larch hill stud newtownrathganley kilcock - co. meath · 2015-03-03 · plus noise from farm...

~

=AXIS1•• lt ~1I1\'1' U' Cl'

Peter Joseph BarryLARCH HILL STUD

NEWTOWNRATHGANLEYKILCOCK

CO. MEATH-•••0Q..~

~~.~0Z ~- - Permit Number: WFP/MH/08/0004/02~ 0- NC >. Report Date: zs" November 2013~S ~;,C •••0 =••• 7Jl.-;,C

~-~=CC--<

Report umber: AXIS environmental services3200-13-04 40 Coolraine Heights, Old Cratloe Road, Limerick

Version 0 Tel (06/) 324587 Mobile(087) 6367436intoca axisenv. ie

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXiS environmental services Enrich Environmental LIlLAnnual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/MHf08/0004/02

1.0 Executive Summary

Peter Joseph Barry Composting Facility is required as part of permit WFP/MH/08/0004/02;Conditions 6 and 7 to carry out a noise survey of the installation on an annual basis. AXISenvironmental services were commissioned to complete the survey after proposalacknowledgment and acceptance by Enrich Environmental limited's Environmental Department.

The purpose of the survey was to monitor noise at predetermined locations and assess the sitescompliance against Schedule A limits.

All operations at Peter Joseph Barry Composting Facility were running as normal throughout thesurvey. There was significant interference attributed to traffic movements on the local accessroute, connecting the R125 to the R156. Other sources of noise were recorded at each individuallocation which are summarised in the report.

The impact of road noise was a significant interference on the survey at certain locations. Asoutlined in the Standard ISO 1996 and the associated noise guidance document issued by theAgency in 2012, where traffic noise is interfering with noise measurements, it is acceptable toassess noise compliance against the LA90 for the monitoring period. This is a statisticalmeasurement of the noise level exceeded for 90% of the time which would largely be associatedwith the facility under assessment.

The survey was carried out in strict accordance with the standard ISO 1996 Parts 1 - 3, Acoustics- description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise. Reference was also made tothe EPA guidelines NG4 "Guidance Note for Noise: Licence Applications, Surveys and Assessmentsin Relation to Scheduled Activities" April 2012, in conjunction with the frequently asked questionsissued by the Agency in August 2012.

Six points were monitored for the noise survey, four of which were located near or at noisesensitive locations. N1 and N2 are boundary monitoring points which are located within theconfines of the site and are in close proximity to all activities in operation.

Due to the proximity of Peter Joseph Barry Composting Facility to a local access route, connectingthe R125 to the R156, and air traffic routes, there was significant background interference fromtraffic movements throughout the survey. This resulted in LAeqT broadband levels exceeding theday and night limits for the following points: N1 (Day), N2 (Day), N3 (Day & Night), N4 (Day &Night) and N5 (Day & Night).However when the interference from traffic was removed, allmonitoring points were determined to comply in full with the conditions of the permit.

There was no tonal or impulsive noise observed at any of the locations for the duration of theassessment.

Report No: 3200-13-04 Page 3 0[34 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXIS environmental services Enrich Environmental L1lLAnnual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/MI-I/08/0004/02

Table 1: Schedule B: Noise Monitoring

Location Measurement Frequency

Ni 30 minute Day & Night survey to Annuallyinclude l/3'd octave measurements

N2 30 minute Day & Night survey to Annuallyinclude 1/3'd octave measurements


N4 30 minute Day & Night survey to Annuallyinclude 1/3,d octave measurements

NS 30 minute Day & Night survey to Annuallyinclude 1/3,d octave measurements


Report No: 3200-/3-04 Page 5 0[34 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXIS environmental services Enrich Environmental LIftAnnual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/I\1I-\J08/0004/02

4.0 Monitoring Locations

4.1 Ni Day Time Survey

Noise monitoring point 1 is located at the south-west boundary of the Peter Joseph BarryComposting site. The main source of noise at this point was the regular movement of plantvehicles by composting site including front loader plus the operational conveyor beltOther sources of noise during the survey included voices from site personnel, loading firewoodonto a trailer and birds chirping in local vegetation.

4.1.1 Night Time Survey

The main source of noise during the night time survey was a chainsaw operating nearby andleaves rustling in the light breeze. The chainsaw was the cause of a slight increase in the 1/3'doctave measurement seen in the frequency bands for Nl night in Appendix 1.

4.2 N2 Day Time Survey

This monitoring point was located at the northern boundary of the site close to bio-filter shed.There were several sources of noise at this monitoring point including plant vehicles operating bycomposting area, noise from bio-filter area and front loader JCB.Other sources of noise included a truck unloading at the composting facility plus shutter doorsopening and closing.


During the night time survey the main source of noise emanated from the extraction fans nearby.Another source of noise was the wind rustling the tall deciduous trees nearby, a speeding car bylocal access road and from a water mains pipe near the noise meter.

4.3 N3 Day Time Survey

Noise monitoring point 3 is located west of the Peter Joseph Barry Composting site in a field upfrom the main entrance. This point can be considered a noise sensitive location and is required tobe below the recommended guidance of 55dB(A). The main source of noise at this location wasthe regular movement of vehicles on the local access route in which the noise meter waspositioned 20m from.

There was minimal noise emanating from plant vehicles on Peter Joseph Barry Composting siteplus noise from farm machinery passing on the local access road.


The main source of noise during the night time survey was movement of cars on theaforementioned local access route. There was no noise audible from the Peter Joseph BarryComposting Facility site during the monitoring period.

Report No: 3200-13-04 Page 70f34 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXIS environmental services Enrich Environmental Lttt.Annual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WfP/MH/08/0004/02

5.0 Summary of Daytime Noise Measurement

Period:

09:21 88

Daytime:

41

The main source of noise duringthe night time survey was achainsaw operating nearby andleaves rustling in the light breeze.

57

Arithmetic Average (dB): 41

The main source of noise at thispoint was the regular movementof plant vehicles by compostingsite including front loader plusthe operational conveyor beltOther sources of noise during thesurvey included voices from sitepersonnel, loading firewood ontoa trailer and birds chirping inlocal vegetation.

57 88

Daytime Criterion, dB LA.,T' 55

Evening:This site is not required tomonitor noise emissions duringthe evening period. The site isnot defined as a new or revisedlicence since the guidelines wereissued in 2012.

Arithmetic Average (dB):

Evening Criterion, dB LA.,T'

Night Time:20:07 35 64 29

Arithmetic Average (dB): 35 64 29

Night time Criterion, dB LA.,T' 45,.. ..,~

W4Iriitbiit COriditlons:

Daytime: Evening: Night Time:

Temperature (OC)

Wind Speed (m/s)

8

0.6

6-7

0.3

Wind Direction: SE SE

Precipitation: 0.0-0.3mm 0.0-0.3mm

Daytime:

Night Time:

Run 1: None

Run 1: None

Compliance Status - this is not a noise sensitive location therefore limits would not apply

Report No: 3200-13-04 Version 0Page 90[34

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXIS environmental services Enrich Environmental u«Annual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/MW08/000-tl02

'tit :iNO~ Monitorill9 Location:

"/.; ,·•.•3 NSL~no..; •••,\· '.~',<.•...:. Ec,~U~"~ Levels :+~ments

;-i dB~~~.l~rs Pa)':":'.~'; • 4. ,.:$' ::~:. -:.,!'

Period. (-foi,·:'j ~> 1{:.;:i'~ii~~;';E~~f:~~~~~ 90

.~;~.~-,,:.:<~;.;':~";'1, >-':c .; '.- i --'-',.,;" ......,

11:33 59 87The main source of noise at this

41location thewas regular

Daytime: movement of vehicles on the. . . -local access route in which the

- - - - noise meter was positioned 20mfrom. There was minimal noise

Arithmetic Average (dB): 60 88 41 emanating from plant vehicles onEnrich site plus noise from farmmachinery passing on the local

Daytime Criterion, dB LM,T: - . 55 access road .

Evening:This site is not required to- - - - monitor noise emissions duringthe evening period. The site isnot defined as a new or revised

Arithmetic Average (dB): - - - licence since the guidelines wereissued in 2012.

22:24 48 81 27The main source of noise during

Night Time:the night time survey wasmovement of cars on the- - - -aforementioned local access

Arithmetic Average (dB): 49 81 27 route. There was no noise audiblefrom the composting facility

Night time Criterion, dB LM,T: - - 45 during the monitoring period,

c..'.. - ~ -',.-." -,.;., •.c, .;.'0.; •. e.lW. Qmdltlons:


Temperature (DC) 8 - 6-7

Wind Speed (m/s) 0.6 - 0.3

Wind Direction: SE - SE

Precipitation: 0.0-0.3mm - 0,0-0,3mm

Tonal oIse

Daytime: Run 1: None - -

Night Time: Run 1: None - -

Compliance Status - this would be considered a noise sensitive location therefore limits outlined in thepermit would apply. Due to interference from external noise sources it is appropriate to use the LA90 toassess Enrich aqainst its permit limits - the site complies with both day and niqht time criteria.

Report No: 3200-13-04 Page 11 of34 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXIS environmental services Enrich Environmental Ltd.Annual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/MI-I/08/0004/02

,

~<'.;~-;Noise Monitoring Location:

'- ;.",N$ lNSL MonitotinaPointl -, , " -.

1';'~;1•...._-". -:' ·'~r~;<comments. ~~ ~~~ ICr'A~)', ';1

';, ~i ," <' :','PeriCKf~ ':\:t/ l:; c.> ~::,i.:~'\ .-~ ::~;;:-' u-;::

'.~~;~~, :.:'/';., .,.,.., .., ') ~--"- -,-7 ~ '2:":;'

10:56The greatest source of noise

56 82 36during the monitoring period was

Daytime:the movement of traffic on the

- - - -local access route connecting the

- - - - R125 to the R156. Other sourcesof noise include the movement of

Arithmetic Average (dB): 57 82 37 aircraft overhead, birds chirpingin nearby vegetation and cattle in

Daytime Criterion, dB LM,T, - - 55 field (lOOm).

Evening:This site is not required to- - - - monitor noise emissions duringthe evening period. The site is

Arithmetic Average (dB): - - - not defined as a new or revisedlicence since the guidelines were

Evening Criterion, dB LM,T, - - - issued in 2012.

During the night time noise21 :17 52 79 36

Night Time:survey the most prevalent source

- - - - of noise was the operation of apower washer from one of the

Arithmetic Average (dB): 52 80 37 residential houses. There wasnoise from wind rustling nearby

Night time Criterion, dB LM,T, - - 45trees and the start-up sound of amotorbike starting.

Weather CondItions: '-,,


Temperature (DC) 8 - 6-7

Wind Speed (m/s) 0,6 - 0,3

Wind Direction: SE - SE

Precipitation: 0.0-0.3mm - 0.0-0.3mm

, Ton••' ~oi.e As..s-;nent ,'. "

Daytime: Run 1: None - -

Night Time: Run 1: None - -

Compliance Status - this would be considered a noise sensitive location therefore limits outlined in thepermit would apply. Due to interference from external noise sources it is appropriate to use the LA90 toassess this site against its permit limits - the site complies with both day and night time criteria.

Report No: 3200-/3-04 Page /30[34 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59


Permit No: WFP/MHl08/000~/02

6.0 Conclusions

Six locations were monitored for broadband and l/3,d Octave frequency as part of this annualenvironmental noise survey at Peter Joseph Barry Composting Facility. The boundary monitoringpoints Nl and N2 are not subject to compliance limits as these are not noise sensitive locatins.

Each point was monitored for 30 minute periods during the day and night time survey. Night timein the permit is considered all other times outside the range 8 am to 6 pm.

The findings of the survey would indicate that the noise sensitive locations were not significantlyaffected or impacted by sources of noise at Peter Joseph Barry Composting Facility.

The monitoring point Nl did have elevated noise levels during the monitoring period for Day -Time Noise[57 dB(A)]. This was due to the plant vehicles on site .. Under the EPA guidelines NG4"Guidance Note for Noise: Licence Applications, Surveys and Assessments in Relation toScheduled Activities", a boundary location is not required to be compliant with noise emissionlimit values [Day - 55dB(A), Night - 45dB(A)] as it is not a noise sensitive location.

The monitoring point N2 had elevated Leq noise levels during the Day [56 dB(A)] time noisesurvey. This was mainly due to the continuous operation of nearby plant vehicles and from atruck unloading with the engine on about 60m from the noise meter. Under the EPA guidelinesNG4 "Guidance Note for Noise: Licence Applications, Surveys and Assessments in Relation toScheduled Activities", a boundary location is not necessarily required to be compliant with noiseemission limit values [Day - 55dB(A), Night - 45dB(A)] as it is not a noise sensitive location.

The monitoring point N3, located near a noise sensitive location, had elevated Leq noise levelsduring the Day [60 dB(A)] and Night [49 dB (A)] noise survey. This was mainly due to thevehicular movements along the local access route. The guidance for a location like this is to usethe LA90 for assessment of noise from the composting site, to reduce the impact of interferencefrom traffic movements, in which case noise levels at N3 are shown to be within complianceunder the requirements of the permit.

The monitoring point N4, which is located near a noise sensitive location, had elevated noiselevels during the Day [58 dB(A)] and Night [47 dB(A)] noise survey. This was mainly due to themovement of traffic on the aforementioned local access route. Due to the interference from trafficon the road the guidance recommends using the LA90 for assessment of noise emanating from thecomposting facility. The volumes of road traffic can be observed by the peaks on the broadbandgraphs listed in the appendix of this report.

The monitoring point N5, which is located at a noise sensitive location, had elevated Leq noiselevels during the Day [57dB(A)] and Night [53 dB(A)] noise survey. This was mainly due to theregular movement of vehicular traffic on the local access road and from air traffic. The LA90

statistical measurement indicated that this monitoring point was within the permit limits duringthe survey.

The monitoring point N6, which is located near a noise sensitive location, was within the permitlimits during the survey Day [50dB(A)] and Night [43dB(A)].

There was no tonal or impulsive noise associated with the facility determined at any monitoringlocation; therefore there are no requirements to apply penalties to the broad band measurement.

Report No: 3200-/3-04 Page /50[34 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXIS environmental services Enrich Environmentat u«Annual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/I\1W08/0004/02

CirrusResearch plc

Measurement Summary Report

Name Nl Day

Time 15/11/2013 09:21 :38

Duration 00:30:00

Instrument G061817, CR:1728

SummaryLAeq 56.5 dB

LAE 89.1 dB

LAFMox 88.3 dB

LAF1

LAF5

LAF10

LAF50

LAF90

LAF95

LAF99

59.9 dB

49.7 dB

46.6 dB

42.5 dB

41.2 dB

40.9 dB

40.4 dB

calibration Information15/11/2013 08:29:28 -0.44 dB

15/11/2013 12:44 :07 -0.45 dBT.-ne History

90

PlaceEnnch Composting

PersonRobbie O'Bnen

ProjectEnvironmental NOiseAsses ...

50

30~-------------.-------------r------------.-------------r------------.------------J09,22,00 09,27,0015/11/2013 09 :21:38

09,32,00 09:37:00Time

09:42:00 09:47:0015/11/201309:51 :38

Frequency Bands

00 r---------------------------------------------------------,55504540

fi)35~304i~ 25...J 20

15105o Ilbll

4KHz 8KHz 16KHz6.3Hz 10Hz 16Hz 25Hz 40Hz 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1KHzFrequency (Hz)

2KHz

Report ID

I·~~i.'I .~L!J' ~

Report No: 3200-13-04 Page 17 of 34 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXIS environmental services El/rich Environmental uaAnnual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/MI·I/08/00~/02

CirrusResearch plc

\/Ieasurenlent Summary Report

SUmmaryLAeq 55.3 dB

LAE B7.B dB

LAFMax 67.7 dB

LAFl 5B.9 dB

LAF5 56.7 dB

LAFI0 56.0 dB

LAF50 54.9 dB

LAF90 54.3 dB

LAF95 54.2 dB

LAF99 53.9 dB

Name

Time

Duratron

N2 Day

15/11/2013 08:33:06

00:30:00

Instrument G061817, CR:172B

calibration Information15/11/201308:29:28 -0.44 dB

15/11/2013 12:44:07 -0.45 dBTnne His~ory

70

PlaceEnrich Compostong

ProjectEnvironmental NOiseAsses ...

Person

Robbie O'Srien

65r-'

E<;;: 60.."

50~-.-------------.--------------.--------------r-------------.--------------r---------~08:34:00 08:39:00

15/11/201308:33:0608:44:00 08:49:00

Time08:54:00 08:59:00

15/11/201309:03:06

FrequencyBands

70

60

50

20 1111111111111111110

o63HZ 10Hz 16Hz 25Hz 40Hz 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz

Frequency (Hz)1KHz 2KHZ 8KHz 16KHz4KHz

Report No: 3200-/3-04 Version 0Page 190[34

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59


Permit No: WFP/MHl08/0004/02

CirrusResearch plc


SUmmary

LAeq 48.8 d8

LAE 81.3 d8

LAFMax 81.3 dB

Name N3 NIght

TIme 14/11/2013 22:24:14

Duration 00:30:00

Instrument G061817, CR: 172B

LAFl

LAF5

LAF10

LAF50

LAF90

LAF95

LAF99

48.2 dB

34.3 dB

32.2 dB

29.5 dB

27.1 dB

26.4 dB

25.0 dB

Pro~Environmental NOiseAsses ...

22:35:00 22:40:00TIme

22:45:0020~~-----------r------------r-----------.------------.------------.---------~

22:25:00 22:30:0014/11/2013 22 :24: 14

22:50:0014/11/2013 22: 54 14

calibration Information14/11/2013 17:11:44 -0.41 dB

14/11/201323:05:11 0.00 dBr••.•e Hist.ory

Person

Robbre O'Bnen

Place

Ennch Cornpostrnq

Frequency Bands

80

.e--n

40

45

40

35

~30m~25

~ 20-' 15

10

5o IIllul

2KHz 4KHz 8KHz 16KHz63Hz 10Hz 16Hz 25Hz 40Hz 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500HzFrequency (Hz)

1KHz

ca

Report No: 3200-/3-04 Page 21 0134 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXlS environmental services Enrich Environmental Ltd.Annual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/MH/08/000~/02

CirrusResearch plc


SummaryLAeq 46.6 dB

LAE 79.1 dB

LAFMax 74.4 dB

N4 Night

14/11/2013 21 :52:30

00:30:00

LAF1 52.7 dB

LAF5 51.5 dB

LAF10 44.0 dB

LAF50 32.5 dB

LAF90 29.9 dB

LAF95 29.4 dB

LAF99 28.5 dB

PlaceEnrich Composting

Project

Environmental NoiseAsses...

Name

Time

Duration

Instrument G061817, CR:172B

Caibration Infonnation14/11/2013 17:11:44 -0.41 dB

14/11/2013 23:05:11 0.00 dBTme History

80

PersonRobbie O'Brien

r= 60l>1l

40

20~------------r-----------.------------.------------r-----------'---------~21:53:00 21:58:00

14/11/201321:52:3022:03:00 22:08:00

Time22:13:00 22:18:00

14/11/2013 22 :22:30

Frequency Bands

W r----------------------------------------------------------------------,454035

§'30

i25.s 20

1610

5o L- ~

63Hz 10Hz 16Hz 25Hz 40Hz 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1KHz 2KHzFrequency (Hz)

4KHz 8KHz 16KHz

Report No: 3200-13-04 Page 23 0134 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXiS environmental services Enrich Environmental Ltd.Annual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/MH!08/00O-t102

CirrusResearch plc

teasurement Summary Report

SummaryLAeq 52.4 dB

LAE B5.0 dB

LAFMax 79.9 dB

N5 Night

14/11/2013 21:17:51

00:30:00

LAF1

LAF5

LAF10

LAF50

LAF90

LAF95

LAF99

60.7 dB

47.2 dB

42.1 dB

39.4 dB

3B.3 dB

37.9 dB

37.4 dB

~ame

ime

)uratlon

nstrument G061817, CR:172B

PlaceEnnch Compostmg

ProjectEnvironmental NoiseAsses...

::aibration Infonnation.4/11/2013 17:11:44 -0.41 dB

.4/11/2013 23:05: 11 0.00 dBTime History

PersonRobbie O'Bnen

70

r-

?f; 50

30~-----------r-----------.-----------.r-----------r-----------.---------~21:18:00 21:23:00

14/11/201321:17:5121:28:00 21:33:00

Time21:38:00 21:43:00

14/11/2013 21 :47 :51

Frequency Bands

50

45

40

35

~30

" 25>~ 20

15

105o ~----------------------------------------------------~UIIUII

6.3Hz 10Hz 16Hz 25Hz 40Hz 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1KHzFrequency(Hz)

2KHz 4KHz 8KHz 16KHz

Report No: 3200-/3-04 Page 25 of34 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59


Permit No: WfP/I\IH/08/0004/02

CirrusResearch plc

Summary

LAeq 43.3 dB

LAE 75.9 dB

LAFMax 75.6 dB

LAFl

LAF5

LAF10

LAF50

LAF90

LAF95

LAF99

46.2 dB

40.6 dB

37.9 dB

32.3 dB

28.9 dB

28.0 dB

27.0 dB

Measur-ement Summary Report

Name

Time

Duration

N6 Night

14/11/2013 23:05:59

00:30:00

Person

Robble O'Brlen

Place

Enroch Composttng

ProjectEnvironmental NoiseAsses ...

lnstrument G061817, CR:172B

calibration Information14/11/2013 23:05: 11 0.00 dB

15/11/2013 08:29:28 -0.44 dBTome Hist:ory

80

40

20+------------,-----------.------------,------------r-----------,----------~23:06:00 23:11:00

14/11/201323:05:59

Frequency Bands

23:16:00 23:21:00Time

23:26:00 23:31:0014/11/2013 23 :35 :59

60555045

_40~ 35i30iD 25--'20

15105o

6_3Hz 10Hz 16Hz 25Hz 40Hz 63Hz

Report No: 3200-13-04

11 IUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII125Hz 250Hz 500Hz

Frequency (Hz)2KHz 8KHz 16KHZ1KHz 4KHz

Report ID

11.-- ..

~ .~

Page 27of34 Version 0

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59


Permit No: WFP/MH/08/00O-t/02

Appendix 11Calibration Certificates

Certificate of Calibration

E.quipm 01 DeUi.hL,....trun-.;nr. \tiUltd:!l.."1w("r ("jrnb Ih. 'ardl plc

Instrument TypeDe riI'll 1!'

Scnal ~un If

( IU711j

IJand I \\!I \1cter

G06 I Ul<2

CirrusResearch plc

ClI6br1ltioo ProcedureTbc In. trulDlnt uetarled dN1\C ha been \.all~tattd ttl I 'pub"",h tevt aid c:lllhnbon data it, det.uled m ihelib m hitncJboo ~ng • echruque rtJ.:onTllCAAd In ~ lak"l rev l"'lon~ rlf the InklnaUnn."l1 ~l.ilnd.Hd ••lITI>1f,"~·1 :!flO2. IU' (>0b51 IY7'i. U'C r-.I~I~ 2i JI.IIT bL(,II.I99~. n.c 1>0'142.1'1'17, lE< 1>12'2 19<1:tA"'>1SJ.4-I'1 3. A"<;I '01 1 I-Jt'M(,.oo "'I I SI.4.'·I'I'i7" bcrc .pp"~'~Ic.~H.tnd LC\'d Met"" I (:"lJi~ratiun pft'l;niun: •.•w .re earned Put bv "\.It'!"'lhlUlIItt the ll11lTI'pil4 IX \.:a~wc \\ 'th cc,wtahJ clcctnc.d "t.~LilI. :lpan from the t. I ~COll'IIC cahbmunn

alibralion TnlceahililyIllt: elfuJprrw.:na detail d JI Ive W1" ldLt)rdlcd agaurr.t t cahbranon aho,atn"~ tandanJ.. Id tly ( lrnr.Research plc. These arc ncc.hle 0 Imer.l1i""", Staodar d-, {AIl.(' I The ,,,od If" arc;M,cropho"", Tjpc B&K411ti) . mal Num/>.r IXY3-153 ("Iih, uon RefI'I~rnnphu,'W;:I)"JlC I.J&.K4UII ~ula':-.J~r h'~j «d:hrdtJrnRcr

l Irrsrated h't 1.11Cuhbreuen Udk\...ahhra )f) Ceruucat Nurti1er

21 Januarv 2HI.l

Cm •••.K<'''-'''I<h plc, AWll'UC lIull' . Bri<lhow,," Ruad, III nanhy. Norm y", ture YOI-l DI'1IIclt'l'm",,· .•-I4((1117~J>!,))(,'i~Fax: +-II(n) ~~l 417'2

"fll;UI 'I C Iflutr\h.tc~3n' lel U


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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXlS environmental services El/rich Environmental uaAnnual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/MH/08/0004/02

Certificate of alibration 5plc

Equipml'nt Details

1"'"lIme'" 1yp,-[).,·.•.('flpll III

","-"11 J 'wnl·r

CK l'cR'i ,Ill.••I I .•.ve \1 tcr

c ;()(>I I

Calibration Prncedu re11 rre-uum- llt-LIII d .11 ivc ha. be en c ah ral~ I·, • pul'>II'h I" a' c: I" "U"nd. t, ,1 •.kt, I "" rbc 111'1 n,,"ll h.ull'L"" ••..U'lIlf the Ie'.h I'It••, r""""~n;'lllled In lilt fJll'" re ••"'. t the lnlel n""1l' 11\ 1J'lh IH "I (,;_ I cr I~. TT(' (,1(,-\ !. I'IN. ll-C(,4'XI~2( IJE('ol::f.c I 1.lIlhll\H_I'i ~.IH" -'2:II/<n. \ .. I~I ~ 191n.·\ ·.•••I •.•III-I"~"arU..\ '''I 1.-1\_1'1'1'"h..·I" dPl'hc'l!:'k

,. Uf'Ill 1J..'\ t'1 Iercr \JI (".•d.brJtinn pll'll'dUl~' \\fTt," \. ~rrlt."11IlU( t't~"U",",'lIl1llunv 1.hr nu"',, Ip~M.ne ~.tp u e \\ Ith I ..•uitablc C'klll 11.::.11'\1p't11. J r' '(um the fi 11 J ••'{ 11'11 alibrar 1111

CaliUnlliol1 I'rllcellhililydetarled a!:'me .l\ l"lihralcd ,1b,1I I iJle dlll'"aUl' II1 I JI"r~ ., llIt;,rt/,re"'''~Cin u-,R "(,JI,1l r" 1 c-c are'rn.1I" I 'i1" •.•I tt d- .\.r (, I The- ''.In.t,,,<I, are

\/j''''rhllll< l)p" H<XK.!I I) ~1I.111"111111-." 1\I}qq C. """r "0 Rrt 'i (,ON

P,'I,)n[>l In' J) B&. ! '0 . ,'13 ulmcr "1>\-13 t Jut"JI pn R~I •.•")fi.!

(. Ilhl alHml) .• ('

('J 11 IJ.UI n C. cttifi~~ilc I':Wl "r1'" ~p en 1\'/ " \

Cn I11' Rl''l';udlpk. \"'It (c 11"11 B ull net.m I{. ill. lIummnh), :>'\'rllo \. rk h,le. \011 (PHHr 1-2.1,'I fo ~ h <-4 11 I~',.''11 L

'.JI{~.•.'(1\. 11 I u..revetr. h III 1I


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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

AXIS environmental services Enrich Environmental uaAnnual Environmental Noise Survey

Permit No: WFP/I\1H/08/000~/02

It is used to determine the intermittent high noise level features of locallygenerated noise and usually gives an indicator of the level of road traffic.Measured using the "Fast" time weighting.

LAF90 Refers to those A-weighted noise levels in the lower 90 percentile of thesampling interval; it is the level which is exceeded for 90% of the measurementperiod. It will therefore exclude the intermittent features of traffic and is usedto describe a background level. Measured using the "Fast" time weighting.

LAFmax The maximum RMS A-weighted sound pressure level occurring within aspecified time period. Measured using the "Fast" time weighting.

LAFmin The minimum RMS A-weighted sound pressure level occurring within aspecified time period. Measured using the "Fast" time weighting.

Lden Is the 24 hour noise rating level determined by the averaging of the Lday withthe Levening plus a 5 dB penalty and the Lnight plus a 10 dB penalty.

Low background noise An area of low background noise is one where the existing background noiselevels measured during an environmental noise survey are as follows:

o Average Daytime Background Noise Level ~40dB LAF90, and;o Average Evening Background Noise Level ~35dB LAF90, and;o Average Night-time Background Noise Level ~30dB LAF90.

Low frequency noise LFN - noise which is dominated by frequency components towards the lowerend of the frequency spectrum; see Appendix VI for a more detailed discussion.

LpA (dB) An 'A-weighted decibel' K a measure of the overall level of sound across theaudible frequency range (20Hz - 20kHz) with A-frequency weighting (i.e. 'A-weighting') to compensate for the varying sensitivity of the human ear to soundat different frequencies.

Noise Any sound, that has the potential to cause disturbance, discomfort orpsychological stress to a person exposed to it, or any sound that could causeactual physiological harm to a person exposed to it, or physical damage to anystructure exposed to it, is known as noise.

Noise sensitive location NSL - any dwelling house, hotel or hostel, health building, educationalestablishment, place of worship or entertainment, or any other facility or otherarea of high amenity which for its proper enjoyment requires the absence ofnoise at nuisance levels.

Octave band A frequency interval, the upper limit of which is twice that of the lower limit. Forexample, the 1,000Hz octave band contains acoustical energy between 707Hzand 1,414Hz. The centre frequencies used for the designation of octave bandsare defined in ISO and ANSI standards.

Rating level See LAr,T.

RMS The RMS (Root Mean Square) value of a set of numbers is the square root ofthe average of their squares.

SEL (LAX or LAE) Sound exposure level - a measure of the A-weighted sound energy used todescribe noise events such as the passing of a train or aircraft; it is the A-weighted sound pressure level if occurring over a period of 1 second, wouldcontain the same amount of A-weighted sound energy as the event.

Sound pressure level Sound pressure refers to the fluctuations in air pressure caused by the passageof a sound wave. It may be expressed in terms of sound pressure level at apoint.

Specific noise level A component of the ambient noise which can be specifically identified byacoustical means and may be associated with a specific source. In BS 4142,


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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

93 Upper Georges St. Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin. www.enviroguide.ie

1

PETER JOSEPH BARRY

LARCHILL STUD

KILCOCK

CO. MEATH

WASTE PERMIT NUMBERS WFP/MH/08/0004/02

CLOSURE, RESTORATION, AFTERCARE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CRAMP) 2011

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 03-03-2015:23:24:59

Peter Joseph Barry Closure, Restoration, Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP) August 2011

2

August 2011

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

2. INTRODUCTION 6

2.1 Facility and Permit Details 6

2.2 Facility Closure Scenarios covered in this Plan 6

3. SITE EVALUATION 8

3.1 Facility Description and History 8

3.2 Site reference condition 8

3.3 Facility Compliance Status 8

3.4 Facility Processes and Activities 8

3.5 Overview of Production Process 9

3.6 Inventory of Site Buildings, Plant, Raw Materials and Wastes 10

4. CLOSURE CONSIDERATIONS 11

4.1 General 11

4.2 Clean or Non-Clean Closure Declaration 11

4.3 Plant or Equipment Decontamination Requirements 11

4.4 Plant Disposal or Recovery 11

4.5 Waste Disposal or Recovery 11

4.6 Soil or Spoil Removal 12

5. IMPLEMENTATION OF CLOSURE, RESTORATION, AFTERCARE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CRAMP) 12

5.1 Production Areas 12

5.2 Utilities 13

5.3 Warehouse 13

5.4 Offices, Administration, Reception and Security 14

5.5 Canteen and Kitchen 14

5.6 Waste Permit Documentation 14

5.7 Other Areas 14

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


3

6. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL CLOSURE 15

7. CLOSURE PLAN COSTING 16

7.1 Decommissioning Costs 16

7.2 Total Cost 17

7.3 Funding of Closure, Restoration, Aftercare Management Plan 17

8. CLOSURE PLAN UPDATE AND REVIEW 18

8.1 Proposed Frequency of Review 18

8.2 Proposed Scope of Review 18

9. CLOSURE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 19

9.1 Statutory Authority Notifications 19

9.2 Full or Partial Closure Considerations 19

10. CLOSURE PLAN VALIDATION 20

10.1 Closure Validation Audit 20

10.2 Closure Validation Audit Report 20

List of tables

Table 1 Decommissioning Costs 5

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


4

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mr. Peter Joseph Barry is permitted by Meath County Council for the composting of green waste, wood shredding and the bio-stabilisation of organic fines at the facility at Newtownrathganley, Kilcock, Co. Meath. Mr. Barry has owned this land for over 60 years and has ensured that this facility has been operated compliantly at all times. The permit is WFP/MH/08/0004/02. The facility is currently being operated by Enrich Environmental Ltd. one of Irelands leading composters who have an excellent reputation both within the recycling industry and among its significant customer base.

Enrich Environmental Ltd. has been operating at the Kilcock site for over 7 years and currently employs up to ten people most of these from the local community. The company has invested significantly in recent years in the development of this site. The facility is regulated by Meath County Council through two Waste Permits

This Closure and Aftercare Management Plan is being prepared in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Guidance on Environmental Liability Risk Assessment, Residuals Management Plans and Financial Provision (2006).

An initial screening and operational risk assessment of the facility was completed and indicated that the facility lies in the medium risk category. The risk assessment does not however, show any likelihood of significant residual liabilities.

The scope of this plan addresses the key issues, which would occur in an orderly shutdown of all the site activities on a phased basis over an estimated time period of 2-3 months. The basis of the plan is to ensure that, upon completion of the plan, the facility would be in a suitable state for future agricultural use and its condition would not pose a risk to public health and safety or the environment.

The costs associated with decommissioning are generally related to the disposal and recycling of equipment and the use of external resources to implement the CRAMP. In certain instances, costs will be recouped through the sale of equipment or materials.

A full list of resources required and associated costs is shown in Table 1 overleaf.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


5

Table 1 Decommissioning Costs

Item Estimated Cost (€)

Transportation of all plant including mobile plant and weighbridge to another facility

20,000

Waste treatment/disposal costs to include waste from the composting process including bio-stabilised materials (max 1000 tonnes)

100,000

Contract cleaning and decontamination of buildings and hardstand

30,000

Civil and structural, mechanical, and electrical contractors (1000 man hours at €40/hr)

40,000

Environmental Due Diligence Audit by professional consultancy

20,000

Subtotal 210,000

Contingency (25%) 55,000

Total 265,000

It is estimated that a maximum cost of approximately €265,000 could be incurred to decommission the site, including external resources costs.

A more realistic scenario would see all compost and plant being sold prior to closure and this would make a positive contribution towards the cost of the closure. This would give a closure cost of less than €150,000

On completion of the clearance of the site, the asset will be sold or developed or used by the owner for agricultural purposes.

The maximum total cost associated with executing a CRAMP at the Kilcock sites is therefore estimated to be in the region of €265,000.

Peter Joseph Barry confirms that there are more than adequate resources from operations to fund the CRAMP. In addition, the value of the facility itself as a fixed asset will far outweigh any remediation cost. However the implementation of Environmental Liabilities Risk Insurance will give additional reassurance to Meath County Council.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


6

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Facility and Licence Details

Peter Joseph Barry is the owner and permit holder at this facility. It is permitted by Meath County Council under Waste Permit Number WFP/MH/08/004/02. These lands have been in Mr. Barry’s ownership for over 60 years.

The facility is operated on Mr. Barry’s behalf by Enrich Environmental Ltd. Enrich provides recycling solutions for bio- degradable waste and is involved in the manufacture of high quality landscape products. Enrich employs up to ten people many of them from the local community. There has been significant investment in this operation in recent years and it is hoped to continue this in future years and create additional employment locally.

Mr Barry has sought a review of both of the above permits in August 2011 and this Closure and Aftercare Management Plan is written in a way that will comply with any such reviewed permit.

This Closure and Aftercare Management Plan is being prepared in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Guidance on Environmental Liability Risk Assessment, Residuals Management Plans and Financial Provision (2006).

“As part of the implementation of the IPPC Directive the terminology Residuals Management (RMP) will be replaced by Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Planning (CRAMP)’’

In accordance with this guidance document, CRAMP will now be referred to throughout this report.

An initial screening and operational risk assessment of the facility was completed and indicated that the facility lies in the medium risk category. The risk assessment does not show any likelihood of residual liabilities.

2.2 Facility Closure Scenarios covered in this Plan

Peter Joseph Barry has no current plans to decommission all or part of the site. Two possible scenarios in the unlikely event of a shutdown of the facility were considered.

Do-Nothing

Do-Something

The do-nothing scenario describes the situation of potential risks if the facility was vacated without implementing the Closure, Restoration, Aftercare Management Plan. The do-something scenario describes the potential risks if the plan was implemented.

It should be noted that a do-nothing scenario is not consistent with the policy of Peter Joseph Barry or Enrich Environmental Ltd. consequently, Mr. Barry proposes to implement the do-something scenario, i.e. implement the CRAMP.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


7

The scope of this plan addresses the key issues, which would occur in an orderly shutdown of all the site activities on a phased basis over an estimated time period of 2-3 months. The basis of the plan is to ensure that, upon completion of the plan, the facility would be in a suitable state for future use/development and its condition would not pose a risk to public health and safety or the environment.

It is intended to remove all equipment and systems from the site. In general, specialist equipment will be distributed to sister plants in the event of a shut down.

Mr. Barry intends to utilise existing staff resources to form a team to manage and execute the plan, supplemented where appropriate by outside resources. This CRAMP Team would be responsible for managing and executing the complete plan. Outside contractors required for cleaning, waste disposal, or recycling activities would be fully approved and licensed.

It is estimated that the duration of decommissioning and decontamination would be 2 to 3 months. Environmental monitoring would continue while the plan is in operation and for a period following the completion of the plan to be determined by Meath County Council. MCC would be informed of the results of the monitoring programme and of the status of the plan.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


8

3. SITE EVALUATION

3.1 Facility Description and History

The site of the composting facility at Newtownrathganley Co. Meath is in a rural location with the neighbouring areas occupied by farms or woodland. The current site consists of a 1.2 ha site with approx 5000 sq m of composting buildings. The site is in a secluded area which has been in the present ownership for over 60 years and all land use in the immediate vicinity is agricultural in nature.

The nearest residences (sensitive receptors) are some 200 m from the site. The facility does not/will not have any significant impacts with respect to human health, socio-economic factors, land use, or the amenity value and tourism potential of the area.

There will be no significant environmental emissions from the facility which could give rise to adverse effects.

3.2 Site reference condition

The site being occupied is located in a rural area and would have agricultural or other similar potential uses. The reference condition of the site is therefore taken to be that of a clean site with utilities available with no historical pollution that has been generated on site. The objective of the Closure, Restoration, Aftercare Management Plan will therefore be the return of the site to clean condition with potential for agricultural or similar use.

3.3 Facility Compliance Status

There are currently no issues of non-compliance associated with this site.

3.4 Facility Processes and Activities

The facility is primarily engaged in the production of peat free soil enhancement products, woodchip and in the bio-stabilisation of organic fines. On site operations include:

Reception and classification of materials.

Shredding of green garden waste and timber

Windrow composting of green garden waste

Bio-stabilisation of organic fines

Blending and bagging of compost and other nutrient rich materials

Loading trailers etc with outgoing loads

.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


9

3.5 Overview of Production Process

Windrow composting of green material, Wood shredding and Bio stabilisation of organic fines are already conducted at the facility.

1 Incoming green material is shredded and formed into long narrow piles called windrows. These are turned regularly to maintain aerobic conditions and break up any pockets that may have formed. Water is added to maintain moisture and create the optimum conditions for microbial activity. The resultant compost is blended with soil, sand other media to manufacture a range of peat free horticultural products.

2 Waste wood from civic amenity sites and waste transfer stations is shredded and then sold to make panel boards, pallets or as an amendment to Coillte for boiler fuel.

3 Organic fines are treated to reduce their biological activity and render the organic material stable for landfill as set out in the EPA Technical Guidance Document Municipal Solid Waste –Pre-treatment & Residuals Management.

By pre-treating bio-degradable waste the potential for ground water pollution and methane emissions from landfill is significantly reduced.

Within the facility there is a large concrete pad for the windrow composting and wood shredding, a blending area for the manufacture of horticultural products, storage area for finished products and a fully enclosed air conditioned building for bio-stabilisation.

All bio-stabilisation activity is conducted within an enclosed building. In addition there is a physical boundary between the areas where the different activities are conducted this eliminates the potential for cross contamination between the organic fines and the green material/horticultural products.

The bio-stabilisation building contains a reception hall, concrete bunkers where the various parameters can be carefully controlled and a maturation building used to cure material. The cured material is then sampled to assess the level of micro-biological activity. Material achieving the EPA standard AT4 is then removed to landfill for use as an engineering material.

Air is removed from the intake building and blown up through the floor of the bunkers. This fresh air ensures that the material is kept aerobic and also regulates the temperature to optimise the rate of biodegradation. Exhaust air from the composting bunkers is removed and sent to the biofilter via a humidifier.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


10

By removing air from the buildings a vacuum is created within the building. The presence of this vacuum is such that it causes fresh air to enter the facility, thus removing the potential for any odour migration off site.

3.6 Inventory of Site Buildings, Plant, Raw Materials and Wastes

Description of the Plant

The facility is both an indoor and yard based facility. Most of the plant is mobile plant and any fixed plant is installed in such a way that can facilitate a rapid and clean removal.

The administration building is portacabin as is the weighbridge office. The weighbridge itself is an above ground installation and can be removed by simply unbolting and lifting.

Storage on site is contained indoors.

Supporting site infrastructure includes a fully concreted yard, underground services, roads and car parking.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


11

4. CLOSURE CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 General

In the event of closure of the Peter Joseph Barry facility, there is a set of checklists to be completed, which cover such aspects as environment, quality and compliance, safety and industrial hygiene, sterilisation, and loss prevention.

4.2 Clean or Non-Clean Closure Declaration

Upon cessation of operations and subsequent decommissioning at the facility, it is anticipated that there will be no remaining environmental liabilities, i.e. clean closure is expected.

4.3 Plant or Equipment Decontamination Requirements

Decontamination of process equipment is a normal part of the operations. Equipment requiring decontamination is foreseen to consist of composting process equipment. In addition to process equipment, decontamination will be extended to any demolitions to be undertaken, and to the vacant areas created by such demolitions.

Decontamination will extend to all drains and sewers, to guarantee that any sludge and residues are removed from the site and are appropriately disposed of.

The decontamination programme will be based on updated risk assessment and will be submitted to the Meath County Council for approval.

4.4 Plant Disposal or Recovery

The process equipment will be decontaminated in accordance with normal operating procedures ensuring removal of all traces of pre-compost material and any chemical material such as hydraulic oils that could cause harm. Plant may be removed for use at other locations, left in place as part of the asset to be disposed of, or scrapped, based on risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. The most likely scenario in the event of a cessation of activity on site by Peter Joseph Barry is that the process equipment will be removed for sale and use at another location.

Utility plant will be left with the asset, as mothballed equipment or ready-to–operate, depending on the best economic option.

4.5 Waste Disposal or Recovery

Wastes to be managed in the circumstances of closure of the facility which may be present for management over and above the normal range or volumes are foreseen as the following:

Any waste arising from the composting process

Sludge from the wastewater drains;

Scrapped decontaminated equipment;

Ducting and decontaminated process equipment

Residues of oils e.g hydraulic oils and fuel oils

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


12

Non-hazardous waste arising from the disposal of residual packaging documentation, and waste arising from the cleaning of offices, workshops and welfare facilities.

The disposal of these wastes will be according to the current good practice as applicable to hazardous and non-hazardous waste, through licensed operators.

It should be noted that any remaining compost stock on site at the time of closure will treated as normal, i.e. sold for the best market price available.

4.6 Soil or Spoil Removal

Given the following:

The quantities of non organic materials stored and used on site is relatively small

The natures of the materials held onsite are not harmful to the environment

The site is concreted

Foul effluent is directed into a closed system

Surface water is directed to a percolation area within forestry

it is therefore anticipated that there will be no contaminated ground, soil or spoil arising at the site that would require specialist recovery or disposal.

5. IMPLEMENTATION OF CLOSURE, RESTORATION, AFTERCARE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(CRAMP)

Particular actions are listed below for specific areas of the facility as part of the CRAMP. In general, care and attention will be given during the implementation of the plan to ensure that the potential risks associated with the plan are avoided. In the event of a spillage, leak or fire during decommissioning, Enrich Environmental’s Emergency Plan would be fully implemented in order to minimise the risk to health and the environment.

5.1 Production Areas

The CRAMP for all production areas would consist of the following actions:

Cessation of waste acceptance

Cessation of all production other than completion of work in progress.

Removal of all product material to the relevant area of the facility for transfer to other facilities or for sale.

Cleaning and decontamination of all process vessels and any other equipment with product contact. Site cleaning procedures, using clean-in-place, steam-in-place, clean-out-of-place steam-out-of-place would be sufficient for these operations. Additional specific procedures would be developed, if required. The state of cleanliness would be verified through a visual inspection.

Cleaning and decontamination of all mobile 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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


13

Cleaning and decontamination of all concrete hardstand areas using a steam cleaning process and employing the use of a roadsweeper.

Shutting off unnecessary services to the buildings.

Cleaning and decontamination of all floor drains and sumps.

Specialist equipment, once decontaminated, to be sent to a sister facility for use in similar or other processes.

5.2 Utilities

The CRAMP for the utilities areas would consist of shutting down of the following systems on a phased basis, depending on plant status and requirements:

Chemicals, water

Removal of any associated chemicals, oils or any other materials used in the utilities area for redistribution, return to vendor or disposal, if required.

The water supply system would be maintained due to the needs for fire protection and sanitary services.

Waste Oils, Diesel and Hazardous Waste

Waste oils, diesel and hazardous waste (e.g. anti-freeze) used in the utilities area will be sent for suitable treatment or disposal. Hazardous waste will be removed from site and disposed of to a suitably licensed facility. Records will be retained and archived.

Maintenance and Engineering

The secure archiving of all engineering documentation including drawings, process and instrumentation diagrams, validation documentation, vendor manuals and data, project files, maintenance records, inspection records and all other appropriate documentation.

Disconnection of all maintenance equipment to leave it in a secure state.

Distribution of equipment to a sister facility or sale to an interested party, where possible.

Removal of all old and obsolete equipment from maintenance areas, workshop areas and stores for recycling or disposal by a licensed contractor.

5.3 Warehouse

The CRAMP for the warehouse will consist of the following actions:

Cancellation of all orders for incoming materials to the site;

Negotiate with sister plants with a view to distribution of unused materials;

Negotiation with relevant suppliers to return unused materials to supplier;

Send opened containers and unreturnable or out-of-date goods for appropriate treatment or disposal;

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


14

Clean and decontaminate the storage areas. Specific procedures would be developed, if required. The state of cleanliness would be verified either analytically or through a visual inspection.

5.4 Offices, Administration, Reception and Security

The CRAMP for the offices, Administration areas, Reception and Security includes the following actions:

Removal of administration equipment for distribution to sister facility or sale to interested party, where possible, otherwise for disposal by a licensed contractor.

Safe and compliant storage of all relevant documentation to an off-site location.

The maintenance of site security on an ongoing basis for ongoing monitoring of the site from a safety, fire prevention and environmental perspective.

5.5 Canteen

Removal of canteen equipment for distribution to sister facility or sale to interested party, where possible, otherwise for disposal by a licensed contractor.

5.6 Waste Permit Documentation

All Meath County Council Permit related documentation will be maintained on file for a minimum of 7 years post closure of the facility. Where a transfer of the Waste Permit takes place, the associated documentation will reside with the new permit holder.

5.7 Other Areas

The following other actions will be required to ensure the implementation of the CRAMP on a site-wide basis:

Cessation of any construction project work on site so that the site is left in a safe and orderly condition. Contractors will be required to decommission any construction compounds and remove all construction equipment, construction materials and waste, storage units and temporary offices from the site at the completion of construction projects.

Disbandment of contract personnel, facilities and equipment.

Termination of all non-essential maintenance and other contracts.

Removal from site any temporary offices or storage areas.

Continuation of ongoing monitoring programmes to insure the integrity of the groundwater and surface waters on site.

Rationalisation of the site electricity supply.

Testing of soils and groundwater at the time of decommissioning would be performed and remediation carried out, if necessary.

Retention of all necessary fire alarms and fire protection systems.

Retention of standard security patrols, video monitoring and defined site access procedures.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


15

Removal of all items that may contain mercury (for example fluorescent lights) or any other controlled compounds for recycling or disposal if necessary.

6. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL CLOSURE

Successful clean closure will be expected to be achieved when it can be demonstrated that there are no remaining environmental liabilities at the site. In practice this will require demonstration that the following criteria have been met:

All plant was safely decontaminated using standard procedures and authorised contractors;

All wastes were handled, packaged, temporarily stored and disposed of or recovered in a manner which complies with regulatory requirements;

All relevant records relating to waste and materials movement and transfer or disposal were managed and retained throughout the closure process;

There was no soil or groundwater contamination at the site. This was verified using monitoring data and a soil/groundwater assessment at the time of closure (if required);

The Site Management System remained in place and was actively implemented during the closure period;

The asset is suitable for use as an agricultural or related development site, as demonstrated by an environmental due diligence assessment. This due diligence must contain a summary and a detailed explanation of the following issues:

o Environmental liabilities, past and present;

o Regulatory non-compliance issues along with a ranking of their severity and implications;

o Potential limitations on business expansion and business interruption potential;

o Major environmental risks;

o Approximate cost estimate to bring closure to these issues.

The decision on clean-up condition will be reflected in the agreement of sale.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


16

7. CLOSURE PLAN COSTING

7.1 Decommissioning Costs

The costs associated with decommissioning are generally related to the disposal and recycling of equipment and the use of external resources to implement the CRAMP. In certain instances, costs will be recouped through the sale of equipment or materials. The liabilities risk assessment does not foresee any ongoing monitoring requirements.

It is expected that external resources will be required in order to implement the CRAMP in full. A list of these resources and associated costs (at 2011 prices) is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Decommissioning Costs

Item Estimated Cost (€)

Transportation of processing plant, mobile plant, and weighbridge to another facility

20,000

Waste treatment/disposal costs to include waste from the composting process including bio-stabilised materials (max 1000 tonnes)

100,000

Contract cleaning and decontamination 30,000

Civil and structural, mechanical, and electrical contractors (500 man hours at €40/hr)

40,000

Environmental Due Diligence Audit by professional consultancy

20,000

Subtotal 210,000

Contingency (25%) 55,000

Total 265,000

It is estimated that a cost of approximately €265,000 in a worst case would be incurred to decommission the site, including external resources costs. In reality this cost is anticipated to be less than €150,000.

The following assumptions were made in estimating the likely costs involved:

The processes and operations at the facility do not give rise to any reasonable probability that site remediation in the form of groundwater or soil cleanup would be a likely requirement.

The site would be left in a clean condition, i.e. decontaminated and certified as being free of any hazard. All buildings would be retained. All bulk materials and process intermediates and products would be removed.

No liabilities would be incurred due to activities of contractors storing and disposing of materials removed from the site, as current waste management principles would continue to be applied.

No civil liability would be incurred as a result of third parties alleging environmental damage arising from the operational phase or closure.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


17

The maximum asset value of the facility would be maintained, but no action would be taken to prepare the site for a trade sale as a going concern or otherwise.

Normal practice would be applied to minimise ongoing liabilities and to fulfil insurance requirements.

In addition, no factors have been identified that would indicate an unusual liability for the site in comparison with other process industry sites.

7.2 Total Cost

The total cost associated with executing a Closure, Restoration, Aftercare Management Plan at the Peter Joseph Barry/Enrich Environmental Ltd site is estimated to be in the region of €265,000

7.3 Funding of Closure, Restoration, Aftercare Management Plan

Mr. Peter Joseph Barry confirms that he has more than adequate resources from operations to fund the Closure, Restoration, Aftercare Management Plan as set out above. Confirmation of this is contained within the Letter from his accountants.

This letter is presented in Appendix 1.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


18

8. CLOSURE PLAN UPDATE AND REVIEW

8.1 Proposed Frequency of Review

The CRAMP will be reviewed annually and any changes submitted to Meath County Council as part of the site’s Annual Environmental Report.

8.2 Proposed Scope of Review

The scope of the annual review of the CRAMP will cover the following at a minimum:

Review in accordance with the facility’s Waste Permit conditions;

Review any incidents that may result in environmental contamination;

Review of changes in environmental aspects

Review changes in underground structures;

Review scope of decontamination.

Review changes in insurance cover for environmental liabilities

Statutory changes affecting CRAMP and ELRA requirements

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


19

9. CLOSURE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

9.1 Statutory Authority Notifications

Meath County Council will be notified of Mr. Peter Joseph Barry’s intentions to fully or partially decommission the facility.

9.2 Full or Partial Closure Considerations

Any partial closure of the facility will be dealt with as a change of activity, as long as the permit activity remains on the 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 03-03-2015:23:25:00


20

10. CLOSURE PLAN VALIDATION

10.1 Closure Validation Audit

A final validation report to include a certificate of completion for the residuals management plan, for all or part of the site, as necessary, shall be submitted to Meath County Council on completion of the plan. This assessment and report will be carried out by a firm of independent consultants. In addition, Mr. Barry shall carry out such tests, investigations or submit certification, as required to confirm that there is no continuing risk to the environment.

10.2 Closure Validation Audit Report

For a Waste Permit to be transferred or surrendered there must be a consultation process with the Local Authority. Normally, the Council conducts a post-closure audit of the site and thereafter must be satisfied that the facility is fully compliant with its permit conditions at the time of closure in order to facilitate the formal surrender or transfer of a licence.

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00

APPENDIX 1

LETTER FROM ACCOUNTANT CONFIRMING FINANCIAL STATUS

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00

APPENDIX 2

COPY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES RISK INSURANCE

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 03-03-2015:23:25:00

larch hill stud newtownrathganley kilcock - co. meath · 2015-03-03 · plus noise from farm...

Documents