nn?nc'A I Technical Committee Report

This report has been cleared for Submission to

Date: yhip$ * the B Signe

mme Man e . P dd Nolan

I/ FROM: Technical Committee - LICENSING UNIT I DATE: 1311 112007

RE: Objection to Proposed Decision PO79501 for Cadbury Ireland Limited, Shinnagh Rathmore County

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

Location of activity:

Application received: 3 / 7/2006

Shinnagh, Rathmore, County Kerry

PD issued:

First patty objection received:

Third Patty Objection received

19/7/ 2007

15/8/2007

None

Company

Cadbury Ireland Limited is a subsidiary of Cadbury-Schweppes plc., a global manufacturer of confectionary and beverage products. Cadbury Ireland Limited's Rathmore installation manufactures milk chocolate crumb, an intermediate product in the manufacture of milk chocolate, for markets worldwide. The plant is in operation since 1948, and produced 46,000 tonnes of crumb in 2005. Projected production for 2007 - 2010 is 65,000 tonnes per annum.

The installation is located on a 5.4 hectare site, adjacent to the River Blackwater, and approximately 2km from the village of Rathmore, Co. Kerry. The plant is bounded to the south by the R582 Rathmore to Millstreet road, to the north by the River Blackwater, and to the east and west by agricultural land. The installation is also serviced by the N72 Dungarvan to Killarney road, located to the North of the plant. The Mallow to Tralee railway line divides the installation, with the wastewater

1

Technical Committee Report PO79.5-01

treatment plant lying on the northern side of the line, and the rest of the installation lying to the south. The plant currently employs 115 people, and operates 24 hours per day, seven days a week, 50 weeks per annum.

Some of the facilities on site pre-date the Planning Acts, and the company has full planning permission for all other developments. The installation was granted a single media licence for discharge to waters in 1993, and the company's Environmental Management System is certified to IS014001.

Consideration of the Objection

The technical committee, comprising of Kevin Motherway (Chair) and Maeve McHugh has considered all of the issues raised in the First Party Objection and this report details the Committee's comments and recommendations following the examination of the objections together with discussions with the inspector, Sean O'Donoghue, who also provided comments on the points raised. The hydrometrics section of the Office of Environmental Assessment and the Water Services laboratory of Cork County Council and the Water Services Authority in Kerry County were also consulted. No valid third Party Objections were received.

Note on Phosphorous Terminology

The PO refers to both Orthophosphate and Total Phosphorous (as P). In the interests of brevity and to avoid confusion the TC have used the term Molybdate Reactive Phosphorous or MRP (equivalent to Orthophosphate and the term used in the Phosphorous Regulations, S.I. 258 of 1998) throughout this report when discussing Orthophosphate, with the final proposed conditions reflecting the terminology of Orthophosphate and Total Phosphorous.

Total Phosphorous/ Orthophosphate Conversion factor

Orthophospate makes up the bulk of Total Phosphorous, with the remainder being condensed (complexed) phosphates and organic phosphate. Where little or no organophosphates are used in a process such as the dairy industry it is to be expected that the Orthophosphate will comprise a very high percentage of the Total Phosphorous. In the application the applicant states that the ratio of Orthophosphate to Total Phosphorous is "above 0.9:l". Assessment by the TC of Orthophosphate (MRP) and Total Phosphorous monitoring data submitted to the Agency, show a consistent value of approximately 0.92 over the period August 2006 to August 2007 and so the TC have used a conversion factor of 0.92.

Otthophosphate (MRP) / 0.92 = Total Phosphorous.

The TC note that while examining this data that 22 out of 46 (or 48% of) measurements of Total Phosphorous were in excess of the Waste Water Discharge Licence limit of 5.5 kg/day. The Regional Team Leader of OEE has been informed of this fad.

2

Technical Committee Report PO 795-01

First Party Objection

A.1. Emission Limits Values and timeframe for Phosphorous in discharge.

The Licensee lodged an objection to both the proposed emission limits for MRP fiom SWI and the proposed schedule for the achievement of the emission limits. The PD outlined an emission limit of 0.27 kg/day MRP to be achieved by 31& December 2010 with a limit of 1.35 kg/day MRP applying before this date. The applicant requests a 12-month period to achieve an emission limit of 1.35 kg/day MRP and that this emission limit be retained, instead of a limit of 0.27 kg/day MRP applying after 2010. The applicant p0in.b out that a limit of 0.27 kg/day MRP equates to a concentration of only 0.3 mg/l MRP for a dscharge of 900 &/day. The applicant notes that the Agency have applied a 95%-ile ffow in determining the EL V for MRP and outline why they believe a medan ffow is more appropr/bte, considering the wordng of the Phosphorous Regulations. The applicant outlines Lhe Q-rating trends in the River Blackwater and argue that they are not impacting on water quality. They argue that by i& nature a 95%-ile ffow will be a rare event and their dscharge volumes are generally higher at times of high rahfall and hence times of higher ffow and assimilative capacity in the receivtng waters. They also argue that although assimifaat-ive capacity calculations predict a rise in the level of MRP that monitoring fiom 2002 - 2006 has not shown this to be the case and that an EL V of 1.35 kg/day MRP will provide adequate protection for the envtronment. The applicant also notes that the WWTP in Rathmore, located upstream of the installation/ is having an impact on the assimilative capacity of the receiving water. The applicant also stresses the technical dHcu1tie.s in achieving a MRP concentration of only 0.3 mg/l in their dscharge.

Technical Com mittee’s Evaluation :

The applicant proposed to maintain their current maximum discharge volume of 900 m3/day, with a reduction in their current loading of Phosphorous. In their application the applicant proposed an ELV of 2 mg/l MRP. Based on calculations carried out by the TC this would result in a loading of 1.8 kg/day and would use up just under 101% of the available Assimilative capacity of 1.79 kg/day in the Blackwater River (based on data supplied by the applicant: a median flow of 2.07 m3/sec, a background concentration of 0.02 mg/l and a target background downstream ambient concentration of 30 pg/l as per the Phosphorous Regulations).

In line with Agency policy at the time, the licensing inspector’s report calculated the assimilative capacity based on the 95 Vi-ile flow in the receiving water and determined a capacity of no greater than 0.27 kg/day MRP so that the 30 pg/l MRP target value identified in the Phosphorous Regulations and the Cork County Council Phosphorous Measures Report should not be breached. At a discharge of 900 m3/day this equates to an ELV concentration value of 0.3 mg/l MRP.

3

Technical Commiitee Report PO 795-01

Following a policy declslon by the Agency whlch clarlfled the use of median (50%-ile) flows to calculate the assimilative capacity for phosphorous the TC re-examined the available data and have recalculated the assimilative capacity.

MRP Surface Water monitoring p i n - in the Rathmore Area.

In the objection the applicant has submitted MRP data for Station 18B02/200 on the Backwater River at Nohoval Bridge, arguing that the background MRP is 20 pg/I. The TC believe that the use of data from Nohwal Bridge is inappropriate as it is before the confluence of the Cullavaw Stream which conveys the loading from the Rathmore Wwrp to the t ier Blackwater. The MRP value is 25 pg/I at Station 400 (on river 18802) downstream of both the Rathmore Wwrp and the installation. Station 18602/300 (a Cork County Council Salmonid monitoring station) located at Duncannon Bridge downstream of Rathmore Uwwrp and upstream of Cadbury has a median concentration of 24 pg/l (based on monthly data from 2002-2007 supplied by Cork County Council). It is the view of the TC that an MRP level of 24 pg/l represen& the most appropriate value to be consldered as the background Median MRP value for assimilative capacity calculations In the recelvfng waters. This means that the background concentration component of the assimilative capacity calculation is higher than previously thought (this tends to reduce the assimilative capacity).

4

Technical Committee Report PO795-01

Hydrometric Data

The TC consulted with the hydrometrics section in the Office of Environmental Assessment (OEA) who derived a median flow at Duncannon Bridge (ca. 100 m upstream of the installation) of 2.13 m3/sec. This is higher than the value of 2.07 m3/sec submitted as a median flow by the applicant and means that the flow component of the assimilative capacity calculation is actually higher than previously thought (this tends to increase the assimilative capacity).

Other loadings on the receiving waters in context.

The town of Rathmore has a WWTP with a BOD Design Population Equivalent (P.E) of 500. The current load on the Rathmore WWTP plant is in the order of 700 P.E., with no immediate plans to update the plant. It is noted that the prescribed date under the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007 (S.I. 684 of 2007) for an agglomeration of this size to make a licence application to the EPA is June 2009. The Rathmore WWTP discharges to the Cullavaw Stream, which flows into the Blackwater ca. 800m upstream of the installation. On the basis of BOD the applicant’s WWTP has a P.E. of 600.

Re wsed Assimilative Capacity Calculation

Based on the revised data and the target concentration of 30 pg/l MRP the TC calculated an assimilative capacity in the receiving waters to be 1.10 kg/day MRP. By allowing a loading from the installation of 1.08 kg/day MRP (a concentration of 1.2 mg/l MRP at 900 m3/day) 98% of the available assimilative capacity in the receiving water would be used up, resulting in a predicted environmental concentration of 29.9 pg/l MRP, just under the target value of 30 pg/l MRP.

There are no other major industrial or WWTP discharges directly into the River Blackwater immediately downstream of the installation until the town of Mallow, with the median flow of the Blackwater increasing almost nine-fold to 18.6 m3/second by the time the Blackwater reaches this point. The Awnaskirtaun River flows into the Blackwater just downstream of the installation discharge and Q-values generally increase as one moves downstream from the Rathmore area on the Blackwater (generally 4-5) until Millstreet where the Q-rating drops to 3 before returning to Q 4- 5 and then dropping again to 4 in the greater Mallow area. The TC believe that achievement of an emission limit lower than 1.08 kg/day (1.2 mg/l MRP at 900 m3/day) would be technically difficult to achieve, expensive and of limited environmental benefit in the current context.

5

Technical Committee Report PO 795-01

Monitoring data vs predtcted MRP levels

The TC note that the applicant asserts that chemical monitoring has not indicated a rise in MRP values as predicted by assimilative capacity calculations. However the TC are of the opinion that water sampling is just that; a sample of the MRP levels in the stream and not an absolute value, with the sampling intervals being such that a moderate degree of uncertainty may be attached to the water samples being representative of the actual MRP levels in the river.

Timefiame

The licensing inspector had recommended in the RD a deadline of 31st of December 2008 to achieve the final discharge limit, with an interim discharge limit of 1.35 kg/day MRP applying from the date of issue of the FD. The PD as issued by the Agency extended the date to achieve the final discharge limit of 0.27 kg/day MRP to 2010, with the interim value again applying from date of grant of the licence. Both RD and PD recognised that the installation required time to update their WWTP. It is stated in the application that the current average discharge from the installation are on average 1.7 kg/day MRP. Although examination of the last 12 months of monitoring data supplied by the applicant appear to yield an average of 5.31 kg/day MRP (with the TC calculated assimilative capacity being 1.10 kg/day). However the TC must take into account the applicant's confidence that they can achieve a limit of 1.35 kg/day MRP (1.5 mg/l at 900 m3/day) within a 12-month period, as stated in their objection.

The TC believe it is reasonable to give the applicant the 12 months requested to achieve a new proposed discharge limit of 1.08 kg/day MRP (1.2 mg/l MRP at 900 m3/day), as it is not a significant increase on the target of 1.35 kg/day MRP, which the applicant proposed.

Based on a orthophosphate to total phosphorus ratio of 0.92 the proposed ELV of 1.08 kg/day MRP equates to an ELV of 1.17 kg/day Total Phosphorous (as P) or a concentration 1.3 mg/l Total Phosphorous (as P) at a discharge of 900 m3/day.

The current Waste Water Discharge Licence dating from 1993 set a limit of 5.5 kg/day "Phosphorous" to be achieved within three years of the licence (i.e. 1996). Personnel from Kerry County Council have confirmed that "Phosphorous" is to be taken as Total Phosphorous. The current Waste Water Discharge licence is therefore 5.5 kg/day Total Phosphorous. This equates to an MRP value of 5.06 kg/day (5.62 mg/l MRP at 900 m3/day). The TC would propose that this limit be retained for the 12-month period following grant of the licence and have therefore reworded Schedule 8.2 accordingly. The installation does not appear to be having a significant impact on the environment in terms of Q-ratings or observed chemical data at its current discharge level, although it is necessary for them to reduce their discharges to comply with the Phosphorous Regulations.

6

PO 795-01 Technical Committee Report

Recommendation: Reword Schedule 6.2 of the licence as follows:

Changes shown underlined as some text already in bold.

B.2 Emissions to Water

Emission Point Reference No.: sw-1

Name of Receiving Waters:

Location:

Volume to be emitted:

River Blackwater

11829E 09292N

Maximum in any one day: 900 m3

Maximum rate per hour: 40m3

Temperature

PH

Toxicity

BOD

COD

Suspended Solids

Total Nitrogen

Total Ammonia (as N)

te 1: This emission limit value shall aDDl) emission limit value of 5.06 ks/dav

lote 2: This emission limit value shall aDolJ emission limit value of 5.5 kaldav SI

25'C (max.)

6 - 9

5 TU

40

125

50

15

10

2

10

)rn 12 months from the date of wan

1 .08Na'e ' 1.1 7Nate *

f the licence. Prior to this date, an 111 aDDlV. )m 12 months from the date of want of the licence. Prior to this date. an &

7

Technical Committee Report

Parameter

PO 795-01

Modelled Impact

A.2. Control and monitoring of boiler emissions

The Licensee objected to condffion 6.28 of the PD.

NO2

SO2

‘6.18 The licensee shall log all instances where boilers 2 and 3 are operated simultaneously at full load. The log shall record the date, time and duration of each instance.”

99.8%ile of hourly values

Highest annual mean

99.7%ile of hourly values

99.2%ile of daily values

Annual Mean

7-he kensee request the omission of this condff-ion from the FD as they say it is not pradical to achieve from an operational point of view given the nature of the boiler installation. The also outline that the worst case scenario presented in the air modeffing of both boilers running simultaneously would be very rare and so should be exempt from air monitoring and licensing conditlbns. The duty/standby arrangement of the boilers is outlined. It is stated that each boiler has two burners and that this system is controlled by a Sequence 2000 controlleK The applicant idenf-ifies that there is ample spare capacily and it is demonstrated that the plant would have no requirement under normal operating condif-ions to have both boilers operating and that both boilers would onw be used in the event of a pressure drop or piant start-up. The appiicant again pub the short running f-imes of the boilers into context by arguing they would not have a significant impact when viewed on an annual basis in comparison to the Air Quaky Standards.

Tech n ica I Com m ittee’s Eva I uation :

In his report the inspector clearly outlined that under normal operating conditions/circumstances 38% of the boiler capacity would be required, but that during start ups or pressure drops that additional boiler capacity would be required. In a worst case scenario model submitted by the applicant, SOz levels for hourly and especially daily values were close to the limits as shown below in a table excerpt from the inspector’s report.

Maximum Predicted Ground Level concentration

P!m3

97

6

290

120

d a

Air Quality Standards

Pdm3

200 (SI 271 of 2002)

40 (SI 271 of 2002)

350 (SI 271 of 2002)

125(SI 271 of 2002)

20 (SI 271 of 2002)

’Ie2: Air Quality Standards Regula&s (SI No. 271 of 2002) reducing standard to be fully achieved by 2010

The inspector noted that the modelling results did not take background levels of SOz into account. The recent EPA report Air Quality in Ireland 2006 found that small

- - .. . . . . .... ....,. . ....... ~ - . . .

Technical Committee Report PO795-01

population centres (Zone D) outside control zones could have elevated SO2 levels. Given this point and the proximity of Rathmore up-wind of the installation, in a river valley prone to temperature inversions, the TC believe there is a risk that the background SO2 contribution from the village of Rathmore could cause a breach of the daily SO2 Air Quality Standard (AQS) . The TC believe that the licensing inspector was correct to be cautious and require the applicant to demonstrate that the use of both boilers is, as they outline in their application, a rare event. The condition as written does not specify what type of log should be kept and so the nature of this log can be agreed with OEE. The TC note that an electronic control system is used to control the boilers yet the applicant argue that recording boiler firings would not be practical to achieve. Even in the event of no integrated electronic system the running hours of each boiler could be ascertained by several methods; from the maintenance of a simple log book by the shift manager to the installation of a KWh electrical meter on each boiler circuit. The TC are satisfied that a log of the running hours of the boilers should be kept and that this does not present a major technical or operational challenge for the applicant.

Recommendation: No Change

A.3. Waste Water Treatment Plant Schedule C.2

7he Licensee lodged an objec~on to Schedule C2.1 of the PD. 7he applicant has requested that several Flow and pH measurements required by the schedule be omitted as there appears to be duplication with pH and flow measurement required at severalpoint;s that the applicant does not beleve are required 7he applicant also requests a clacO7cation in the nomenclature of the stone flte~/ADF units.

Technical Com m ittee's Eva I ua tion :

The TC note that the flow through the WWTP is monitored at the inlet sump and at the final effluent sump and believe this to be sufficient. The additional flow monitoring in the Stone Filter and sludge decanters is considered unnecessary. The measurement of pH in the DAF unit is also not believed to be necessary. The TC also note that the Stone Filters referred to in the PD are the Eastern and Western ADF (Alternating Double Filtration) units. The TC have reworded and reorganised Schedule C.2 as appropriate.

9

Technical Committee Report PO79.5-04

I lecommendation: Reword Schedule C.2.1 as follows:

:hanges shown underlined as some text already in bold. Also note some text has been deleted.

;. 2.1 Control of Emissions to Water

Emission Point Reference No.: s w - 1

Description of Treatment: Wastewater treatment

Balance Tanks

Influent flow to WWTP

TOC (on influent streams)

PH COD Phosphate

Total Nitrogen

Dissolved Air Flotation Unit

Suspended Solids (Influent & Effluent

Oils, Fats & Greases

Eastern & Western ADF Units

Continuous

Continuous

Continuous

Daily

Weekly

Weekly'

Weekly

Weekly

Daily

Weekly

Daily check

Weekly

Daily

Weekly

Flow MetedRecorder

TOC analysedrecorder

pH probe and recorder

Standard Methods

Standard Methods

Standard Methods

Standard Methods

Standard Methods

Standard Methods

Standard Methods

N/a

Standard Methods

Visual

Standard Methods

Effluent Flow to discharge Doint Continuous Flow MetedRecorder

)te 1: The licensee shall maintain appropriate access to standby andor spares to ensure the operation of the abatement system.

10

. - .. .. . . . - ..

PO795-01

Overall Recommendation

It is recommended that the Board of the Agency grant a licence to the applicant:

(i) (ii)

for the reasons outlined in the proposed determination and subject to the conditions and reasons for same in the Proposed Determination, and subject to the amendments proposed in this report. (iii)

Signed

Kevin Motherway

for and on behalf of the Technical Committee.

11