ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR GROVE TURKEYS LIMITED PROCESSING & WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY LOCATED AT SMITHBOROUGH, CO MONAGHAN

Transcription

1 Panther Environmental Solutions Ltd, Unit 4, Innovation Centre, Institute of Technology, Green Road, Carlow, Ireland. Mobile: Telephone /Fax: Website: ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR GROVE TURKEYS LIMITED PROCESSING & WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY LOCATED AT SMITHBOROUGH, CO MONAGHAN Prepared By: Michael Fraher BSc Date: 19 TH December 2007 Report number: 5011

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. Covering Page 1 Table of Contents Introduction & Scope of Work Establishment of Odour Impact Criterion for 4 Turkey Processing & WWTP Odours 1.3 Audit Findings & Results 5 1. Scalder Ventilation 5 2. Waste Water Treatment Plant 5 (A) Inlet Works of WWTP 5 (B) Other Waste Water Treatment Processes 5 (C) Sludge Handlings & Thickening 6 3. Sludge & Offal Management 6 4. Fryer Area Conclusions Recommendations Legislation Pertaining to Odours in Ireland References 12 2

3 1.1 Introduction and Scope of Work Panther Environmental Solutions Ltd were commissioned by Grove Turkeys Ltd to carry out an odour audit and odour impact assessment of the existing processing facility and Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), as a result of further information requested by the EPA in relation to the sites current IPPC licence application. Like the majority of industry, the operation of the Turkey processing and WWTP facility is faced with the issue of preventing odours causing impact to the public at large. Olfactometry using the human sense of smell is the most valid means of measuring odour (Dravniek at al, 1986) and at present is the most commonly used method to measure the concentration of odour. The site has not received an odour complaint in the last 5 years. The main aims of the study included: 1. Assessment of the current odour emission from the turkey processing and WWTP facility. 2. Determine the odour impact area of the existing turkey processing and WWTP facility in accordance with the provisions contained within the BREF publication for the industry. 3. Ascertain the most significant odour sources within the site boundary during the odour audit for routine operations. 4. Provide general recommendations for mitigation measures to reduce the overall odour emission rate and odour impact from the facility in future years. 3

4 1.2 Establishment of Odour Impact Criterion for Turkey Processing & WWTP Odours Odours from turkey processing arise mainly from the following sources: Live turkey intake area. Scalding and plucking process. Offal processing, sorting and storage. Blood Storage. Coarse screening for feathers etc. Storage of blood and offal for transport off-site. Effluent Plant treatment processes. Cooking processes. In certain facilities, drainage and bad house keeping can be a significant source of odours. Spillages and drain liquid from offal storage containers and offal handling can contaminate significant surface areas. The build up of organic matter on rough concrete surfaces can lead to significant emissions especially during warmer summer months. Great care should be taken to ensure the elimination of unscheduled emissions such as these through good housekeeping and management. Odours from WWTP operations arise mainly from the volatilisation of odourous gases from: The surfaces of non-quiescence processes including overflow weirs, returned pumped centrate/liquor above the working height of the tank/channel etc. Anaerobic decay of settles/floating organic debris upon quiescence surfaces including organic matter attached to grit, rags and feathers, organic matter carryover to secondary tanks, etc. Screens operation and build-up of organic debris within screens area. DAF operation and fat storage/handling. Sludge handling operations including dewatering, thickening, storage and transport of raw/processed sludge s offsite and desludging. Turbulent processes within the inlet works, storage of screens (i.e. grit and feathers removal) and DAF process and fat/skim storage. Inefficient odour control/abatement equipment operation and design including loose fittings covers, inefficient extraction and odour control unit failure. Fugitive emissions are generally associated with: Urine and manure (ammonia) odour from the abattoir lairage areas. Blood storage tankers. Macerator equipment used to chop and wash inedible offal. Yard areas used to store skips for gut contents, inedible offal, SRM waste and other animal by products. Effluent treatment plant. Sludge and biosolids removed from the effluent treatment plant. Blocked waste water pipes, gulleys and drains. 4

5 1.3 Audit Findings & Results This section will describe the findings and results obtained during the survey period: 1. Scalder Ventilation After stunning and bleeding, the birds are immersed in a scalding tank to loosen the feathers to facilitate de-feathering. As birds enter the scalding tank they may involuntarily defecate, leading to the accumulation of faecal materials in the water. Currently the Scalder process is ventilated through one fan on the factory roof. The greatest potential for odour emissions from this area is when the scalder tank is emptied to drain at the end of the shift. To counteract this, the drainage pipe from the scalder tank leads directly to an adjacent drain, thereby preventing a large odour being created. During the audit, there was no associated odour detected in the scalder area within the factory or the area adjacent to the factory outside. 2 Waste Water Treatment Plant A) Inlet Works of WWTP: The coarse/fine screens and DAF/fat storage area (inlet works) can be a significant source of odours especially during warmer summer months. Persistent build up of feathers/organic debris can lead to septicity within the screens and result in significant odour emissions. Septic/rancid fats are also sources of odours while the DAF itself can lead to stripping of odours compounds from the waste water. Ideally good management, housekeeping and engineering design can prevent the persistent build up of debris/organic matter and the covering of the turbulent screens/daf process can reduce odours significantly. The DAF fat storage tank should be cleaned and emptied regularly. B) Other Waste Water Treatment Processes: Frequently, the balancing tank is a significant source of odours in waste water treatment plants in the Slaughter house industry but less so in specifically the turkey processing due to the high volume turnover of waste water. In order to prevent this source from becoming a significant source of odours, the waste water liquor should be kept aerobic at all times. An oxygen sensor should be installed in order to monitor the progression of septicity. If septicity is considered a risk, this source should be aerated using fine bubble aeration techniques. In extreme circumstances, covering and negative ventilation to an odour control system is required. 5

6 The potential of septicity of this process within Grove Turkeys should be monitored and preventative action as required (i.e. septicity can be prevalent during warmer summer months). Dissolved oxygen levels in the aeration tank should be maintained above 1 mg/l at all times, in order to prevent septic conditions arising in this tank. C) Sludge Handling & Thickening: All DAF treated sludge (4% solids) is removed to the sludge holding tank and from there is pumped to the in-house centrifuge, which dries this sludge to 20% solids. This dried sludge is pumped to an adjacent skip for storage and transport off-site to rendering. Although not a significant source of odours during the audit, the thickened sludge storage skip should be enclosed to ensure no risk of significant odour emissions. During warmer summer months septicity can develop fast and result in noxious odours being released from such processes. On the day of monitoring the WWTP processes were relatively small in terms of overall odour emissions in this report but, they have a high odour impact risk potential during warmer summer months. A progressive plan should be implemented to ensure high-risk odour sources are mitigated over the coming years. Any new equipment to be installed should be purchased with odour mitigation built into design. 3. Sludge and Offal Management All offal and feathers are stored in separate, sealed trailers in an enclosed area on site, and removed daily for rendering. Blood is pumped to a storage tank adjacent to this area and removed daily to rendering off-site. It is essential that the trailers be removed frequently off site for further processing. All drains should be flushed regularly and significant debris building up should be prevented through design. The yard surface of the turkey intake area should be kept clean at all times. Odour management, minimisation, and mitigation will need to become an inherent part of the process in order to achieve objectives. On the day of the audit, there was a slight offal odour immediately beside the trailer, however as one moves to the site boundary, this odour disappears. The Dead-On-Arrival (DOA) skip is located at the back of factory near the effluent plant. This is considered to be high risk odour emission source. This skip is removed off site 3 times per week for off-site rendering. There was no odour noticeable within a 20 meter radius of the skip, during the day of the audit. 6

7 4. Fryer Area Frying - Fresh drumsticks, gougons, fillets and thighs from the Cut-Up Area are fed into the pre-dust section of the breading line, then covered in batter and crumbed. The conveyor then passes through the fryer and into the tunnel freezer. The fryer unit has two open-ended stacks vented to the factory roof. On the day of the audit, there were no fryer related odours at the site boundary. There was a slight fryer odour immediately adjacent to the stack area outside the factory wall. 1.4 Conclusions On the day of auditing, there were no factory odours detected at the facilities boundary and local sensitive areas. Based on this audit, it is considered that any odour emanating from the factory would be localized and easily corrected. Greatest risk of odour complaint will be prevalent during warmer summer months, which will result in greater emissions from the offal storage and transport and also WWTP processes. An odour management plan should be developed for the operating site, which is in keeping with recommendations by the EPA for such facilities. The WWTP should be revisited in warmer months in order to ensure no additional risk of odour emissions when septicity conditions could prevail. 7

8 1.5 Recommendations 1. Implement an odour management plan. 2. Good housekeeping and auditing should be a key objective of containing and preventing odours from the site. 3. A spillage management plan should be implemented for the operating site. 4. Ensure offal and feather trailers are stored in the designated enclosed and drained area, which is cleaned and flushed regularly. 5. Ensure closed-door management strategy is initiated and maintained on-site. 6. Put drain cleaning plan in place which ensures all drains are flushed regularly and prevent persistent build-up of organic matter in drains by design. 7. Ensure turkey intake area is kept clean and washed down regularly. 8. Ensure proper design, management and maintenance procedures are implemented for any future odour abatement systems which may be required onsite. 9. Minimise the retention of wastewater under anaerobic conditions, especially in the balancing tank to prevent the formation of odourous compounds. 10. An oxygen sensor should be installed in the effluent balancing tank in order to monitor the progression of any septicity. 11. Maintain minimal sludge delay in handling and treatment stages. 12. Ensure the DOA skip remains in its current location and is removed 3 times per week. 8

9 1.6 Legislation pertaining to odours in Ireland Appendix II Information on odours pertaining to Grove Turkeys facility odour impact assessment. The Public Health Act of 1878 introduced legislation to control nuisance in Ireland, but its execution only became viable after the implementation of the Planning and Development Act (1963) (Scannell, 1995). Any industry producing a nuisance was controlled under these regulations and subsequent pressure from environmental lobby groups together with the development of scientific measurement techniques made it practical to quantify and control the release of gaseous environmental pollutants from these enterprises. Odour impact from any facility on the surrounding vicinity may be considered a nuisance. Section 107 of the Public Health Act 1878 states that Sanitary authorities are bound to inspect their district for nuisances. Upon the receipt of any information respecting the existence of a statutory nuisance, the sanitary authority is obliged, if satisfied of the existence of the nuisance, to serve an abatement notice on the person by whose act or default the nuisance arises or continues or, if such a person cannot be found, on the owner or occupier of the premises on which the nuisance arises (Scannell, 1995). In order to control the possible pollution effects of large developments, relevant legislation was enacted under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Act of Private and public sector developers of certain types and sizes of projects are required under section 72(4) of the EPA Act (1992) to submit a copy of an Environmental Impact Statement. If the project is of a class listed in Part II of the first schedule to the 1989 EIA regulations but does not exceed the threshold of criteria specified, the planning authority must require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if it considers the project is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. One of those impacts relates to odour and is defined as environmental pollution in section 4(2) of the EPA Act (1992), as to cause a nuisance through noise or odour and/or adversely affect the countryside or place of special interest (Scannell, 1995). Waste licensing and Integrated Pollution Control Licensing (IPC) (now IPPC) for specified facility types was implemented in 1996 by the EPA and the related guidance note was termed BATNEEC (Best available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost) (i.e. now BAT which complement the BATNEEC Notes) (EPA, 1996). It set out specific conditions for these industries (i.e. Intensive Agricultural Production, Landfills, Waste transfer stations, etc) to be implemented in order to comply with the environmental requirements of the EPA. Minimisation of odour emissions and complaints is one of the requirements of the BATNEEC Guidance Note for industries likely to cause odour emissions. For example, a typical IPC license/waste license condition states that there shall be no emission to the atmosphere of environmental significance and that all operations on site shall be carried out in a manner such that 9

10 air emissions and/or odours do not result in significant impairment and/or interference with amenities beyond the site boundary and at odour sensitive locations in the area (EPA, 1996). Local authorities and the EPA have responsibility for ensuring enterprises meet their planning and environmental requirements. Where these facilities are found to be causing odour nuisance, local government enforces Section 29 of the 1987 Air Pollution Act and serves the offenders with an abatement notice. If the facility is licensed as an IPC or Waste enterprise, the EPA can enforce the conditions of the license and either serves the facility with non-compliances for odour detected beyond the site boundary or prosecute the facility and seek a high court injunction to close the facility. Verification for the presence of odour nuisance usually encompasses the licensing officer visiting the facility and detecting the odour beyond the boundary. In December 2005, the Department of Environment published Statutory Instrument (SI) 787 for the regulation of odours and noise from WWTP s. The main conclusions to be drawn from this SI 787 of 2005 include: A sanitary authority shall ensure that in formulating and approving plans for a waste water treatment plant to be provided by the authority or on its behalf the plant is so designated and constructed as to ensure that it avoids causing nuisance through odours or noise, A sanitary authority shall ensure that any waste water treatment plant under the sanitary authority s control is so operated and maintained as to ensure that it avoids causing nuisance through odours or noise. It would also appear that SI 787 provides jurisdiction to the EPA to regulate WWTP for such nuisances and enforce the EPA Act (1992) For the purpose of Article 3(b) of these Regulations, the Agency shall be required to ensure compliance of waste water treatment plants with the requirements of the said Article 3(b), and the provisions of section 63 of the Environment Protection Agency Act 1992 (No. 7 of 1992) shall apply accordingly. As part of SI 787 of 2005 the planning authority where granting permission for a development in accordance with section 34 of the Act of 2000 consisting of the provision of a waste water treatment plant attach such conditions to the permission as may be, in the opinion of the authority and having regard to the function of the Agency under Article 4 of these Regulations, necessary to ensure that the plant is so operated and maintained as to ensure that it avoids causing nuisance through odours or noise. Additionally, in considering an appeal to planning, Board Pleanala shall include such conditions as may be necessary in its opinion to ensure that the plant is so operated and maintained as to avoid causing nuisance through odours or noise. Although it is not unusual for statutory instruments not to include numerical values for the control of odour nuisance, it is apparent that there should not be odour nuisance from WWTP s in Ireland and so should be designed and operated to eliminate odour nuisance (Sheridan, 2002). Although SI 787 of 2005 is not directly 10

11 related to this enterprise, it is interesting to observe the constant tightening of regulations on odour. Since this facility is essentially a slaughter house (as classified under BREF), guidance on the control odours can be obtained from such publications. The EPA in licensing such a facility will extract directly the techniques and methods used to control odours as published within the document unless the facility under licensing can demonstrate their respective techniques are BAT. 11 EPA Export :22:45:37

12 1.7 References Best Available Techniques (BAT), BAT Guidance Note on Best Available Techniques for the Slaughtering Sector. Series issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ireland. BREF Reference Document, European Commission (2005). IPPC, Reference document on Best Available Techniques in the Slaughterhouses and Animal by products industries. EPA, (2001). Odour impacts and odour emission control measures for intensive agriculture. Commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ireland. OdourNet UK Ltd. EPA, (2006). Draft BAT guidance note on Best Available Techniques for the Slaughtering Sector. 12 EPA Export :22:45:37