Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

9 Air Quality Study

Executive Summary

Air dispersion modelling was carried out using the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) regulatory model ISCST3. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of both typical and maximum emissions from lndaver Ireland in the ambient environment. The study demonstrates that all substances which will be emitted from lndaver Ireland will be at levels that are well below even the most stringent ambient air quality standards and guidelines. The dispersion model study consisted of the following components:

review of design emission levels and other relevant information needed for the modelling study identification of the significant substances which are released from the site review of background ambient air quality in. the vicinity of the plant air dispersion modelling of significant substance concentrations released from the site deposition modelling of dioxin and heavy metals released from the site identification of predicted ground level concentrations of released substances beyond the site boundary and at sensitive receptors in the immediate environment a full cumulative assessment of significant releases from the site taking into account the releases from all other significant industry in the area based on the USEPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) approach evaluation of the significance of these predicted concentrations, including consideration of whether these ground level concentrations are likely to exceed the most stringent ambient air quality standards and guidelines.

Modelling and a subsequent impact assessment was undertaken for the following substances released from the site:

. Nitrogen dioxide (NO*) . Sulphur Dioxide (S02) For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. . Total Dust (as PMlo) . Carbon Monoxide (CO) . Gaseous and vaporous organic substances expressed as total organic carbon (TOC) . Hydrogen Chloride (HCI) . Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) . PCDD/PCDFs (Dioxins) . Mercury (Hg) . Cadmium (Cd) and Thallium (TI) . Sum of Antimony (Sb), Arsenic (As), Lead (Pb), Chromium (Cr), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Manganese (Mn), Nickel (Ni) and Vanadium (V).

Assessment Approach

Emissions from the site have been assessed under firstly typical operations and secondly under maximum operating conditions. Maximum operations are based on those outlined in EU Directive 2000/76/EC. Predicted ambient air concentrations have also been identified at the most sensitive residential receptors and in Ringaskiddy and Cobh and the surrounding geographical area as far away as Carrigaline, Monkstown and Crosshaven.

&up Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 1 of 117 lndaver EIS_C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:12 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental impact Statement

Modeling Under Typical & Maximum Operations

In order to assess the possible impact from lndaver Ireland under typical and maximum operations, a conservative approach was adopted, that is designed to over-predict ground level concentrations. This cautious approach will ensure that an over-estimation of impacts will occur and that the resultant emission standards adopted are protective of ambient air quality. The approach incorporated several conservative assumptions regarding operation conditions at lndaver Ireland. This approach incorporated the following features:

l For the maximum operating scenario, it has been assumed that the two emission points are continuously operating at their maximum operating volume flow. This will over-estimate the actual mass emissions from the site.

l For both scenarios, it has been assumed that both flues are operating simultaneously for 24- hrslday over the course of the full year.

l Typical emissions are the expected annual average daily emissions from the plant when operating at 100% of its design capacity.

l Worst-case meteorological conditions have been used in all assessments. The worst-case year leads to annual average concentrations, which are 30% higher than the five-year average. The year of meteorological data for the years between 1993 and 1997 that gave rise to the highest predicted ground level concentrations of nitrogen dioxide has been reported in this study (Year 1995).

l A comparison with a more advanced modelling formulation (AERMOD) has indicated that the current model (ISCST3) is conservative and particularly so for long-term averaging periods.

As a result of these conservative assumptions, there will be an over-estimation of the emissions from the site and the impact of lndaver Ireland in the surrounding environment.

Modeled Locations For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

In relation to the spatial assessment of emissions from the site, modelling has been carried out to cover locations at the boundary of the site and beyond, regardless of whether any sensitive receptors are located in the area. Ambient air quality legislation designed to protect human health is generally based on assessing ambient air quality at locations where the exposure of the population is significant relevant to the averaging time of the pollutant. However, in the current assessment, ambient legislation has been applied to all locations regardless of whether any sensitive receptors (such as residential locations) are present for significant periods of time. Thus, again, this represents a worst-case approach and an examination of the corresponding concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptors relative to the actual quoted maximum concentration indicates that these nearest sensitive receptors generally experience ambient concentrations significantly lower than that reported for the maximum value.

Baseline Air Quality Review

An extensive baseline survey was carried out in the region of the site between March and June 2001. The survey focussed on the significant pollutants likely to be emitted from the source and which have been regulated in Council Directive 2000/76/EC.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page2of117 lndaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:12 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

NO2 concentrations measured over the twelve-week monitoring period were significantly less than the EU limit value with little concentration gradient across the region. PM,,, concentrations measured over the period averaged 21 pglm3, which is significantly lower than the annual limit value of 40 pg/m3. Similarly, levels of SO*, benzene and HCI were all significantly below the respective limit values.

Background levels of PCDD/PCDFs cannot be compared to ambient air quality concentration or deposition standards. However, levels of dioxins and furans can be compared to existing levels measured sporadically in Ireland and continuously in the UK as part of the TOMPS network. Existing levels in Ringaskiddy are typical of the range of values encountered in rural locations in the UK and Continental Europe and significantly lower than urban locations in the UK and Europe.

Average concentrations of cobalt, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, lead, antimony, and thallium measured were significantly below their respective annual limit values. Levels of cadmium and arsenic were generally below the detection limit for each of the six weeks in the monitoring period. However, the monitoring methodology’s detection limits could not achieve the stringent limits of the proposed ambient standard for As or Cd. However, no significant local sources of these compounds could be identified and thus, it may be expected that background levels of these compounds are likely to be minor.

Background levels of nickel were detected at above the proposed ambient air quality standard during the monitoring period. Although a source of heavy metals may have been present during the monitoring period, future projections of emissions in the region did not identify any significant local sources of Ni in a detailed cumulative assessment of nearby sources. Thus, it may be expected that background levels of this compound are likely to be minor during operations of lndaver Ireland.

Existing air quality in Ringaskiddy can be compared to levels measured elsewhere in the region. Cork City Centre generally experiences significantly higher levels of NO2 and PMIo whilst recent results from the EPA’s mobile monitoring unit indicates that Blackpool, Cork, which is a suburban area, has also significantly higher levels of PMlo and NO*. Thus, the current region is For inspection purposes only. characterised by good air Consentquality of copyrightand is owner significantly required for anybetter other use. than current air quality in suburban locations of Cork.

Study Conclusions

The main study conclusions are presented below for each substance in turn:

NO2 modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient NO* concentrations (including background concentrations) which are 87% of the maximum ambient l- hour limit value (measured as a 99.8”%ile) at the worst-case boundary receptor.

SO,, PM,o & CO

Modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards for sulphur dioxide, PM 1o and carbon monoxide under both typical and

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 3 of 117 IndaverEIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient concentrations (including background concentrations) ranging from 7% - 53% of the respective limit values at the worst-case receptors.

TOC, HCI & HF

Modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality guidelines for TOC and HCI under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient concentrations (including background concentrations) for HCI and TOC of only 19% and 22% respectively of the maximum ambient l-hour limit value (measured as a 9gth%ile).

HF modelling results indicate that emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient HF concentrations (including background concentrations) which are 60% of the maximum ambient l- hour limit value (measured as a 9gth%ile) and 47% of the annual limit value.

PCDD I PCDFs

Currently, no internationally recognised ambient air quality concentration or deposition standards exist for PCDD/PCDFs. Both the USEPA and WHO recommended approach to assessing the risk to human health from PCDDlPCDFs entails a detailed risk assessment analysis involving the determination of the impact of PCDDlPCDFs in terms of the TDI (Tolerable Daily Intake) approach. The WHO currently proposes a maximum TDI of between I-4 pgTEQ/kg of body weight per day.

Background levels of PCDD/PCDFs occur everywhere and existing levels in the surrounding area have been extensively monitored over a two-month period as part of this study. Modelling results indicate that the existing levels are significantly lower than urban areas and typical of rural areas in the UK and Continental Europe. The contribution from the site in this context is minor, with cumulative levels under maximum operation remaining significantly below levels which would be expected in urban areas Forat inspection the worst-case purposes only. boundary receptor to the south of the site. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Levels at the nearest residential receptor will be minor, with the annual contribution from lndaver Ireland accounting for less than 10% of the existing background concentration under maximum operating conditions.

Hg

Hg modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient mercury concentrations (excluding background concentrations) which are only 6% of the annual average limit value at the worst-case receptor.

Cd and TI

Modelling results indicate that ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards for both cadmium and thallium under both typical and maximum levels from the site. Emissions at maximum levels equate to ambient Cd concentrations (excluding background concentrations) which are 58% of the suggested annual limit value at the site boundary.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page4of117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Background concentrations of Cd and TI were monitored over a 6-week period. However, the monitoring methodology’s detection limits could not achieve the stringent limits of the proposed ambient standard for Cd. However, no significant local sources of this compound could be identified in a detailed cumulative assessment of nearby sources. Thus, it may be expected that the background level of this compound is likely to be minor.

Sum of Sb, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn and V

Modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards for manganese (the metal with the most stringent short-term limit value) and antimony (the metal with the most stringent long-term limit value) under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient Mn concentrations (excluding background concentrations) which are only 33% of the annual limit value at the worst-case boundary receptor whilst emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient Sb concentrations (excluding background concentrations) which are only 28% of the maximum l-hour limit value at the worst-case boundary receptor.

As

Modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations will be below the relevant air quality standard for arsenic at emission levels at or above the highest measured values from two similar sites in Belgium. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum levels equate to ambient As concentrations (excluding background concentrations) which are 38% of the suggested annual EU limit value at the worst-case receptor. Background concentrations of As were monitored over a 6-week period. The monitoring methodology’s detection limits could not achieve the stringent limits of the proposed ambient standard for As. However, no significant local sources of this compound could be identified in a detailed cumulative assessment of nearby sources. Thus, it may be expected that the background level of this compound is likely to be minor.

Ni For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations (excluding background concentrations) will be below the relevant air quality standard for nickel based on emission levels at or above the highest measured values from two similar sites in Belgium. Emissions at this level equate to ambient Ni concentrations (excluding background concentrations) which are 15% of the suggested annual EU limit value at the worst-case receptor.

Raised background levels were detected during the monitoring period. Although a source of heavy metals may have been present during the monitoring period, future projections of emissions in the region did not identify any significant local sources of Ni in a detailed cumulative assessment of nearby sources. Thus, it may be expected that background levels of this compound are likely to be minor during operations of lndaver Ireland.

Nevertheless, levels from lndaver Ireland are below the respective PSD increment (less than 50% of the ambient limit value) equating to 15% of the suggested annual EU limit value at the worst-case boundary receptor under maximum proposed operations.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 5 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Summary

Modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards or guidelines for all compounds under both typical and maximum operations of the site. The modelling results indicate that this maximum occurs at or near the site’s southern boundary. Maximum operations are based on the emission concentrations outlined in EU Directive 2000I761EC.

Concentrations fall off rapidly away from this maximum and the short-term limit values at the nearest residential receptor will be less than 12% of the worst-case concentration. The annual average concentration has an even more dramatic decrease in maximum concentration away from the site with concentrations from emissions at lndaver Ireland accounting for less than 2% of the limit value (not including background concentrations) at worst case sensitive receptors near the site. Thus, the results indicate that the impact from lndaver Ireland is minor and limited to the immediate environs of the site.

In the surrounding main population centres, Ringaskiddy, Cobh, Monkstown, Carrigaline and Crosshaven, levels are significantly lower than background sources with the concentrations from emissions at lndaver Ireland accounting for less than 2% of the annual limit values for all pollutants.

9.1 Introduction

lndaver Ireland commissioned an extensive and detailed examination of air emissions from the proposed waste management facility in Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork. As described in detail elsewhere, the waste management facility will be developed in two phases. The first phase will comprise a Fluidised Bed Furnace and a Post Combustion Chamber (or Afterburner), which will be used to treat solid and liquid hazardous and non-hazardous waste. In phase two, a Moving Grate Furnace, which will be used to treat non-hazardous municipal waste, will be installed.

The combustion of waste produces a number of emissions, the discharges of which is regulated For inspection purposes only. by the EU Directive on WasteConsent Incineration of copyright owner (2000/76/EC). required for any other use.The emissions to atmosphere which

have been regulated are:

. Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) . Suiphur Dioxide (SO*) . Total Dust . Carbon Monoxide (CO) . Total Organic Carbon (TOC) . Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) and Hydrogen Chloride (HCI) . DioxinslFurans (PCDD/PCDFs) . Cadmium (Cd) & Thallium (TI) . Mercury (Hg) . and the sum of Antimony (Sb), Arsenic (As), Lead (Pb), Chromium (Cr), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Maganese (Mn), Nickel (Ni) and Vanadium (V).

This scope of the study consists of the following components:

. review of both maximum and typical emission levels and other relevant information needed for the modelling study

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 6of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

. identification of the significant substances which are released from the site . review of background ambient air quality in the vicinity of the plant . air dispersion modelling of significant substances concentrations released from the site . air dispersion and deposition modelling of dioxin and heavy metals released from the site . identification of predicted ground level concentrations of released substances at the site boundary and at sensitive receptors in the immediate environment . a full cumulative assessment of significant releases from the site taking into account the releases from all other significant industry in the area based on the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) approach . evaluation of the significance of these predicted concentrations, including consideration of whether these ground level concentrations are likely to exceed the most stringent ambient air quality standards and guidelines.

9.2 Study Methodology

9.2.1 Introduction

The air dispersion modelling input data consists of detailed information on the physical environment (including building dimensions and terrain features), design details from all emission points on-site and a full year of worst-case meteorological data. Using this input data, the model predicts ambient ground level concentrations beyond the site boundary for each hour of the modelled meteorological year. The model post-processes the data io identify the location and maximum of the worst-case ground level concentration in the applicable format for comparison with ihe relevant limit values. This worst-case concentration is then added to the existing background concentration to give the worst-case predicted ambient concentration. The worst- case ambient concentration is then compared with the relevant ambient air quality standard to assess the significance of the releases from the site.

Throughout this study a worst-case approach was taken. This will most likely lead to an over- estimation of the levels that will arise in practice. The worst-case assumptions are outlined below:

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. l Emissions from all emission points in the cumulative assessment were assumed to be operating at their maximum emission level, 24 hours/day over the course of a full year.

l All emission points were assumed to be operating at their maximum volume flow, 24 hours/day over the course of a full year.

l Maximum predicted ambient concentrations were reported in this study even though, in most case, no residential receptors were near the location of this maximum.

l Worst-case background concentrations were used to assess the baseline levels of substances released from the site

l Worst-case meteorological conditions have been used in all assessments. The worst-case year leads to annual concentrations, which are 30% higher than the five-y?ar average.

l A comparison with a more advanced modelling formulation (AERMOD) has indicated that the current model (ISCST3) is conservative and particularly so for long-term averaging periods.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 PageIof117 Indav.?rEIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

9.2.2 Meteorological Considerations

Meteorological data is an important input into the air dispersion model. The local airflow pattern will be greatly influenced by the geographical location. Important features will be the location of hills and valleys or land-water-air interfaces and whether the site is located in simple or complex terrain.

The selection of the appropriate meteorological data has followed the guidance issued by the USEPA( A primary requirement is that the data used should have a data capture of greater than 90% for all parameters. Two meteorological stations were identified near the site - Roches Point and Cork Airport. Roches Point meteorological station is an unmanned station which is situated at an exposed location to the south-east of the site. However, due to the unavailability of the data in the correct format and a data collection of less than 90% for all parameters, Roches Point was deemed unsuitable for use in the dispersion model.

The additional requirements of the selection process depend on the representativeness of the data. The representativeness can be defined as “the extent to which a set of measurements taken in a space-time domain reflects the actual conditions in the same or different space-time domain taken on a scale appropriate for a specific application”(*). The meteorological data should be representative of conditions affecting the transport and dispersion of pollutants in the area of interest as determined by the location of the sources and receptors being modelled.

The representativeness of the data is dependent on?

1) the proximity of the meteorological monitoring site to the area under consideration

2) the complexity of the terrain

3) the exposure of the meteorological monitoring site (surface characteristics around the meteorological site should be similar to the surface characteristics within the modelling domain)

For inspection purposes only. 4) the period of time duringConsent which of copyrightdata isowner collected required for any other use.

In the region of the site, Cork Airport records meteorological data in the appropriate format for use in air dispersion modelling. Cork Airport has been compared with data available for Roches Point over the period 1993-97 (see Table 9.1). The two sets of weather data gave a similar pattern of wind direction although the Roches Point data has generally higher wind speeds, as would be expected due to its coastal location. As lower wind speeds are likely to lead to higher ground level concentrations under most scenarios, the use of Cork Airport data should not lead to a significant under-estimation of the ambient ground level concentrations from the site. Thus, real meteorological data collected at Cork Airport from 1993-97 has been used as input to the model. As stated above, Cork Airport is the nearest suitable meteorological station to the site and thus the weather pattern experienced would be expected to be similar to the current site. On account of the modest hill to the south of the site, some channelling of wind may be expected to occur along the direction of the valley. However, this would not be expected to be significant at stack height due to the modest nature of this terrain feature.

The windrose from Cork Airport for the years 1993-97 is shown in Figure 9.1. The windrose indicates the prevailing wind speed and direction over the five-year period. The prevailing wind direction is generally from the NW-SW direction. In the worst-case year of 1995, wind speeds were generally moderate, averaging around 2-3 m/s.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page8ofl17 lndaver IX-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

The ISCST3 model is capable of modelling most meteorological conditions likely to be encountered in the region. However, unusual meteorologicat conditions may occur infrequently, which may not be modelled adequately using ISCST3. One such condition is fumigation which occurs when a plume is emitted into a stable layer of air which subsequently mixes to ground level through either convective transfer of heat from the surface or because of advection to less stable surroundings@‘. A recommended screening model is SCREEN3”‘. An additional consideration in the current location is shoreline fumigation which may occur when tall stacks are located near shorelines. Shoreline fumigation may be caused by the movement from a stable marine environment to an unstable inland environment leading to mixing to ground level at the point of contact. Again, this unusual meteorological condition can be modelled by SCREEN3’3’ (full details are given in Appendix 9.5).

9.23 Modelling Methodology

Emissions from the lndaver Ireland site have been modelled using the ISCSTS dispersion model which has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPAf4’. The model is a steady-state Gaussian plume model used to assess pollutant concentrations associated with industrial sources. The model has been designated the regulatory model by the USEPA for modelling emissions from industrial sources in both flat and rolling terrain(‘). An overview of the model is outlined in Appendix 9.1.

As part of an on-going program to improve the theoretical basis and accuracy of air dispersion models, the USEPA has recently reassessed the regulatory status of ISCST3. At the recently convened 7th Conference on Air Dispersion Modelling (2000)‘5’, a new modelling formulation was suggested as a replacement for ISCST3 - AERMOD. This model has more advanced algorithms and gives better agreement with monitoring data in extensive validation studies@-7). Although AERMOD is a new generation model, the building downwash algorithm is similar to ISCST3. In recognition of this shortcoming, the USEPA are currently reviewing the possibility of incorporating a more advanced building downwash algorithm (PRIME Module) into the AERMOD modelling platform @+J). Thus the current status of this model is still under review and thus it has not been granted regulatory approval at the current time. For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. In order to ensure that the current assessment is protective of air quality into the future and does not under-estimate air concentrations in the current application, a comparison of emissions from lndaver Ireland has been made with AERMOD (Appendix 9.1). Results have indicated that the current model (lSCST3) is conservative and particularly so for short-term averaging periods. Thus, modelling results reported here should be viewed as upper limits.

9.2.4 Assessment Methodology

Council Directive 20001761EC

The assessment methodology used in the current study was developed following the recommendations outlined in the recently enacted Council Directive 2000/76/EC on the Incineration of Waste.

The Directive has outlined air emission limit values, which are to be complied with as set out in Table 9.2. The Directive has also outlined stringent operating conditions in order to ensure sufficient combustion of waste thus ensuring that dioxin formation is minimised. Specifically, the combustion gases must be maintained at a temperature of 850% for at least two seconds under normal operating conditions for non-hazardous waste whilst for hazardous waste containing more

&up Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 9 of 117 lndaver EIS_C796.f0

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

than 1% halogenated organic substances, the temperature should be raised to 1100°C for at least two seconds. These measures will ensure that dioxins, PCBs and PAHs are minimised through complete combustion of waste.

Specific emission measurement requirements have been outlined in the directive for each pollutant:

1) continuous measurements of the following substances; NO,, CO, total dust, TOC, HCI, and so2 2) bi-annual measurements of heavy metals, dioxins and furans.

lndaver Ireland are committed, as a minimum, to meeting all the requirements of Council Directive 2000/76/EC. Indeed, due to the advanced post-combustion flue gas cleaning technology employed, expected average emission values will be significantly lower than these values. The maximum and expected emission concentrations and mass emission rates have been detailed in Table 9.3. Table 9.3 details expected typical emissions during phase 1 and phase 1 and 2 of the scheme. Phase 1 refers to the operation of the Fluidised Bed Incinerator only whereas in phase 2 the Moving Grate Incinerator will be installed. The modelling during the current assessment has focused on phase 1 and 2, as the worst-case impact will occur during this period of operation. The impact during phase 1 will result in both reduced concentrations and mass emissions from the site. Moreover, for some substances, particularly metals, average long-term emission rates are likely to be significantly lower than that outlined in Table 9.3.

Very low levels of dioxin will be emitted under typical operating conditions from the incineration process. Typical emissions will be well below the stringent limit value set out in Council Directive 2000/76/EC. This rigorous limit value will be achieved through a targeted removal system over several stages of the flue gas cleaning system. Prior to abatement, the formation of dioxins will be minimised by the maintenance of high combustion temperatures (over 850°C at all times and over 1100°C where chlorinated wastes are being treated) for a period of two seconds followed by rapid cooling of gases from 400°C to 200°C which is the critical temperature range for dioxins formation in combustion systems. Post-combustion, dioxins will be removed via a two-stage removal process. The first stage involves the injection of a mixture of activated carbon and lime into the For inspection purposes only. combustion gas duct, directlyConsent after of copyright the evaporator owner required forcoolers. any other use.The large surface area of the activated

carbon helps to adsorb dioxins, furans, hydrocarbons and heavy metals. In the second stage, the exhaust gas from the wet scrubbers undergoes a final gas-cleaning step in either an activated wet lignite coke bed or by an injection of activated carbon and lime mixture prior to the baghouse filter. The combined efficiency of these filters will ensure that emission concentrations will be less than the EU Council Directive 2000/76/EC. In order to confirm this efficiency target, a continuous dioxin sampler will be employed to determine average for-brightly concentrations, thus allowing an accurate comparison with the emission limit values.

USEPA Guidelines On Air Quality Models

In the absence of detailed guidance from the Irish EPA, the selection of appropriate modelling methodology has followed the guidance from the USEPA which has issued detailed and comprehensive guidance on the selection and use of air quality models(1’4.“-‘2).

Based on guidance from the USEPA, the most appropriate regulatory model for the current application is the ISCSTS model (Version 3.4). The model is applicable in both flat and rolling terrain, urban or rural locations and for all averaging periods(‘.4).

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page IOof 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact statement

ISCST3 uses two algorithms to treat terrain based on the relative height variation between the source’s stacks and surrounding terrain. In simple terrain, which is defined in ISCST3 as terrain below stack height, the ISCST3 simple terrain algorithm is used to model concentrations. In complex terrain, which is defined as when the plume centreline height is below the terrain height for that modelled hour, the COMPLEX1 complex terrain screening algorithm is used to model concentrations. In areas of intermediate terrain, which occur with terrain that exceeds the height of the release but is below the plume centreline height, concentrations from both the simple terrain algorithm and the complex terrain algorithm are obtained and the higher of the two concentrations is used for that hour and that source. For deposition calculations, the intermediate terrain analysis is first applied to the concentrations at a given receptor, and the algorithm (simple or complex) that gives the highest concentration at that receptor is used to calculate the deposition value.

The selection of urban/rural classification is based on the land use procedure of Auer(13) as recommended by the USEPA (‘I . If 50% of the land use within a 3km circumference of the source is classified as high density residential, medium to heavy industry or commercial, urban dispersion coefficients should be used; otherwise rural dispersion coefficients should be use. An examination of the land-use type around the site indicated that rural dispersion coefficients were appropriate.

The USEPA has outlined guidance in order to establish the operating conditions that causes the maximum ground level concentration. The guidance indicates that a range of operating conditions should be assessed in the initial screening analysis. Table 9.4 outlines the recommended range of operating conditions to be assessed and which was adopted in the current assessment.

Cumulative Assessment

As the region around Ringaskiddy is industrialised and thus has several other potentially significant sources of pollutants, a detailed cumulative assessment has been carried out using the methodology outlined by the USEPA. Table 9.4 outlines the recommended range of operating conditions to be assessed in the cumulative assessment. i”’

The impact of nearby sources should be examined where interactions between the plume of the point source under consideration and those of nearby sources can occur. These include: For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. 1) the area of maximum impact of the point source 2) the area of maximum impact of nearby sources 3) the area where all sources combine to cause maximum impact(‘).

Background concentrations for the area, based on natural, minor and distant major sources need also to be taken into account in the modelling procedure. A major baseline monitoring program (see Section 9.3) was undertaken over a three-month period which, in conjunction with other available baseline data, was used to determine conservative background concentrations in the region (see Table 9.21).

The methodology adopted in the cumulative assessment was based on the USEPA recommended Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increment approachu4! The PSD increment is the maximum increase in concentration that is allowed to occur above a baseline concentration for each pollutant. However, no exceedence of the ambient air quality limit values (or NAAQS in the USA) is allowed even if not all of the PSD increment is consumed.

The PSD has three classifications of land use as outlined below:

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 11 of III lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Class I Areas: Class I areas include national parks, national wilderness areas and other areas of special national or regional value. Class II Areas: Attainment areas that are neither industrialised nor meet the specific requirements for classification as Class I areas. Class Ill Areas: Industrial&d attainment areas.

The current location would be considered a Class III area and thus the PSD applicable to Class Ill areas has been applied in the current case. Due to the variations in pollutant averaging times and standards between the USA and the EU, only relative PSD Increments can be derived. The relative PSD Increment, as a percentage of the respective NAAQS, is shown in Table 9.5 with the corresponding concentration as it would be applied to the EU ambient air quality standards. In the current context, the PSD increment has been applied only to zones were significant overlap occurs between plumes from each of the sources.

In the context of the cumulative assessment, all significant sources should be taken into account. The USEPA has defined “significance” in the current context as an impact leading to a lpg/m3 annual increase in the annual average concentration of the applicable criteria pollutant (PMlo, NO*, and S02)(14). However, no significant ambient impact levels have been established for non- criteria pollutants (defined as all pollutants except PM i0, NO*, S02, CO and lead). The USEPA does not require a full cumulative assessment for a particular pollutant when emissions of that pollutant from a proposed source would not increase ambient levels by more than the significant ambient impact level (annual average of 1 pg/m3). An assessment of releases from lndaver Ireland has indicated that releases of CO, PMlo and TOC are not significant and thus no cumulative assessment has been carried out for these substances (see Table A9.7 in Appendix 9.4).

The project impact area for the cumulative assessment is the geographical area for which the required air quality analysis for PSD increments are carried out. The USEPA has defined the “impact area” as a circular area with a radius extending from the source to the most distant point where dispersion modelling predicts a significant ambient impact will occur irrespective of pockets of insignificant impact occurring within it. Within this impact area, all nearby sources should be modelled, where “nearby” is defined as any point source expected to cause a significant concentration gradient in the vicinity of the proposed new source. For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. In order to determine compliance, the predicted ground level concentration (based on the full impact analysis and existing air quality data) at each model receptor is compared to the applicable ambient air quality limit value or PSD increment. If the predicted pollutant concentration increase over the baseline concentration is below the applicable increment, and the predicted total ground level concentrations are below the ambient air quality standards, then the applicant has successfully demonstrated compliance.

When an air quality standard or PSD increment is predicted to be exceeded at one or more receptor in the impact area, it should be determined whether the net emissions increase from the proposed source will result in a significant ambient impact at the point of each violation, and at the time the violation is predicted to occur. The source will not be considered to cause or contribute to the violation if its own impact is not significant at any violating receptor at the time of each violationu4).

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 12 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.1 Comparison of Cork Airport and Roches Point Windrose 199387

Sectors < 1.54 m/s < 3.09 m/s < 5.14 m/s =Z8.23 m/s < 10.80 m/s > 10.80 m/s Total 1 I I I I I I 030 Cork Airport 0.3 I 1.9 1.1 1.4 0.3 0.05 1 5.1 Roches Point 0.4 0.9 1.5 0.9 0.15 0.025 3.9 30-60 Cork Airport 0.2 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.0 3.8 Roches Point 0.3 0.7 1.4 1.2 0.15 0.05 3.7 60-90 Cork Airport 0.1 2.0 1.2 1.0 0.4 0.05 4.75 Roches Point 0.15 0.6 1.6 2.4 1.0 0.5 6.4 90-120 Cork Airport 0.3 2.2 1.4 1.3 0.5 0.1 5.8 Roches Point 0.3 0.9 2.3 2.4 0.6 0.55 6.9 120-150 Cork Airport 0.3‘ 2.5 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.15 5.9 Roches Point 0.3 1.0 1.7 2.3 0.9 0.70 6.9 150-I 80 Cork Airport 0.2 2.4 1.5 2.2 1.1 0.4 7.8 Roches Point 0.5 1.1 2.1 3.4 1.5 1.9 10.3 180-210 Cork Airport 0.5 3.0 1.7 2.2 0.9 0.4 8.7 Roches Point 0.4 1.0 2.3 3.5 1.8 2.4 11.1 210-240 Cork Airport 0.4 2.9 2.7 2.9 0.8 0.4 10.1 Roches Point 0.3 1.1 2.7 3.9 2.0 2.0 12.1 240-270 Cork Airport 0.5 4.5 3.5 4.1 1.0 0.6 14.2 Roches Point 0.3 0.6 2.0 3.1 1.4 1.3 8.6 270-300 Cork Airport 0.6 3.0 . 1.6 2.0 0.6 0.05 7.9 Roches Point 0.4 0.6 1.9 2.4 1.2 1.4 7.7 300-330 Cork Airport 0.6 3.8 1.8 2.0 0.6 0.35 9.2 Roches Point 0.8 1.5 2.3 4.1 2.2 1.6 12.1 330-O Cork Airport 0.5 5.2 2.8 2.9 0.4 0.1 11.9 Roches Point 1.2 2.7 2.5 2.5 0.8 0.5 9.9 Total Cork Airport ~ 4.6 35.6 21.8 24.5 7.4 2.7 Roches Point 5.4 12.7 24.3 32.1 13.7 12.8 Note: Roches Point ha! an average of 0.3 % calmsFor inspection whereas purposesCork only.Airport had an average of 3.4% calms over this period. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 13 of 117 Indaver EIS-‘2796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.2 Council Directive 2000/76/EC, Annex V Air Emission Limit Values Daily Average Values I Concentration Total Dust 1 10 mg/m3 Gaseous 8 vaporous organic substances expressed as 10 mg/m3 total oraanic carbon (TOC) Hydrogen Chloride (HCI) 10 ma/m3 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 1 mglm3 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 50 mglm3 Nitrogen Oxides (as NOz)“’ 200 mg/m3 Half-hourly Average Values Concentration

(100%) (97%)

Total Dustf2) 30 mg/m3 10 mglm3 Gaseous & vaporous organic substances expressed as 20 mg/m3 10 mg/m3 total organic carbon (TOC) Hydrogen Chloride (HCI) 1 60 mg/m3 1 10 mg/m3 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 4 mg/m3 2 mg/m3 Sulphur Dioxide 602) 200 mg/m3 50 mg/m3 Nitrogen Oxides (as NOZ) 400 mg/m3(‘) 200 mg/m3 Average Value Over 30 mins to 8 Hours I Concentratiod3) Cadmium and its compounds, expressed as Cd 1 Total 0.05 mg/m3 Thallium and its compounds, expressed as TI 1 Mercury and its compounds, expressed as Hg I 0.05 mo/m3 Antimony and its compounds, expressed as Sb Arsenic and its compounds, expressed as As Lead and its comoounds. exoressed as Pb Chromium and its compounds, expressed as Cr Cobalt and its compounds, expressed as Co For inspection purposesTotal only. 0.5 mg/m3 Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Copper and its compounds, expressed as Cu Manganese and its compounds, expressed as Mn Nickel and its compounds, expressed as Ni Vanadium and its compounds, expressed as V Average Values Over 6 - 8 Hours I Concentration Dioxins and tirrans 0.1 ng/m3 Average Value Concentration”)

Daily Average Value 30 Min Average Value I I Carbon Monoxide 50 mg/m3 100 mg/m3 :I) Until l/1/2007 the emission limit value for NO. does not apply t o plants only incinerating hazardous waste (2) Total dust emission may not exceed 150 mglm’ as a half-hourly average under any circumstances (3) These values cover also the gaseous and vapour forms of the relevant heavy metals as well as their compounds (4) Exemptions may be author&d for incineration plants using fluidised bed technology, provided that emission limit values do not exceed 100 mg/m’ as an hourly average value.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 14 of 117 Indaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 *. Ringaskibdy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.3 Air Emission Values For Phase 1 and Phase 1 and 2 From lndaver Ireland, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork

Daily Average Values EU Maximum Typical Emission Expected Operating Expected Operating Emission Concentration Concentration Values - Phase I Values - Phase I and 2 Emission Rate (g/s) Emission Rate (g/s)

I Total Dust I 10 mn/m3 1 mg/m3 0.026 0.05 Gaseous & vaporous organic substances 10 mg/m3 1 mg/m3 0.026 0.05 expressed as total organic carbon (TOC) Hydrogen Chloride (HCI) 10 mg/m3 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 1 mg/m3 1 mg/m3 0.026 0.05 20 mn/m3 0.51 0.92 170 mg/m3 4.4 7.8 Emission Concentration Emission Rate (g/s) Emission Rate (g/s) Cadmiumand its compounds,expressed as Cd Total 0.025 mg/m3 0.0006 0.0012 Thalliumand its compounds,expressed as TI I I Mercury and its compounds,expressed as Hg 0.05 mg/m3 0.025 ma/m3 I 0.0006 I 0.0012 Antimony and its compounds,expressed as Sb Arsenic and its compounds,expressed as As Lead and its compounds,expressed as Pb Chromiumand its compounds,expressed as Cr Cobalt and its compounds,expressed as Co Total 0.5 mg/m3 For inspection purposesTotal only. 0.25 mg/m3 0.006 0.012 Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Copper and its compounds,expressed as Cu Manganese and Its compounds,expressed as Mn 1 Nickel and its compounds,expressed as Ni 1 Vanadium and its compounds,expressed as V Average Values Over 6 - 8 Hours 1 Emission Concentration Emission Concentration Emission Rate (g/s) Emission Rate (g/s) Dioxins and furans 0.1 ng/m3 0.01 ng/m3 2.6 x IO-‘* 4.6 x IO-‘* Average Value Emission Concentration Emission Concentration Emission Rate (g/s) Emission Rate (g/s) I I Carbon Monoxide 100 mg/m3 20 mg/m3 0.51 0.92 Tonnes per annum can be calculated based on operating conditions of 24 hours per day at ( ;ign volume flow for 7500 hours/annum.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 PagelSof117 IndaverEIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.4 Model Input Data For Point Sources For PSD Compliance(‘)

Average Time Emission Limit (mg/m3) X Operating Level X Operating Factor (hrlyear) bM-4

Proposed Major New Source

Annual Maximum allowable Design capacity Continuous operation emissionlimit

Short term (I 24 hrs) Maximum allowable Design capacity Continuous operation emissionlimit

Nearby Major Source

Annual Maximum allowable Design capacity Actual Operating Factor averagec emissionlimit over 2 years

Short term (I 24 hrs) Maximum allowable Design capacity Continuous operation emissionlimit

Table 9.5 PSD Increments Relative To NAAQS (US) and As Applied To EU Directives

Pollutant Averaging Class III PSD % of NAAQS PSD Increment as applied to Period Increment (& % of EU EU Standards (pglm3) Directives) i41m3 I Averaging Periods

PMlo Annual 34 50% Annual - 20 !24-Hour - 25

SO? 24-Hour 182 50% 24-Hour - 62.5 / I-Hour - 175 NO;? Annual 50 50% Annual - 20 / l-Hour - 100

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

9.3 Baseline Monitoring Report

9.3.1 Introduction

A detailed baseline air monitoring program has been carried out to assess baseline levels of the significant substances which may be released from the proposed waste management facility in Ringaskiddy, County ‘Cork. The substances monitored were NO*, PMlo, benzene, SOP, metals, HCI and dioxinslfurans. The air monitoring program was used to determine long-term average concentrations for pollutants of concern and to provide information on the general air quality in the Ringaskiddy region.

9.3.2 Methodology

The PMlo monitoring program, using a PM,,, continuous monitor, focused on assessing 24-hour average concentrations at the on-site monitoring station over a ten-week period at location Nl (see Figure 9.2). PMlo sampling was carried out by means of an R&P Partisol@-Plus Sequential Air Sampler (Model 2025). The sampler is a manual air sampling platform which has been

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 16 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

designed to meet US EPA Reference Designation (RFPR-0694-09). Approximately 24 m3 of air was sampled daily through an impactor, which was contained within the PMlo sampling head. The impactor removed particles with a diameter >I0 pg and the remaining particles were collected on pre-weighed 47mm diameter filters. The Partisole sampler was programmed to automatically replace each sampled filter by a new pre-weighed filter at midnight. This ensured that each filter represented a sampling period of exactly 24 hours. Gravimetric determination was carried out in conjunction with the Chemistry Department, UCC using a calibrated scientific balance in either Cork Corporation or UCC. The results, which are shown in Figure 9.3 and Table 9.6, allowed an indicative comparison with both the 24-hour and annual limit values. Weather conditions during the survey periods were also obtained (see Tables 9.7a & 9.7b) and may be used to help apportion the source of raised levels of pollutants during the sampling period.

NO2

Monitoring of nitrogen dioxide in Ringaskiddy was carried out using two sampling methods: chemiluminescent analysis and passive diffusion. Continuous monitoring of NO2 was performed using a chemiluminescent analyser (Therm0 Environmental Instruments, Model 42C) over a ten- week period at the on-site monitoring station, location Nl (see Figure 9.2). In this method, the NO, (NO + N02) concentration is determined based on its direct relationship with the level of energy emitted by chemiluminescent N02, which is formed when nitric oxide (NO) is reacted with ozone (03) in an evacuated chamber within the analyser. One of the major advantages of this monitoring method is that it provides instantaneous measurement of NO* levels, and hence the results can be used to compare with the hourly limit value (see Section 9.3.4). In addition, the average NO* level measured over the ten-week period allows an indicative comparison with the annual limit value. A plot of the hourly NOp concentrations measured over the ten-week period is shown in Figure 9.4. Details of weekly maximum l-hour and average concentrations are listed in Table 9.9.

The spatial variation in NO2 levels away from sources is particularly important, as a complex relationship exists between NO, NO2 and O3 leading to a non-linear variation of NO2 concentrations with distance. In order to assess the spatial variation in NOp levels in the

Ringaskiddy region, NO2 was monitored For inspection using purposes passive only. diffusion tubes over six two-week periods Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. at ten locations in the area (see Figure 9.2). Passive sampling of NO;! involves the molecular diffusion of NO* molecules through a polycarbonate tube and their subsequent adsorption onto a stainless steel disc coated with triethanolamine. Following sampling, the tubes were analysed using UV spectrophotometry, at a NAMAS accredited laboratory (GMSS Ltd, Manchester, UK, which is part of the Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions (DETR’s) UK Monitoring Network). The diffusion tube locations were strategically positioned to allow an assessment of both worst-case and typical exposure of the residential population. In addition, one of the passive diffusion tubes was co-located at the onsite monitoring station, allowing a comparison of the accuracy of both sampling methodologies. The passive diffusion tube results, which are given in Table 9.8, allow an indicative comparison with the annual average limit value.

Benzene

In order to assess the spatial variation in benzene levels in the Ringaskiddy region, benzene was monitored using passive diffusion tubes over a two-month period at five locations in the area (see Figure 9.2). Passive sampling of benzene involves the molecular diffusion of benzene molecules through a stainless steel tube and their subsequent adsorption onto a stainless steel gauze coated with Chromasorb 106. Following sampling, the tubes were analysed using Gas Chromatography, at a NAMAS accredited laboratory (GMSS Ltd, Manchester, UK, which is part of the DETR’s UK Monitoring Network). The diffusion tube locations were strategically

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 17 of 117 IndaverEIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

positioned to allow an assessment of both worst-case and typical exposure of the residential population.

In order to assess the spatial variation in sulphur dioxide levels in the area, SO2 was monitored using passive diffusion tubes over a three-month period at five locations (see Figure 9.2). Passive sampling of SO2 involves the molecular diffusion of SO2 molecules through a tube fabricated of PTFE and their subsequent adsorption onto a stainless steel gauze coated with sodium carbonate. Following sampling, the adsorbed sulphate was removed from the tubes with deionised water and was then analysed using ion chromatography. This analysis was carried out at a NAMAS accredited laboratory (GMSS Ltd). The diffusion tube locations were strategically positioned to allow an assessment of both worst-case and typical exposure of the residential population.

HCI

Sampling was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) methodology. The method was taken from the - Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Compounds in Ambient Air. Method IO-4 describes a method for the sampling of reactive acidic and basic gases using denuder tubes.

The denudes were prepared by flushing with distilled, deionized water (DDW, 18 M), followed by coating with a solution of 5 % Na2C03 / 1 % glycerol in 5050 methanol I water. The denuders were then dried under a stream of dry, purified air and sealed with teflon-lined screw caps.

Sampling for hydrogen chloride was carried out by attaching the denuder tubes to pumps and calibrated dry gas meters. The volume of air sampled during the monitoring was determined from the dry gas meter readings to allow the concentration of HCI present to be determined.

The analysis was carried out by the For inspectionUniversity purposes of only.Birmingham. After sample collection, extraction Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. was performed using 20 ml of DDW, with gentle agitation for 30 minutes. Analysis of the resultant extracts was performed using an automated DIONEX DX500 ion chromatography system with hydroxide eluent. DIONEX software (Peaknet) was used for quantification of chromatogram peak 0 areas and data output.

Dioxins & Furans

Sampling was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) methodology. The method was taken from the Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. Method TO9 describes a method for the sampling of PCDDs and PCDFs in ambient air using high resolution gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.

Sampling of the ambient air was achieved using a high volume air sampler (General Metal Works Model PS-1). Air is drawn through a fine porosity quartz filter and adsorbent cartridge containing polyurethane foam (PUF) to trap the particulate and volatile fractions respectively. In order to obtain a detection limit in ambient air of approximately one femtogram (fg), a sample volume of at least 500m3 is required.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Pagel8of117 lndaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:13 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14

. .

.

Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. other any for required owner copyright of Consent For inspection purposes only. purposes inspection For For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

The calibrated sampler was assembled with a precleaned quartz fibre filter and PUF trap. The filter used in the tests had a pore size of 0.45 microns, capable of attaining a > 99.5 percent efficiency of capture of 0.3 micron particles. The filter composite comprised a PUF plug retained in a glass sampling cartridge. The PUF foam trap was spiked with 13C labelled isomers in order to allow a recovery experiment to be performed.

The flow through the system was monitored using a VenturiIMagnehelic assembly. From the calibration graph the gauge reading was then used to calculate an average flowrate in cubic metres per minute (m3/min) over the sampling period. From the known sampling period a sampling volume in m3 was then calculated.

Analysis for dioxins and furans was by high resolution gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and was carried out by Scientific Analysis Laboratory (SAL), Manchester. SAL are UKAS accredited for the analysis of PCDDs and PCDFs. Extraction, clean-up and analysis procedures followed USEPA protocols and the full quality assurance and quality control regime set out in EPA Method 1613 was followed.

Metals

Sampling was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) methodology. The method was taken from the Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Compounds in Ambient Air. Method IO-3 describes a method for chemical species analysis of filter-collected suspended particulate matter.

Sampling for metals was carried out by attaching a sample head containing a teflon filter to a pump and dry gas meter and drawing a volume of air through the head at a pre determined flow rate. The volume of air sampled during the monitoring was determined from the dry gas meter readings to allow the concentration of metals detected to be determined.

The filters were acid digested and analysed by Inductively Coupled Atomic Emission

Spectrophotometry (ICP/AES) by For Scientific inspection purposesAnalysis only. Laboratory, Manchester. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. l 9.3.3 Ambient Air Quality Compliance Criteria P&o

EU Directive 1999/30/EC has set 24-hour and annual limit values for PMIo. A 24-hour limit of 50 pg/m3 is set as a 90.4rh%ile, which means it must not be exceeded more than 35 times per year. A margin of tolerance of 40% currently applies for this limit value, and this will reduce linearly to 0% by 2005. EU Directive 1999/30/EC has set an annual limit value of 40 pg/m3. However, a margin of tolerance of 16% currently applies, and this will also reduce linearly to 0% by 2005. In addition, an indicative limit value of 20 pg/m3 may be applicable in 2010. However, this is to be reviewed in the light of further information on health and environmental effects, technical feasibility and experience in the application of the current limit values in the EU Member States (see Table 9.27). i

EU Directive 1999/30/EC has set l-hour and annual limit values for NOZ. An hourly limit of 200 pg/m3 is set as a 99Bth%ile, which means it must not be exceeded more than 18 times per year.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 19 of 117 lndaverEIS:C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

The annual limit value is 40 pg/m3. A margin of tolerance for both limit values of 45% currently applies. This will reduce linearly to 0% by 2010 (see Table 9.23).

Benzene

EU Directive 2000/69/EC has set an annual limit value of 5 pg/m3 for benzene. A margin of tolerance of 100% currently applies. This will reduce linearly from 2006 to reach 0% by 2010 (see Table 9.28).

EU Directive 1999/30/EC has set hourly, daily and annual limit values for SO*. The hourly limit value is 350 pg/m3. A margin of tolerance of 34 % currently applies. This will reduce linearly to 0% by 2005. The daily and annual limit values are 125 pg/m3 and 20 pg/m3 respectively (see Table 9.27).

HCI

An ambient air quality limit for hydrogen chloride (HCI) of 100 pg/m3 has been defined in the TA Luft guidelines. The standard is expressed as a 9gth percentile. Concentrations must therefore be below the limit concentration for 98 percent of the time as measured on an hourly basis.

Dioxins

Currently, no internationally recognised ambient air quality concentration or deposition standards exist for PCDD/PCDFs. Both the USEPA and World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended approach to assessing the risk to human health from PCDD/PCDFs entails a detailed risk assessment analysis involving the determination of the impact of PCDD/PCDFs in terms of the TDI (Tolerable Daily Intake) approach. The WHO currently proposes a maximum TDI of between I-4 pgTEQ/kg of body weight per dayu5).

Metals For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Ambient air quality guidelines and limits for various metals have been set by the European Union, the WHO and in the TA Luft Guidelines. In the absence of statutory standards, ambient air quality guidelines can also be derived from occupational exposure limits (OEL) (see Section 9.10.2). The ambient air quality standards and guidelines for a number of metals are detailed in Tables 9.52, 9.60 and 9.61. Annual average limit values for the metals studied in this monitoring programme are listed in Table 9.13.

9.3.4 Results

PMlo

Daily concentrations of PMlo measured at the on-site monitoring station are shown in Figure 9.3 and Table 9.6. The results show that the levels of PMlo are generally well within the 24-hour EU limit value of 50 pg/m3 which is applicable in 2005. Although this limit value ‘was exceeded on three of the 68 days for which the results are given (i.e. April 28th, May 11” and May 12th), the levels were still within the current limit value of 70 pg/m3. The daily temperature, wind speed and wind direction measured at Cork Airport during the monitoring period is shown in Table 9.7. There is no direct correlation between the meteorological conditions on the three days for which

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page20ofil7 lndaver EIS-‘2796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

levels above 50 pg/m3 were measured. However, the daily temperature on and leading up to May Ilrh and May 12th was above the period average of 8.8”C. This may have lead to greater fugitive dust levels on both days. The average level of PMlo measured over the ten-week period is 21 pg/m3, which is sign’ficantly lower than the annual limit value of 40 pg/m3.

A plot of the hourly NO2 concentrations measured at the on-site monitoring station are shown in Figure 9.4 and a summary of the data is listed in Table 9.9. Maximum hourly concentrations measured over the ten-week monitoring period were significantly less than the EU limit value of 200 pg/m3 (which is enforceable in 2010). Indeed, the highest hourly concentration measured was only 19% of this limit value. The average NO2 concentration measured over the ten-week period was 6.5 pg/m3, which is also well below the annual EU limit value of 40 pg/m3 (which is enforceable in 2010).

The passive diffusion tube survey targeted the exposure of the nearest residential receptors to the proposed scheme. The monitoring locations have been designed to optimise both the spatial coverage in the region and to determine the worst-case air quality at the nearest sensitive receptors. Average concentration of nitrogen dioxide at Locations Nl-NIO (refer to Figure 9.2), are significantly below the EU annual limit value of 40 pg/m3, which is enforceable in 2010 (See Table 9.8). The highest NO;! level, which was measured at the N281R613 junction is still less than 30% of this annual limit value.

The NOp concentration at the on-site monitoring station was measured using both a passive diffusion tube and the chemiluminescent analyser. A comparison of the results from both methods shows that there is excellent agreement, with an average concentration of 5 pg/m3 measured by the passive diffusion tube and 6.5 pg/m3 with the chemiluminescent analyser.

Benzene

Average concentrations of benzene measured at five locations are shown in Table 9.10. The results show that levels are significantly For inspection purposesbelow only. the proposed EU annual limit value, which is Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. enforceable in 2010. The highest benzene level of 4 pg/m3, measured at Location 84, peaks at 75% of the limit value which is set at 5 pg/m3 and only 40% of the current limit value of IO pg/m3.

so2

Average concentrations of SO2 measured at the five locations in the Ringaskiddy area are shown in Table 9.11. The results show that levels are significantly below both the l-hour and 24-hour EU limit value. The highest SO2 level of 6 pg/m3, measured at Location B4, is only 5% of the 24- hour limit value.

HCI

Average concentrations of HCI measured at the on-site monitoring station in Ringaskiddy are shown in Table 9.12. Although these weekly concentrations cannot be directly compared to the TA Luft hourly limit value of 100 pg/m3, they are sufficiently low to be deemed insignificant.

Arup Consulting Engineers issue No. I November 2001 Page 21 of 117 Idaver EIS~C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Metals

Average concentrations of a number of metals measured over a six-week period at the on-site monitoring station in Ringaskiddy are shown in Table 9.13. The results show that the average concentrations of cobalt, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, lead, antimony, and thallium measured were significantly below their respective annual limit values. Levels of cadmium and arsenic were generally below the detection limit for each of the seven weeks in the monitoring period. The monitoring methodology’s detection limits could not achieve the stringent limits of the proposed ambient standard for As or Cd. However, no significant local sources of As or Cd could be identified and thus, it may be expected that background levels of these metals are likely to be minor.

Background levels of nickel were detected at above the proposed ambient air quality standard during the monitoring period. Although a source of heavy metals may have been present during the monitoring period, future projections of emissions in the region did not identify any significant local sources of Ni in a detailed cumulative assessment of nearby sources. Thus, it may be expected that background levels of this compound are likely to be minor during operations of lndaver Ireland. - Dioxins 8 Furans

Background levels of PCDD/PCDFs occur everywhere and existing levels in the surrounding area have been extensively monitored over a two-month period as part of this study. As described above, no ambient air quality concentration or deposition standards currently exist for PCDD/PCDFs.

Caution should be exercised in comparing data between monitoring sites due to varying detection limits and the methodologies employed in assigning non-detects. Non-detects (below the limit of detection) may be assigned a value of either zero, half the limit of detection or the limit of detection. Depending on the number of congeners below the limit of detection and the approach to non-detects, significant variations may be perceived in inter-comparison exercises of samples.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Historically, measurements of dioxins in Ireland have been limited. Table 9.18 shows the range of concentrations measured in ambient air in Ireland in recent years. Levels in Ringaskiddy would be broadly similar to the levels found in other areas in Ireland. 0 The levels of dioxins and furans measured in Ringaskiddy can also be compared to those measured recently in the UK TOMPS network(‘6) and historically with data in the literature. An average value of the lower limit TEQs measured at the on-site monitoring station from Ringaskiddy can be compared to the corresponding lower limit TEQ values for a number of locations in the UK in Table 9.18 and the average results from other sites in Ireland and Europe. The TEQ value for Ringaskiddy is slightly higher than that for Stoke Ferry and High Muffles, which are rural locations although generally in line with levels recorded in other rural areas of Ireland and Continental Europe. However, the TEQ value for Ringaskiddy is significantly lower than that for Manchester and Middlesbrough, which are urban locations and substantially lower than levels reported in urban areas of Continental Europe.

Data on deposition is limited. Shown in Table 9.19 are a range of deposition data from the UK and Germany. No data is available in Ireland, but based on the measured concentrations, baseline deposition levels would be expected to be significantly less than even rural areas of Germany (< 5 pg/m’/day).

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 22 of 117 hdaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 e,’ Environmental Impact Statemente Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility

Table 9.6 Measured PM10 Ambient Concentrations Measured at On-site Monitoring Station from II/4101 - 20/6/01.

PMIO PMio PMIO Sample Date Sample Date Sample Date WNm3) WNm3) (dNm3) 11104101 30 05105101 16 29105101 20 12104101 8 06105/01 20 30105/01 20 13/04/01 15 07/05/01 15 31/05/01 25 14/04/01 14 08105lOl 26 01106/01 26 15/04/01 9 09105101 36 02106101 16 16104/01 9 10105/01 45 03106/01 16 17/04/01 '33 11/05/01 56 04/06101 14 18/04/01 24 12/05101 62 05/06/01 22 19104/01 31 13105/01 25 06106101 22 20/04101 27 14/05101 16 08/06/01 19 2'l/O4/01 11 15/05/01 21 09/06/O 1 10 22/04101 18 16/05/01 9 10/06/01 11 23/04/01 19 17/05101 25 11/06/01 12 24104/01 10 18/05101 21 12106/01 11 26104101 30 19/05/o 1 9 13/06101 16 27/04/01 33 20/05/01 13 14/06/01 16 28104101 58 21105101 16 15106101 18 29104/o 1 5 22105101 For inspection purposes only. 23 16106101 18 Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. 30104101 22 24105/01 34 17/06101 13 01/05/01 32 25105lOl 37 18/06101 9 02/05/01 35 26/05/01 10 19lO6lO 1 20 03105/01 33 27/05/01 8 20106101 17 04105101 21 28/05/01 15 Average 21 EU Limit Value (pg/Nm3) 5O’l’ L

(1) EU Ambient Air Standard (1999/30/EC)for PMlo(as a 90.51h percentile of24 hour average).

Arup,Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page23of117 Indaver EIS-C796.10 - _ - . . - EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.7a Weather Conditions measured at Cork Airport from l/3/01-l/5/01 (1 knot = 0.515 m/s)

Wind Speed Max Wind Direction Temperature Wind Speed Max Wind Direction Temperature Date Date (knots) (degrees from north) (“Cl (knots) (degrees from north) (“Cl 01/03101 6.2 360 0.6 01104101 10.8 140 7.9 02103/01 10.3 80 1.2 02104/01 15.7 210 7.6 03/03/01 8.1 50 0.8 03104/01 5.8 200 6.3 04/03/01 5.7 200 1.8 04104/01 9.2 270 6.3 05/03/01 11.8 120 5.2 05/04/01 17.0 260 9.4 06/03/01 22.6 130 8.4 06104lOl 16.1 240 8.1 07/03101 14.2 190 8.6 07/04/01 23.2 330 7.4 08/03101 12.7 190 9.1 08104/01 9.8 240 7.3 09/03/01 10.2 210 9.1 09104/o 1 12.9 280 10.8 10103101 11.2 240 10.4 10104101 16.5 300 10.1 11!03/01 9.4 300 6.4 11/04/01 5.5 330 7.5 12103/01 11.5 240 5.3 12104/01 5.9 320 9.9 13/03/01 12.6 270 7.7 13/04/01 4.9 330 11.4 14/03/01 3.1 240 6.8 14104101 7.0 300 11.4 15/03101 11.5 90 6.4 15/04/01 16.5 290 9.9 16103101 16.5 60 6.9 16/04/01 8.5 360 8.6 17/03101 18.0 60 3.8 17/04/01 10.3 290 7.2 18103/01 12.0 60 3.9 18104/01 11.8 350 6.1 19/03/0 1 16.3 90 3.3 19/0410 1 10.6 350 5.9 20/03/01 23.8 80 For3.5 inspection purposes only.20/04/01 9.4 100 6.9 Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. 21/03101 10.4 80 7.2 21104101 7.3 220 7.2 22/03/01 4.8 200 9.5 22/04/01 9.0 320 8.6 23103101 4.3 110 9.4 23104101 10.0 130 7.0 24103101 10.4 70 8.7 24/04/01 6.1 150 7.2 25103101 10.9 80 7.1 25104101 6.6 270 8.9 26/03/01 12.2 100 6.6 26/04/01 6.2 360 9.7 27/03/01 3.5 210 7.2 27104101 8.7 210 9.1 28103/01 6.2 240 6.5 28/04/01 11.0 230 5.6 29/03/01 12.7 300 6.4 29104/01 8.5 340 5.1 30/03/01 8.0 200 6.9 30/04/01 9.0 350 8.6 31103/01 12.7 210 9.9 01/05/01 10.3 360 9.8

Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 ovember 2001 Page I EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 0 I Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.76 Weather Conditions r neasured at Cork Airport from 2/5/01-3 ;1/5/01 (I knot = 0.515 m/s) Wind Speed Max Wind Direction Temperature Wind Speed Max Wind Direction Temperature Date Date (knots) (degrees from north) (“Cl (knots) (degrees from north) PC) 02105/01 6.7 330 11.1 17105/01 13.4 300 8.4 03105101 12.2 340 9.4 18105101 7.5 300 10.9 04/05/01 10.1 320 8.8 19/05/01 4.6 350 12.2 05/05/01 6.9 360 10.6 20/05/01 5.8 150 12.9 06/05/01 6.8 90 11.0 21/05/01 5.9 150 13.0 07/05/01 4.8 220 9.6 22/05/01 7.4 110 13.7 08/05/01 6.6 320 11.3 23/05/01 5.5 120 14.5 09/05/01 8.6 90 10.0 24/05/01 5.5 140 14.2 10/05/01 7.1 120 12.5 25105101 6.8 180 14.0 11/05/01 5.7 120 13.1 26/05/01 7.3 210 13.0 12/05/01 9.7 90 15.3 27/05/01 8.0 210 15.4 13/05/01 11.7 90 12.9 28/05/01 14.7 220 14.8 14/05/01 5.5 120 12.3 29/05/01 9.0 220 14.0 15/05/01 7.9 320 12.9 30/05/01 11.0 320 13.3 16/05/01 10.9 320 7.2 31lO5lOl 9.9 300 11.6

Table 9.8 Average NO2 concentrations at each location during the period 15/03/01 - 07106101,as measured by passive diffusion tubes. Location Period 1 15/3/01- Period 2 30/3/01- Period 3 10/4/01- Period 4 25/4/01- Period 5 10/5/01- Period 6 28/5/01- Average Location Description No. 30/3/01 (pg/m3) 1 O/4/01 (pg/m3) 25/4/01 (pg/m3) 10/5/01 (pg/m3) 23/5/01 (pg/m3) 7/6/01 (ug/m3) (ug/m3)(‘) I Nl On-site monitoringstation 3 ~6 For inspection purposes46 only. ~6 ~6 9 6 Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. N2 Car park east of site 3 46 ~6 ~6 ~6 ~6 6 N3 Nearestresidential 6 6 ~6 ~6 <6 14 7 N4 Main residential 6 ~6 ~6 <6 <6 16 8 N5 Ringaskiddy village 6 ~6 ~6 ~6 N 15 8 N6 N28/R613junction 8 ~6 <6 ~6 <6 30 10 N7 lspat entrance 5 ~6 ~6 <6 ~6 15 7 N8 National school 4 ~6 ~6 ~6 ~6 6 6 N9 Pfizer Loughbeg 6 6 16 ~6 ~6 9 7 NIO Oppositesite entrance 3 ~6 6 ~6 11 EU Limit Value (ug/Nm3) (1) Values at detection limit have been taken to equal that concentration. (2) EU Ambient Air Standard (1999/30/EC) (as an annual average). (3) Sample lost in field.

Arup Consulting Engineers issue No. 1 November 2001 Page25of117 lndaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.9 Maximum l-hour and weekly average NO2 concentrations measured at on-site monitoring e station from 13/4/01 - 20/6/01, as measured by chemiluminescent analysis.

Sample Date Maximum I-Hour Weekly Average (pg/m’) Wm3) 13/4101-19/4/01 23.3 5.7 I 1 20/4/01-26/4/01 21.7 I 5.2 I 27l4iO1-3t5/01 28.1 7.3 4/5/01-1015/01 21.9 6.9 1 l/5/01 -17/5/01 38.6 8.8 l8/5/01-24/5/01 22.3 7.1 2515lOl-3li5lOl 36.4 6.8 l/6/01-716101 23.4 6.7 8/6101-14/6/01 25.5 5.5 15/6/01-20/6/01 17.4 5.2 Maximum I-Hour 38.6 - 1 Average - 6.5 EU Limits (Pg/m3) 200 (as a 996”%ile) 40 (Annual)

Table 9.10 Average benzene concentrations at each location during the period 10/04/01 - 07/6/01, as measured by passive diffusion tubes.

For inspection purposes only. Sample lost in the field. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EU Ambient Air Standard (2000/69/EC) (as an annual average).

Table 9.11 Average sulphur dioxide concentrations at each location during the period 15/03/01 - 0716101, as measured by passive diffusion tubes.

Location Description

Sample lost in the field. EU Ambient Air Standard (1999/30/EC) (as a 24-hr maximum (99.2m%ile)).

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 26 of 117 lndaver EIQZ796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.12 Levels of I-ICI measured at on-site monitoring station, Ringaskiddy during the period 10/4/01 - 716iO-I.

Sampling Period HCI (pg/m3)

10/4/01 -17/4/01 0.001 17/4/01 -25/4/O-l 0.019 25/4/01 -l/5/01 0.012 1/5/01 -6/5/01 0.084 lO/!YOl - 16/5/01 0.134 16/5101 -2315lOl 0.039 23/5/O? - 30/5/01 <0.0003 30/5/01 -7l6101 0.038 Limit Value (pg1Nm3) 1oo(” (1) TA Luft lmission limit.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 27 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental impact Statement

Table 9.13 Levels of metals measured at on-site monitoring station, Ringaskiddy during the period 10/4/01 - 716101.

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Lower Range Upper Range Limit Values Species 1014101-171410117/4/01-2514101 2514101-l/5101 l/5/01-10/5/01 10/5/01-l 615101 30/5101-7/6101 Average Average ( pg/m3)(3) (Wm3) Wm3) (dm3) MUm3) Wd (i-@m3) ( pg/m3)(‘) ( pg/rn3)(‘)

Arsenic ~0.013 dO.013 co.013 <0.013 0.029 <0.017 0.005 0.016 0.004

Cadmium co.01 3 GO.013 co.01 3 <0.013 co.029 co.017 N.D. 0.016 0.005 Cobalt <0.013 dO.013 co.013 co.013 co.029 <0.017 N.D. 0.016 1.0

Chromium co.013 co.01 3 <0.013 co.013 0.029 0.017 0.008 0.016 0.5

Copper co.013 0.015 0.025 0.018 0.029 0.034 0.020 0.022 2.0

Mercury co.013 co.01 3 co.013 co.01 3 0.029 co.017 0.005 0.016 0.1 Manganese 40.013 0.044 0.049 0.018 0.029 0.034 0.029 0.032 0.15

Nickel 0.053 0.089 0.123 0.090 0.087 0.119 0.094 0.094 0.01 Lead 0.066 0.074 0.123 0.036 0.029 0.085 0.069 0.069 0.5

Antimony co.013 ~0.013 co.013 co.01 3 0.029 0.017 0.008 0.016 1.0

Thallium 0.013 0.015 <0.013 co.013 0.029 0.017 0.012 0.017 1.0 (1) Values at detection limit have been taken to equal to zero. (2) Values at detection limit have been taken to equal to the detection limit (3) Annual average limit values (see Tables 9.52, 9.60-9.61). For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 Nove

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 * I)-. a Rlngaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.14 Levels of dioxins and furans measured at on-site monitoring station, Ringaskiddy during the period 1314101 - 2314101 (1~10~ fg/m3 F 1 pg/m3)

Sampling Period I- 13/4/01 - 16/04/01(2) Sampling Period 2 - 19/4/01-23/4/01(2)

Dioxin Congeners TEF(‘) Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Concentration Lower Limit TEQ13) Concentration TEQf4’ TEQc3’ TEQt4’ (pdm3) (Wm3) (Wm3) (Wm3) Wm3) (Wm3) 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 co.004 3.7 co.002 2.2 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 <0.019 9.5

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 co.019 For inspection purposes only. 1.9 co.01 1 1.1 Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1

Amp Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page29of117 lndaver EIS-‘2796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.15 Levels of dioxins and furans measured at on-site monitoring station, Ringaskiddy during the period 2614101- IO/5101(1~10~ fg/m3 q 1 pg/m3).

Sampling Period 3 - 2614101- 3014/01(‘) Sampling Period 4 - 3/5/01 - 1O/5/O1(2)

Dioxin Congeners TEF(” Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Concentration Lower Limit TE@ Concentration TEQt4) TEQ@) TEQ(‘) (Wm3) Wm3) (Wm3) Wm3) Wm3) Wm3) 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 co.002 2.1 0.002 2.0 I ,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 co.01 1 5.4 0.010 4.9 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 co.01 1 1.1 0.010 0.99 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 co.01 1 1.1 0.010 0.99 I ,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1

2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.023 2.3 2.3 co.002 0.20 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.010 0.50 0.50

Consulting Englneers Issue No. 1 Nove Page r EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ii 0 I Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility I) Environmental impact

Table 9.16 Levels of dioxins and furans measured at on-site monitoring station, Ringaskiddy during the period II/5101 - 2115101 (1~10~ fg/m3 = 1 pg/m3).

Sampling Period 5 - II/5101 - 14/5/Ol”) Sampling Period 6 17/05/01 - 21/5/01(*)

Dioxin Congeners TEF”’ Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Concentration Lower Limit TEQt3) Concentration TEQt4) TEQ(‘) TEQt4’ (pdm3) Wm3) (fdm3) (Pdm3) Wm3) Wm3) 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0 s0.001 1.1

2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.006 0.65 0.65 0.004 0.41 0.41 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.004 0.20 0.20 0.004 0.22 0.22 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 0.004 2.1 2.1 0.008 3.9 3.9 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1

Arup Consulting Engineers issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 31 of 117 lndaver ES-C7B6.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.17 Levels of dioxins and furans measured at on-site monitoring station, Ringaskiddy during the period 2415101 - 716101 (1~10~ fg/m3 = 1 pg/m3).

Sampling Period 7 - 24/5/01- 28/5/01(2’ Sampling Period 8 - 31/5/01- 7/6/01(2)

Dioxin Congeners TE F(l) Lower Limit Upper Limit Concentration Lower Limit TEQ(4’ Upper Limit TEQt5’ Concentration TEQt3) TEQ’” (twlm3) (Wm3) (fdm3) (pdm3) Wm3) (fdm3) 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.0

2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 0.005 0.32 0.32

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 40.002 For inspection purposes only. 0.21 co.002 0.19 Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. 2 , 3 , 4 I 6 17 18-HxCDF 0.1 0.004 0.35 0.35 co.002 0.19 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.014 0.14 0.14 0.014 0.14 0,14 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 co.002 0.02 <0.002 0.019 OCDF 0.001 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.002 0.08 0.08 I Total TEQ 3.9 6.1 Total TEQ 0.2 3.3 L14, n---.. .4 CL-..^^I, r-.l"^^ll.,^ ')nhn,~m,rs- !'I /wlllcIXI,.cI"",IG,I ullelG,,YeL""",,cJ,IC~. (2) Sampling Period 7: 24/5/01-2815101; Sampling Period 8: 3115/01-l/6/01 & 3/6/01-4/6/01,7/6/01. (3) Lower Llmlt TEQ calculated assuming non-detects are equal to zero. (4) Upper Limit TEQ calculated assuming non-detects are equal to the limit of detection.

Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 Nov Page

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.18 I-TEQ values derived from measurements of airborne dioxins in various locations.

(2) Taken from Chapter 8 of Thermal Waste Treatment Plant, Kilcock EIS, Air Environment (1998) (3) Taken from Attachment 3 of Waste Management Facility, Carranstown EIS, Baseline Dioxin Survey (2001) (4) Raffe, C (1996) Sources and environmental concentrations of dioxins and related compounds, Pure & Appl. Chem Vol. 68. No. 9, pp 1781-1789 (5) Duarte-Davidson et al (1994) Polychlorinated ForDibenzo-pDioxins inspection purposes only.(PCDDs) and Furans (PCDF@ in Urban Air and Deposition, Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., 1 (4). 262-270 (6) Taken from TOMPS Network website, www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual. (7) Lower Limit TEQ calculated assuming non-detects are equal to zero. (8) Upper limit assuming nondetects are equal to limit of detection.

Table 9.19 Mean I-TEQ deposition fluxes of dioxins in various locations.

Mean I-TEQ”’ Site Type (pdm2~ day) Rural I 5 -22 Urban I 10 - 100 Close to Major Source 123-1293

Stevenage . 3.2 London I 5.3 Cardiff 12 Manchester 28 I-TEQw values based on NATOICCMS (19 813) and as used in Annex 1, Council Directive 2000ff61EC. (2) Raffe, C (1996) Sources and environmental concentrations of dioxins and related compounds, Pure & Appl. Chem Vol. 68, No. 9. pp 1781-1789 (3) Duarte-Davidson et al (1994) Polychlorinated Dibenzo-pDioxins (PCDDs) and Furans (PCDFs) in Urban Air and Deposition, Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., 1 (4). 262-270

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 330f 117 fndaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

9.4. Modelling Results

9.4.1 Introduction

Emissions from the lndaver Ireland site has been modelled using the ISCSTB dispersion model which is the USEPA’s regulatory model used to assess pollutant concentrations associated with industrial sources(‘). Emissions have been assessed, firstly under typical operating conditions and secondly under the maximum emissions limits of the EU Directive 2000/76/EC.

9.42 Process Emissions

lndaver Ireland has one main process emission point (stack) consisting of two individual flues within a single casing. The operating details of these major emission points have been taken from information supplied by lndaver Ireland and are outlined in Table 9.20. Full details of emission concentrations and mass emissions are given in Appendix 9.6.

Table 9.20 Process Emission Design Details

Stack Stack Exit Cross- Temp Volume Flow Exit Velocity (mlsec Reference Height Diameter Sectional (K) ( Nm3/hr) actual) (ml (ml Area (m’) Flue I”’ 55 1.73 2.34 373 92600 - Typical 15.1 101900 -Maximum 16.6 Flue 2tL) 55 1.62 2.06 373 73100 - Typical 13.5 80500 - Maximum 14.8 (1) Flue 1 in operation during phase 1 - fluidised bed incinerator (2) Flue 2 in operation during phase 2 (in addition to flue 1) -moving grate incinerator.

Emissions from the site have been assessed using the approach recommended by the USEPA”‘. The approach involved identifying the operating conditions which will give rise to the maximum ground level concentrations. Maximum operating conditions will be 1.1 times typical operating conditions. Both these above conditions, in addition to 50% loading were modelled, in order to

confirm that the worst-case operating For inspection conditions purposes wereonly. being modelled. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

The ISCST3 model was run using a combined unitised emission rate of 1 g/s for the two flues. The unitised concentration and deposition output has then been adjusted for each substance based on the specific emission rate of each.

9.4.3 Background Concentrations

The ambient concentrations detailed in the following sections include both the emissions from the site and the ambient background concentration for that substance. Background concentrations have been derived from a worst-case analysis of the cumulative sources in the region in the absence of the development. Firstly, a detailed baseline air quality assessment (Section 9.3) was carried out to assess background levels of those pollutants, which are likely to be significant releases from the site. Secondly, modelling of traffic emissions (Appendix 9.3) was carried out both with and without the scheme to assess the impact of traffic emissions in the region. Thirdly, a detailed cumulative assessment of all significant releases from nearby sites was carried out based on an analysis of their IPC Licences and Licence Applications (see Appendix 9.4). Appropriate background values have been outlined in Table 9.21. In arriving at the combined annual background concentration, cognisance has been taken of the accuracy of the approach and the degree of double counting inherent in the assessment. In relation to NOa the baseline monitoring program will have taken into account both the existing traffic levels and existing

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 340f 117 Indaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:14 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental impact Statement

industrial sources. However, some increases in traffic levels will occur due to the development which has been incorporated into the final combined background levels. Again, in recognition of the various inaccuracies in this approach, the values have been rounded accordingly. A similar approach has been adopted for the other pollutants. In relation to the baseline heavy metals and dioxins, a range of concentrations has been given in recognition of the influence that non-detects have on the reported values.

ln order to obtain the predicted environmental concentration (PEC), background data was added to the process emissions. In relation to the annual averages, the ambient background concentration was added directly to the process concentration. However, in relation to the short- term peak concentrations, concentrations due to emissions from elevated sources cannot be combined in the same way. Guidance from the UK DETR (17) advises that an estimate of the maximum combined pollutant concentration can be obtained by adding the maximum short-term concentration due to emissions from the source to twice the annual mean background concentration.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 35 of 117

lndaverEIS~C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Export EPA

EMON 1 ‘ON anssl

Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. other any for required owner copyright of Consent For inspection purposes only. purposes inspection For

(anleA IIWII tuelqlue 40 %z ueqi ~ayaa~6 se pauyap) ~!J~I!JD eoue3ylu6!s ueyl ssal aJe alis eyl UJOJ~ SUOISSIW~ se tno payJeo waumasse eAllelmuno ON (z) ‘OJaZ = SlDalap-LION (II) ‘llO!~33lap 40 1!LUll = Sl3a$ap-UON (!) r(llSJu Se uah!6 SlelalU pUe SUlXOlp JO4 S$lnSaJ eulleseg (1) uolvzt~ua3uog - 960'0 080'0 LEO'0 100'0 600'0 010'0 900'0 600'0 900'0 ZLO'O cooo'o p/6d goo'o puno&+ea LCO'O 660'0 880'0 EZO'O LLO'O L LO'0 OLO'O 110'0 LCO'O L CO'0 LCO'O LCO'O ,wPd 810'0 Eo'o so ooc 00s oz 01 ol. pmuuy

luaLussassy

100’0 1000’0 100’0 100’0 100’0 100’0 LOO’0 100’0 too’o LOOO’O LOOO’O LOOO’O ,w6d zoo’0 EO’O et’o (2) ki Id 9 E aA!y?lnum3 yatussassy - s 008 z - 1 wdw q.y?JJI

- P60'0 6ZO'O OZO'O 'a'N 800'0 690'0 900'0 800'0 900'0 110'0 'CI'N ,Wd POO'O ~,,lWJbOJd - t60'0 ZEO'O ZZO'O 910'0 910'0 690'0 910'0 910'0 910'0 LCO'O 910'0 ,w6d gto'o - to'o - - 1Z s L 6uyo~p~o~ auyasea

A (t,!N crw (LW m03 cr9 (tW (LP ,t,qs (LPH (r)‘l (lP3 (,)su!xo!a dH DH 301 03 oLWd 20s ZON Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

9.5 Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions and Results

9.5.1 Source Information

Source information including emission release heights, volume flows, locations and stack diameters has been summarised in Appendix 9.6.

9.5.2 Modelling of Nitrogen Dioxide

Nitrogen oxides (NOx), containing both nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO,) are emitted from the various combustion processes on-site, although it is the latter which is considered the more harmful to human health. These combustion processes lead to emissions which are mainly in the form of nitrogen oxide (NO) (typically 95%) with small amounts of the more harmful nitrogen dioxide.

NO2 has been modelled following the approach outlined by the USEPA”’ for assessing the impact of NOx from point sources. The approach involves assessing the air quality impact through a three tiered screening technique. The initial analysis, termed the Tier 1 approach, assumes a worst-case scenario that there is total conversion of NOx to NOz. The guidance indicates that if this worst-case assumption leads to an exceedance of the appropriate limit value, the user should proceed to the next Tier, as in the current case.

Tier 2 is appropriate for estimating the annual average NO2 concentration. The Tier 2 approach indicates that the annual average concentration should either be derived from an empirically derived N02/NOx ratio or alternatively to use the default value of 0.75. The default value has been used in the current assessment.

In order to determine the maximum one-hour value, the Tier 3 approach is recommended by the USEPA. The Tier 3 approach involves the application of a detailed screening method on a case- by-case basis. The suggested methodologies include the ozone-limiting method or a site-specific NOdNOx ratio. In the current assessment, no site-specific ratio has been developed because the data from the continuous monitoringFor inspection purposes station only. operated by lndaver Ireland measured much Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. lower concentrations than that predicted to occur very occasionally during operations at the boundary of the site. However, empirical evidence suggests that a conservative estimate of this ratio would be 0.30 (see Appendix 9.2). Thus, a ratio of 0.30 for NO,INOx has been used in the current assessment for the 99.8th%ile of one-hour maximum concentrations.

Ambient Ground Level Concentrations (GLCs) of Nitrogen Dioxide have been predicted for the following scenarios in Table 9.22.

Table 9.22 Emission Scenario for Nitrogen Dioxide

Pollutant Scenario Concentration Emission Rate (g/s)

NO2 Max (1.1 x design) 200 mg/m3 10.1 Design 170 mglm3 7.8 50% of Maximum 200 mg/m3 5.1‘

Arup Consulting Engineers issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 37 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

9.53 Comparison with Standards and Guidelines

The relevant air quality standards for Nitrogen Dioxide has been detailed in Table 9.23. In this report the ambient air concentrations have been referenced to Council Directive 1999/30/EC, which will shortly come into force. The directive also details margins of tolerance, which are trigger levels for certain types of action in the period leading to the attainment date. The margin of tolerance is 50% for both the hourly and annual limit value for NO*. The margin of tolerance will start to reduce from 1 January 2001 and every 12 months thereafter by equal annual percentages to reach 0% by the attainment date of 2010. However, reflecting a worst-case approach, results have been compared with the applicable limit value which will be enforceable in 2010.

Table 9.23 EU Ambient Air Standards - Council Directive 1999/30/EC

Pollutant Regulation Limit Type Margin of Tolerance Value

Nitrogen 1999130lEC Hourly limit for protection of 50% until 2001 reducing 200 &m3 NO2 Dioxide human health - not to be linearly to 0% by 2010 exceeded more than 18 times/year Annual limit for protection of 50% until 2001 reducing 40 pg/m3 NO2 human health linearly to 0% by 2010 Annual limit for protection of None 30 pg/m3 NO + NO2 vegetation I I

9.5.4 Modelling Results

Modelling was carried out for the three scenarios described in Section 9.5.2.

Table 9.24 details the predicted Tier 2 (applied to the annual average) & Tier 3 (applied to the maximum one-hour) NO2 GLC for each scenario at the worst-case boundary locations whereas Table 9.25 details the spatial variation in nitrogen dioxide concentrations at specific locations in For inspection purposes only. the surrounding region. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Table 9.24 Dispersion Model Results - Nitrogen Dioxide. Pollutant I Annual Mean Averaging Period Scenario Background ~ ( pg/m3)(‘)

NO2 I 10 Annual Mean”’ 17 27 40 Maximum I I 99.8’h%ileof I-hr means(4) 153 173 200 NO2 / Typical -7-j-a- 14 24 40

99.81h%ile of I-hr means(4) 123 143 200 NO2 I 50% of 10 Annual Mean(‘) 12 22 40 maximum I 99.8”%ile of I-hr means14) 104 I 124 I 200 I} Includes contribution from traffic and badground sources (based on results from continuous monitor and diffusion tubes and incorporating the cumulative assessment results. (2) Directive 1999/3O/EC (3) Conversion factor following guidance from USEPA (Tier 2 analysis, annual average) based on the default ratio of 0.75 (worskase). (4) Conversion factor, following guidance from USEPA (Tier 3 analysis), based on empirically derived site-specific maximum * l-hour value for NO2 / NOx of 0.30

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 38 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 0 ,Environmentai impact Statement* Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility

Table 9.25 Dispersion Model Results - Nitrogen Dioxide Maximum Operation, Specific Receptors

Pollutant I Location Annual Mean Averaging Period Process Contribution Predicted Emission Standardt2’ (pg/Nm3) indaver emissions as a Background (w~m3) Concentration (pg/Nm3) % of ambient limit (pg/m3)“) value NO, Typical I Worst- 10 Annual Mea#) 1.0 11 40 2% case Receptor 99.8’h%ile of I-hr mean#) 25 45 200 12% NO2 Typical / IO Annual Mea#) 0.38 i 10.4 40 1% Ringaskiddy Main 99.81h%ile of I-hr mean#) 9.3 29 200 5% NO2 Typical I 10 Annual Mean”) 0.23 10.2 40 0.6% Ringaskiddy School 99.81h%ile of I-hr meansm 7.5 28 200 4% NO2 Typical I Cobh 10 Annual Meanta) 1.0 11.0 40 2.5%

99.81h%ile of I-hr meansr4) 15 35 200 8% NO2 Typical I 1 Annual Meants) 0.23 10.2 40 0.6% Crosshaven 99.8’h%ile of 1-hr meansr4) 7.4 27 200 4% NO2 Typical / 10 Annual Mean@’ 0.09 10.1 40 0.22% Carrigaiine 99.8’h%ile of I-hr meansf4) 3.2 23 200 2% (1) Includes contrtbutton from traffic and background sources (based on results from continuous monitor and diffusion tubes) and incorporating the CUmUlatiVe assessment ~w.b. (2) Directive 1999/3O/EC For inspection purposes only. (3) Conversion factor following guidance from USEPA (Tier 2 analysis, annualConsent average) of copyright based owneron site-specific required for anyratio other of use.0.75 (worst-case). (4) Conversion factor, following guidance from USEPA (Tier 3 analysis), based on empirically derived site-specific maximum l-hour value for NO2 I NOx of 0.30

Page 39 of 117 Arup Consulting Engineers issue No. 1 November 2001 lndaver EISJZ796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

9.5.5 Concentration Contours

The geographical variation in NO:! ground level concentrations beyond the site boundary are illustrated as concentration contours in Figures 9.5 to 9.6. The figures have been expressed as a percentage of the appropriate ambient air quality standard or guideline. The contents of each figure are described below.

Figure 9.5 Maximum Operations: Predicted Tier 3 NO2 99.81h Percentile Concentration

Figure 9.6 Maximum Operations: Predicted Tier 2 NO, Annual Average Concentration

9.5.6 Result Findings

In relation to the maximum one-hour limit value, NO* Tier 3 modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below these ambient standards under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient NO* concentrations (including background concentrations) which are 87% of the maximum ambient l-hour limit value (measured as a 99.8th%ile) at the worst-case receptor (the southern site-boundary). Annual averages (including background concentrations) are also significantly below the limit value accounting for 68% of the annual limit value at the worst-case boundary receptor.

The modelling results indicate that the maximum l-hour and annual average concentrations occur at or near the site’s southern boundary. Concentrations fall off rapidly away from this maximum and for the maximum l-hour concentration (as a 99.8’h%ile) will be less than 12% of the limit value (not including background concentrations) at the nearest sensitive receptor to the site (see Table 9.25). The annual average concentration has a dramatic decrease in maximum concentration away from the site with concentrations from emissions at lndaver Ireland accounting for less than 2% of the limit value (not including background concentrations) at worst case sensitive receptors near the site. Thus, the results indicate that the impact from lndaver

Ireland is minor and limited to the Forimmediate inspection purposes environs only. of the site. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

In the surrounding main population centres, Cobh, Monkstown Carrigaline and Crosshaven, levels are significantly lower than background sources with the concentrations from emissions at lndaver Ireland accounting for less than 2% of the annual limit value.

9.6 Sulphur Dioxide, Total Dust (as PMlo) and Carbon Monoxide Emissions and Results

9.6.1 Source Information

Source information including emission release heights, volume flows, locations and stack diameters has been summarised in Appendix 9.6.

Ambient Ground Level Concentrations (GLC’s) of Sulphur Dioxide (SO& Total Dust (as PMro) and carbon monoxide (CO) have been predicted for the following scenarios in Table 9.26.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page40 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.26 Emission Scenario for Sulphur Dioxide, Total Dust and Carbon Monoxide

Pollutant Scenario Concentration Emission Rate (g/s)

so-2 Max (1 .I x design) 50 mg/m3 2.5 Design 20 mg/m3 0.92 50% of maximum 50 mg/m3 1.3 Total Dust Max (1 .I x design) 10 mg/m3 0.51 Design 1 mg/m3 0.05 50% 10 mg/m3 0.25 co Max (1.1 x design) 100 mg/m3 5.1 1 Design I 20 mg/m3 I 0.92 50% 100 mg/m3 I 2.5

9.6.2 Comparison with Standards And Guidelines

The relevant air quality standards for Sulphur Dioxide, PM,0 and Carbon Monoxide have been detailed in Table 9.27 and 9.28. In this report the ambient air concentrations for SO2 and PMlo have been referenced to Council Directive 1999/30/EC, which will come into force shortly. The margin of tolerance is 43% for the hourly limit value for SO2 and 50% for the 24-hr limit value for P&o. However, reflecting a worst-case approach, results have been compared with the applicable limit value which will be enforceable in 2005. The ambient air concentrations for CO have been referenced to Council Directive 2000/69/EC, which will come into force in 2003. The margin of tolerance is 50% for the 8-hour limit value which will be enforceable in 2006.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

lnda& ElSQX96.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.27 EU Ambient Air Standard - Council Directive 19991301EC

z Limit Type Margin of Tolerance Value Hourly limit for protection of 43% until 2001 350 pgglm3 Dioxide human health - not to be exceeded reducing linearly until more than 24 times/year 0% by 2005 Daily limit for protection of human None 125 pgglm3 health - not to be exceeded more than 3 times/year Annual & Winter limit for the None 20 pglm3 protection of ecosystems Particulate 1999/30/EC 24-hour limit for protection of 50% until 2001 50 uglm3 Matter human health - not to be exceeded reducing linearly to more than 35 times/year 0% by 2005 Stage 1 Annual limit for protection of human 20% until 2001 40 pg/m3 health reducing linearly to -I-- 0% by 2005 Particulate 1999i30lEC 24-hour limit for protection of To be derived from 50 pg/m3 Matter human health - not to be exceeded data and to be more than 7 times/year equivalent to Stage 1 limit value Stage 2’ t Annual limit for protection of human 50% until 2005 20 pg/m3 health reducing linearly to 0% by 2010 ‘1 lndicati limit values to ? reviewed in the light of further information on health and environmental effects. technical feasibility and experience in the application of Stage 1 limit values in the Member States

Table 9.28 EU Ambient Air Standard - Council Directive 2000/69/EC

Pollutant Regulation Limit Type Margin of Tolerance Value For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Carbon Monoxide 2000/69/EC 8-hour limit (on a rolling 50% until 2003 10 mg/m3 basis) for protection of reducing linearly to 0% human heatth by 2006 Benzene 2000/69/EC Annual average for 50% until 2003 5 pg1m3 protection of human reducing linearly to 0% health by 2010

9.6.3 Modelling Results

Modelling was carried out for the three scenarios described in Section 9.6.1.

Tables 9.29 - 9.31 details the predicted SOz, PMlo and CO GLC for each scenario.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. -l November 2001 Page 42 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.29 Dispersion Model Results - Sulphur Dioxide.

ollutant I Background Predicted Standard”’ icenario b91m3) Emission bdNm3) Concentration

so2 I 10 350 Maximum

125

so2 I 10 350 Design

99.2”%ile of 15 25 125 24-hr means I I so2 I 10 99.7’“%ile of 85 105 350 50% of I-hr means maximum 99.2’%ile of 28 38 125 24-hr means DirecthE 399/30/EC

1 ‘able 9.30 Dispersion Model Results - Total Dust (referenced to PM,,).

Averaging Process Predicted Standard”’ Period Contribution Emission WNm3) Wm3) Concentration hWm3) 90.5’“%iie of 3.9 24 50 24-hr means

For inspection purposes only. ConsentAnnual of copyright mean owner required for1.1 any other use. 21 40

90.5’“%ile of 0.38 20.4 50 24-hr means Design I

Annual mean 0.11 20 40

PM,0 150% 20 90.5”%ile of 2.7 22 50 of 24-hr means maximum Annual mean 0.78 21 40

1) Directive 1999/30/EC

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 43 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.31 Dispersion Model Results - Carbon Monoxide.

Pollutant / Annual Mean Averaging Process Predicted Standard”’ Scenario Background Period Contribution Emission (mg/Nm3) OWm3) (mslm3) Concentration (mglNm3) co/ 0.5 Maximum 0.16 0.66 10 Maximum 8-Hour

co1 0.5 Maximum 0.03 0.53 10 Design 8-Hour

co / 50% 0.5 Maximum 0.11 0.61 10 of 8-Hour maximum (1) Directive 2000/69/EC

9.6.4 Concentration Contours

The geographical variation in SO *, PM,,, and CO ground level concentrations beyond the site boundary are illustrated as concentration contours in Figures 9.7 to 9.11. The figures have been expressed as a percentage of the appropriate ambient air quality standard or guideline. The contents of each figure are described below.

Figure 9.7 Maximum Operations: Predicted SO? 99.7’h Percentile of Hourlv Concentrations

Figure 9.8 Maximum Operations: Predicted SO, 99.2th Percentile of 24-Hourlv Concentrations

Figure 9.9 Maximum Operations: Predicted PM, 90.5’h Percentile of 24-Hourlv Concentrations

Figure 9.10 Maximum Operations: Predicted PM, Annual Concentrations

For inspection purposes only. Figure 9.11 Maximum Operations:Consent of copyright Predicted owner requiredCO Maximum for any other use.g-Hour Concentration

9.6.5 Result Findings

so2

SO2 modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards for sulphur dioxide under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient SO2 concentrations (including background concentrations) which are 41% of the maximum ambient l- hour limit value (measured as a 99.7th%ile) and 41% of the maximum ambient 24-hour limit value (measured as a 99.2’h%ile) at the worst-case boundary receptor.

P&I

PMzo modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards for PMlo under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient PM10

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 44 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

concentrations (including background concentrations) which are 48% of the maximum ambient 24-hour limit value (measured as a 90.5th%ile) and 53% of the annual average limit value at the worst-case boundary receptor. co

CO modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards for carbon monoxide under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient CO concentrations (including background concentrations) which are 7% of the maximum ambient 8- hour limit value at the worst-case boundary receptor.

9.7 Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Hydrogen Chloride and Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions and Results

9.7.1 Source Information

Source information including emission release heights, volume flows, locations and stack diameters has been summarised in Appendix 9.6.

Ambient Ground Level Concentrations (GLC’s) of Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Hydrogen Chloride (HCI) and Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) have been predicted for the following scenarios in Table 9.32.

Table 9.32 Emission Scenario for TOC, HCI and HF

Pollutant Scenario Concentration Emission Rate (g/s)

TOC Max (1 .I x design) 10 mg/m3 0.51 Design 1 mg/m3 0.05

50% of Formaximum inspection purposes only. 10 mg/m3 0.25 Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. HCI Max (1 .I x design) 10 mg/m3 0.51 1 Design I I mg/m3 I 0.05 I 50% of maximum IO mg/m3 0.25 MF Max (1 .I x design) 1 mg/m3 0.05 Design 1 mg/m3 0.05 50% I mg/m3 0.03

9.7.2 Comparison With Standards And Guidelines

TA Luft standards have been proposed for TOC, HCI and HF. The TA-Luft standard is based on a 30-minute averaging period. As the meteorological data used in the modelling is collated on an averaging period of one hour, the dispersion model can only predict concentrations for averaging periods of one hour or above. Predicted hourly-average concentrations have subsequently been compared against the standard. Typically the peak 30-minute average will be 10 to 20% higher than the corresponding l-hour period average.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page45of117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.33 Air Standards for TOC, HCI and HF

Pollutant Regulation Limit Type Class Value

TOC TA Luft Hourly limit for protection of human Class Ill 1000 t.rg/m3 health - expressed as a 981h%ile Class II 200 pgglrn’ Class I 50 pg/m3 HCI TA Luft Hourly limit for protection of human 100 pg/m3 health - expressed as a 98’“%iIe HF TA Luft Hourly limit for protection of human 3 pg/m3 health - expressed as a 98”%iIe HF WHO Gaseous fluoride (as HF) as an 0.3 pg/m3 annual average. HF Dutch mean fluoride (as HF) concentration 0.4 t.rg/m3 during the growing season (April to September) HF Dutch Ambient gaseous fluoride (as HF) as 2.8 pg/m3 a 24-hour average concentration.

9.7.3 Modelling Results

Modelling was carried out for the three scenarios described in Section 9.7.1 for each pollutant.

Tables 9.34 - 9.36 details the predicted TOC, HCI and HF GLC for each scenario.

Table 9.34 Dispersion Model Results - TOC.

Pollutant I Annual Mean Averaging Process Predicted Standard”’ Scenario Background Period Contribution Emission WNm3) b9/m31 (r.ldm3) Concentration hdNm3) TOC i 100 98’“%ile of 18 218 1000 For inspection purposes only. Maximum Consent of1 -hrcopyright means owner required for any other use. TOC I Design 100 98’“%ile of 1.7 202 1000 I-hr means TOC 150% of 100 98”%ile of 12 212 1000 maximum I-hr means 1) TA Luff lmmission Standard

Table 9.35 Dispersion Model Results - HCI.

Pollutant I Annual Averaging Process Predicted Standard”’ Scenario Mean Period Contribution Emission WNm3) Background 01dm3) Concentration Wm3) WNm’) HCI I 0.5 98”%ile of 18 19 100 Maximum I-hr means HCI I Design 0.5 98”%ile of 1.7 2.7 100 1-hr means IHCI / 50% of 0.5 98’h%ile of 12 13 100 Imaximum I-hr means (1) TA Luft lmmission Standard

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page46of 117 lndaver EIS-42796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

Table 9.36 Dispersion Model Results - HF

Pollutant I Annual Mean Averaging Period Process Predicted Standard Scenario Background Contribution Emission (UNm3) (c191m3) (clslm’) Concentration bdNm3) HFI 0.03 98”%ile of I-hr means 1.8 1.8 3.0”’ Maximum Maximum 24-hr 1.2 1.2 2.8@)

Annual Average 0.11 0.14 o-3@) HF I Design 0.03 98’“%iIe of I-hr means 1.7 1.7 3.0”’

Maximum 24-hr 1.1 1.1 2.8’*’

Annual Average 0.11 0.14 o.3’3’ HF I 50% of 0.03 98”%ile of Ihr means 1.2 1.3 3.0”’ maximum Maximum 24-hr 0.78 0.81 2.8’*’

Annual Average 0.08 0.11 0.3@’ I) TA Luft Iml nis ;sion Standard (2) Netherlands Emission Regulations Staff Office (3) WorldHealth Organisation

9.7.4 Concentration Contours

The geographical variation in TOC, HCI and HF ground level concentrations beyond the site boundary is illustrated as concentration contours in Figures 9.12 - 9.15. The figures have been expressed as a percentage of the appropriate ambient air quality guideline. The content of the figures is described below.

Figure 9.12 Maximum Operations: Predicted TOC Maximum I-Hour Concentration (as a 98’h%ile)

For inspection purposes only. Figure 9.13 Maximum Operations:Consent of copyright Predicted owner required HCI for Maximum any other use. I-Hour Concentration (as a 98th%ile)

Figure 9.14 Maximum Operations: Predicted HF 98’h Percentile Of Hourly Concentrations

Figure 9.15 Maximum Operations: Predicted HF Annual Averaae Concentration

9.7.5 Result Findings

TOC

TOC modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality guidelines for TOC under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient TOC concentrations (including background concentrations) which are 22% of the maximum ambient l- hour limit value (measured as a 98’h%ile).

Arup Consulting Engineers IssueNo. 1 November 2001 Page 47 of 117 Indav.?r EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Staiement

HCI

HCI modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality guideline for HCI under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient HCI concentrations (including background concentrations) which are 19% of the maximum ambient l-hour limit value (measured as a 98’h%ile).

HF

The greatest risk to plants is during the growing season. If exceedance of the TA Luft concentration (as opposed to the standard which is expressed as a 98th percentile over the full year) occurs in the months from around August to February then the risk of visible injury in even the most sensitive species is negligible. If there were one or two successive days higher than the 3 pg/m3 threshold in spring then there is a low risk of non-lethal visible injury to spring flowering species such as tulip or crocus.

HF modelling results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards and guidelines for HF under both typical and maximum operation of the site. Thus, no adverse environmental impact is envisaged to occur under these conditions at or beyond the site boundary. Emissions at maximum operations equate to ambient HF concentrations (including background concentrations) which are 60% of the maximum ambient l- hour limit value (measured as a 98th%ile) and 47% of the annual limit value.

9.8 Dioxin-Like Compounds

9.8.1 Description of Dioxin-Like Compounds

For inspection purposes only. The term “Dioxin-like Compounds”Consent of copyright ownergenerally required forrefers any other use.to three classes of compounds; polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins (PCDDs or CDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs or CDFs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCDDs include 75 individual compounds, or congeners, PCDFs include 135 congeners and PCBs include 209 congeners. Both PCDDs and PCDFs are usually formed as unintentional by-products through a variety of chemical reactions and combustion processes. These compounds are lipophilic that bind to sediment and organic matter in the environment and tend to be absorbed in animal and human fatty tissue. They are also generally extremely resistant towards chemical and biological degradation processes, and, consequently, persist in the environment and accumulate in the food chain(“).

The toxic effects of dioxins are initiated at the cellular level, by the binding of the dioxin to a specific protein in the cytoplasm of the body cells, the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR). The binding of TCDD to the Ah receptor constitutes a first and necessary step to initiate the toxic and biochemical effects of this compound. Dioxins effects in humans include increased prevalence of diabetes, immunotoxic effects and effects on neurodevelopment and neurobehaviour in children. Studies have shown TCDD to be carcinogenic but a lack of direct DNA-damaging effects indicates that TCDD is not an initiator but a promoter of carcinogenesis(‘gl.

130 of the 209 PCB congeners have historically been manufactured for a variety of uses including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors and as lubricants and adhesives.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. I November 2001 Page48of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:15 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

However, the marketing, use and disposal of PCBs has been severely restricted in the EU through Directives 85/467/EC and 96/59/EC”8’.

The toxicity of dioxins vanes widely with 2,3,7,8-TCDD being the most potent dioxin congener and with only particular configurations of these compounds thought to have dioxin-like toxicity (See Table 9.37). For PCDDs, only 7 of the 75 congeners have dioxin-like toxicity; these are the ones with chlorine substitutions in, at least, the 2,3,7 and 8 positions. For PCDFs, only 10 of the 135 congeners have dioxin-like toxicity; these are again the ones with chlorine substitutions in, at least, the 2,3,7 and 8 positions. In relation to PCBs, only 13 of the 209 congeners are likely to have dioxin-like toxicity; these are the PCBs with four or more chlorines with just one or no substitutions in the ortho position (coplanar)(‘an20).

As dioxin-like compounds have varying degrees of toxicity, a toxicity equivalency procedure has been developed to describe the cumulative toxicity of these mixtures. The procedure involved assigning individual Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEFs) to the 2,3,7,8- substituted PCDD and PCDF congeners and to selected coplanar and mono-ortho PCBs. The TEFs are referenced to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is assigned a TEF of 1.0. Calculation of the toxic equivalency (TEQ) of a mixture involves multiplying the concentration of individual congeners by their respective TEF. The sum of the TEQ concentrations for the individual congeners is the TEQ concentration for the mixture.

Since 1989, three different TEF schemes have been developed(20):

I-TEQDF - Developed by NATOKCMS in 1988, the I-TEQnr (DF = dioxin, furan, I = International) procedure assigns TEFs only for the 7 dioxins (PCDDs) and 10 furans (PCDFs). This scheme does not include dioxin-like PCBs. This scheme has been adopted in Council Directive 2000/76/EC and has been applied in the current assessment.

TEQr,&VHOg~ - In 1994, the WHO added 13-dioxin-like PCBs to the TEF scheme for dioxins and furans. However, no changes were made to the TEFs for dioxins and furans I-TEQnr (DFP = dioxin, furan, PCBs). For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. TEQDFP-WH098 - In 1998, the WHO reevaluated the TEF scheme for dioxins, furans and dioxin- like PCBs. Changes were made to the TEFs for dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs. Table 9.38 outlines the TEF for the most recent scheme for comparison with the scheme recommended in Council Directive 200/76/EC (I-TEQ~F).

Chapter 14 contains a brief overview and some information on the sources of dioxin (both natural and man made) in the environment. A number of the studies that have been carried out to date, both at national and local level, are summarised. In addition, lndaver Ireland commissioned AWN Consulting to undertake surface soil sampling and analyses for dioxins and PCBs at a number of locations around Cork Harbour. This report is summarised and comparisons with existing background data for the Cork region are made.

9.8.2 Modelling Strategy

The emissions of dioxin-like compounds from the incinerator have been evaluated in this chapter. Firstly, the stack emissions have been characterised in terms of mass of each PCDD/PCDF congener released, and the partitioning of these releases into a vapour and particle phase. Thereafter, air dispersion modelling has been used to translate these releases to ambient air vapour and particle phase concentrations, and wet vapour and wet and dry particulate deposition fluxes, in the vicinity of the release.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 49 of TI7 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

As recommended by the USEPA, individual dioxin congeners have been modelled from source to receptor. Only at the interface to human exposure, e.g., ingestion, inhalation, dermal absorption, etc., are the individual congeners recombined and converted into the toxic equivalence of I&3,7,8-TCDD to be factored into a quantitative risk assessment.

Emission Rate

The dioxin emission factor is defined as the total mass (in vapour and particulate form) of dioxin- like compound emitted per mass of feed material combusted. For the current proposal, a test burn is not possible as the incinerator has not been commissioned yet. However, lndaver Ireland has several flue gas cleaning systems similar to that proposed in the current scheme, in operation in Belgium. An analysis of these flue gas cleaning systems has suggested that the likely emission rate will out perform the most stringent limit value set by the EU in the recent Council Directive on Incineration (2000/76/EC).

Congener-specific emission data are needed for the analyses of the ambient air impacts and deposition flux of dioxin-like compounds using air dispersion and deposition models. As each specific congener has different physico-chemical properties, the proportion of each congener will affect the final result. Thus, the congener profile expected from the current facility must be derived. The congener profile will be dependent on various factors including the type of waste being burnt, the temperature of combustion, the type of combustion chamber being operated and the air pollution control devices (APCDs) installed. In the present case, no site-specific stack testing for specific congeners is possible as the facility is not yet built. Shown in Table 9.39 are typical relative PCDD/PCDF congener emission factors for hazardous waste incinerators (HWI) as reported by the USEPA (1996C)‘*” and in Table 9.40 the relative PCDDlPCDF congener emission factors for the municipal waste incinerator most similar to that proposed in the current scheme, a mass burn refractometry system with wet scrubbing (MB-REF WS) taken from the Database of Sources of Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States (USEPA, 1998 (CD-ROM)) r**) . It would be expected that the relative congener profiles for these two types of incinerators to be somewhat similar to the current case. Figures 9.16 - 9.19 show

the ratio of congeners and the TEQ For inspectionequivalent purposes releases only. from these types of facilities corrected to Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. the maximum emission limit outlined in Council Directive 2000/76/EC. Vapour I Particulate Partitioning a In order to accurately model emissions of PCDDlPCDFs and mercury, the partitioning of stack emissions into the vapour and particle (V/P) state is required.

In relation to PCDD/PCDFs, V/P partitioning based on stack tests data is highly uncertain(“). Research has indicated that higher temperatures favour the vaporous states for the lower chlorinated congeners and the particulate state for the higher chlorinated congenersr”). However, measured data has indicated significant variability in the V/P partitioning. For these reasons, the USEPA has indicated that V/P distributions obtained from stack sampling should not be used.

Data can also be obtained from ambient air sampling using a glass fibre particulate filter and polyurethane foam (PUF) absorbent trap. As the sampler is not subjected to artificial heating or cooling, the method can be used to imply the vapour phase and particle bound partitioning of PCDD/Fs in ambient air. However, the results will be only approximate as mass transfer between the particulate matter on the filter and the vapour trap cannot be ruled out(“).

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. I November 2001 Page 500f 117 Indaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16

X&-f-6'8'L'P'E'Z' ‘L

JQ=IdH-8'L'S'P'E'z' ‘L da-8'L'S'P'E'Z

=KrsH-6’8’L’E’Z’L aWPW8’L’S’E’Z’L

=kZcw-w'L'P'E'Z'L

NWd-8’L’P’E’Z

Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. other any for required owner copyright of Consent For inspection purposes only. purposes inspection For JaWd-8'L'E'z'L dmL-8’L‘E’Z

CUD0

a3dH-8’L’9’P’E’Z 'L

-6’8’L’E’Z’L

mw-8’L’9’E‘Z’L aa3x-W~‘~‘~'z'~ aa3ad-8'L'E'ZcL 0.035

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Rhgaslclddy waste management facility c6 d

Congener

PCDD/PCDF Congener Emission Rate (ng/m3) Based on a Typical HWI Profile At Maximum Operating Conditions

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16

Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. other any for required owner copyright of Consent For inspection purposes only. purposes inspection For

I-8‘L‘E‘Z

a(73 0

'1 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16

‘c

‘t

a3xH-8'L'S't‘E'Z

aSH-6'8‘L‘E'Z'C

a3xH-9'L'9‘E'Z'I

WH-8'L'P'E'Z'L

Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. other any for required owner copyright of Consent

a3ad-9'Lci+2'z For inspection purposes only. purposes inspection For a3ad-8'L'E'z'L

a(730

aa3dH-8'i'9'P'E'z' I - aa3xH-6‘8'L'E‘Z'C - aa3xH-8'L‘9'&'Zct Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

The recommended USEPA approach to obtaining the vapour/particulate partitioning at the current time is theoretical and based on the Junge-Pankow model for estimating the particle/gas distribution of PCDDlPCDFs (‘I) _ This model is the one most commonly used for estimating the adsorption of semi-volatile compounds to aerosols:

where: Q, = fraction of compound adsorbed to aerosol particles c = constant (assumed 17.2 Pa-cm) 0 = particle surface area per unit volume of air, cm* aerosoUcm3 air p’~ = saturation liquid phase vapour pressure, Pa

The particulate fraction can also be expressed by:

Cp = C,(TSP) I (C, + C,(TSP)) where: CD= fraction of compound adsorbed to aerosol particles C, = concentration of semivolatile compounds associated with aerosols, nglpg particles C, = gas-phase concentration, ng/m3 TSP = total suspended particle concentration, pg/m3

In the above calculations, it is assumed that all compounds emitted from the combustion sources are freely exchangeable between vapour and particle fractions. This may be a simplification as some of the particulate fraction may be trapped and be unavailable for exchange.

As the poL is referenced to 25OC and an ambient temperature of IOOC has been assumed which is appropriate for average annual temperatures in Cork, the poL has been converted to the ambient temperature as indicated in Table 9.41. Other relevant data used in the calculations and the derived particle fraction at IOOC is also shown in Table 9.41.

The advantages of the theoretical approach is that it is based on current adsorption theory, considers the molecular weight and degree of halogenation of the congeners and uses the For inspection purposes only. availability of surface areaConsent for of copyrightadsorption owner requiredof atmosphericfor any other use. particles corresponding to specific airsheds (background plus local sources used in the current case).

9.8.3 Modelling of Vapours and Particles Concentrations

PCDDlPCDFs have a range of vapour pressures and thus exist in both vapour and particle-bound states to various degrees. In order to adequately model dispersion and deposition of PCDD/PCDFs, modelling of both vapour and particle-bound states is thus necessary. For the vapour phase modelling, no dry deposition was assumed, as recommended by the USEPA(“,‘*). Using the congener profile from Tables 9.39 and 9.40 and the vapour - particle partitioning from Table 9.41, the vapour concentrations of the respective dioxin congeners was determined as outlined in Tables 9.43 and 9.45 for both a typical HWI and default MWI (MS-Ref WS) profile and diagrammatically in Figure 9.20. Results are shown under maximum operating conditions. The impact of wet deposition on the modelled vapour concentration has also been reported in Tables 9.43 and 9.45 and diagrammatically in Figures 9.21 - 9.22.

When modelling semi-volatile organics (such as PCDD/PCDFs) and mercury (Hg) the surface area weighting rather than mass weighting is used for deposition. The surface weighting reflects the mode of formation where volatiles condense on the surface of particulates in the post-combustion chamber (see Column 6 of Table 9.42). Thus, the apportionment of emissions by particle size becomes a function of the surface area of the particle which is available for chemical adsorption.

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 51 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16 Ringaskiddy Waste Management Facility Environmental Impact Statement

For the particle-phase concentration, the congener profile from Tables 9.39 and 9.40 and the vapour - particle partitioning from Table 9.41 were used to give the particulate concentrations of the respective dioxin congeners as determined in Tables 9.44 and 9.46 and diagrammatically in Figure 9.20. Results are shown under maximum operating conditions.

9.8.4 Deposition Modelling of Particulates

Deposition refers to a range of mechanisms which can remove emissions from the atmosphere. These include Brownian motion of aerosol particles and scavenging of particles and vapours by precipitation.

Dry Deposition

Dry deposition of particles refers to the transfer of airborne particles to the surface by means of the forces of gravity and turbulent diffusion followed by diffusion through the laminar sub-layer (thickness of 10“ to IO-’ cm) to the surface (collectively know as the deposition flux)(“). The meteorological factors which most influence deposition include the friction velocity and aerodynamic surface roughness. The ISCST3 model uses an algorithm which relates the deposition flux to functions of particle size, density, surface roughness and friction velocity.

In order to model dry deposition using ISCSTS, the particle-size distribution from the stack must be derived. In the absence of a site-specific particle-size distribution, a generalised distribution recommended by the USEPA has been outlined in Table 9.42. This distribution is suitable as a default for some combustion facilities equipped with either electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) or fabric filters (such as the current case), because the distribution is relatively typical of particle size arrays that have been measured at the outlet to advanced equipment design?‘. As described above, the particles are apportioned based on the fraction of available surface area (see Column 6 of Table 9.42).

Dry gaseous deposition, although considered in the ISCST3 model, has not been calibrated for the estimation of the deposition flux of For dioxin-like inspection purposescompounds only. into vegetation and thus the USEPA has Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. recommended that this algorithm should not be used for site-specific applications(““*).

Wet Deposition

Wet deposition physically washes out the chemically contaminated particulate and vapours from the atmosphere. Vapour scavenging is not yet well understood and is not integrated fully into the ISCST3 model. However, for informational purposes, the impact of vapour scavenging on both vapour concentration and total deposition has been reported.

Wet deposition flux depends on the fraction of the time precipitation occurs and the fraction of material removed by precipitation per unit of time by particle size. The ISCST3 model uses a scavenging ratio approach which is the product of the scavenging coefficient and precipitation rate. The scavenging coefficient depends on the size distribution for particles and the nature or form of the precipitation, i.e., liquid or frozen(““*).

Arup Consulting Engineers Issue No. 1 November 2001 Page 52 of 117 lndaver EIS-C796.10 EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:15:27:16