11 To: Directors. IW Date: This document has been cleared for submission to the Director by the Programme Manager, Frank Clinton

Transcription

1 ~~ This document has been cleared for submission to the Director by the Programme Manager, Frank Clinton W Date: or/@y/&vj Signed: A, h~ OFFCE 11 To: Directors From: Gavin Clabby - Licensing Unit Date: lst August 2012 RE: REVEW OF AN PPC LCENCE FROM GROVE TURKEYS LMTED, LCENCE REGSTER PO Licensee: CRO No.: Location of nstallation: Classes of activity: Categories of Activity under PPC Directive (2008/1/EC): Grove Turkeys Limited Smithsborough, County Monaghan 7.4.1: The operation of slaughter houses with a carcass production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day, 11.1: The recovery or disposal of waste in a facility within the meaning of the Act of 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 V is in force or in respect of which a licence under the said Part is or will be required. 6.4(a) and (l)b notice sent: Review form received: Notices under Article 90 issued: nformation under Article 90 received: Submissions received: 28/07/ / 10/201 09/ 12/2011, 03/07/ /05/20 12, 04/07/20 12 Two (02/12/2011, 15/12/11) 1

2 1.0 Reason for Licence Review The EPA (The Agency) granted Grove Turkeys Limited, PPC licence Register Number P , on the 18th November 2008 for the installation located at Smithsborough, County Monaghan. The installation is involved in the slaughtering of turkeys (production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day) and associated processing activities. On the 28th July 2011, the Agency initiated a review of the PPC licence register number PO The review was initiated by writing to the Licensee and by placing a newspaper notice in the rish ndependent. The reasons for initiating this review are in light of requirements under the following Regulations: (1) The European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009 (2) The European Communities Environmental Objectives (Ground Water) Regulations Emissions to Surface Waters The process effluent discharges at SWl to the Magherarney River (see appendix for site location map). The existing waste water treatment plant (WWTP) comprises of the following unit processes: Screening and Balancing, Dissolved Air Flotation, Anoxic Tank, Aeration Tank, Final Clarifier, Sand Filtration. There is also sludge thickening and dewatering. Nutrient removal occurs by denitrification (in the anoxic zone of the WWTP). Orthophosphate in the final effluent is limited to 1 mg/l, with no breaches of this limit recorded in recent Annual Environmental Reports (AERs). Priority substances are not limited in the discharge. The installation operates 12 months of the year, with increased activity towards the end of the year, in preparation for the Christmas season, with a subsequent and significant increase in load to the WWTP. Monitoring data for 2011 supplied by the Licensee indicates that the effluent flow rate doubles for October and November, and is seven times the annual average during December. During the period of low activity the Licensee has the provision to import effluent for treatment (spare capacity and plant stability reasons), which is the basis for the Class 11.1 inclusion in the current licence. To date, this provision has not been utilised by the Licensee. The current licence does not specify any limitations on the quantity and nature of the effluent which may be imported. Condition 8.11 of the current licence requires that the Licensee submit a proposal for the importation of effluent. However, no proposal has yet been submitted. Also, during periods of low flow in the Magherarney River (below 0.07 m3/day), Condition 6.19 of the current licence requires that sufficient WWTP effluent must be diverted for landspreading, to ensure that any residual effluent discharge via SW1 does not result in the breach of the relevant EQSs. All storm water emissions and surface water run-off from the installation enters the WWTP via the balancing tank. No other emissions to waters occur at this installation. However, BAT' for the sector requires the separation of non-process water from process water. BAT Guidance Note on Best Available Techniques for the Slaughtering Sector (1st Edition) EPA,

3 Condition 3.19 of the Recommended Determination (RD) requires the Licensee to submit a proposal for the diversion of uncontaminated surface waters away from the WWTP Receiving waters and impact The following table summarises the main considerations in relation to the impact of the WWTP discharges on the Magherarney River. Table 2.1 Receiving waters Characteristic Receiving water name and code WFD Status nformation Magherarney River (WFD code: E-N W ) Physico-chemical status: good Ecological status: poor Comment Drains into River Finn (Monaqhan). Poor status based on ecological status (macroinvertebrates). WFD Risk la (2008) EPA stations monitoring Biological quality rating (Q value) Chemical status Objective is to restore by 2021 RS36M Bridge 2km NE of Smith borough RS36M Bridge east of Smith borough RS36M Maqherarney Bridge 43 (2010) good (u/s) 43 (2010) good (d/s) Upstream: BOD good status, MRP and ammonia less than good status Restore date extended on basis of aaricultural inouts. Waterbody identified as at risk from diffuse source (agriculture) and point source (UWWT). dentified as not at risk from PPC sources. 4 km upstream of SW1 2 km upstream of SW1 1 km downstream of SWl RS36MO RS36M RS36M Protected areas WMU Action Plan Downstream: BOD, MRP and ammonia less than qood status none Erne East WMU RS36M WMUAP states: Moderate pollution of suspected agricultural origin continued. Continuing unsatisfactory. ndustry also impacts. ntensive agriculture has impacted on river. However, installation not identified as risk or pressure. 3

4 Receivina water background quality According to the Erne East Water Management Unit Action Plan (WMUAP) published by the North West River Basin District in 2010, the overall status of the Magherarney is poor. (This is due to poor macroinvertebrate status. The physico-chemical status is good.) The overall objective for the waterbody is the achievement of good status by The WFD objective target of 2015 was extended to 2021 in this instance to allow time for the reduction of agricultural phosphorous inputs. There are two EPA monitoring stations upstream of the installation, which provide data for determining the background quality of the Magherarney, prior to the SW1 discharge. A Q- value (biotic index) of 3 (moderate) is given for monitoring station RS36M010150, which is 2 km upstream of SW1. Chemical monitoring data (mean data sets), on the other hand, is available at monitoring station RS36M010100, which is 4 km upstream of the discharge. The mean values of this long term chemical monitoring data, taken from the Water Quality in reland report, indicate that the good status (mean standard) is observed for BOD but not for orthophosphate (MRP) or total ammonia. The WMUAP identifies agriculture as the main source of pollution in the Magherarney River. t states that over 90% of phosphorus load in the catchment is diffuse, with agriculture representing the largest source of diffuse nutrients (86%). 1 mpact of proposed discharaes Background Under this review, and for compliance with Article 7 of the Surface Waters Regulations, the three key discharge parameters considered for impact assessment are BOD, MRP and ammonia. The current ELV for BOD is 10 mg/l. The current ELVs for MRP (as P) and ammonia (as N) are both 1 mg/l. EPA monitoring was used for the BOD background concentration. The EPA background data indicated elevated MRP and ammonia. Given that the WMUAP identifies agriculture as the main source of pollution in the Magherarney River, it was considered reasonable to use an adjusted background in the mass balance calculations for ammonia and phosphorous. As the ELVs are already relatively low, there is limited scope for reducing any potential load to the receiving water by lowering ELVs. Calculations show that the licence could not be brought in to compliance with the Surface Waters Regulations by a reasonable reduction in ELVs alone. However, as noted in Section 2.0, there are significant seasonal variations in load to the WVVTP, with the installation only requiring a fraction of its current daily discharge limit for the majority of the calendar year (from January through to September). Therefore, for the duration of low flows in the river, the potential impact of the discharge can be significantly attenuated by reducing the daily discharge volume allowable under a revised licence. Conversely, higher discharge volumes are feasible during winter river flow conditions (Median flow would be considered conservative for wintertime.) On this basis, it is considered prudent and practical to use a combination of reduced discharge volume limits and alternate river flow rates in the impact assessment of the proposed discharges, thus:! 4

5 Low activity at the installation: January to September The impact of proposed discharges during January to September has been assessed against the 95%ile flow rate (0.035 m3/sec), and by reducing the current daily volume discharge limit from 1,600 m3/day to 300 m3/day. n this scenario the volume of the upstream flow of the receiving water is 10 times that of the maximum allowable discharge. Tables 2.2a below summarises the impact of SWl at the proposed licence limits for concentration and flow during the low activity season, under 95%ile river flow conditions and using the appropriate background concentration. The predicted downstream concentrations are then compared against the relevant 95%ile EQS. Table 2.2a: Mass Balance for proposed discharges - SWl (Jan - Sep) Parameter Background Current Proposed Concentration ELVs ELVs (mg/l) (ms/l) (ms/l) Contribution from the discharge Note (ms/l) Predicted downstream concentration Note 3 Note 4 (ms/l) 950loile EQS good status (ms/l) BOD P04-P Note *60 ammonia - N Note Note 1: Mass balance calculated on proposed daily volume dischar e of 300 m lday. Note 2: Adjusted background: midpoint between high and good status (mean standard). Note 3: Based on proposed ELVs. Note 4: European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations The table above shows that with the proposed limits, the predicted downstream concentrations for BOD, MRP and ammonia are estimated to be compliant with the relevant EQS. These proposed limits aim to achieve good status in the Magherarney River, and on this basis, are regarded as compliant with the Surface Waters Regulations. High activity at the installation: October to December The impact of potential discharges during October to December has been assessed against the median flow (0.335 m3/sec), rather than 95%ile flow rate (0.035 m3/sec), and by using the current daily volume discharge limit of 1,600 m3/day. n this scenario the volume of the upstream flow of the receiving water is 18 times that of the maximum allowable discharge. Again, EPA monitoring was used for the BOD background concentration, and an adjusted background was used for MRP and ammonia. Tables 2.2b below summarises the impact of SW1, at the proposed licence limits for concentration and flow during the high activity season, under median flow conditions and using the appropriate background concentration. The predicted downstream concentrations are then compared against the relevant 95%ile EQS. Median flow conservatively estimated from EPA hydrometric data in conjunction with the EPA Hydrotool. 5

6 Table 2.2b: Mass Balance for proposed discharges - SWl (Oct - Dec) Parameter Adjusted Current Proposed Background ELVs ELVs Concentration (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) Contribution from the discharge (mg/l) Predicted downstream concentration Note 2 950loile EQS good status Note3 BOD P04-P Note ' ammonia - N Note 1: Mass t ilance calculated on proposed daily volume dischar e of 1,600 m3/day an median flow conditions in river. Note 2: Adjusted background: midpoint between high and good status (mean standa-rd). Note 3: Based on proposed ELVs. Note 4: European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations The table above shows that with the proposed limits, the predicted downstream concentrations for BOD, MRP and ammonia are estimated to be compliant with the relevant EQS. These proposed limits aim to achieve good status in the Magherarney River, and on this basis, are regarded as compliant with the Surface Waters Regulations. Recommended Determination The RD proposes to carry forward the current concentration ELVs for BOD and to marginally reduce the ammonia (as N) ELV from 1 mg/l to 0.9 mg/l. n addition, the RD also proposes to reduce the orthophosphate (as P) limit from 1 mg/l to 0.5 mg/l. (The RD also proposes to reduce the total phosphorous limit accordingly from 2mg/l to 1 mg/l.) All proposed ELVs are currently achievable. The RD also proposes to continue the current daily volume discharge limit (1,600 m3/day) for the months of October to December inclusive, but to reduce the limit to 300 m3/day for the remainder of the calendar year. The RD also stipulates hourly flow rates to ensure that the specified daily volumes are discharged evenly over a 24-hour period. These two flow limits will give the Licensee the required flexibility for the installation's annual production schedule. However, Schedule 8.2 of the RD also sets annual mass emission limits for BOD, ammonia and orthophosphate, to ensure that, on an annual basis, any additional load over what can be provided for under 95%ile flow conditions can meet the mean standards. These annual limits are based on the 300 m3 daily discharge limit. All other ELVs in the current licence are carried forward in the RD. Condition 6.17 of the current licence requires the licensee to divert the WWTP effluent to an approved landbank when the flow in the Magherarney River falls below a critical level. This condition has not been carried forward in the RD. The proposed limits aim to achieve the relevant EQSs under all permitted conditions, and, therefore, the landspreading of the WWTP effluent is not considered to be necessary. f the Licensee, at any stage, does consider landspreading of WVVTP effluent is necessary, then this may done in accordance with the S.. No. 610 of 20103, and with the agreement of the Agency. j 3 European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2010 (S.. No. 610 of 2010) 6

7 During the period of low activity the Licensee has the provision to import effluent for treatment (spare capacity and plant stability reasons), which is the basis for the Class 11.1 inclusion in the current licence. Class 11.1 is carried forward in the RD. However, Condition 8.13 of the RD also requires prior written agreement with the Agency on the nature and source of the effluent, as well as the estimated volumes and frequency of importation. Schedule A.l of the RD limits the waste-related processes, allowed under Class 11.1, to those agreed under Condition Furthermore, the potential to import effluent for on-site treatment is significantly reduced due to the 300m3/day discharge limit and the requirement to meet the annual mass emission limits. n addition, Condition 11.9 and Schedule C.4 specify requirements for the handling, storage, monitoring and recording of any imported effluent. 2.3 Emission Controls and Environmental Quality Standards The ELV s specified in the RD have been established according to the combined approach whereby the stricter of the requirements which would result from the application of limits which aim to achieve the receiving water quality standards and the application of discharge limits based on BAT, as well as any other relevant specific standards or any objectives for protected areas. The ELVs specified in this RD have been set with the aim of achieving the environmental objectives and standards established in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations Emissions to Groundwater Landspreading of organic waste/organic fertiliser (including WWTP sludge and effluent) represents a diffuse source of potential pollutant input to groundwater. The licensee states that W P sludge is currently sent for landspreading. The OEE is satisfied that this is the case. The RD also updates the existing landspreading conditions and includes specific reference to the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations There are no other emissions to groundwater originating from the installation. As per Schedule C.6 Groundwater Monitoring of the current licence, the Licensee is required to monitor the groundwater from the main borehole on site every 6 months. The OEE is satisfied with the monitoring of this borehole. However, the OEE requires the Licensee to monitor at two additional existing boreholes on site to give a better representation of groundwater conditions. Schedule C.6 of the RD includes this requirement. Condition 3.16 of the RD updates the requirements for the installation s treatment system and percolation area for sanitary effluent. n general, the requirements specified in the RD aim to achieve the environmental objectives and standards set out in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Ground Water) Regulations

8 4.0 Updating the existing licence The RD has transposed all relevant existing licence conditions from PO into the Agency s current licence format. Consequently, the RD specifies amendments and additional requirements With reference to the condition and schedule numbers in the RD, table 3 summarises the amendments made to the existing licence as a result of to the following; 0 Requirements specified in existing licence being achieved (timeline exceeded), 0 Clarifications and new requirements of existing licence conditions with regard to landspreading activities, 0 Requirements specified in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009, 0 Requirements specified in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations Also, the following conditions from PO have been deleted in their entirety in the RD: 3.9 (Firewater Retention), 3.19 (Effluent Storage), 6.1 (Test Programme) 6.13 (Storm Water). The actions required from these conditions were confirmed by the OEE to have been completed, or are longer required in the RD. 8

9 Table 3: List of new or amended conditions proposed in the RD Conditionor Reason for Description Schedule No. Condition 1.7 chanqe Clarification of scope Condition 3.16 Updating condition for better management and control of site Condition 3.18/3.19 Condition 6.12 Better management and control of site Better monitorinq Condition 6.18, Better monitoring 8,7/Sc hedu le C.4 Condition 8.9 Better materials handlinq Condition 8.14, Updating conditions for the better management and control of site./new leqislation Condition 11.3, Updating notification reauirements Condition Updating reporting requirements Condition Schedule A.1 Schedule B.2 Schedule C.4 Schedule C.6 Better financial provision Clarification of scope Licence substitution. Treatment of sanitary effluent. Surface waters proposal/silt traps and oil separators. Groundwater monitorina. Waste and material monitoring. mporting waste into, and exporting waste out of, the State. Landspreading nland Fisheries. Organic waste/organic fertilisers reqister. Annual revision of costs Limitations set on the import of waste allowed under Class 11.1 referenced to Condition New ELV MRP, TP and ammonia reduction/new requirements discharge volume limits. Annual mass emission limits set for BOD, MRP and ammonia. Better monitor i ng Clarification Monitorinq of imported effluent. of Monitoring locations not agreed with licence requirements the Agency (as required by current licence) Six month deadline set in RD. 5.0 Cross Office Liaison The Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE) confirmed the approved changes declared by the Licensee in the review form. t also confirmed that any relevant Conditions or Schedules in the current licence which required actions to be completed, could be amended or removed from the RD, due to those actions being completed. The Office of Environmental Assessment was consulted in relation to percentile flows in the Magherarney River. 9

10 Submissions Two submissions were received: A. Brian McKeever, Principal Environmental Health Officer, Health Service Executive. B. Noel O Connor of the Climate Change Section, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Brian McKeever Mr McKeever refers to the tables B 0) and B 00 in the review form. He highlights the fact that temperature is not included in the characteristics of the emission. He also highlights the fact that chlorides in the emission must not go above 100 mg/l after November He also states that table D10) Receiving Water Quality was not completed and also that the distance to the nearest protected area was not specified. The Agency acknowledges that temperature, which is a characteristic of the emission, is not included in this table. However, the Licensee has submitted SW1 monitoring data for 2011, which includes temperature data. (Data indicates the installation was compliant with the temperature ELV for the twelve months.) The same data indicates that the Licensee was also compliant with the relevant chlorides ELV (400 mg/l) for the duration of the year up to and including October. The Licensee appears to have breached the lower ELV (100 mg/l) effective from November 18th Subsequent discharges must be compliant with the lower limit. As in the current licence, the RD requires that chlorides in the SW1 discharge are kept below 100 mg/l. Receiving water quality was submitted in the review form as attachment D.l The Agency are satisfied that there no water dependent protected areas within a considerable distance of the installation. Noel O Connor Mr O connor states he has no comment to make regarding this review.! 10

11 Charges The charge specified in the RD of is E5,020.61, as per the OEE invoiced charges for Recomrnenda ti on recommend that a Proposed Determination be issued subject to the conditions and for the reasons as drafted in the RD. Signed Procedural Note n the event that no objections are received to the Proposed Determination of the review, a licence will be granted in accordance with Section 87(4) of the Environmental Protection Agency Acts 1992 and 2011 as soon as may be after the expiration of the appropriate period. 11