In compliance with Art October 2001 PD issued: First party objection received: Third party objections: One, An Taisce,

Transcription

1 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 1 March 2002 TO: FROM: RE: The Members of the Board Technical Committee Objection to a Proposed Determination (PD) for Electricity Supply Board Shannonbridge, Co Offaly. IPC Register No Application Details Name of applicant: Electricity Supply Board IPC Register No. 611 Location of activity: Class of activity: Shannonbridge, County Offaly. 2.1 The production of energy in combustion plant the rated thermal input of which is equal to or greater than 50 MW. Licence application received: 23 March 2001 In compliance with Art October 2001 PD issued: The recovery or disposal of waste in a facility, within the meaning of the Waste Management Act, 1996, which facility is connected or associated with another activity specified in this Schedule in respect of which a licence or revised licence under Part IV is in force or in respect of which a licence under the said Part is or will be required. First party objection received: None Third party objections: One, An Taisce, Company ESB propose to construct a new peat-fired power station with 150 MW gross electrical capacity (360 MW th input) adjacent to the site of the existing Shannonbridge Generating Station. A landfill for the disposal of up to 825,000 tonnes of peat ash in an adjacent harvested bog is part of this proposed determination. The site of the proposed power station is owned by the ESB. The site of the proposed ash landfill is owned by Bord na Mona. The landfill is to be operated by ESB. The Electricity Supply Board (ESB) is a statutory corporation established under the terms of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act. 1

2 Consideration of the Objections The Technical Committee, comprising of Dr J Derham (Chair), Ms Annette Prendergast and Mr Marc Kierans, has considered all of the issues raised in the Objections and this report details the Committee s comments and recommendations following the examination of the objections on 12/2/02. The Technical Committee also had regard to the contents of an Agency letter reply from Mr Paddy Nolan, Programme Manager, to Mr T Timothy of An Bord Pleanala: letter dated Third Party Objection An Taisce comprised an open letter detailing points of objection, comments and recommendations. Supporting documentation was appended to their objection. The latter is a reasoned opinion from the EU Commission in relation to the EIA process in Ireland. An Taisce comment that the EIA process is flawed and cite the EU document to support their case. The Agency is implementing National statute in relation to the EIA process. The concern raised is a matter for the Government, accordingly the Technical Committee consider any examination of the statutory EIA process is outside of their technical remit. The other points of objection raised by An Taisce are considered below. 1. CO 2 Emissions: An Taisce object to the PD on the grounds that the EIA did not include an assessment of the CO2 emissions and the impact on the atmospheric environment in terms of Sustainable Development.. Comment: A similar submission was made in relation to the application for this permit and the matter discussed in the Inspectors report to the Board (dated ). An extract form that report follows; The issues surrounding the use of peat for the generation of electricity are a matter for the Government. The EPA has received confirmation from the Department for the Environment that the CO 2 emissions from the new peat fired power stations have been included in the National Climate Change Strategy. Proposed annual CO 2 emissions of around 1.3 Mt/a represent about 2% of national emissions The EIS submitted as part of the licence application comments on CO 2 emissions in the Climate section of the documentation. The Technical Committee are satisfied that this matter as been adequately addressed. 2. EIA Process: An Taisce object to the PD on the grounds that the EIA did not address the environmental costs of the peat extracted to feed this plant. Comment: The authorisation and regulation of peat harvesting operations are subject to separate permit arrangements. The harvesting is carried out by operators who are not connected with the operators of the power plant. It would be unreasonable to carry out an assessment of all suppliers of services and goods to an applicant operation. The EIA for an independent gas power plant does not include the gas field nor the national gas grid delivery pipe-line. Both being subject to independent authorisations. The peat harvesting operations are subject to planning control as may arise, and to separate IPC licensing. 2

3 3. EIA Process: An Taisce object to the PD on the grounds that the EIA did not address the interaction of [environmental] factors. Comment: The inspectors report to the Board accompanying the PD has dealt with this matter. It states that the inspector is satisfied that Article 14(1) of the EPA (Licensing) Regulations (1994), has been complied with. Having regard to this and the nature, detail and range of conditions in the PD for the subject site, the Technical Committee is satisfied that the area of concern has been satisfactorily addressed. 4. CO 2 Emissions: An Taisce wish that CO 2 emissions are included in the energy audit (Condition 10.2). Comment: The condition as drafted says the scope of the audit is to be agreed with the Agency. This matter can be considered at that stage. In any case CO 2 emissions are to be reported under Condition Carbon Sink: An Taisce would wish that the loss of carbon sink in the peat harvesting areas to be included in the CO 2 equation. Comment: This request would go beyond the legal scope of Condition 10.2 in the PD. See also comments on Objections #1 and #2 above. 6. Biomass: An Taisce want the amount of short rotation biomass used on site to be specified in the AER. Comment: Condition 5.8 as currently drafted requires the licensee to report the total annual amount of energy input. Oil and peat are specified. Biomass is not. Condition 5.8 is reported in the AER. Condition 10.1 addresses the biomass issue in relation to energy audits. Recommendation: Amend Condition 5.8 as follows. The licensee shall report the total annual amount of energy input, related to the net calorific value, broken down in terms of peat, short rotation biomass and distillate oil, and the total carbon dioxide emission annually, as part of the AER 3

4 7. Biomass & EMS: An Taisce wish the licence included an obligation to use short-rotation biomass in the Objectives and Targets of the Environmental Management System provisions in the PD. Comment: This matter is already addressed in Schedule 6(i) under Objectives & Targets. See also Conditions 10.1 and Ambient Monitoring: An Taisce wish that off-site ambient air quality monitoring be included in the licence. Comment: The air emission ELV s set in the PD are intended to ensure there is no significant impact off-site. Modelling produced as part of the application shows that none of the national ambient air standards will be breached by emissions form this activity. In addition, continuous monitoring of air stack emissions is required. For these reasons the Technical Committee consider ambient monitoring to be unnecessary. 9. Condition 6.12 & Schedule 2(iv): (A) - An Taisce recommend that surface water analysis should be undertaken when flows are lowest, and low flow data should be provided prior to construction. (B) - An Taisce also want the commitment given in the EIS to monitor twice a year at high and low flows to be incorporated in the licence. (C) - An Taisce also wants the monitoring of macro-invertebrates to be included in the licence condition. Comment: (A) & (B) - Flow data is included in the EIS. In addition the EPA publishes flow data for the Shannon. Condition 6.12 already specifies that the monitoring should be twice yearly, at high and low flows. (C) - Condition 6.12 requires the biological as well as chemical monitoring of the river. Schedule 2(iv) specifies that toxicity (i.e. biological) testing is required biannually upstream and downstream of the Shannon discharge. Macro-invertebrates are one of the communities likely to be within the scope of the biological monitoring (which has to be agreed with the Agency). However, for clarity it can be stated in the condition to include macro-invertebrates. Recommendation: text: Insert into Condition 6.12 after the word biological the following (including macro-invertebrates) 4

5 Overall Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of the Agency grant a licence to the applicant (i) for the reasons outlined in the proposed determination and (ii) subject to the conditions and reasons for same in the Proposed Determination, and (iii) subject to the amendments proposed in this report. Signed Dr Jonathan Derham for and on behalf of the Technical Committee 5