementary heat via water
heated "heat-pads". Presently piglets remain suckling on the sows for 26 days. Creep feeding
is introduced in minute quantities, after the second week. The sow is weaned back into the
service area where she is fed ad lib until she returns to cycle at approximately 5-7 days.
Gestation period being 114-115 days, the pre-farrowing sow is moved to the farrowing rooms
4-5 days before parturition. The weaned pigs are moved into fully slatted heated rearing
rooms, stocked at 0.21m2. They are fed top quality creep feed and grow to approximately 18
Kg over a four week period, consuming 5 Kg of creep, 5 Kg of Link feed and 6 Kg of bulk
weaner diet. They are then transferred to the cold rearing rooms. Again these are fully slatted
and stocking rates are 0.35m 2.per animal. The pigs are fed bulk weaner meal and grow to 32
Kg over a five week period. Transfer to finishing accommodation occurs at this weight. They
are stocked at 0.72 1 0.74 m2
and grow to 105 kg over a ten week period. They are kept on
fully slatted concrete floors and again fed ad labium on a finisher pig pelleted diet.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 19
3.2.2 Procedures of Production
The pig farm has been inspected and accredited for the Bord Bia Code of Practice by the
Rosderra inspectors. The daily procedure follows the Bord Bia Code of Practice for pig
welfare and consists of the following procedures on a daily basis:
Farrowing House
• ensure all sows have adequate feed and water
• check the health status of this area and treat as required.
• check house temperature and heat pad temperature
• check and record births and deaths.
• remove excess faeces, farrowing debris, dead and mummified pigs at the time of farrowing
for hygiene purposes
manually remove all faeces at weaning to reduce water waste at power washing
Dry Sow House
• ensure all sows have adequate feed and water
• check health status and treat accordingly
• check sows returning to cycle after service
• scrape excess faeces from behind sows
Weaner / Finisher Houses
• ensure all pigs have adequate feed and water
• check the health status of this area.
• check temperature and ventilation rates
• check for water wastage via drinkers
It is also important to take note of appropriate withdrawal periods of all medicines used and
keeping accurate records of all pigs treated. Maintain the medicine records of treatments.
Feeding system
A dry feeding regime pertains throughout the pig farm. The 2nd stage weaners and the
fatteners are feed pellet feed in "wet/dry" feed hoppers. Pellets are eaten off the shelf and
water is supplied via a nipple at the base of the shelf. Augers transfer the feed from the bulk
silos. Suckling sows are fed ad-lib. Gilts, dry sows and boars are fed twice daily via augers.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 20
Size & location of present feed storage units
Feed is supplied to this farm by Glanbia. This feed is made up of ingredients such as wheat,
barley, soya bean meal and minerals. Storage capacity of meal on site in silos is 150 tonnes.
Presently there is 1 very large silo on site, which is the largest structure at 28m high.
.
3.2.3 Scale of the Development
The integrated pig farm comprises of the following stock numbers:
Table 3: Current Stock Levels
PIG TYPE NUMBER OF STOCK
Farrowing Sows 200
Dry Sows 800
Boars 50
Served Gilts 150
Maiden Gilts 150
Weaner 5000
Fattener 6000
The size of the existing development was decided upon with due consideration of economic
viability, labour efficiency, management of the site, land availability for manure management
i.e. resource recovery.
3.3 Siting, Design, Construction and Structural Details
3.3.1 Detailed Drawings
A site layout of the pig farm is illustrated in Appendix 2 of this Report.
Area of piggery
The site the pig unit currently takes up a total area of 2.15 Ha and is extending to 2.62
hectares.
Buildings
The number and type of animal houses on site presently is as follows: (All houses contain
underground slurry storage tanks)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 21
Table 4: Existing Animal Houses
Weaner House (1) Existing
Farrowing House (2) Existing
2no Dry Sow Houses(3) (4) Existing
Gilt House (5) Existing
2nd
Stage Weaner House (6) Existing
2no Jordan Fat Houses (7) (8) To be Demolished
Fattening House (9) Existing
Finishing House (11) Existing
Stock House (12) Existing
2 no Weaner House (1A) (1B) Planning Ref 12/234
Farrowing House (2A) Planning Ref 12/234
Dry Sow House (26) Planning Ref 12/234
Other buildings/tanks: Switch Room, Mill Intake, Mill Mix House, Mill Meal Store, Meal
Silo, Weigh Bridge, Weigh Bridge Office, Whey Tank, Water Tank, Pump House, Boiler
House, Office, Staff Facilities, Old Outhouse., Collection Tank.
The proposed additional Pig Housing Buildings are as follows:
Table 5: Proposed Housing Buildings
8no Fattening Houses (27 to 34) proposed
Machinery Store (35) proposed
3.3.2 Design
The proposed pig housing are designed and will be built in accordance with the Dept. of
Agriculture & Food’s Farm Development Service Specifications and best international
practice in house design.
3.3.3 Drainage
Uncontaminated water from the roofs of the buildings, covered walkways and clean paved
areas within the Unit are collected separately and directed to a storm-water monitoring point
(SW1), as indicated on the Site Layout Plan included in Appendix 2.Contaminated water
generated by once weekly pig movement is pumped to an Underground tank.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 22
Confirmation of access
This pig farm is serviced by a cul-de-sac 300m off of the National Primary Route, the N24
Limerick to Waterford. This farm laneway joins this road on a straight stretch giving
maximum visibility for traffic. Adequate on-site space is provided to ensure that the turning
movements of all vehicles associated with the farm can be facilitated on-site. Sufficient
parking is provided on-site for all vehicles associated with the farm.
Landscape and topographical setting
The pig farm is located in a rural area. The structures comprise long low A-roofed houses.
The tallest structures are the feeding silos. The buildings consist of single storey, steel framed
structures with rendered block-work externally to walls, and fibre cement corrugated roof
sheeting to sloping roofs.
3.4 Types and Quantities of Wastes Produced
3.4.1 Pig Manure
The quantities of Pig manure produced on the Farm are as follows:
Table 6: Licence pig numbers & Calculation of Pig Manure Volumes
PIG NUMBER OF NEAT excreta Total Total
TYPE STOCK Pig/week
(litres) Litres M3 Farrowing Sows 200 97 19400 19.40 Dry Sows 800 43 34400 34.40 Boars 50 35 1750 1.75 Served Gilts 150 35 5250 5.25 M Gilts 150 35 5250 5.25 Weaner 5000 12 60000 60.00 Fattener 6000 24 144000 144.00 Total Pig Manure per week 270050 270 Total Pig Manure per annum 14042600 14043 Extraneous water 5% & 8%
other
1400000 1400 Total annual production pig manure 15442600 15443
The pig slurry produced at this farm is used as a fertilizer to produce agricultural crops by
customer farms within a 20 mile radius. The utilization of this pig slurry as fertilizer is
governed by compliance with S.I. No 610 of 2010. A register of all pig slurry exported is
maintained on site, with date, volume exported, farmers name and herd number, and N and P
concentration recorded. At the end of each calendar this information will be submitted to the
Department of Agriculture & Food.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 23
3.4.2 Animal Tissue
The quantities of Animal Tissue Waste produced on the farm due to mortalities are as
follows:
Table 7: Mortality & Animal Tissue
Mortality & Animal Tissue
% kg's
Suckling Sows
Dry Sows 3 7500
Boars
Born dead Piglets 8 4254
Weaner 1.5 6129
Gilts
Fattener 1 16250
Animal Tissue 2478
Total Annual 36611
Carcasses will be temporarily stored in a covered sealed metal skip for transport and disposal
to a licensed rendering plant at regular intervals. A register is maintained on site of all
collections of animal carcasses from the adjacent farm. This register is available for
inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency, South Tipperary County Council, The
Department of Agriculture, or any other Regulatory Authority during normal working hours.
3.4.3 Air Emissions
The main objective of this application is to aid the overall reduction of emissions from this
facility. This issue was discussed in a report prepared by Odournet UK Ltd, in 2001 titled
“Odour Impacts and Odour Emission Control Measures for Intensive Agriculture Part
A Odour annoyance assessment and criteria for intensive livestock production in
Ireland”, which was commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency, wherein
section 9.6 page 69 it states “ that a reduction in odour emission is not likely to be greater
than 50% and more likely to be in the order of 25-30%” by reducing crude protein levels in
the diets. Emissions from open slurry storage tanks are also discussed in section 9.9 page 74
wherein it states that ammonia emission reductions of 70-80% have been achieved by
covering open tanks.
Removal of pig manure from this facility at is by tanker armoured suction hose inserted into
the tank with minimal odour release.
Control Measures to Minimise and Abate Odour on site at present
Emissions from this Pig Farm site are currently contained using the following
recommendations;
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 24
1. Reducing uncontrolled air movements on site and leakage from the ventilation system
and from pig houses (i.e. windows and doors)
2. The use of a high-tech computerized ventilation system, in animal houses with a
backup system.
3 Minimising the generation of odours during meteorological conditions which favour
spread of odours.
4. The storage of carcasses in covered sealed containers on site.
5. A 200mm buffer is maintained at the top of all covered pig manure storage tanks to
allow for the accumulation of gases.
6. Minimisation of the agitation of pig manure and the filling and emptying of liquid
storage tanks from below the surface of the stored manure.
7. Transporting pig manure in suitably contained leak proof vehicles.
8. Limited areas where pigs are moved outside buildings, and covering of passageways
and yards where animals have access.
9. Use of low protein diets to all animals on site has reduced emissions on site by 30%.
Descriptions of Impacts and Mitigation Measures are discussed further in Section 6.1 Human
Beings.
3.5 Pig Manure Use Proposals
It is proposed to supply all the pig manure from this facility to customer farmers operating in
the hinterland, who are currently customers for pig manure, in accordance with Nitrate
Directive Regulations (S.I. No 610 of 2010).
Alternative Proposals
All processes used for the treatment of pig manure manipulate the manure to either
(i) Separate solid fractions from liquid fractions which effectively separates 80% of the
phosphorous in the solid fraction and 80% of the Nitrogen in the liquid fraction prior to land
spreading.
(ii) Anaerobic Digestion which manipulates the nitrogen from an organic format to a
chemical format where it is readily available for plant uptake.
(iii) Conventional Waste Water treatment systems have been used unsuccessfully in Japan,
the failure was due to the Capital Costs of the installations and the burden for the running
costs
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 25
3.5.1 Domestic Sewage
Canteen and W/C facilities are provided in the farm office building within the pig farmyard.
There is a septic tank associated with the pig farm, and its location is shown on the site layout
plan which is included in Appendix 2. The figures relating to emission details from a septic
tank are based on figures for the average daily waste water/sewage produced by an individual
living in a domestic house. The average daily usage/output from one person is 60 litres/ day
as per Table 3 Recommended Wastewater Loading Rates from Commercial Premises from
the WASTEWATER TREATMENT MANUALS (Treatment Systems for Small
Communities, Business and Leisure and Hotels Produced by the EPA .The accumulative
waste –water from the staff of the pig farm can be quantified as 300 l//day or 0.24m3/day.
3.5.2 Feed waste
Pelleted feed is delivered in bulk articulated trailers and blown into silos. Dust from the silo
exhaust pipe is collected in a cylinder which contains water. This is deposited monthly to the
underground tanks. Feed spillage, which is kept to a minimum, will go directly to the
underground slurry stores.
3.5.3 Veterinary waste
Veterinary medicine containers, for vaccines, antibiotics and supplemental iron, equates to
approximately 700 bottles (100cc) annually. Syringes varying in size from 2cc - 20cc amount
to circa 1,000 per annum. A maintenance contract is in place with a Permitted Medical Waste
Collection Contractor and all movements will be recorded in the Waste Register which is
included in Appendix 18.
3.5.4 Maintenance waste
Bulbs (infra-red/florescent) - The quantity of used Bulbs and tubes on the facility are small
and these are accumulated and stored on the farm until the
annual visit of Chemcar to the area.
Building materials - Concrete & Stone reused on farm roadways, Timber
cut/chopped and burned in domestic fire-wood.
Electric motors/fans- Metals - Metals accumulated in the compound Area for reuse or to
have sufficient quantities for a Metals Collection Contractor.
A Waste Management Plan is included in Appendix 12; this plan contains all details of the
relevant details of the Permitted contractors designated for specific waste streams.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 26
3.5.5 Manure storage
The manure is stored in mass concrete steel reinforced underground tanks, built by
contractors to the Dept. of Agriculture standards. A Farm Table is included in Appendix 3 of
this document.
Capacities
The required slurry storage capacity is calculated based on BATNEEC Guidance Note for the
Pig Production Sector (Revision 1 - February 1998). This requires a minimum of six months
retention of manure. This farm has a slurry storage capacity of 50 weeks.
3.6 Plant & Equipment Available
The method of slurry spreading for land application has been by vacuum tanker, low
trajectory splash plate.
3.7 Customer Farms
This facility will supply manure to customer farmers in the area, upon request, and all
deliveries will be documented on site. A copy of this register format is included in
Attachment 15, and same will be available on site for inspection by the Environmental
Protection Agency, South Tipperary County Council, the Department of Agriculture and
Food, and other Regulatory inspectors. All customer farms are now required to comply with
the Nitrate Directive regulations (S.I. No. 610 of 2010), and will thereby have to record these
manure imports on site.
3.8 Services
Water & Power
Present power usage.
Electricity: 280,000 units annually.
Mains electricity exists on site with a three phase supply at 220 and 380 volts. The electricity
is currently used for the following:
• Automatic feed augers
• Automatic ventilation systems
• All artificial lighting to pig housing, offices and outside yards
• Power for slurry pump
On the pig production unit when the expansion is complete the estimated electrical
consumption will be in the order of 450,000 units.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 27
Water
Water for the farm is already supplied by means of a private well on site via header tank
system. There are two water storage tanks on site with a combined storage capacity of 81m3.
This will allow for 3day's supply in the event of shortages.
Water will provide for the following:
(a) Drinking water for livestock
All animal drinking appliances are regularly maintained to ensure that there is no leakage
to the waste storage structures.
(b) High pressure wash down systems (3,000 psi)
Each section of the farm is power washed and disinfected as the pigs are moved in an "all
in / all “out" system through their growth cycle. The pressure of the power washer is
3,000 psi. Water throughput is 15 litres/minute. The power washer is in use for 40 hours
per week. A weekly total of 20 m3 of water is required.
Present water usage
The total water consumption on the farm complex both for pig production and vehicle
washing is expected to be approximately 500 m3 per week.
3.9 Maximum Soil Contaminant Concentration
The pig manure currently applied, does not add any contaminant to the lands whereupon it is
used. The elements in the pig manure comprise chiefly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and
nitrogen with lesser amounts of phosphorus, sulphur and copper. At an application rate of 15
m3/hectares, the application rate of 0.45kg/hectare Cu is less than 3% of that permitted in EC
Directive 86/278 on the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land.
4. Description of Alternatives Considered
4.1 Alternatives sites considered
Tankerstown Pig & Farm Enterprises Ltd. engaged NRGE (Nutrient Recovery to Generate
Electricity Ltd), to carry out a feasibility study for this development. The existing site is in a
secluded rural indented valley location ensures low visual impact. Over the years he has
developed this farm to its current size, i.e. 700 sow integrated unit with 200 served gilts. An
alternative site would not be financially viable. To date there has been no recorded
complaints of odour, traffic or noise from this site.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 28
4.2 Alternatives Site Layout & Designs
Alternative site layouts and designs were considered. The optimum depth of tank was decided
upon on the basis of air draughts, capacity, emission reduction and costs etc. Generally the
most economical and efficient layout for pig production and pig movement was designed for,
with a view to reducing environmental impacts, and providing a safe and healthy
environment for staff and livestock.
4.3 Alternative Processes Considered
There is no other satisfactory alternative process for pig production. The method proposed
(low trajectory splash-plate/band spreading) is very practicable for applying this product.
All processes used for the treatment of pig manure manipulate the manure to either
(i) Separate solid fractions from liquid fractions which effectively separates 80% of the
phosphorous in the solid fraction and 80% of the Nitrogen in the liquid fraction prior to land
spreading.
(ii) Anaerobic Digestion which manipulates the nitrogen from an organic format to a
chemical format where it is readily available for plant uptake.
(iii) Conventional Waste Water treatment systems have been used unsuccessfully in Japan,
the failure was due to the Capital Costs of the installations and the burden for the running
costs
5. Description of Existing Environment
5.1 Location of Structures
The site location map (Ordnance Survey map sheet No TY67, TY68, TY74, TY75 County
Tipperary) is included in Appendix 1, and the drawings and site plans for this development
are included in Attachment 2. The unit is located in the Townland of Tankerstown, Bansha,
Co. Tipperary and approximately 12.71 km South East of the town of Tipperary and is
accessed via an access road 300m off the N24. This facility is located in a wholly agricultural
area that is in relatively low lying area at about 50m O.D.
5.2 Deliveries to Customer Farms of pig manure which is currently used as a
fertiliser & where it is proposed to apply manure
The application of animal manure to farmland is now regulated Under S.I. 101 of 2009 and
distribution of manure from the site will comply with those Regulations. The Applicant is
entitled to give Manure to any local farmer who wants it and is obliged to record all
dispatches from the holding and the farmers acquiring manure are obliged to record all
consignments acquired and to use it in compliance with the Regulations.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 29
Animal manure produced in the existing facility is currently distributed to local farmers in
response to their demand and for their use on their farmland. The manure that would be
produced by animals to be housed in the proposed development would be similarly
distributed. Local demand for pig manure is buoyant. The applicant has more customers and
more demand than can be satisfied from the existing herd. The applicant is entitled to supply
it to his customer farmers who want it and are not prohibited from using it. The use of animal
manure to fertilise farmland is subject to statutory control under S.I. 610 of 2010.
Manure from the site would be supplied in response to customer farmers’ demand and in
compliance with law. The calculation of expected manure production is shown in Appendix
10, and of the manure storage capacity which is calculated on the Farm Structures Table in
Appendix 3.
5.3 Generalised Description of the Existing Environment
5.3.1 Land Use and Cropping History
The lands whereupon it is proposed to recover pig manure, consist mainly of grassland, for
grazing / silage production, with some tillage areas included. Farm management standards on
all these farms are good.
5.3.2 Water Quality Analysis
This pig farm located in the town land of Tankerstown is in a relatively low lying area at
about 50m O.D. the Ara River is to the north of the site and the Aherlow River is to the south
of the farm. Both rivers form part of the Lower River Suir Special Area of Conservation
(SAC) which is a designated ‘salmonid’ body of water. A small stream runs adjacent to the
farm, and the storm water exiting this farm enters this stream via a storm water monitoring
point identified as SW1 on the site layout plan included in Appendix 2. Samples will be taken
from this point and sampled for COD by an independent Laboratory.
Elemental phosphorous is the nutrient associated with surface water pollution. The
implementation of the Phosphorus Regulations (S.l. No.258 of 1998) in July 1998 has for the
first time established statutory Environmental Quality Standards for Phosphorus. The water
quality targets set by the Government are ambitious and will require a wide range of
abatement measures, focusing on the main sources of pollution sewage, industry and
agriculture, further enhanced by European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for
Protection of Waters) Regulations (S.I. 378 of 2006) and European Communities (Good
Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations (S.I. 610 of 2010.)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 30
5.3.3 Air Quality
Currently emissions to air from the site are not an issue, and would be mostly attributable to
the animals that are currently on the site. The odour associated with this site does not and will
not cause annoyance and will not interfere with amenity outside the boundary of the site. The
nearest dwelling to this site is at a distance of 150 metres which is a family residence. There
are no other dwellings within 300m of this far. In addition this development will reduce
current emissions by use of modern house designs, and ventilation systems.
The development is in an entirely agricultural hinterland where typical farm odours are to be
found and expected. These odours arise from farmyards and lands during the day to day
operations such as silage feeding, slurry agitation and land spreading. The existing unit, using
best available practices, is already operating without a significant effect on the environment
and without any odour complaint from the stakeholders in the locality of the Pig unit or in the
vicinity of the customer farmers for the manure.
5.3.4 Noise Levels
A simple definition of noise is “unwanted sound”. The major noises associated with a pig
unit are animals at feeding time, ventilation fans, feed unloading and tractors loading pig
Noise levels are measured in decibels and a weighting factor (A) is applied to approximate
the frequency response to the human ear. This weighted decibel scale, dB (A) correlates well
with human sensations of loudness, disturbance and annoyance.
Noise emissions from this pig farm are not audible, at the site boundary. Noise levels are
generally low and typical of a quiet rural area during daytime. A noise assessment has been
carried out on the facility by Mr. John. McEniry and a report does not indicate any excessive
noise from the facility and is within the boundary limits generally imposed on industrial
facilities. The report is included as Appendix 5.
5.3.5 Traffic Levels
The traffic on the cul-de-sac off of the N24, servicing the pig farm, is mainly domestic and
agricultural i.e. livestock lorries, bulk milk tankers, silage and harvesting machinery.
Traffic is generated by the development under the following headings:
(Details are set out below of the current and proposed traffic movements of this development.)
1. Staff transport
There will be 4 movements to and from work daily.
2. Stock Deliveries
There will be 1 delivery of gilts per annum.
3. Feed Deliveries
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 31
There currently are approx 2.5 deliveries of feed per week (Compounded Feed sourced
from Glanbia).
4. Stock sales & Carcasses
There are currently a maximum of 4 traffic movements weekly from this site and this will remain
the same post this development. Carcasses are currently removed fortnightly from this site.
5. Service staff, sales, inspectors, etc.
There is currently and will be an average of 2-4 car visits per week for service men,
salesmen, and inspectors from all regulatory authorities to this facility
6. Delivery of manure to customer farmers.
There is 15443 M3 approx of pig manure to be delivered to customer farmers per annum.
This will require 29 loads per week over the spreading period from 15 January to 15
October assuming the average load size of the Vacuum tanks available is 13.6m3.
5.3.6 Flora and Fauna
The proposed development is to be carried out adjacent to an existing pig farmyard complex and
within the catchment area of the River Aherlow. A drainage ditch runs along the Eastern
boundary of the Pig Farm Unit and this drainage ditch extends for approximately 200 meters
south from the boundary to the River Aherlow which forms part of the Lower Suir Special Area
of Conservation (SAC). Qualitative baseline studies of the subject site were carried out on 11th
July 2012. During this site visit, detailed and comprehensive accounts of the floral and faunal
composition encountered were recorded.
The principal habitats present within the site were identifies and classified using the Heritage
Council’s A guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt 2000). The dominant species were recorded and
a species list complied.
Birds noted incorporated species common to agricultural practices including members of the
crow family (corvus sp), pigeon (Columba palumbus), blackbirds (turdus merula) and the
wren (troglodytes troglodytes). Other notable birds include the wagtail (montacilla sp),
thrushes (turds sp) and other finch species.
Mammal species which utilise farmland habitats include field mouse (apodmus sylvatica),
brown rat (rattus norvegicus), rabbit (oryclalagus coliculus), fox (vulpes vulpes), badger
(meles meles), and Irish hare (lepus timidius hibernicus).
The flora present consists of several grass with perennial rye grass most abundant. The
surrounding area is also mainly perennial rye grass so development provides no threat to its
survival in the area.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 32
Because the watercourse that receives water from the development is confined within a
sealed pipe, it is impossible to obtain and analysis information on the ecology of this body of
water.
See Appendix 6 for a detailed Appropriate Assessment Screening.
Animal manure produced in the existing facility is currently distributed to local farmers in
response to their demand and for their use on their farmland. The use of animal manure to
fertilise farmland is subject to statutory control under S.I. 101 of 2009. Pig manure is only
applied to agricultural lands where a crop response is anticipated.
6. Description of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
6.1 Human Beings
The facility employs 4 full time staff and a manager. These reside locally with a significant
positive economic impact on the area. The unit will also indirectly lead to another 35 jobs in
pig meat processing, feed compounding and the service sectors. The nearest dwelling is 150m
from the proposed development which is a family dwelling. The development does not have a
detrimental effect on the living standards of these residents. The traffic increases associated
with the development are minor.
The table below indicates the Number of dwellings within the 500m, 1000m, 1500m and
2000m radii of the facility. There is one other sensitive receptor within 1000m of the facility.
The EPA commissioned “Odour Impacts and Odour Emission Control Measures for Intensive
Agriculture” produced by Odour-net UK which assessed the Impacts of Odour Emissions
from Intensive agricultural facilities. The report has generated an ‘impact foot print’ for
specific Pig Unit sizes. The foot print produced has been generated on the basis of the
nominal Integrated Pig Sow Unit regarding its location and size, prior to the Decision of the
European Court Case C-585/10, the definition of Sow encompassing served Gilts to the
defined sow numbers.
The diagram included here indicates:
the impact footprint at the current levels of stocking on the facility (outlined in Blue)
the anticipated Impact from the expanded unit (outline in Green). The impacted foot
print shaded on the diagram below impacts upon a total of 5 of the dwellings and no
other sensitive receptors.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 33
(Included in Attachment 19)
Impacts of Odour from the facility are mitigated by the following measures:
Incorporation of low protein feed onsite, which can achieve a reduction of 30%, of
emissions from the site.
Computerised temperature control systems maintain the ventilation of the houses at
optimum air movements within the pig houses which mitigate any odour potential.
6.2 Flora and Fauna
The Pig Unit is situated within the catchment area of the River Aherlow. To the East of the site,
a drainage ditch runs along the boundary of the Pig Farm Unit. This drainage ditch extends for
approximately 200 meters south from the boundary to the River Aherlow which forms part of
the Lower Suir Special Area of Conservation.
Baseline studies were carried out on the site on 11th July 2012. On this site visit, detailed and
comprehensive accounts of the floral and faunal composition encountered were recorded. These
are presented in Section 5.3.6 Flora and Fauna and also in Attachment 6 - Appropriate
Assessment Screening.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 34
Potential Impacts on Agricultural Land
It is not expected that these agricultural grassland habitats and their associated flora
and fauna will be affected by the continued application of pig manure, provided the
necessary mitigation measures are adopted.
The application of pig manure onto hedgerows would lead to suffocation of floral
species and destruction and disturbance of fauna species.
Physical damage can occur to the ground vegetation if the application of pig manure
occurs during unfavourable climatic conditions.
Ammonia may be deposited on to watercourses
Potential Impacts on Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Habitats
The application of pig manure to these sensitive habitats would have serious
detrimental consequences for the ecological balance, which exists at present and could
alter the existing floral colonies.
The application of pig manure in close proximity to watercourses could pose a risk to
the water quality of the area.
There are potential indirect impacts through enriched waters entering the ecosystem
from adjoining farm land.
Ammonia N could be deposited on to SAC habitats.
Mitigation Measures
To avoid contamination of the local watercourses minimum buffer zones of 20m for
main river channels and 10m for small watercourses should be adhered to at all times
during the application of pig manure. Buffer zones have been increased depending on
gradients.
The guidelines in the ‘Code of Practice for Slurry Spreading’ should be adhered to as
well as the Nitrates Directive.
A minimum buffer zone of 20m should be put in place and adhered to for areas which
are adjacent to Special Areas of Conservation (SAC).
Manure will not be applied within 1.5 m of hedgerows and field margins.
The guidelines for spreading state that spreading should only take place when suitable
climatic and environmental conditions exist and to avoid spreading on:
- Wet or waterlogged
- Land sloping steeply towards water courses
- Frozen or snow covered soils
The Flora and Fauna associated with this site and surrounding lands has developed in line
with the agricultural activities carried out there. There are no unique habitats, flora or fauna
on this site that require specific protection.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 35
6.3 Soils & Geology
The site lies within an area of Ballysteen Limestone as shown in the GSI Geological Map in
the Hydro-geological Assessment Report (Appendix 8).
Subsoils - (Quaternary Geology)
The site is underlain by mainly Till derived from sandstone. To the east the subsoil’s
comprise a thin strip of alluvium probably associated with the small stream. To the east of
this sands and gravel are shown on the GSI map.
On-site during Demolition/Construction Stage
Removal of vegetation, landscaping
Use of heavy equipment resulting in soil compaction
Accidental spills and leaks
Mitigation Measures
Development works proposed for the site will not radically change the existing
topography of the site.
It is expected that all of the excavated topsoil and subsoil will be reused in
landscaping throughout the site. The impact on soils locally as a result of the
development will not be significant.
If a spillage of contaminated material (such as oil or fuel) should occur during the
construction stage at the site the potential exists for pollution of the soils in the area to
occur.
- Machinery will be checked regularly for leaks.
In the case of an accidental spillage occurring, the developer will notify the
Environmental Protection Agency, South Tipperary County Council the
Department of Agriculture and Food, and any other regulatory officials and will
take the necessary measures to clean up such a spillage. An Emergency Response
Procedure has been put in place to deal with such a situation. This procedure is
included in Appendix 11 and in the event of any Emergency situation developing
on site which may create an environmental risk.
Regarding soil compaction: heavy machinery will be limited to access roads and the
area in which the construction works will be carried out.
On-site during Operational Stage
pollution of surface soil
pollution of underground soil
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 36
There are many different ways that soil can become polluted, such as:
Discharge of pig Manure into the soil
Percolation of soiled/dirty water into the soil
Rupture of underground storage tanks
Accidental spills
Mitigation Measures
The problem with manure spills and leaks, as with air and water pollution is that it is not
concentrated at a specific area in the soil that can be cleaned to prevent further impacts on the
environment. Applying pig manure to the soil has positive impacts on the soil. However, side
effects such as the addition of heavy metals, organ-chlorines and too many salts on the soil
can be categorised as soil pollution.
It is the intention of Tankerstown Pig & Farm Enterprises Ltd. to ensure that all best
managerial measures are carried out; that animals are confined to certain buildings and open
yards, to ensure that leak detection points are monitored on a regular basis ensuring the
integrity of the tanks, to ensure that surface water monitoring points are monitored.
It is also the intention of the unit to notify the Department of Agriculture, Food and the
Marine immediately following any accidental spillages.
Off-Site During Operational Stage
The application of pig slurry to soils can potentially increase the nitrogen (N), phosphorous
(P) and potassium (K) levels in the soil. Minor elements such as copper and zinc are also
applied in the pig slurry but at such low levels as to not have a significant impact. There can
be negative impacts, where slurry spreading takes place when ground conditions are
unsuitable.
Mitigation Measures
Land suitability is carefully assessed before land is used for land-spreading pig slurry.
Selecting soils with continuous soil cover for the application of pig slurry prevents
leaching to bed rock.
Adequate storage is in place to ensure that pig slurry is not applied during winter
months.
Code of good practice for applying pig slurry will be implemented.
Timing pig slurry applications for the growing season maximizes the uptake by crops
and minimises the risk of residual N in the soil. It is important therefore to have
appropriate slurry storage.
Avoid travelling on wet soils to avoid damage to soil structure.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 37
6.4 Water
6.4.1 Surface Water
On Site during Construction Stage
Construction Activities pose a risk to watercourses. The main sources of contamination from
construction activities include:
Silt: elevated silt loading in surface water discharge may result from construction activities,
elevated silt levels leads to long term damage to aquatic ecosystem, clogging the gills of fish
and smothering spawning ground. Chemical contaminants bind to organic particles and attach
to silt which can lead to increased bio-availability of the contaminant. Silt also stunts aquatic
plant growth, limiting the dissolved oxygen supply and reducing the aquatic ecosystem
quality. Silt accumulations can also lead to flooding if it deposits, reducing the carrying
capacity of the system and potentially causing blockages.
The vast majority of the proposed development consists of the construction of tanks which
will be below the existing ground level. These effectively form attenuation ponds for
peculation through the sides and the base because there is a requirement for space
surrounding the perimeter of the houses and tanks to erect shutter pans etc. for the
construction. Therefore, the areas between the existing ground and the tank construction form
an effective sump to prevent silted water from reaching the watercourse.
Hydrocarbons: accidental spillages from construction plant and fuel or oil storage depots can
cause faecal coli-form contamination due to poor containment and treatment of on-site
washing and toilet facilities.
The extent of risk that these impacts have is determined by the proximity of the construction
activity to the watercourse, as there is a sufficient distance to the watercourse and the
sensitivity of the watercourse.
Installation of oil interceptors and the spill contamination facilities will not pose a risk to the
local watercourse as there is a sufficient distance between the outfall and the larger surface
water features.
Proposed Mitigation
Prepare an Emergency plan detailing the procedures to be undertaken in the event of a
chemical, fuel or other hazardous waste spill, a fire or non compliance incident which any
permit of license issues.
Ensure all staff is trained in the implementation of the Emergency Response Plan and the use
of any spill control equipment as required.
Prepare a method statement for the control treatment and disposal of potentially contaminated
surface water.
Pollution of aquatic systems during the construction phase will be reduced by the
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 38
Use of settling ponds, silt traps and bunds and by avoiding constructing burms near
watercourses where possible
When pumping of water is carried out, filters will be used on the suction side also to
discharge through a sediment trap.
training of site managers, foremen and workforce, including all subcontractors, in the
pollution risks and the preventative measures
Where possible prevent water from entering excavations. Use cut-off ditches to
prevent entry of surface water and well point dewatering or cut-off walls for ground
water. Use the corner of the excavation as a pump sump and avoid disturbing that
corner. Do not allow personnel or plant to disturb water in the excavation.
Minimise the amount of exposed ground and stockpiles. Stockpiles can be seeded or
covered and silt fences constructed from a suitable geo-textile may be useful.
Wheel washes and plant washing facilities should be securely constructed with no
overflow and the effluent should be contained for proper treatment and disposal.
These should be regularly brushed or scraped and kept free from dust and mud
deposits. In dry weather dust suppression measures may be required.
The risk of spilling of fuel is at its greatest during refuelling of plant.
Where possible:
- Refuel mobile plant in a designated area, preferably on an impermeable surface
and away from any drains or watercourses.
- Keep a spill kit available.
- Never leave a vehicle unattended during refuelling or force open a delivery valve.
- Check hoses and valves regularly for signs of wear and ensure that they are turned
off and securely locked when not in use.
- Diesel pumps and similar equipment should be placed on drip trays to collect
minor spillages. These should be checked regularly and any accumulated oil
removed for disposal.
Concrete is highly alkaline and corrosive and can have a devastating impact on
watercourses. It is essential to take particular care with all works involving concrete
and cement especially if working near a river, stream or surface water drain. Suitable
provision should be made for the washing out of concrete mixing plant or ready mix
concrete lorries. Such washings must not be allowed to flow into any drain or
watercourse.
On Site during Operational Stage
In 2011, the Environmental Impact Statement report on River Water Quality in South
Tipperary reported that agricultural non point source pollution was the leading source of
water quality impacts on surveyed rivers in the Tipperary area notably the River Aherlow;
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) was high at station 0900, Kilardry Bridge in May and
October of 2011 indicating that the occurrences of pollution is spread out.
Nitrate pollution in both ground and surface is also of particular concern because excess
nitrate must be removed to make safe for human consumption.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 39
Agricultural activities that can cause water pollution include poorly located or managed
operations, the storage of relatively large volumes of animal manure on the farm and the
improper, excessive or poorly timed application of pesticides and fertilizers.
In order to ensure that the proposed development does not impact on the water bodies
adjacent to the pig farm site the following measures will be implemented.
All tanks are constructed to Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Development Standards for construction of farm buildings.
The provision of a substantial amount of excess manure storage capacity, well above
the 6 month minimum requirement will ensure that organic fertilizer is managed to
the highest possible standard on the pig farm site. The table included at 3.4.1
calculated the volume of Pig slurry produced per annum at 15443m3and the structures
table in Appendix 3 calculates the manure storage capacity at 15117m3 which is more
than 6 months manure storage. In fact it is 50 weeks storage capacity.
Separating clean and dirty water on farms in order to improve the efficiency of
manure storage and to reduce the risk of dirty/contaminated water entering
watercourses.
A drainage ditch forms the eastern boundary of the Pig Farm Unit and extends for
approximately 200 metres to the River Aherlow. Uncontaminated roof water from the
pig unit is collected via the proposed storm-water collection system to a monitoring
point (SW1) to the south east of the pig unit, where it then flows into the adjacent
drainage ditch to the River Aherlow. This will be sampled quarterly and analysed for
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) at an independent laboratory.
Existing procedures that are in place regarding the limitation of access for animals to
open yards will continue to be implemented reducing the risk of dirty soiled water
reaching the drainage ditch. All passageways and yards where animals have access
will be covered and washed down into channels which are connected to the
underground manure storage tanks.
The management of the extraction of raw pig manure from the storage tanks will be
carried out using best practice techniques ensuring that no accidental spills occur.
The raw pig manure will be extracted from designated points from the underground
tanks by vacuum tank. All new structures will be installed with a leak detection
system which will be visually inspected regularly and sampled quarterly for COD at
an Independent Laboratory.
The enclosure encompassing the feed storage bins, feed mill and feed intake area
allowing unloading of feed delivered under cover significantly reducing fugitive dust
while loads are discharging and mitigating surface water contamination.
The following mitigation measures will be in place regarding the land-spreading of pig
manure:
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 40
In order to minimise risks to water it is essential that carefully planning is done
regarding the application of pig manure with consideration to weather, drain-flow,
soil conditions and field situation to reduce the risk of manure reaching water.
This facility will supply manure to customer farmers in the area, upon request, and all
deliveries will be documented on site.
Manure will not be supplied to customer farms between 15th October and 12th
January in any year except with the consent of the local authority, or any other
relevant authority. Outside that period, manure will be supplied from the site to a
customer farmer, only in response to an order. Managed and used in this way, manure
produced at this facility will not have any adverse impact on environmental
parameters either inside or outside the site.
The application of pig slurry will be carried out using a vacuum tanker fitted with a
low trajectory splash plate, and/or dribble bar system away from any body of water.
6.4.2 Groundwater
On Site during Operational Stage
The finished floor levels of the proposed houses and the existing houses is 100.5m which is
above the surrounding ground level by 30mm to 700mm, depending on the location within
the complex, the tank depth is 1.8m with a 250mm concrete floor this has the level at the
underside of the tank at 98.45m.
A Mr John Slattery of ESA was commissioned to carry out a site suitability assessment, as
conditioned by Planning permission No 12/23. The Site assessment trial holes indicated that
there was mottling in the soil profile at 1.3m below ground level. The relative level to the
TBM of the mottling which would indicate the maximum water table level 97.74m which is
lower than the base of the manure tanks therefore the water table will not be intercepted
during the construction of the new tanks and was not intercepted by the existing tanks.
Under the proposed pig accommodation leak detection pipe work will be installed, in
accordance with requirements of “MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS FOR DRY SOW
HOUSES S144” produced by the Farm Development Service of the Department of
Agriculture. Typical arrangement of the leak detection pipe work is.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 41
Predicted Impacts from cracks in manure storage tanks
Reduced availability of manure for customer farmers.
Nutrients runoff in surface water drainage system leading to eutrophication of water
courses.
Deterioration of ground water quality.
In the event of cracks being discovered in tanks from visual inspections the following repair
method would be implemented
The observed crack area thoroughly cleaned both sides if possible (Subject to stock
presence).
A dovetail would be cut max 50mm deep would be made into the tank wall.
Regulated set cement applied to the joint to Manufacturers instruction.
The repaired joint monitored.
Mitigation Measures
Regular Inspection of Leak detection pipe work systems installed under new tanks.
Monitoring of Groundwater Analysis for elevated trigger elements which would
indicate presence of manure.
Visually assessing the over ground sections of concrete tanks.
Visually inspecting empty tanks if the opportunity where the unit/house are
destocked.
6.4.3 Customer Farmlands
Pig Manure can cause serious water pollution if discharged directly to groundwater or surface
waters. The manure will be spread in accordance with the Nitrate Directive Regulations (S.I.
No. 610 of 2010), reducing the risk of groundwater contamination. To reduce the risk to
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 42
groundwater, all pig manure on site will be stored in underground concrete tanks, built to
Dept of Agriculture specifications. All manure on site will be stored in covered storage tanks,
constructed according to Dept. of Agriculture specifications.
A freeboard of 200mm has been allocated to all tanks under slats to contain gasses. There
will be no impact from these on surface or ground waters.
The pig manure will be abstracted from dedicated abstraction points from the tanks under the
pig houses by vacuum tank. All new structures will be provided with leak detection systems
which will be visually inspected regularly, and samples analysed quarterly for COD/BOD by
an independent laboratory. There has been no historical contamination of groundwater at this
site. This development will minimise the potential impacts at this site, due to the following
mitigation measures,
(a) subject to sub-article (5), 200m of the abstraction point of any surface watercourse,
borehole, spring or well used for the abstraction of water for human consumption in
a water scheme supplying 100m3 or more of water per day or serving 500 or more
persons,
(b) subject to sub-article (5), 100m of the abstraction point (other than an abstraction
point specified at paragraph (a)) of any surface watercourse, borehole, spring or well
used for the abstraction of water for human consumption in a water scheme
supplying 10m3 or more of water per day or serving 50 or more persons,
(c) subject to sub-article (5), 25m of any borehole, spring or well used for the
abstraction of water for human consumption other than a borehole, spring or well
specified at paragraph (a) or (b),
(d) 20m of a lake shoreline,
(e) 15m of exposed cavernous or karstified limestone features (such as swallow-holes
and collapse features), or
(f) subject to sub-articles (8) and (9), 5m of a surface watercourse (other than a lake or a
surface watercourse specified at paragraph (a) or (b)).
6.5 Air
There are two aspects to the development relating to air quality: on site issues and off site
land spreading.
On Site
The pig farm is located in an agricultural area where typical levels of farm odour are to be
found and expected. This odour arises from farmyards and lands during the day to day
operations such as silage feeding manure agitation and manure spreading. The existing farm
using the best available practices is already operating without significant effect on the
environment and will continue to strive to minimise all environmental impacts. Well
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 43
maintained, properly ventilated slatted floored pig farm low odour impacts. There are no
odour sensitive locations within 300m of the farm facility other than the Applicants dwelling
(one sensitive receptor within 1000m of the facility). The surrounding undulating topography
helps to mitigate the odour potential.
The standard of management for good animal husbandry helps to mitigate the potential of
odour generating. The houses will be continuously washed, disinfected and rested between
batches, stocked at optimum levels and adequately ventilated ensuring minimal odour
emissions. Should technical advances be made in odour reduction the farm operations will
adopt any economically viable practices. Odours and emissions from modem well-managed
pig farms are insignificant outside the confines of buildings and adjoining yards. Since
manure will be removed only by vacuum there will be no odours created during manure
withdrawal.
Customer Farmlands
The customers lands whereupon pig manure is spread are entirely located in a farming area
where the air quality is determined by odours emitted from manure, animals and foodstuffs
(e.g. Silage). Nevertheless, every effort is being made to reduce offensive odours to
insignificant levels. The following mitigation measures will be in place,
All manure will be spread from tankers fitted with a low trajectory splash plate or
band spreader to minimise aerosol formation and dispersion.
Customer farmers will be advised not to apply pig manure nearer than 100 meters of
any dwelling house save with the express approval of the inhabitants in writing.
No spreading of pig manure will be permitted in windy weather close by dwelling
houses or main roads.
6.6 Climatic Factors
Mean annual precipitation for South West Tipperary, as recorded by Met Eireann, is between
l000mm and 1200mm, with a Dec / Jan monthly high of 90mm to a low for July of 50mm.
The adequacy of storage of 50 weeks will ensure that slurry is spread only at times that are
acceptable.
6.7 Landscape
Visual impacts are a sub set of landscape impacts. They relate solely to changes in available
views of the landscape and the effects of those changes on people.
The significance of landscape and visual impact is a function of the sensitivity of the affected
landscape and visual receptors and the magnitude of change that they will experience.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 44
The Farm
The potential visual impact of the extension to this farm could be described as perceptional
vulnerability. It attempts to measure the advantage or disadvantage provided by the landscape
for observation thus how critical is the view. Visual vulnerability of the landscape regarding
this extension can be considered as:
Highly vulnerable if the development is on open countryside or in an
amenity/recreational Area or above the existing ground level.
Vulnerable if it is in an area where the development is only partially screened
by trees and hedgerows.
Not vulnerable when at ground level away from public amenity areas and
screened by trees and hedgerows.
Conclusion The visual vulnerability rating for this development is regarded as not vulnerable.
The pig farm is located in a natural dip in the rural landscape. The Meal Silo is the only
structure at the facility that is 28m tall. These are difficult to mitigate. Careful consideration
will be given to the final colour of the high structures to minimise the visual impact.
6.7.1 Effects on Landscape Character
External Finishes
The external walls of the buildings are coloured to blend with the surrounding landscape as
much as possible.
Building Heights
The buildings are designed to keep ridge heights to the lowest possible level. This is achieved
by minimizing roof slopes and ground-floor to eaves levels.
Roofs and Feed Silos
The colour of the roof cladding to be used on the proposed structures is dark grey or green.
Screening
The site has no visual impact on travellers on the N24 Limerick to Waterford public road. It
is located in a natural dip in the landscape and screening is not required.
The development being long established and blends well into the landscape.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 45
6.7.2 Landscape Impacts
Landscape impacts likely to arise from the construction and operational stages of the
proposed development are:
1. Stripping of topsoil and subsoil.
6.7.3 Landscape Receptor Sensitivity
Landscape receptors are areas of landscape, categories of vegetation, wildlife habitat or
landform that would experience effects arising from the development. The sensitivity of
receptors is a measure of the ability of each to accommodate change without undue detriment
to its size, character or significance within its local context. Sensitivity can be determined by
assessing the following:
The importance of a landscape element or feature within the site.
The importance of the landscape of the site within the local area.
Its status in terms of landscape designations.
Its wildlife or heritage value. Its scenic qualities and the presence or absence
of detractors.
Its uniqueness and “replace-ability”.
The sensitivity of landscape receptors affected by the development is discussed below:
The existing farmland is of low to medium sensitivity.
6.8 Materials Assets
The Heritage Service were visited and the consultation revealed that this farm yard is not
within sensitive areas for conservation i.e S.P.A's, S.A.C's
Buffer zones are applied to the features listed below. Substitution of pig slurry for inorganic,
commercial fertiliser will have no impact on earthen work features such as forts. Please refer
to Appendix 7 for the assessment
6.9 Traffic.
The facility is located on a cul-de-sac approximately 300m off of the N24, the National
Primary Route between Limerick and Waterford. The Road Speed Limit for this road is
100km/hr. A Traffic Impact Assessment which was carried out by Mr. John McEniry on the
20th
of July is included in Appendix 13.
The traffic on the access route, servicing the pig farm, is mainly domestic and agricultural i.e.
livestock lorries, bulk milk tankers, silage and harvesting machinery.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 46
Traffic is generated by the development under the following headings:
(Details are set out below of the current and proposed traffic movements of this development.)
Staff transport
There will be 4 movements to and from work daily.
Stock Deliveries
There will be 1 delivery of gilts per annum.
Feed Deliveries
There currently are approx 2.5 deliveries of feed per week (Compounded Feed sourced from
Glanbia).
Stock sales & Carcasses
There are currently a maximum of 1 traffic collection fortnightly from this site and this will
remain the same post this development. Carcasses are currently removed fortnightly from this
site.
Service staff, sales, inspectors, etc.
There is currently and will be an average of 2-4 car visits per week for service men, salesmen,
and inspectors from all regulatory authorities to this facility
Other
The delivery of manure to customer farmers.
Existing Situation
The entrance to the Pig Farm is located on a National road, the N24. The road Speed limit is
100km/hr.
The proposed development consists of expansion of the existing pig enterprise. The pig
manure produced on the pig farm is currently exported off the farm to customer farmers; the
route taken from the farm in all cases is up to the junction with the N24 and from there on
any of 2 directions.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 47
Table 8. Current Traffic Volumes to and from the Pig Farm Facility
No Vehicle Type
Car/Lorry etc
Details Capacity Weekly
Units
Annual
Units
1 Car Staff to work 20 1040
2 Lorry Gilt deliveries Jeep &
Trailer
5
3 Lorry Feed deliveries 20/27
Tonnes
8 416
4 Lorry Fat Pigs to Factory 200
animals
4 200
5 Lorry Carcasses to rendering 15
Tonnes
1 52
5 Car Service staff; sales men;
Inspectors
6 300
6 Tractor/Vacuum
Tanker
Manure to customer
farmers
10.5 m3
tank
32* 1137*
Totals 3150
*Manure Traffic Movements Based upon 36 weeks per annum in accordance with the
Nitrates Directive.
Table 9. Expected Traffic Movements with the proposed Development.
No Vehicle Type
Car/Lorry etc
Details Capacity Weekly
Units
Annual
Units
1 Car Staff to work 22 1144
2 Lorry Gilt deliveries Jeep &
Trailer
5
3 Lorry Feed deliveries 20-27
Tonne
12 624
4 Lorry Fat Pigs to Factory 200
animals
6 300
5 Lorry Carcasses to rendering 15 Tonne* 1 52
6 Car Service staff; sales men;
Inspectors
6 300
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 48
7 Lorry or
Tractor/Vacuum
Tanker
Manure to Customer
Farmers
10.5 m3* 41* 1471*
Totals
3896
*Manure Traffic Movements Based upon 36 weeks per annum in accordance with the
Nitrates Directive.
The volume of traffic to occur on site during the construction phase will be similar to the current
levels as set out in the tables above. The site lines at the entrance of this facility are adequate and
details of the junction with N24 Tipperary/Cahir road, both are more than adequate (See report
included in Appendix 13).
6.10 Noise
Noise levels are measured in decibels and a weighting factor (A) is applied to approximate
the frequency response of the human ear. This weighted decibel scale, dB (A) correlates well
with human sensations of loudness, disturbance and annoyance. Background noise level in
rural areas of Ireland is in the 45-50 dB (A) range.
Livestock - The peak noise periods on pig farms are at feeding times. Since all growing /
finisher pigs are ad-libitum fed with computerised probe feeding systems, these peaks in
noise levels will be avoided. The gestating sows are the only animals on a restricted diet;
however these animals make up a small proportion of the entire herd of pigs on the farm.
They will be fed under supervision, twice per day for a period of 10-20 minutes and always
between working hours i.e. 08:00-18:00.
This farm will have state of the art buildings with high insulation standards. Due to its remote
location and the low population density in the area, this pig farm will not create a disturbance
or annoyance to anyone during the day and generally the unit is quiet at night.
Lorries loading pigs and delivery of feed – Loading of pigs occurs only during daytime hours
generally a few times per week. Lorries blow feed into feed silos when feed is delivered once
per week. Pig farm workers should wear hearing protection as a health and safety precaution
but this noise does not cause significant impacts on humans outside a radius of 200 meters
from the pig farm.
The proposed development will cause a minimal increase in traffic numbers. However, all
traffic into and out from the facility will occur during normal working hours.
Slurry Extraction – This activity occurs only during daytime slurry season hours and is
typical for any pig farm unit and any agricultural unit. This noise does not cause significant
impacts on human outside the pig farm.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 49
Building/construction phase – During the construction of the proposed buildings, noise levels
will increase. These noises will be typical of any building site and while workers will at times
have to take health and safety precautions and wear safety ear protection when operating
noisy machinery, there will be no significant impact outside the boundary of the pig farm.
The results of a noise survey that were carried out by Mr. John McEniry are contained in
Appendix 5. These results confirm that noise emissions from pig farm as developed, have no
detrimental impact on the surrounding environment. There has been no noise complaint from
the activities on the farm facility and it is not expected that the management practices will
give rise to noise nuisance.
Apart from the noise source outlined above, noise levels at other times are insignificant.
Environmental noise resulting from activities at the site should not exceed 55 dB (A) Leq
during daytime (08.00 to 22.00hrs) and 45 dB (A) Leq during night-time (22.00 to 08.00hrs).
6.11 Cultural Heritage
6.11.1 Cultural Heritage in the Existing Environment
Tankerstown is a townland of 249 acres in the barony of Clanwilliam, civil parish of
Clonbullogue in South Tipperary. The site of the proposal is in a picturesque area near the
glen of Aherlow, between the N24 and the Aherlow River. The Glen of Aherlow is a
Carboniferous limestone valley through which the Aherlow River flows. Outcrops of Old
Red Sandstone form the Galtee Mountains to the south and the Slievenamuck range to the
north. The Lower Suir system is an SAC and the Galtee Mountains are a pNHA.
Throughout the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age a characteristic feature of farming
communities in Ireland and over much of Western Europe was the practice of collective
burial in stone tombs, now known as ‘megalithic tombs’ (Power 1992, 13). These consisted
of a burial chamber/chambers with walls built of large upright stones and roofed with lintels
or corbels of stone. They were originally contained within a cairn with access at one end into
the chamber (ibid.). The dead, inhumed or cremated, were placed in the chamber and often
accompanied by grave goods such as pottery vessels and flint arrowheads. More than 1,550
examples are known in Ireland. Four main types are recognised; court tombs, portal tombs,
passage tombs and wedge tombs (Farrelly and O’Brien 2002, 1). Court tombs are
distinguished by a court leading to a long rectangular gallery divided into two or more
chambers. They are typically placed at the broader end of a long cairn. Portal tombs are
single-chambered structures characterised by two tall portal stones at the front with the sides
and back usually formed by a single stone (ibid.). Passage tombs are found in round mounds
or cairns, often on hilltops and can occur in groups or clusters. Wedge tombs consist of a
narrow gallery that increases in width and height towards its western end. They can occur in
round or short oval cairns. The gallery is often divided by a septal stone into a short front
chamber and a long main chamber and usually there is a line of stones making up an outer
wall around the sides and narrow end of the gallery (ibid.). There is a passage-tomb at
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 50
Shrough, on Slievenamuck, south of Tipperary Town about 8km east of the study area and a
portal tomb and cairn about 8km to the SE at Lissava.
Barrows are earthen monuments which are associated with burial. There are several types
which include ring-barrows, bowl barrows, mound barrows, stepped barrows, pond barrows
and ditch barrows (Farrelly and O’Brien 2002, 103). The practice of erecting a barrow to
cover or contain a burial dates back to Neolithic times and continued up until the late Iron
Age. There is a ditch barrow cemetery at Carriganagh 1.7km north of the proposed
development.
Ringforts are the most widely distributed and common monuments in the country. They
consist of circular areas, defined by banks and external ditches, and excavation often reveals
the remains of dwelling houses and outbuildings for extended families. O’Riordain (1979)
described the ringfort as ‘a space most frequently circular, surrounded by a bank and fosse or
simply by a rampart of stone’. Excavations have revealed that the ringfort was typically an
Early Christian (c. 500 AD to 1100) settlement type although some have shown to predate
and postdate this period (Sweetman and O’Brien 1997, 24). According to Stout (1997)
ringforts were not built to repel prolonged sieges, or designed to annex territories and
populations but rather to repel the lightning cattle raids, which were endemic during the Early
Christian period in Ireland. In areas where there is little field stone, the banks are generally of
earth, while in stony areas, the banks may be of stone, with either stone-cut ditches, or no
ditch at all. They can be referred to as caiseal, cathair, dún, lios and rath. Rath is the term
applied to those with earthen banks while cashel is referred to those constructed with stone
banks. They tend to have a dispersed distribution, although some are occasionally located in
pairs, or even joined together. There is a possible ringfort (TS075-003) at Ballygorteen
1.25km east of the proposed development.
Enclosures are generally circular and are defined by an earth and/or stone bank, sometimes
with a fosse. Some are most likely much degraded ringforts or the remains of other
monuments such as ring-barrows or henge-type monuments (Farrelly and O’Brien 2002,
168). There is an enclosure (TS075-052) 855m SSE of the proposal and another (TS075-
054) 1.4km to ESE.
There is a field system 1.4km NE of the proposed development site at Ballygorteen (the place
name must be derived from these ancient fields). These are a group or complex of fields
which appear to form a coherent whole and represent earlier systems of agriculture and land
management. These date to any period from the Neolithic (c. 4000-2400 BC) onwards.
There is a moated site at Carriganagh 1.5km north of the proposed development site. These
are square, rectangular or occasionally circular areas, sometimes raised above the ground,
enclosed by a wide, often water-filled, fosse, with or without an outer bank and with a wide
causewayed entrance. They date to the late 13th/early 14th centuries and were primarily
fortified residences/farmsteads of Anglo-Norman settlers though they were also built by
Gaelic lords.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 51
A tower house and bawn are located 1.4km south of the proposed development site at
Capauniac. These were a fortified residence in the form of a tower, usually four or five
storeys high, and for the most part slightly more rectangular than square in plan. They were
constructed by a lord or landholder and were often partially or completely enclosed by a
bawn. Most date to the 15th and 16th centuries AD and often conform to a plan encouraged
by Henry Viii through a building grant. This particular castle was built by the Burkes but
confiscated from Walter Bourke FitzJohn in 1591 and granted to the earl of Ormond. It
subsequently transferred to the Uniacke family.
There is a Romanesque church just outside the study area at toureen 2.4km east of the site.
There is a late medieval parish church and graveyard 1.8km north of the proposed
development at Carriganagh. The church and 'churchyard' are mentioned in the Civil Survey
of 1654-6.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 52
Recorded Monuments
6.11.2 Monuments within the site boundary
There are no recorded monuments within the site boundary. There is a ritual site (holy well)
TS0-75-001 on the opposite bank of a stream which acts as a site boundary to the SW of the
proposal.
6.11.3 Monuments within 2km of site boundary
There are 22 recorded monuments within 2km of the existing pig farm. None of the recorded
monuments will be directly impacted. Details of all 22 monuments are included in a full
report which is included in Appendix 7.
6.11.4 Potential Impacts
6.11.4.1 Do nothing impacts
If the proposed development were not to proceed there would be no direct impacts on any
known archaeological sites or areas of archaeological potential. The sites of architectural
heritage interest i.e. the buildings on site which appear on the 1st edition O.S map are in use
and as such are being maintained. However recorded monument TS075-001 is nearly
destroyed and will in time be fully eroded regardless of developments on the adjacent farm.
6.11.4.2 Worst case impacts
If the proposal was to proceed with no further archaeological mitigation there would be no
direct impact on any recorded monuments. There may be an archaeological impact resulting
from development in the greenfield area of the site, particularly around the townland
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 53
boundary between Tankerstown and Barnlough. The worst case impact would be that
unrecorded sub-surface archaeological features or finds would be destroyed.
6.11.4.3 Cumulative impacts
The possibility of a cumulative impact on the archaeology of the area as a result of
developments such as the proposal lie in the quite dense distribution of monuments and the
increased likelihood of direct impart with further development. A cumulative visual impact
on the archaeological and vernacular landscape is possible. This impact could be
characterised as moderate, neutral and long term and reflects changes in land use rather than
destruction of individual monuments or structures.
6.11.4.4 Predicted Impact of the Proposal
The proposed development will not have any direct impact on any of the known cultural heritage sites in the study area. Recorded monument TS075-001 will not be impacted by the proposal.
There may be an archaeological impact in the greenfield areas of the proposal, particularly around the townland boundary between Tankerstown and Barnlough.
No site of cultural heritage importance will be impacted by the proposed haul route. There will be no major realignments along the haul route.
In conclusion it can be said there is no predicted impact on any known archaeology in the study area as a result of the proposed development. Neither is there any predicted impact on the architectural heritage of the study area. Visual impacts are slight given that the proposal is on the site of a low lying existing farm with no inter-visibility between it and the nearest monument. There may be an impact in greenfield areas. 6.11.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures 6.11.5.1 Archaeological Testing Archaeological testing is recommended on the footprint of the proposed development in greenfield.
6.11.5.2 Archaeological Monitoring
Archaeological monitoring is recommended only where testing has indicated an area of
archaeological potential.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 54
7. INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FACTORS
Table 10. Inter-Relationship between Factors
Human Flor
a &
Fau
na
Soils
&
Geolo
gy
Wat
er
Air Nois
e
Cli
mat
e
Land-
scape
Traf
fic
Cultu
ral
Herit
age
Beings
Human
√ √ √ √ √ √
Beings
Flora
&Faun
a
√
√
Soils &
Geolog
y
√
√
√
Water
Air
√
√
Noise
√
Climat
e
Land-
scape
Traffic
Cultur
al
Herita
ge
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 55
7.1 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Water
The Prevention of water polluting from fertilisers and certain activities is discussed in detail
in section 6.4 of the EIS.
The proposed development will not result in any new potential surface water or groundwater
impacts relative to those predicted for the existing piggery.
The owner and operators at the unit will do their upmost best to ensure that the management
system in place is continuously followed to ensure that water pollution does not occur as a
direct result of the unit’s activities. Surface water and roof-water will be diverted to an
existing stream west of the site boundary via a monitoring point SW1 at the south eastern side
of the farm. The storm water can be monitored prior to it entering the existing watercourse.
Groundwater
Pig Manure can cause serious water pollution if discharged directly to groundwater or surface
waters. The manure from this Pig Farm will be spread in accordance with the Nitrate
Directive Regulations S.I. No. 610 of 2010.
7.2 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Air
There are two aspects to the development relating to air quality: on site issues and off site
land-spreading.
As protection against odour nuisance on-site, the use of best available practices is already
operating without significant effect on the environment and will continue to strive to
minimise all environmental impacts. Well maintained, properly ventilated slatted floored pig
farm low odour impacts.
The odour impact of land application is mitigated by adherence to Teagasc Code of Good
Practice, S.I. 610 of 2010 maintaining a good working relationship with neighbours. The
application of organic fertiliser in accordance with S.I. 610 of 2010 will ensure that excessive
application of manure is avoided; the use of low trajectory splash plates, and the proper and
even allocation of organic fertilisers. All customer farmers receiving organic fertiliser from
the pig farm are advised not to apply the fertiliser to lands adjacent to neighbouring dwellings
or potential odour sensitive locations. A recommended set back distance of 100 meters from
an isolated dwelling and for 200 meters from a potential odour sensitive area/group of
dwellings will be recommended.
The topic of air and odour related issues are dealt with in previous sections 6.1 Human
Beings and 6.5 Air.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 56
7.3 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Noise
The major noise associated with a facility of this nature is that which is emitted from pigs at
feeding times. As stated previously in section 6.10 Noise, all growing/finisher pigs are ad-
libitum fed with computerised probe feeding systems, these peaks in noise levels will be
avoided. The gestating sows are the only animals on a restricted diet; however these animals
make up a small proportion of the entire herd of pigs on the farm. They will be fed under
supervision, during the normal working hours. These animals will have free access to roam in
their pens and are less likely to make noise at feeding time. This farm will have state of the
art buildings with high insulation standards.
A secondary source is vehicles accessing and leaving the facility, these are between the hours
of 8.00 and 18.00 normally. Vehicles delivering to and collecting from the facility are
maintained to the highest standard.
7.4 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Climate
The pig unit has operated at its current capacity since the 1960’s. Agriculture is the dominant
source of both methane and nitrous oxide emissions in Ireland; non-ruminants pigs contribute
to a lesser extent than ruminants. Increasing sizes of tractor and tanker sizes used to transport
manure from the farm to customer farmers optimises the fuel consumption per m3 delivered.
The proposed development will involve an increase in traffic movements to 3896 per annum
in comparison to what is already servicing the existing piggery, 3150 movements.
7.5 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Landscape
The facility is located in a natural depression in the landscape, the external finishes on the
structures are plaster which blends with the surrounding landscape. The houses are low
profile buildings with minimal pitch roofs to limit the visual impact. It is not intrusive on the
landscape and the site has no visual impact on travellers on the N24 Tipperary/Cahir public
road.
A landscaping report has been included in Attachment 14 of the EIS. It proposes to buffer
the existing landscape with the exclusion of a double fence in accordance with the
Department of Agriculture’s requirements. It is proposed to screen plant in the area between
the fences in the first growing season after the plant is constructed with Ash, Alder, Rowan,
Hawthorn/Beech and Holly.
Mitigation Measures
External Finishes
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 57
All new buildings and re-cladding to be in selected colour/colours to blend with the
surrounding landscape as much as possible. It is proposed to discuss and agree with South
Tipperary County Council a scheme prior to commencement.
7.6 Inter-Relationship between Human Beings and Traffic
The inter-relationship between humans and traffic is detailed in section 6.9.
This proposed development will result in a minimal increase in traffic volumes servicing the
farm, resulting from slurry removal, feed delivery and livestock collection. The existing
traffic movements for staff, service, feed, fuel, and carcass collection will not increase as a
result of this development.
While there will be a minimal increase on the adjacent road network, it is considered that the
existing road network is capable of taking the existing and increased traffic volumes
generated from the pig farm.
7.7 Inter-Relationship between Flora and Fauna and Water
As stated in Section 5.3.6 Flora and Fauna, the pig farm unit is situated within the catchment
area of the River Aherlow. A drainage ditch runs along the Eastern boundary of the Pig Farm
Unit and this drainage ditch extends for approximately 200 meters south from the boundary
to the River Aherlow which forms part of the Lower Suir Special Area of Conservation
(SAC). An Appropriate Assessment Screening report was prepared for the proposed
development and is included in Attachment 6.
It is essential that the recommendations for land-spreading outlined in section 6.4 of the EIS
are followed to minimise the risk to any watercourse and the on-fall of risk to flora and fauna.
7.8 Inter-Relationship between Flora and Fauna and Landscape
The development does not result in the loss of surface vegetation through the stripping of
soils. The soils were used to create a berm around the perimeter of the site which over time
has been colonised creating areas of habitat and promoting biodiversity. The site is in a
topographical depression and is partially screened by the surrounding landscape.
7.9 Inter-Relationship between Soils and Geology and Water
The site lies within an area underlain by the Ballykisteen Limestone as shown in the
geological map included in summary report included in Appendix 8. There is no adverse or
unacceptable impact on the geological environment as a result the development.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 58
7.10 Inter-Relationship between Soils and Geology and Landscape
The works involved the removal of soil in preparation for the construction of the buildings.
The overburden was used to construct a berm on which have re-colonized which help
mitigate the visual impact of the development and provides a habitat for flora & fauna.
7.11 Inter-Relationship between Soils and Geology and cultural heritage
There are no archaeological sites within the vicinity of the development.
7.12 Inter-Relationship between Air and Climate
The traffic associated with the development has been consistent for many years, recent
improvements in vacuum tanker technology increases the size of the tankers which leads to
more efficient use of fuel in delivery of manure. The farm buildings are insulated to a high
standard reducing the requirement for heating and fossil fuel consumption.
Computerised temperature control systems maintain the ventilation of the houses at optimum
air movements within the pig houses which mitigate any odour potential.
7.13 Inter-Relationship between Air and Traffic
The maximum impacts on ambient air quality will be experienced within about 10m of the
roadside where the vehicles are passing. The impacts at distances further removed from the
roadside will be insignificant since the pollutants will be rapidly and effectively dispersed as
the distance from the roadside increases.
7.14 Inter-Relationship between Traffic and Noise
The traffic associated with the pig farm has been consistent over the years; however the
delivery trucks, tractors and cars and these will not have a significant impact beyond the site
boundary. There will be an increase in traffic to the proposed development, however these
will be delivery trucks and cars and these will not have a significant impact beyond the site
boundary. The proposed development will not be a source of noise nuisance to neighbouring
dwellings. Road-going vehicles are maintained to the highest standard with exhausts
regularly attend to.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 59
Category
Potential
Environmental
Issues / Effects
Potential
Impacts
- Site
Potential
Impacts -
Customer
Farms
Duration Mitigation Residual
Impact
Human
Beings
Agriculture
and Land
Hydrocarbon -
Mineral Fertilizer
Substitution
Neutral Positive Long
term
Organic fertilizer to replace Hydrocarbon
- Mineral Fertilizer. Increase profitability
by cost reduction in fertilizer
None
Neighbor’s
Application of
Slurry with Low
Trajectory or
land-spreading
Neutral Positive Long
term
Lower odor impacts from land spreading
with modern techniques Slight
Climate
Contribution of
Greenhouse
gases
Positive Positive Long
term
Lower emissions with use of modern
application techniques Positive
Traffic
Contribution of
Greenhouse
gases
Negative Negative Long
term
Minimize traffic volume by optimizing
load sizes. Slight
Noise Slurry deliveries
removal Negative Neutral
Long
term
Slurry removal to be undertaken in
working hours. Slight
Air Generation of
Odours Neutral Positive
Long
term
Use of modern house design, and
nutritional developments Positive
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 60
Water Risk of
Contamination Neutral Negative
Long
term
On site storage tanks bunded,
underground tank with leak detection
system. Code of good practice applied SI
378 Customer Farms, Buffer Zones,
Slight
Category
Potential
Environmental
Issues / Effects
Potential
Impacts
- Site
Potential
Impacts -
Customer
Farms
Duration Mitigation Residual
Impact
Natural
Environment
Flora and
Fauna Habitat Loss Neutral Neutral
Long
term
Existing site of no significant ecological
importance. None
Water
Eutrophication
Neutral Neutral Long
term
On site storage tanks bunded,
underground tank constructed to Dept of
Agriculture Specification. Code of good
practice applied SI 610 of 2010 Customer
Farms, Buffer Zones, Fertilizer Planning.
Slight
Landscape Visual Impact Negative Neutral Long
term
The facility located in Topographical
depression, Buildings with minimal ridge
height, Walls of buildings plastered to
blend to the surroundings.
Slight
Archaeology
Disturbance of
archaeological
finds
Neutral Neutral Long
term
Site not located near any archaeological
sites. Slight
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 61
8. MONITORING
8.1 Drainage from the Site
The Site is within the catchment of the River Aherlow. A drainage ditch forms the eastern
boundary of the Pig farm complex and extends for approximately 200m to the River
Aherlow.
Uncontaminated roof water from the pig unit is collected via the proposed storm-water
collection system as identified on site layout plans included in Appendix 2, to a monitoring
points identified SW1 to the south east of the pig unit, where it then flows into the adjacent
watercourse to the River Aherlow.
A sample will be taken from this monitoring point quarterly and analysed for COD at an
independent laboratory. All soiled water from the site is diverted to the storage tanks. A
visual inspection of this monitoring point will be made and recorded weekly. A copy of the
storm water visual inspection register is included in Appendix 16.
8.2 Groundwater and Surface Water
The water supplying for the farm facility is provided by a private well on site. The water
source is located within the site boundary at ITM co-ordinates 598612, 630019 at an O.D of
53.19. The well is 30m deep with a 150mm bore. A sample of water is taken annually from
this well and tested at an independent laboratory. The result of the most recent test is included
in appendix 4.
8.3 Pig Manure
The pig manure storage capacity on site will be monitored and recorded monthly, and a
record of this register will be kept on site for inspection by the Environmental Protection
Agency, South Tipperary County Council the Department of Agriculture and Food, and any
other regulatory officials at any reasonable time.
A register of all pig manure delivered from the facility will be kept on site. This will record
the date, quantity, destination, N and P content of pig manure supplied to customer farmers.
This will be available for inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency, South
Tipperary County Council the Department of Agriculture and Food, and any other regulatory
officials at any reasonable times. A copy of this register format is included in Appendix 15.
8.4 Other Wastes
A register of all other wastes (i.e. carcasses, veterinary waste, fluorescent tubes, and refuse)
will be maintained on site, recording the date, volume and destination. A copy of these
registers will be available on site for inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency,
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 62
South Tipperary County Council the Department of Agriculture and Food, and any other
regulatory officials at any reasonable time. A copy of this register format is included in
Appendix 18
Carcass Register.
Veterinary Waste Register
Refuse Register
8.5 Accidental Spillages
Pig manure is the only material of concern, as feed and oil storage tanks on site will be
locally bunded. In the case of an accidental spillage occurring, the developer will notify the
Environmental Protection Agency, South Tipperary County Council the Department of
Agriculture and Food, and any other regulatory officials and will take the necessary measures
to clean up such a spillage. An Emergency Response Procedure has been put in place to deal
with such a situation. This procedure is included in Appendix 11 and in the event of any
Emergency situation developing on site which may create an environmental risk. All tankers
will be kept clean.
8.6 Control of Rodents
Staff members successfully carry out the control of rodents on the site. Management insures
that this work is carried out professionally and that proper records are maintained.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL MANGEMENT PROGRAMME
9.1 Introduction
The applicant will implement and maintain a comprehensive monitoring programme on site
to provide maximum protection for the environment. This plan will involve maintaining an
organic fertilizer register and visual inspection of all storm water outlets and leak detection
monitoring points.
9.2 Management of Co-Product Use
The area available for use of pig manure is much greater than that required. Pig manure will
be applied at the rates provided for in the Nitrate Directive Regulations (S.I. no. 610 of 2010).
A delivery register will be maintained on site showing the date, amount of pig manure
delivered the owner and farm code of the land and the volume of N and P delivered. This
register will be available for inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency, South
Tipperary County Council the Department of Agriculture and Food, and any other regulatory
officials at any reasonable times.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 63
9.3 Periods and Rates of Use of Pig Manure
This issue is regulated by the Nitrate Directive Regulations (S.I. No. 610 of 2010), which
provides for application of pig manure in this area between 15 January to 15 October, in
accordance with a fertiliser plan. The applicant, Tankerstown Pig & Farm Enterprises Ltd., is
committed to ensuring that the use of pig manure from this facility, is carried out in
accordance with these regulations, and will advise all customer farmers to comply.
9.4 Reduction of Risk of Disease Spread
The economic viability of a pig production unit at going rates depends primarily on feed
conversion ratio and low mortality. High standards of hygiene will ensure that disease is
controlled and contained. Access to the unit is strictly restricted to control the spread of
disease to the pig herd. The procedures for dealing with dead animals as set down in Section
3.4.2 are standard for the industry.
9.5 De-Commissioning/Life Span of Development
All pig units require a major capital investment every 10-20 years to keep them efficient and
pleasant places to work. So long as this investment is made there is no reason that a unit of
this type could not operate for up to 40 years. However, if for economic reasons or technical
reasons this does not occur decommissioning will take place. All pig manure will be
thoroughly removed from the site. All equipment and materials of value will be salvaged.
Unused feed, medication, and fuel will be returned to suppliers. It is then proposed that the
unit be left standing after making it safe and secure. It is highly unlikely that this scenario
would ever develop due to the high initial capital investment in the unit.
9.6 Depopulation
Depopulation of a unit occurs when a disease such as atrophic rhinitis or haemophilus
pneumonia becomes so rampant on a unit that pig production becomes uneconomic. In this
event, services cease and pigs are sold so that within 6 months the unit is empty of stock. The
unit is left idle for 6 weeks, thoroughly washed and disinfected. After this 6 week period
repopulation commences.
Destocking of a unit or complete slaughter of stock on a unit because of a notifiable disease
has not happened in Ireland for more than 40 years. In the unlikely event of such a disease
outbreak, the Department of Agriculture takes total control. In this event a licensed
contractor, will be engaged, to remove all carcasses from the site in sealed containers, and
delivery of same to a licensed rendering plant.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
NRGE Ltd. Page 64
10. MEASURES ENVISAGED IN ORDER TO AVOID, REDUCE AND IF
POSSIBLE, REMEDY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS.
The measures considered necessary are:
(i) A secure fence around the site and effective landscaping, natural colonisation of earth
embankments where necessary, to screen the installation from obtrusive view from
the public road and to blend it into the rural landscape.
(ii) Provision of a storm water drainage system to properly collect and discharge to field
drainage all clean rainwater from roofs and clean surfaces via monitoring points SW1
as identified in Site Layout Plan, included in Appendix 2.
(iii) Provision of soiled water drains to properly collect any effluent or soiled water and
diverts it to the nearest manure tank.
(iv) The collection and the removal from the site of all pig manure to be used by local
farmers and fertiliser on their farmlands.
(v) The collection and the removal from the site of hazardous waste materials (spent
fluorescent lighting tubes, empty aerosol containers and veterinary waste) generated
on the site. Such wastes removed from the site are to be removed only to sites
authorised or agreed as appropriate for the disposal or recovery of the waste
concerned.
(vi) The collection and the removal from the site of all dead animals and all animal
tissues. Collections are currently undertaken by a licensed contractor, and transport
the carcasses for disposal or recovery at an authorised rendering plant.
(vii) Ensure connection of animal tissue from the site is in appropriate watertight and
covered containers, and timely removal so as to ensure minimal generation or release
of odours either at the site, or during transit to the disposal/recovery destination.
(viii) Monitor and maintain records of all monitoring of storm water discharged from the
site.
(ix) Record and maintain required records of all consignments of waste despatched from
the site.
Implementation of the above will ensure that significant effects on the environment will be
avoided and the risk of incidents of environmental significance will be near zero.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 06-02-2015:23:06:49
