environmental protection agency · cembureau have also reported that there is no significant...

Metals may also be present in the emission stream due to their presence in either coalor meat and bone meal. The extent of evaporation of the metals and their compoundsdepends on a complex series of factors which include operating temperatures,oxidative or reductive conditions, and the presence of scavengers, mainly halogens.The metals and their salts are relatively volatile, but these compounds are foundassociated with the particulate phase because volatilisation occurs during combustionand condensation at lower temperatures and adsorption on to fine particulates occursin the flue gas. Although arsenic and cadmium are relatively volatile (As b.p. 130°C,Cd b,p. 765°C) the distribution of these metals in emission streams from combustionsources has been shown to be more than 99% in the particulate phase.

Monitoring data for metals in the emissions from the existing use of coal as fuel arepresented in Table 9.28a. The data shows that the emission rates are extremely lowwhich is consistent with expectations. The ambient air quality survey also found thatlevels of heavy metals in ambient air in the vicinity of the site were extremely lowindicating that emissions from the existing activity are not exerting an adverse impacton air quality in the area.

Some information on potential emission levels of heavy metals may also be derivedfrom a review of the composition of cement and in particular the trace metalcomposition of cement and concrete. Under normal conditions of use, Cembureau (theEuropean representative body for Cement manufacturers; www.cembureau.com)report that leached amounts of heavy metals from concrete are very low and muchlower than the very stringent EU regulatory limits for drinking water. Organic matteris destroyed at the very high temperatures reached in the cement kiln and inorganicmaterials, including heavy metals are incorporated into the cement product. Clearlysince the leached levels are so low, the potential for such metals to be present in theemissions is very low which is consistent with the emissions monitoring results.Cembureau have also reported that there is no significant difference between emissionlevels of heavy metals when burning conventional fuels such as coal and alternativefuels such as MBM.

0 A limited set of monitoring data from a facility operating in the UK and burning meatand bone meal is available and is summarised in Table 9.28b. The results, which arethe averages of two separate monitoring trials, show that the concentrations of metalsin the emission stream are extremely low and where positive results were obtained,support the hypothesis that the metals (other than mercury) are distributed almostexclusively in the particulate phase.

Metals other than mercury are assumed to be present in the emission streamsexclusively in particulate form. The generalised particle size distribution given inTable 9.25 is applied to the construction of an emission profile for the metals ofinterest. The mass emission rate expressed as a function of particle size is derivedfrom the product of the mass emission rate and the mass-weighting of the particles.The emission data is summarised in Table 9.28.

As noted above in the discussion for mercury, it is also important to consider thechemical form in which the metal is present in the emission stream. This is a

0 Lagan Cement Ltd: Project Greenhouse, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-l Page 61 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:02

4

. ~ ; ‘ ”

.! -.,,:

>~ _I.\ 1 :, ,’ _’ ‘;~ :. ; :.S.‘,, ,.

’ .: .1 ,,,<..’ .._.h”.-’ .&;. ::,..) :..:. ,.

: I ;, , j j : :~ ;,..: i ; :” 2, ;:: j:, ( ’

sugni~ficant factor for only one of the metals of interest, chromium, because thetoxicity varies with oxidation state. Chromium may be found as elemental chromium(Cr(o)) or in the trivalent, Cr(II1) or hexavalent, Cr(VI), states. Available evidenceshows that all of the element will be found in the trivalent state since Cr(V1) is veryunstable in the presence of reducing agents.

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide is one of the main products, together with the water vapour of thecombustion of organic material. Emissions of carbon dioxide from the cement kilnhave been quantified and the data, together with the evaluation of the potentialsignificance of the emissions is presented in Section 10.2 (Climate ImpactAssessment) of the overall Environmental Impact assessment for the development.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:03

Emission Scenario

Maximum daily average

Typical

Fractional content Concentration, pg/m3

Vapour Particulate Vapour Particulate

0.80 0.20 0.04 0.01

0.80 0.20 1.8 x 1O-4 4.4 x 1o-5

Table 9.271, Emission profile for mercury emissions from MBM combustion

Emission Scenario

Maximum daily average

Typical

Vapour

9.6 x lo4

4.2 x 1O-6

Emission Rate, ghec

C 2pm

2.1 x lo4

9.6 x 1O-7

-

Particulate

>2to510pm >lOpm

2.3 x lo5 7.2 x 10-6

1.0 x 1o-7 3.3 x 1o-8

Total

2.4 x 1O-4

1.1 x 1o-6

NOTEPI A conservative assumption that mercury is released totally as Hg(II) has been made in this evaluation

even though,this may overestimate the potential impact of the emissions.

A,~$:_, _~~ $;;:~ ;,, L: I.,+q@pBi:L‘$” i X‘/1 -. - .

;.;>&>; +q ;;g

. . I.r _“, . . . . ..- L1~,lll.lirr _I_jn*,..

Lagan.-.I,YI~I.~~--. “.l .,

Cement Ltd:. , .^,_ j.._

ProJect Greenhouse, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-l Page 63 01 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:03

. .-, :’

,, . )

,’ /‘ 2,

_,

.’

, .h. ,.

.; :p .\.: :-,),- ‘, . j ?I : :,,L

.,b> :3.

: z..

I, ,~: 2:.‘: ;‘;

:.,. .a. , ‘ : : ; ,. , I.‘, .,

T a b l e 9.2% Emlsslo& t6 atmowhereKillaskillen, Co Mea&. [I1

from the main stack at Lagan Cement Ltd.

Metal TC d < 3.54 x loaTl 1.66 x IO”

Hg 6.71 x lOA

A sCrc uC OMnNiP bSbV

4.12 x lo-*1.84 x lo5

0.222.74 x lo5

0.671.740.11

1.08 x 1O-31.07 x 10”

Emission concentration, mg/Nm3 1< 1.59 x 1o-4

2.61 x 1O-3

< 5.22 x 1o-4

1.04x lo-*4.25 x 10”2.12 x 1o‘2

< 2.19 x 1o-28.97 x 10”1.54 x lo93.12 x 10”9.27 x lo41.67 x 10”

NOTEVI Results are taken from two monitoring events carried out by TMS Environment Ltd. during February

and March 2004. Detailed reports are presented in Appendix 9.IV: (Cement Kiln Emissions MonitoringData: TMS Environment Ltd. Report Ref: 8201, 8456)

TMS Environment LtdAir Quality Impact Assessment

Report Ref 7588-l Page 64 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:03

Metal

Cadmium (Cd)

rhallium (Tl)

3um of Cd and Tl [31

4nGmony ( S b )

4rsenic ( A s )

3romium (Cr)

Jobalt 0)

Zapper w

,ead (Pb)

r/Ianganese (Mn)

Jickel (Ni)

Janadium (V)

hrn of above

Mercury (Hg)

Emission concentration, Izl mgn\Sm3

Gas Phase Particle Phase Total [31

< 4.1 x 1o-4 < 1.8 x 1o-4 < 5.9 x 1o-4

< 2.7 x 10” < 9.7 x 1o-4 Cl.8 x 1o-3

< 1.6 x 1O-3 < 5.8 x 1o-4 < 1.2 x 10”

< 1.9 x 10” 3.5 x 10” 3.5 x 10”

< 1.5 x 1o-5 < 4.1 x lo4 < 4.3 x 1o-4

<3.9x lo4 < 0.0187 < 0.0191

< 2.4 x 1O‘3 4.4 x lo4 2.8 x 1o-3

2.1 x 10” < 3.9 x 10” 6.0 x lo5

2.0 x 1o-3 < 1.8 x 10‘) 3.8 x 10”

1.9 x 10” < 3.9 x 10” 5.8 x 1o-3

1.3 x 10” 3.9 x 1o-3 5.2 x 10”

< 2.7 x lo5 1.1 x lOA 2.8 x 10”

0.0128 0.0367 0.0495

1.7 x lOA c 5.4 x lo5 2.8 x lo4

e NOTEUl

PI

[31

Results are expressed as an average of two monitoring runs at a BFB Unit burning MBM; the data wasacquired on behalf of the UK Environment Agency [EIS for proposed MBM incinerator, Tipperary,20021Concentrations are expressed relative to dry gas, 273 k, 10 1.325 kPa, 11% oxygen. The average oxygencontent during the trial was 10%.Non-detects (indicated by ‘4 ) are treated as being present at the detection limit for the total estimates.

i I

.I,

,,,. ,,‘?. ‘.i,. : i,

Ldkan Cement Ltd: Project Greenhouse, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-l Page 65 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:03

s.

‘.

,.

$

,/ :j.. 8,

;,; S’. .:,:,‘.

p._ _.

,>S I,;.&..

: ,i( . . ; ,’ :

9.6.1.54 Model&g S c e n a r i o s

A number of different modelling scenarios were considered in this assessment. Theemissions were modelled on a 24 hour-day, 365 days per year basis for the cementkiln although this is likely to overestimate the emissions as there will be periods ofshutdown throughout the year. The modelling scenarios are summarised as follows.

Scenario #l Existing situation with the current IPC Licence Limits and existingemission concentrations for some other substances

Scenario #2 Expected typical emissions when burning coal and MBM mixture

Scenario #3 Maximum expected concentrations when burning coal and MBMmixture

Consideration of this broad range of potential worse case emission scenarios is aconservative approach which may lead to an overestimate of potential impacts.

The emission rate projections for each significant constituent of the emission streamhave been calculated for each emission source as outlined above. The compilation ofinput data sets for the dispersion model considers all possible emission sourcesoperating under different possible regimes as described above. The projected emissionrates for each substance and operating scenario are summarised in Tables 9.29a and9.29b.

9.6.1.6 Site layout and topography

The layout and area of the site and the dimensions of the various plant buildings wereobtained from scaled drawings. Topographical information was obtained from a sitesurvey and from maps and digital contour data from Ordnance Survey Ireland.

Building downwash effects might be expected as a result of the proximity of buildingsand plant on site to the emission stacks. These effects were modelled using themodelling facility, BPIP, which is part of the ISCST3 modelling suite.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:03

expected typical operating conditions

Scenario #l Scenario #2Emissions”’ :a1 emissions I”

Emission rate, g/s

Expected tylConcentration,

mg/m3 I41

30

Emission rate, g/s

1.42 1.42

0.051

10

1

0.47

0.05

18.9 400 18.9

23.6 500 23.6

70.870.8 1500

0.0033D i o x i n s a n d finans rig/m3ITEO I

0.0065 1.53 x lo-‘O

Nitric Oxide (NO) andNitrogen d i o x i d e (NOz)expressed as NO1 (NO,)

17.7 t31 800 28.3 [33

Total9.4 x 1o-5

Total 0.002Total

9.4 x 1o‘5

Total2.4 x lo5

Total2.4 x 10”

0.00024

Total2.4 x W2

Total2.4 x 1O-2

Total 0.05

[l] Scenario #1 represents the existing emissions from the cement kiln. The concentrations are those typically found andthe mass emission rate is calculated from the measured flow rate (Appendix 9.111 TMS Environment Ltd and AESmonitoring reports)

[2] Scenario #2 represents the expected typical composition of the emission stream when burning a coal / MBM mixture.The mass emission rate is calculated Corn the measured flow rate.

[3] Assumes 75% conversion of NO to NO2[4] The Emission Limit Values for concentration are expressed at standard conditions of 273k, 101.3kPa, 10% 4, dry gas.

Lagan Cement Ltd: Project Greenhouse, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-1 Page 67 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:03

operating .conditions

Scenario #3Expected emissions[‘l

Emission rate, g/s

MaximunConcentration,

mg/m3 I31

30

Parameter

1 Total dust 1.58

0.53Gaseous and vaporous organic substances, expressed astotal organic carbon (TOC) 10

101 Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

1 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)

0.53

0.051

400 21.1Sulphur dioxide (SO1) (Daily Average)

Sulphur dioxide (SO,) (Daily Maximum)

1 Carbon monoxide (CO)

1 Dioxins and furans

500 2 6 . 4

1500 79.2

4.7 x 1o-g0.0065

Nitric Oxide (NO) and Nitrogen dioxide (NO,) expressedas NO* (NO,) (max half hourly)

Cadmium and its compounds, expressed as cadmium (Cd)

1 Thallium and its comuounds. exaressed as thallium CT11

800 31.6

Total 0.05 2.6 x 10“

Mercury and its compounds, expressed as mercury (Hg) 0.05 2.6 x 1O-3

1 Antimony and its comoounds. ewressed as antimonv (Sb)

Arsenic and its compounds, expressed as arsenic (As)

Lead and its compounds, expressed as lead (Pb)Chromium and its compounds, kxpressed as chromium09Cobalt and its compounds, expressed as cobalt (Co)

Copper and its compounds, expressed as copper (01)Manganese and its compounds, expressed as manganesefMn)

Total 0.5 2.6 x IO-’

Nickel and its compounds, expressed as nickel (Ni)

Vanadium and its compounds, expressed as Vanadium (V)

NOTE[l] Scenario #3 represents the expected maximum emissions from the cement kiln. The concentrations are the maximum

which may be found and the mass emission rate is calculated from the maximum permissible flow rate as specified inthe IPC Licence. The concentrations are either the maximum permitted in Directive 2000/76/EC or the IPC Licence orthe maximum which may be found in the emission stream.

[2] Assumes 75% conversion of NO to NOa[3] The Emission Limit Values for concentration are expressed at standard conditions of 273k, 101.3kPa, 10% 02, dry ga

.,’-.

: i.> ‘, : .,

Ltigan Cement Ltd: Project Greenhouse, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-1 Page 68 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:03

*

0

The magnitude of potential impacts of emissions from the proposeddevelopment will be substantially influenced by the local meteorologicalconditions and particularly by wind speed and direction and also byprecipitation rates. Consequently, an evaluation of climatological conditions atthe site is important when completing an assessment of the type beingundertaken in this study. The US EPA recommends that five years of recentlyavailable data are used for the assessment.

The meteorological data used as input to a dispersion model should be selectedon the basis of spatial and climatological (temporal) representativeness as wellas the ability of the selected parameters to characterise the transport anddispersion conditions in the area under investigation. The reliability of the dataused as input data will depend on the proximity of the meteorologicalmonitoring site to the area of interest, the complexity of the terrain and theamount of data available.

There is no continuous meteorological monitoring station located uniquelyclose to the site of the proposed development, but comprehensive monitoringdata is available for Mullingar, located just 18 km North West of the site. Forthe purpose of obtaining reliable information about the climatologicalconditions at the site of the proposed development, meteorological data for theperiod 2000 - 2004 recorded at Mullingar was analysed. This data was alsoselected for use in the dispersion modelling study and is expected to be areliable indicator of conditions at the proposed shale quarry extension site. Thenext closest meteorological monitoring station to the site is located atCasement Aerodrome at Baldonnel, approximately 45 km South East of thesite. Additional data from this stations and any available on site data was alsoreviewed as part of this section.

Analysis of the monitoring data from the meteorological station at Mullingarfor the period 2000 - 2004 shows that the dominant wind direction is from theS-SW-W quadrant, as shown in the Wind Roses for Mullingar, Appendix IV,Figure 1. The average annual wind speed for this period is 3.6 m/s, with windspeeds < 3.1 m/s occurring for 50.5% of the year; high wind speeds at > 5.6m/s occur for 31.5% of the year. A summary of wind speed occurrences forthe periods 2000-2004 is presented in Table 9.30.

An analysis of annual precipitation rates for the periods 2000 - 2004 ispresented in Table 9.3 1. In addition, local rainfall data acquired fromcontinuous monitoring at the Lagan site was also reviewed as part of thisstudy. The mean annual precipitation rate for Mullingar is 935mm. Theserainfall values are consistent with local rainfall rates measured since June2000 to present (December 2004) at the Lagan Cement works site. The meanannual precipitation rate at the Lagan Cement works site was 789mm in 2004.A summary of the data is presented in Table 9.3 1 which shows the similarityof site specific data and data acquired from Mullingar meteorological station.An analysis of mean monthly temperatures and precipitation rates forCasement Aerodrome for the periods 1992 - 1996 and 1999 - 2001 is also

Lagan Cement Ltd: Alternative Fuels, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Ref 7588-l Page 69 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:03

f‘,,. .

:,

‘.\ : .,::

,Ll l i

!’ ~. ‘.,:

.:’

: %‘.-~ ‘... < ,‘:i,!, 1. :

s ‘, ,:: ;- .,‘,li~ (, ,:: “,.’ :,.,a : ,.,;i _,\ _ ,

.;... ,, :

. :. i,,;,*, >J c . .I”)““. :,;i

i ,‘,\! ,._ :Lr,i:i ‘:‘~,~“‘..-*’ ..:;.

‘r:,&z”: ,, ..::‘“!‘ii.,::i:~.::., -,:” ::...

@es&ted m Table 9.31 and again shows similarity between the variousstations.

Analysis of the monitoring data from the meteorological station at CasementAerodrome for the periods 1992 - 1996 and 1999 - 2001 shows that thedominant wind direction is again from the S-SW-W quadrant, as shown in theWind Roses for Casement Aerodrome for these two periods, Appendix IV,Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively. The average annual wind speed for thesetwo periods is 5.4 m/s, with wind speeds < 3 m/s occurring for 30% of theyear; high wind speeds at > 5 m/s occur for 42% of the year. A summary ofwind speed occurrences for the periods 1992 - 1996 and 1999 - 2001 is alsopresented in Table 9.30. Wind speeds at Casement were slightly higher than atMullingar but this is not surprising as Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel issituated in a very exposed location.

The dispersion of pollutants from emission sources is also affected byatmospheric stability. The six categories of atmospheric stability normallyused for this type of study range from very unstable (A) to stable (F). Thepercentage occurrence of the various atmospheric stability classes wasdetermined for the five-year period 2000 - 2004 for Mullingar and also usedin the dispersion modelling study. The most common type of stability categoryencountered in the area is neutral (D) stability which is representative of theconditions normally encountered in Ireland and is associated with cloudy,rainy or windy weather. Dispersion of pollutants is poorest under stableatmospheric conditions (categories E and F, normally experienced during thenight).

TMS Environment LtdImpact Assessment


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:04

e

., t.,

.” .(

‘i :.‘-,. : ,‘,

.),,.< -:,‘. ;j <. I; j ” ‘;< 1

-.,; : j - ~:

j ),, ., ” ~:C ..: “+ ‘. i’) Yr+;:,,. ./ /,. <‘,‘,:.! .:_ ;.‘..+-;,,I;:;,, ....;.

Table 9.30 (_P&entage occurrences of wind speed for Mullingar(2000 - 2004) and Casement Aerodrome (1992 - 1996) and(1999 - 2001).

SPEED m/s < 1.54 1.54-3.1 3.1 - 5.1 5.1 -8.2 8.2- 10.8 > 10.8

Mullingar2000 - 2004 % 20 32.8 32.1 15.4 16.0 0.1

Casement1992 - 1996 % 14.8 19.3 23.4 23.7 11.4 7.4

Casement1999-2001% 14.3 11.0 25.0 25.5 11.0 5.3

Table 9.31 Mean annual temperature and rainfall for Mullingar and LaganCement site (2004) and CasementAerodrome (1992 - 1996)and (1999 - 2001).

/

l

Mullingar

20002001200220032004

Mean

Lagan Cement Ltd

2001200220032004

Mean

Casement, 1992 -1996

Casement, 1999 - 2001

Mean Temperature, Mean rainfall,“C mm

9.39.19.79.69.5

9.4

10087631212737953

935

789693897578

739

757

747

Lagan Cement Ltd: Project Greenhouse, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-l Page 71 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:04

The dispersion model was used to predict the incremental additions to groundlevel concentrations of all substances emitted from the facility over definedaveraging periods. These averaging intervals were chosen to allow directcomparison of predicted ground level concentrations with the relevantassessment criteria as outlined in Section 9.6.1.2 and Tables 9.12 to 9.19. Inparticular, l-hour, S-hour, 24-hour and annual average ground levelconcentrations (GLCs) of various substances were calculated at variousdistances from the site; percentiles of these average GLCs were also computedfor comparison with the relevant Air Quality Standards.

9.6.1.9 Receptor locations

Since the impact of the emissions can be observed at considerable distancesfrom the emission sources, a fine grid, 6km x 6km centred on the mainemission source, the cement kiln stack, was constructed with receptors locatedat 300m intervals. Within the site boundary, a radial grid was used withreceptors located at 100m. A coarse grid, 1Okm x lOkm, was also constructedwith receptors placed at 500m intervals to assess the extent of dispersion ofemissions from the facility. In line with expectations, the highest predictedground level concentrations occur at the receptors closer to the source.

Local receptors are located at various distances on all directions from the sitewith Kinnegad village occupying the highest density of population locatedapproximately 4km north west of the site. Graphical representations ofpollutant distributions in the vicinity of the plant are presented in Appendix9.VIII and show that the highest predicted levels are recorded within thechosen fine grid.

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:04

9.6.2.1 Dispersion Modelling Strategies

The overall approach adopted in the dispersion modelling study is summarisedas follows.

a The maximum projected emission rates of each substance of interestfrom each emission source were determined as outlined in Section9.6.1.5;

0 The expected or typical emission rates of each substance of interestfrom each emission source were also determined as outlined in Section9.6.1.5;

l The modelling runs were formulated to allow direct comparison of thedispersion modelling predictions with the relevant air qualitystandards, as described in Section 9.6.1.2

l predicted incremental contributions of emissions from the facility tothe ground level concentrations of various substances over specifiedaveraging intervals were compared with the relevant Air QualityStandards.

The model was executed at the current stack height of 125 meters for eachmain emission source, existing and proposed. The modelling scenarios aresummarised in Section 9.6.4.5.4.

The emissions were modelled on a 24 hour-day, 365 days per year basis forthe cement kiln, although this is likely to overestimate the emissions.Emissions to atmosphere from the kiln are likely to occur for about 11 monthsof the year. It is estimated that about 30 days down-time will be required forshutdown and for routine maintenance.

9.6.2.2 Dispersion modelling predictions

The dispersion modelling predictions for each operating scenario are presentedin Tables 9.33 to 9.41. The results of the study are presented in a mannersuitable for assessment of the significance of the potential impacts on ambientair quality. In particular, the averaging intervals were chosen to allowcomparison of the predicted ground level concentrations of all substanceswhich could be emitted from the facility with relevant air quality standards asdiscussed in section 9.6.1.2. The modelling predictions presented in Tables9.33 to 9.41 together with the existing annual average backgroundconcentration of each substance of interest; the predicted contribution ofreleases from the facility to ground-level concentrations is added to theexisting ambient concentration and the total predicted ground-levelconcentration is then compared with the relevant annual air quality standard.The results of this assessment are discussed in detail in the following sectionof this report.

Lagm Cement Ltd: Project Greenhouse, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-1 Page 73 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:04

Nitrogen Dioxide

The dispersion modelling predictions of the combined ambient ground levelconcentrations of NO2 as a result of existing influences on NO2 levels andemissions from the proposed change in fuel are presented in Tables 9.33.Results are presented for every possible emission scenario as previouslydescribed. The projected ground level concentrations as a result of theexisting emissions are compared with the expected emissions from theproposed introduction of MBM as a partial fuel source.

Under existing operating conditions (Scenario #l) (typical projected emissionrates and assuming that 75% of NO, is present as N02) the maximumpredicted ambient ground level concentration is 19.0pg/m3 for the 99.8*percentile of the l-hour average. This is compared to the measured groundlevel concentration of 6ug/m3. As expected, the predictions are overestimatingthe potential ground level concentrations. Under expected typical operatingconditions (Scenario #2) the maximum predicted ambient ground levelconcentration is 27ug/m3 for the 99.8’h percentile of the l-hour average, whichrepresents just 13.5% of the air quality standard. The existing IPC Licencelimits emissions of NO2 to 500 mg/Nm3 (daily average) and 800 mg/Nm3 atany one time. The Waste Incineration Directive provides for emissions of upto 800 mg/Nm3 as a daily average and this is the value chosen for the expectedoperating conditions. Even under expected maximum emission conditions(Scenario #3) the 99.8’h percentile of l-hour means never exceeds 15% of thestandard. Even if the maximum concentration recorded for any one-hourmonitoring interval is considered, the additional increment to ground-levelconcentration predicted from the proposed use of MBM will not cause groundlevel concentrations to approach or exceed the air quality standard. There willtherefore be no adverse impacts on air quality, human health or theenvironment as a result of NO, emissions from the facility.

It should also be noted, as discussed in section 9.3.3, that a very conservativeapproach towards deriving the annual mean background concentrations wasadopted. Thus the air quality impact predictions probably overestimate the airquality impacts associated with the proposal.

Sulphur Dioxide

The impact assessment predictions for SO2 are summarised in Table 9.34. Themost difficult air quality standard to achieve is the 99.2*h percentile of 24-hourmeans, this standard is only mandatorily achieved since the beginning of 2005.From the emissions of the existing activity the maximum predicted ambientground level concentration is 15.2 ug/m3 for the 99.2’h percentile of the 24-hour average and 12.7 us/m3 for the annual mean. The predicted annual meanground level concentration compares well with the measured concentration of12.5ug/m3, lending confidence to the predictions. This figure is not expectedto change under expected typical operating conditions (Scenario #2) and it


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:04

. ‘represents ‘just 12.2% of the air quality standard. Even under expectedmaximum emission conditions (Scenario #3) the 99.2fh percentile of 24-hourmeans never exceeds 13% of the standard. There will therefore be no adverseimpacts on air quality, human health or the environment as a result of SOZemissions from the facility.

Partikulate matter (PMlo)

Since the abatement system to be employed in the control of emissions fromthe cement Kiln is likely to result in a bias in particle size in the emissionstream towards sub-10 micron particles, the entire particulate matter content ofthe emission stream has been assumed to be PMio i.e. < 1Opm. Despite thisvery cautious approach, which may overestimate the emissions potential, thepredicted ground level concentrations are substantially lower than the relevantair quality standards for all averaging intervals. No adverse impacts on airquality are predicted as a result of PMio emissions. The 90.4’h percentile of 24-hour means will not exceed 14% of the Limit Value for the worst casescenario. The predicted ground level concentration of PM10 from all emissionsources expressed as the annual mean compares very well with the measuredconcentration (6.96 and 6.94pg/m3, respectively) lending even greaterconfidence to the predictions.

Carbon monoxide (CO), Hydrogen chloride (HCI) and Hydrogen fluorideP’)

Modelling predictions for CO, HCI and HF are presented in Tables 9.36, 9.37and 9.38. The results show that predicted ground level concentrations of thesesubstances are all very substantially lower than the relevant air qualitystandards. This is entirely consistent with expectations since the emissionrates of each of these substances are low. The predictions, even for themaximum projected impact scenarios, indicate results which are less than 3%of the relevant limit values for CO and HCI. There is no predicted increase inCO from the proposed development and the predicted increase in HCl is onlyexpected to be 0.23pg/m3 which is less than 0.5 % of the Air Quality Standard.

The standard for HF which is most difficult to achieve is the annual mean -the existing situation (Scenario #l) predictions are less than 34% of thisstringent air quality standard and the expected predictions (Scenario #2 and#3) do not increase as a result of the use of MBM as a fuel source. Themeasurement data shows that the predictions are overestimating potentialground level concentrations since the measured levels are lower than thosepredicted.

Organic Compounds

There are two classifications of organic compounds which may be present inemission streams from the proposed development - Volatile OrganicCompounds (VOCs) and dioxins and furans. Modelling predictions for VOCs(expressed as Total Organic Carbon, TOC) are presented in Table 9.39. Asnoted in section 9.5.2, there is no directly relevant standard against which

Lagan Cement Ltd: Project Greenhouse, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-1 Page 75 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:04

modelling results with the air quality standard for environmentally significantorganic compounds. Even using this stringent assessment criterion, thepredicted ambient concentrations are very substantially lower than the relevantair quality limit value. In addition to this there is no increase in existing andexpected typical emissions.

The evaluation of air quality impact associated with the releases of dioxins andfirans is difficult due to the range of considerations which must be applied inthe assessment. The relative amounts of each of 17 congeners in both vapourand particulate phases must be considered; furthermore the distribution of thesubstances by particle size in the particulate phase is important, and it isnecessary to predict vapour concentrations, airborne particulate concentrationsand vapour d particulate deposition rates, incorporating assessments of bothwet and dry depletion or deposition processes where relevant. Unlike theother substances for which modelling predictions are discussed, there are noair quality guidelines or standards against which the predictions may beevaluated.

In the absence of a conventional air quality standard for evaluating thesignificance of the predictions, it is useful to compare the predictions withLiterature data for similar situations. The annual deposition flux in rural areasin the USA is 2.5-58.3 fg/m3 (expressed as I-TEQ) and 3-28 fg/m3 in UKurban areas. The values predicted for the current study are less than theexisting background concentration in the area and, at typical operating valuesare lower than those found in rural situations elsewhere in the UK and USA.In addition to this it should be noted that the predicted total ground levelconcentration (vapour and particulate) is 50% lower than the current predictedoperating conditions. Even if dioxins were present in the emissions at themaximum level permitted in the Waste Incineration Directive (0.1 ng/m3) thepredicted levels will not alter the existing ambient concentrations.

Heavy metals

Modelling of mercury impacts on air quality is complicated by the need toconsider vapour/particle partitioning, wet and dry deposition and particle sizedistribution. The modelling predictions for vapour and particulate phaseconcentrations are shown in Table 9.40a, b and c; the results demonstrate thateven the most stringent air quality standards are at least two orders ofmagnitude higher than the maximum predicted concentrations.

The air quality impacts of other metals are evaluated in terms of the airborneparticulate concentrations and the particulate deposition rate in the vicinity ofthe facility. All of the predicted ground level concentrations for all metals(Tables 9.40a, b and c) are significantly lower than the relevant air qualitystandard.

9.6.2.4 Sensitivity analysis


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:04

1 _‘)~,.;:, ::“. ., :_‘( .

1? .(, ,._. ,/, :: . . --,1::: ., ~(

<> ‘$., 1, : ,I”; _,,,. ‘.& &,~!,;“I~,,~ .,; i,;x\.. ,_-,i ~.:‘-;,,y~\:,*:,. d” ~., .c,3.:‘; / -,

i’$: ;;,,- .j j ~\.V ; .’‘its:.; ,;,.,,f q; , iia’ L.j :‘; : i ;.s;.. ‘;;J-; ,,,/, /”(/ I .,‘,.i . _ .,,L ..,>,y,: ‘,.>? .I .,: .I / , 1, . .-.This sectlon presents the findings of an analysis to evaluate the sensitivity ofthe ISCST modelling approach to variations in the formulation of model input

-data. Sensitivity testing was carried out for meteorological data inputs.

As noted in section 9.6.1.7, the reliability of the air quality impact predictionsis partially dependent on the meteorological data selection. The modellingpredictions reported above are based on the use of Mullingar meteorologicaldata as the most representative data set for the Killaskillen site. In order toevaluate the potential sensitivity of model predictions to the input dataselections, model runs were executed using meteorological input data sets forBirr and Casement Aerodrome to allow comparison with the predictions madeusing the Mullingar meteorological data set. The modelling rnn chosen for theexercise was the prediction of 99.8fh percentiles of l-hour average groundlevel concentrations of NO,. The results are summarised in Table 9.32.

Table 9.32 Sensitivity of modelling predictions to input meteorologicaldata

Modelling Parameter

99.8th percentileof 1 -hour mean NO2

Meteorological Data

Mullingar Birr Casement

13.0 11.9 9.49

The predictions are in excellent agreement which is expected in view of theclose similarity in meteorological data statistics. The results for Mullingar areabout 10% higher than Birr which is within the predicted accuracy of themodelling technique. The results show that the choice of data set does notlead to unreliable predictions - the predicted values, regardless of data set areall very close to one another. The highest result was obtained fi-om data usedin this survey and therefore if there is any inaccuracy it is in fact a potentialoverestimation of the predicted ground level concentrations.

The limited sensitivity analyses demonstrates the robustness of the modellingapproach adopted in the study. Variation in input data caused less than 10%variation in the air quality impact predictions which is well within acceptabletolerances for this type of study.

Ligkn Cement Ltd: Project Greenhouse, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-1 Page 77 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:04

..*~, ..( by.’

A.: ‘,‘,

n .I.\ ;.’

,“,:’ ‘,,,:-::;:: ,: ; .I’ _

,.L>‘.;“~,-;.>.,:‘.

“.)..“.’ .( ,,, ,?., .:i .’;,,t: .i.~. :.-::.

: :i .;,; =,‘.;.‘: .,.

‘+ zb,:. “‘.:i,,i : *--..$. “y:.:~ t’ :

g., .y&$g . . ._,; ,~ .:,,:;

-.

UATION OF THE POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF THE

DEVELOPMENT

9.7.1 Construction

A number of fuel silos and some other plant will be constructed; planningpermission has previously been granted for such works and therefore theconstruction impacts have previously been considered and demonstrated to beacceptable.

7.7.2 Operation Phase

The combined operation impacts of existing activities at the site, traffic andother influences on air quality were considered together with the operationalimpacts associated with the addition of MBM as a fuel source. The study hasshown that the predicted air quality impacts will be significantly lower thanthe acceptable levels of impact, and there will be no significant adverse impacton air quality as a result of the development.

9.7.3 Traffic

There will be only 4 additional traffic movements per day due to theintroduction of MBM as an additional fuel source. The impact of emissions toatmosphere from vehicle movements is therefore insignificant and will notexert a measurable influence on air quality in the vicinity of the site. Trafficand hence, traffic-related emissions to atmosphere will remain the same whenthe additional development proceeds, so this influence on local air quality willalso remain the same as the current situation.

9.7.4 Ecological and Agricultural

9.7.4.1 Baseline studies

Representative samples of soil and vegetation were collected in the vicinity ofthe Lagan Cement Ltd site using the UK HMIP sampling protocol inDecember 2004. These samples were sent to a specialist laboratory in the UKfor analysis and the results are presented in a detailed laboratory report inAppendix 9.VIII. Results for this study show that levels of dioxins measuredin soil and vegetation samples taken from a location near the Lagan CementLtd site are close to the Limits of Detection for the analytical method. Asummary of the findings is presented below in Table 9.33 along withcomparative data.

There are seventeen dioxin compounds that are known to be toxic. Theaccepted convention to assess the overall dioxin toxicity is to apply aninternational toxic equivalent factor (TEF) to the concentration of each dioxinspecies. The seventeen dioxins are then summed and result in a total dioxincontent expressed as Toxic Equivalents (TEQ), as presented above. Themeasurement results presented above for the dioxin concentrations in soil andvegetation in the vicinity of the Lagan Cement Ltd plant were calculated using

Lagan Cement Ltck Project Greenhouse, Air Quality Impact AssessmentTMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-l Page 78 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

limit of detection (< LOD = LOD) and this presents a ‘worst case’ scenario. Itis also convention to present the results by using the less than limit ofdetection values as equal to zero (< LOD = 0) which in this case would resultin an even lower dioxin concentration in the soil and vegetation sample takenat Lagan Cement Ltd.

Table 9.33 Summary results for the analysis of Soil and Vegetationsamples for Dioxins and Furans

Sample TypeConcentration Measured, Comparative Data

ITEQ rig/kg w/k

0.2 - 23.7 [l]2.09 - 2.95 [2]

SOIL 0.84 4.47 4.70 [3]-1.1-2.0 [4]3.4-8.1 [5]

0.61- 0.81 [6]

VEGETATION 0.51 Not Available

NOTES

[iiFigures from 8 rural sites in Cork, 1991 (study completed by Eolas)Figures from the Cork County area, 1993 (study by Forbairt)

[31 Figures for the Cork City area, 1993 (study completed by Forbairt)[41 Figures for Askeaton, Co Limerick, 1995 (study by the EPA)151 Figures for Roche Ireland in Clarecastle, Co Clare, 1995PI Figures for Roche Ireland in Clarecastle, Co Clare, 2001

The results presented above in Table 9.33 are well within the expected rangefor background levels of dioxin concentration for a rural environment. Table9.33 also presents information on dioxin concentrations found in soil in othersimilar locations in Ireland. The dioxin concentrations found at the Lagan siteare significantly lower than the background levels found in the majority of theother sites. Furthermore, the dioxin levels found at the Lagan site are morethan six times lower than the target value for uncontaminated soils as set out inthe German “Bund-/Lander-Arbeitsgruppe DIOXINE” which is aninternational reference for dioxin concentration in soil. This reference table ispresented below as Table 9.34.

It can be concluded therefore that the dioxin levels in soil in the vicinity of theLagan Cement plant are at the lower end of the background range of dioxins insoils previously reported in Ireland. Furthermore, the vegetation dioxinconcentration was actually lower than the soil and hence shows no evidence ofaccumulation of dioxins Tom any source. Clearly the exceptionally low levelsof dioxins emitted from the existing facility are having no measurable impacton the deposition of dioxins and furans in the vicinity of the site. Thesignificance of this finding is further discussed in Chapter 5 (Human Beings).


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

for land use. (German “Bund-/Lander-ArbeitsgruppeDIOXINE”)

Dioxin Concentration Levelnglkg TEQ

<5 Target value5 - 4 0 Unrestricted cultivation of foodstufXs[‘l>40 Only defined agricultural and horticultural land uses> 100 Remediation of contaminated soils in playgrounds> 1000 Remediation of contaminated soils in urban areas> 10000 Remediation of contaminated soils also in industrial

areas[l] Avoidance of critical land use (grazing management) ifincreased dioxin levels are analysed in foodstuffs

Recommended Action

NOTE

9.7.4.2 Impact assessment

No part of the site is included in a Natural Heritage Area or Area of ScientificInterest and there are no such sites within a radius of Skm of the site. Thesalmon is the only species nearby which is subject to special protection underthe Habitats Directive. The maximum potential impact of air emissions fromthe facility would be experienced well within a 5km distance of the site, andthis air quality impact assessment has shown that the impact of the proposedintroduction of MBM as an alternative fuel source at the facility will have noadverse impact on air quality, agriculture or on any special sites as a result ofemissions from the facility.

The air quality impact assessment has also shown that the introduction ofMBM as an alternative fuel source at the facility will have no adverse impacton Flora and Fauna in the vicinity of the plant.

Although MBM is sterilised during production due to the temperature andtime [133”C at 3 bar pressure for 20 minutes] the material becomes colonisedby fungi and airborne bacteria during storage. In addition, these temperatureswill reduce but not eliminate the prions of BSE, if present in the start material.The risk assessment associated with prions is fully dealt with in Section 3 ofthe overall report, and concludes that the use of MBMpresents a negligible[priori] riskfor humans, animals and the environment).

The studies of the composition of the stack emissions indicate that there willbe minimal change in the incidental creation of dioxins and related cycliccompounds during the combustion process where temperatures of up to2000°C will be attained, such that there will be no impact on the level ofintake of these materials in animals grazing in the vicinity. None of the otherpredicted changes in the emission stream - changes in nitrogen dioxide,sulphur dioxide are of any significance to animals in the area.


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

‘“

_’ : .,‘s _(, -.

,‘,, ‘>: ‘,‘: .’ ( ‘ ‘_

i/:; .‘

,_

:+_ $5 .,.‘.::.l,.i..,‘\:; _’. 9;

1; i,,. ‘., :‘.... il

‘. ,:. ’ [: , yl; il ,,”

s:: ,t ,“““i I t ,_~‘.‘\‘,p .,-..::L{;;~ : :jt,. , .’ ..

‘The use of MBM as part of the fuel mixture will not produce any increase riskof adverse effects in animals in the surrounding environment.

9.7.5 Conclusions

The assessment has shown that there will be no adverse impacts on air qualityin the vicinity of the plant as a result of the introduction of MBM as analternative fuel source at the facility.

9.8 MITIGATION MEASURES

9.8.1 Construction Phase

Planning permission has previously been granted for any construction worksthat are due to take place and therefore the construction impacts andsubsequent mitigation measures have previously been considered anddemonstrated to be acceptable.

9.8.2 Operation Phase

9.8.2.1 Quarry operation

The mitigation measures that have been previously recommended inthe original Licence application and subsequent applications are stillrelevant and are not discussed further here. In summary, screeningbanks and wet suppression techniques have been shown to be effectivein minimising the impact of site operations on the local environment.In addition, the installation of a raw material conveyor system thattransports material from the limestone quarry to the processing plantwill significantly reduce the numbers of HGV movements on internalhaul roads which will in turn reduce fugitive dust emissions at the site.

9.8.2.2 Crushing and Screening Plant

The mitigation measures that have been previously recommended inthe original Licence application and subsequent applications are stillrelevant and are not discussed further here

9.8.2.3 Traffic

There will be only 4 additional traffic movements per day due to theintroduction of MBM as an additional fuel source. The mitigationmeasures that have been previously recommended in the originalLicence application are still relevant and are not discussed further here.In Summary, each vehicle will pass through a dedicated wheel wash toensure that the potential for the soiling of public roads by HGV’s willbe minimised.


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

The operation of the cement plant will remain the same as the currentsituation. The mitigation measures that have been previouslyrecommended in the original Licence application and subsequentapplications are still relevant and are not discussed further here.

In the unlikely event of an accidental spillage of MBM during delivery,a comprehensive Response Procedure has been formulated to ensurethat the material will be contained and collected with no losses to theenvironment. Any collected material would be burned in the cementkiln alongside the fuels, or disposed of in accordance with national andinternational legislation. There would therefore be no potential forlosses to atmosphere from such an incident. This is discussed further inSection 7.0.

9.8.3 Monitoring

The existing ambient air quality is good and consistent with expectations for alocation of this type. Mitigation measures have been outlined in previousapplications to minimise the potential impact of air emissions associated withthe development. In order to demonstrate that the proposed mitigationmeasures are effective, it is recommended that the monitoring programmecurrently in place should not be altered. Emissions monitoring from thecement kiln should demonstrate the effectiveness of the tech&logy and ensurecontinuing effective operation of the system.

It should also be noted that the facility will require a Licence from theEnvironmental Protection Agency for the additional activity. The existingactivities at the site are already regulated under the terms of Licences grantedby the EPA and the proposed new activity will require a Review of theexisting Licence to incorporate regulation of the activity. Emissions from thefacility will be strictly regulated by way of Emission Limit Values, ongoingmonitoring and control. It is expected that the IPPC Licence will specifyEmission Limit Values for the cement kiln unit in accordance with therequirements of EC Directive 2000/76/EC.

Other monitoring requirements which are specified in Directive 2000/76/ECinclude the measurement of temperature near the inner wall or similarrepresentative point of the combustion chamber, and the pressure, temperature,oxygen and water vapour content of the exhaust gases. These monitoringarrangements will also be implemented for this development. The Directivealso provides for regular measurements of other substances in the emissionstream which will include metals, HCl, HP, dioxins and furans, and thesearrangements will also be implemented in respect of this proposal. It isrecommended in respect of these latter parameters that the frequency of testingshould be agreed with the EPA following review of the results from initialmonitoring exercises,


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

:,:,. :- : ;, : ?

_\‘... .’ ),

J:,. ” .‘.

::‘, ‘)

‘” <i -”.:;>:;

-.j.,i“,‘,, ‘.

:I %.

,, 5,: .; ,-~~:~~‘~.:~’ ‘i;i i:‘g: , ’

‘- ‘L(:..l::’ ; ..:;+; ~; ,‘.,,;‘” .y, .i,.:+ k~.,:i: ;

_“,, 5;+:;; . . :;jp -,%“.; i.,.-.,“L‘ji’,‘; ,:... 2~’ 3 ,I -9’

&nce this assessment has shown that the dominant potential impacts of theproposed development on air quality near the site are effects on ground-levelconcentrations of nitrogen oxides (NO,) and sulphur dioxide (SO$, it isrecommended that a Programme of ambient air quality monitoring for thesespecies should be undertaken in the vicinity of the site. The programmeshould extend over at least one year and a suitable methodology is the use ofpassive diffusion tubes. The monitoring locations should be chosen toevaluate human exposure to these substances and also potential exposure ofecosystems. The precise monitoring locations may be chosen in accordancewith the requirements of EC Directive 199913O/EC and should be agreed withthe Environmental Protection Agency during the review of the existing IPCLicence which will be required for this proposal.

TMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-l Page 83 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

A comprehensive evaluation of the potential impacts on air quality as a resultof emissions from the proposed use of MBM as an alternative fuel source inthe cement kiln has been completed. The combined impacts of emissionsfrom existing activities at the site were also considered in the assessment. Themain assessment criteria used were the existing Air Quality Standards whichare based on EU Standards, and the more stringent limit values defined in therecent EU Directive SI 271 of 2002. Where air quality standards or guidelinesdo not exist for some of the modelled substances, the air quality impactassessment was based on other relevant assessment methods as described inSection 9.6.1.2.

The dispersion modelling study demonstrated that the current stack height of125m for the cement kiln will provide effective dispersion of all pollutantsemitted f?om the facility under normal and maximum possible operatingconditions. The results of the study demonstrate that there will be no adverseimpacts on ambient air quality in the vicinity of the facility as a result ofemissions f?om either existing or proposed activities at the site. Theassessments were completed under the worst possible emissions scenarios, aswell as typical emissions conditions, in order to assess the maximum potentialimpact on ambient air quality; the use of maximum possible emissionconditions ensures that the impact assessments are reliable and mayoverestimate the actual projected impact of the development.

The assessment was completed using the worst possible estimated emissionrates of pollutants in order to assess the maximum potential impact on ambientair quality.

The results of this extensive study demonstrate that there will be no adverseimpacts on ambient air quality in the vicinity of the facility, on localresidences or on local agriculture as a result of emissions from either theexisting or the proposed activities at the site.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

Table 9.33 Dispersion Modelling predictions for NO2

Projected Annual meanScenariol’l emission rate background

glsec “I concentration I31 pg/m’

Scenario #1 (Existing Emissions)

Max daily average 17.7 6.02

Scenario #2 (Expected Typical Emissions)


Averaging interval andstatistical parameter 14’

Annual mean99.8&%ile of 1-hr means

Annual mean99.8*%ile of I-hr means

Predicted processcontribution toGLCs I51 pg/m3

0.2213.0

0.3620.9

Scenario #3 (Expected Maximum Emissions)

Max daily average 31.7 6.02 Ammid mean 0.34 6.3699.8”%ile of I-hr means

4023.1 29.2 200

NOTE[l] The details of each Operating Scenario are summan ‘sed in Table 9.29a and 9.29b[2] The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6.1.5

[5] Dispersion modelling prediction of contribution to GLC fromprocess emissions

[3] The amural mean background concentration is derived as shown in Section 9.4.2[4] The averaging intervals and statistical analysis parameters are discussed in Section 9.6.1.8

[6] Sum of background concentration & predicted process contribution[7] The ambient air quality standards are defined in Tables 9.12 to 9.19

TMS Environment LtdLagan Cement Ltdz Alternative Fuels, Air Quality Impact Assessment

Report Ref 7588-P Page 85 of 95

-. - - - ._1 - - . - -

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

Table 9.34 Dispersion Modelling predictions for SO2

Projected Annual meanScenariof” emission rate background

gisec 1z1 concentration 13’ pg/m3


Daily Average 18.9 12.5



Daily Average 18.9 12.5



Averaging interval andPredicted process Predicted ambient Ambient Air Quality

statistical parameter 141contribution to GLCs GLC Is’

Is1 pg/m3Standard I” j

Mm3 Mm3 ,__,‘“.

,-.”Annualmean 0.24 12.7 50 , . ,I

99.7”%ile of 1-hr means 13.0 25.5 ‘.. _ .-_99.2”%ile of 24-hour means

3502.73 15.2

; . ’ ’ .:125 :

Annual mean. .

0.30 12.8 50 j ~.,,99.7*%ile of I-hr means 16.2 28.7

99.2’%ile of 24-hour means350

3.41 15.9 125

Annnal mean 0.24 12.799.7”%ile of 1-hr means

5013.0

99.2’%ile of 24-hour means25.5 350

2.73 15.2 125Am-d mean 0.30 12.8

99.7*%ile of l-lx means50

16.299.2”%ile of 24-hour means

28.7 3503.41 15.9 125

Annual mean 0.23Daily Average

12.721.1 99.7”%ile of l-lx means

5012.5 15.2

99.2”%ile of 24-hour means27.7 350

2.97 15.5 125Annual mean 0.28

Max daily average12.8

26.450

12.5 99.7”%ile of I-hr means 19.099.2”%ile of 24-hour means

31.5 3503.72 16.2

NOTE125

[I] The details of each Operating Scenario are summarised in Table 9.29a and 9.29b[2] The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6.1.5

[6] Sum of background concentration and predicted process contribution

[3] The annual mean background concentration is derived as shown in Section 9.4.2[7] The ambient air quality standards are defined in Tables 9.12 to 9.19

[4] The averaging intervals and statistical analysis parameters are discussed in Section 9.6.1.8[8] The max and average hourly emission projections for the cement kiln is

[5] Dispersion modelling prediction of contribution to GLC from process emissionsbased on the data given in Table 9.29.

TMS Environment LtdLagan Cement Ltd: Alternative Fuels, Air Quality Impact Assessment


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

Table 9.35 Dispersion Modelling predictions for PMlo

ScenarioI”Projected Annual mean

Averaging interval andPredicted process Predicted ambient

emission rateg/set I4

backgroundAmbient Air Quality ” ..

concentration Pi pg/m3statistical parameter 14’

contribution to GLC W’ Standard [‘IGLCs Is’ pg/m3 Wm3 Pot3

,;,, I,, : -‘!.,5.

;-- “s,‘, =’ -: .” , , , ,: ‘ . ,


Max daily average 1.42


6.94 Annual mean90.4’%ile of 24-hr means

Annual.zr : ,+,, .;

Max dailya v e r a g e

1.42 6.94 mean 0.0290.4&?ile of 24-hr means

6.96 40I.L’, ;;.. :

0.07 7.01 50..<_I -..

x>1 Scenario #3 (Expected Maximum Emissions)

Max daily a v e r a g e 1.58 6.94 Annual mean 0.0290.4fho/oile of 24hr means

6.96 400.06 7.00

NOTE50

[I] The detai ls of each Operat ing Scenario are summarised in Table 9.29a and 9.29b[2] The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6.1.5[3] The annual mean background concentration is derived as shown in Section 9.4.2[4] The averaging intervals and statistical analysis parameters are discussed in Section 9.6.1.8[5] Dispersion modelling prediction of contribution to GLC from process emissions

[6] Sum of background concent ra t ion and predic ted process cont r ibut ion[7] The ambient air quality standards are defined in Tables 9.12 to 9.19


Report Ref 7588-1 Page 87 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

Table 9.36 Dispersion Modelling predictions for CO

ProjectedScenarioI” emission rate

ghec ‘*I



Annual meanbackground

concentration I31mglm3

0.2

Averaging interval andstatistical parameter 14’

Maximum S-hour average

Predicted processcontribution toGLCs I” mg/m3

0.05

Predicted ambient A m b i e n t A i r Q u a l i t y “”GLC 16’ Standard I”mglm3 mgim3

:;. ‘. -:,”‘.‘<;; ‘..,,,‘ ..: :,,;.,. is:!,I,. b

c: 11’. _ : .C”.!;.L, ::.I : .;:

0.25 10 <T;* , ”‘1.a*,; p__ ‘I..

Scenario #2 (Expected Typical Emissions)i ._I,. ; ./“;‘- ‘:_ :‘7, :

Max daily average 7 0 . 8



0.2 Maximum 8-how average,;-;i: ‘._ L-1

0.05 0.25 10 “,. ‘- ” =:.. .*

0.2 Maximum &-hour average 0.06 0.26 10

NOTE[l] The details of each Operating Scenario are surnmarised in Table 9.29a and 9.29b[2] The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6.1.5[3] The annual mean background concentration is derived as shown in Section 9.4.2[4] The averaging intervals and statistical analysis parameters are discussed in Section 9.6.1.8

[5] Dispersion rnodelling prediction of contribution to GLC fiorn processemissions[6] Stun of background concentration and predicted process contribution[7] The ambient air quality standards are defined in Tables 9.12 to 9.19



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

Table 9.37 Dispersion Modelling predictions for HCI

Projected Annual meanScenarioll’ emission rate background

glsec I*’ concentration 13j pg/m3

Scenario #I (Existing Emissions)





Averaging interval andstatistical parameter 141

Ammal mean9@%ile of l-hour99*%ile of l-hour

Ammal mean98’%ile of l-hour99’%ile of l-hour

Predicted processcontribution toGLCs Is1 pg/m3

6.3 ~10~0.0180.028

5.9 x1090.1670.264

Max daily average 0.53 0.32Annual mean

98’%ile of l-hour99’%ile of l-hour

6.0 x10-j 0.33 7000.158 0.48 1000.279 0.60 50

NOTE[I] The details of each Operating Scenario are swnmarised in Table 9.29a and 9.29b[2] The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6.1.5[3] The annual mean background concentration is derived as shown in Section 9.4.2[4] The averaging intervals and statistical analysis parameters are discussed in Section 9.6.1.8

[5] Dispersion modelling prediction of contribution to GLC from processemissions[6] Sum of background concentration and predicted process contribution[7] The ambient air quality standards are defined in Tables 9.12 to 9.19


Report Ref 7588-1 Page 89 of 95

-

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

a 0Table 9.38 Dispersion Modelling predictions for HF

Projected Annual meanScenario”’

Predicted ambientemission rate

Predicted processbackground

Averaging interval and

ghec I”statistical parameter “I contribution to

concentration 13’ &m’GLC @’

Ambient Air QualityStandard “I

GLCs 15’ pg/m3 PLg/m’ Mm3

Scenario #I (Existing Emissions)

M&X daily average 0.05


98”%ile of l-hour means 0.018

0.1 99’%ile of l-hour means0.11 3.0

0.028’ 0.12 2.0Maximum 24-hour means 0.017 0.11 2.8

Annual mean 6.3 ~10~ 0.10 0.3

Max daily a v e r a g e 0.05

Scenario #3 (Expected Mrucimum Emissions)

Max daily a v e r a g e 0.05

0.1

0.1

98&%ile of l-hour means99*%ile of 1 -hour meansMaximum 24-hour means

Annual mean

98’%ile of l-hour means99”%ile of l-hour meansMaximum 24-hour means

Annual mean

0.018 0.11 3.00.028 0.12 2.00.017 0.11

6.3 ~10~2.8

0.10 0.3

0.015 0.12 3.00.026 0.13 2.00.019 0.12

5.4 x1042.8

0.10 0.3

NOTE[l] The details of each Operating Scenario are summarised in Table 9.29a and 9.29b[2] The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6. I .5

[5] Dispersion modelling prediction of contribution to GLC fi-om processemissions

[3] The annual mean background concentration is derived as shown in Section 9.4.2[4] The averaging intervals and statistical analysis parameters are discussed in Section 9.6.1.8

[6] Sum of background concentration and predicted process contribution[7] The ambient air quality standards are defined in Tables 9.12 to 9.19



-

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

Table 9.39 Dispersion ModeUing predictions for organic compounds (expressed as TOC)

Projected Annual meanScenario”’ emission rate

g/set “Ibackground

concentration 13’ pg/m3






Predicted process Predicted ambient Ambient Air Quality .;Averaging interval andstatistical parameter I41

contribution to GLC 16’ Standard 17’ . 2GLCs F’ pg/m3 rMm3

pgm3 .,.: . . .$-::’ i...- ,y,;::‘:: .: ,

‘_, ,: A’.; _:.,-;t: :: _,, IV..- /i .;.98*%ile of l-hour means

,” .~. _. _ . ~ :0.018 1.22 50

,;&. __ .: .--- _,.-~ ‘3. .II‘; :“>J,?J . , ;;::.

a.: I:,,

;;,, :,’ * ” i‘;$C” ‘.

98*%ile of l-hour means, . :

0.018 1.22 50 J:.,.. IJ.” ,,.*

Max daily average 0.53 1.2 9gti%ile of l-hour means1 1 0.158I I 1.36 I 50

NOTE[l] The details of each Operating Scenario are surnrnarised in Table 9.29a and 9.29b[2] The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6.1.5

[5] Dispersion modelling prediction of contribution to GLC from processemissions

[3] The annual mean background concentration is derived as shown in Section 9.4.2[4] The averaging intervals and statistical analysis parameters are discussed in Section 9.6.1.8




For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

Table 9.40a Dispersion Modelling predictions for metals

Projected Annual meanScenario(‘l emission rate background

ghec “’ concentration 13’ pg/m3

Scenario #I: (Existing Emissions) Mercury (Hg)

Max daily averageVapour phase

9.04 x 1o-6 0.004

Max daily averageParticle phase

2.26 x 10” 0.004

Maximum TotalMercury

1.13 x 1o-5 0.004

Averaging internal andstatistical parameter I41

Annual mean

Annual mean

Annual mean

Predicted processcontribution toGLCs Is1 pg/m3

1.1 x 1o-7

2.8 x lo-’

1.4 x lo9

Predicted ambientGLC 16’

Ambient Air QualityStandard I71 .’

f-&m3 pg/m3 .:: ,’ , , ,

.._ ,.’.̂ ‘.0.004 1 . 0 ‘:,.

”

0.004 1 . 0 , ’

0,004 1 . 0

1 Scenario #l: (Existing Emissions) Cadmium (Cd)

M a x daily average 9.44 x 10” 0.002 Annual mean 1 . 2 x 1o-6 0.002 0.005

Scenario #I: (Existing Emissions) Thallium (Tl)

M a x daily average 9.44 x 1o-5 0.017 99-percentile of l-hour mean

Scenario #I: (Existing Emissions) Sum of Sb, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, V

1 . 2 x 1o-6 0.017 0 . 1

M a x daily average 2.36 x lo5 0.029 Annual mean

NOTE[l] The details of each Operating Scenario are summarr ‘sed in Table 9.29a and 9.29b[Z] The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6.1.5[3] The annual mean background concentration is derived as shown in Section 9.4.2[4] The averaging intervals and statistical analysis parameters are discussed in Section 9.6.1.8[SJ Dispersion modelling prediction of contribution to GLC from process emissions

3.0 x 1o-s 0.029 0 . 1




For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

Table 9.40b Dispersion Model&g predictions for metals

Scenario[”Projected Annual mean Predicted process Predicted ambient

emission rate backgroundAveraging interval andstatistical parameter [4J

contribution to GLC “’Ambient Air Quality

Standard I71glsec P’ concentration 13’ pg/m3 GLCs Is’ pg/m3 Mm3 wdm3

;’ :

Scenario #2: (Expected Typical Emissions) Mercury (Hg)


9.04 x 1o-6 0.004

Max daily averageParticle phase 2.26 x 1o-6 0.004

Maximum TotalMercury z.13 x 1o-5 0.004

Annual mean

Annual mean

Annual mean

: . ,

.*1.1 x lo=] 0.004 1.0 :

.2.8 x 1o-8 0.004 1.0L

1.4 x 1o-7 0.004 1.0

Scenario #2: (Expected Typical Emissions) Cadmium (Cd)

Max daily average 1 9.44 x 10” ) 0.002 I Ammal mean I 1.2 x 1o-6 I 0.002 I 0.005 I

1 Scenario #2: (Existing Emissions) Thallium (Tr)

Max daily average ) 9.44 x 1o-5 ( 0.017 1 99-percentile of l-hour mean 1 1.2 x IO6 I 0.017 I 0.1 I1 Scenario #2: (Expected Typical Emissions) Sum of Sb, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, V

Max daily average ( 2.36 x 1o-3 1 0.029 I Annual mean I 3.0 x w5 I 0.029 I 0.1 I[l] The details of each Operating Scenario are smumarised in Table 9.29a and 9.291,[2] The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6.1.5[3] The annual mean background concentration is derived as shown in Section 9.4.2[4] The averaging intervals and statistical analysis parameters are discussed in Section 9.6.1 A[5] Dispersion modelling prediction of contribution to GLC from process emissions



Report Ref ‘7588-l Page 93 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

Table 9.4Oc Dispersion Modelling predictions for metals

Projected Annual meanScenariol” emission rate background

8/ set IzJ concentration I31 pg/m3

Scenario #3 (Expected Maximum Etnissioris) Mercury (H&


2.11 x 1o-3 0.004

Max daily averageParticle phase

5.28 x lOA 0.004

Maximum Total Mercury 0.004

Averaging interval andstatistical parameter I41

Annual mean

Annual mean

Annual mean

Predicted processcontribution toGLCs Is’ pg/m3

2.2 x 10”

5.6 x 1O-6

2.8 x 10”

Predicted ambient Ambient Air QualityGLC WI Standard “I , ’Wm3 j@m3 11): ‘:$. 4 . . : ; ;; -:

5;;:.,j.;; . , 4:. ,-; ,,:& .“. . .

0.004 1.0? :; . ,;!I; _?.A . .;SbY ‘-‘. ,,.. . c . b : ‘-

0.004 1.0“I .,.:7: ~ , , (1, ’ -. ‘.” /,:‘.;. ;:._! ‘,._

0.004 1.0 ;.-

Scenario #3 (Expected Maximum Emissions) Cadmium (Cd)

Max daily average 2.64 x NJ3 0.002

Scenario #3: (Existing Emissions) Thallium (TI!)

Annual mean 2.8 x 10” 0.002 0.005

Max daily average 2.64 x lo9 0.017 99-percentile of 1 hour mean 2.8 x 1O-5 0.017 0.1

Scenario #3 (Expected Maximum Emissions) Sum of Sb, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, V

Max daily average

NOTE

2.64 x 10” 0.029 Amma mean 2.8 x lOA 0.029 0.1

[I] The details of each Operating Scenario are summarked in Table 9.29a and 9.29b[2] The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6.1.5[3] The annual mean background concentration is derived as shown in Section 9.4.2[4] The averaging intervals and statistical analysis parameters are discussed in Section 9.6.1.8[5] Dispersion modelling prediction of contribution to GLC Tom process emissions




For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

,’) <‘..: _

,, .a. i

:i’ /. ,,,, I

: ..“,:, , ‘i ,,‘ ;“

., .,^ ..~.,,:.y-

,; 1* :‘ _. .-,.&,,.

i-l’,’ ., ,,I‘ ,.., 0, _‘, -.I Iy, ; ),r “; \_ /_ 1 ,z: I_ ,,i’.,,! >,.:. (,<3,“”

9.41 Disp&&$ k&e1 predictions for PCDDs/PCDFs

Projected

Scenario[” emissionAveraging Interval Total Concentration, fg/m3

rate gtsec I”and statistical Concentration,

parameter fg/m3 Vapour Particulate


Max daily3.07 x l O “ O Annual Mean

average 0.004 5.1 x lo4 3.4 x 10”

Scenario #2: (Expected Typical Emissions)

Max daily1.53 x lo-lo Annual Mean

average


Max daily4.72 x 1O-9 Anuual Mean

average.7-m-

0.002 2.5 x lo4 1.7 x 1o-3

0.051 6.6 x lo5 4.4 x 1o‘2

I?1 The details of each Operating Scenario are summarised in Table 9.29a and 9.29br-4 The rationale for deriving projected emission rates is presented in Section 9.6.1.5[31 1 fg = 1 femtogram = 10“’ gram; 1 pg = 1 picogram = 1F” gram

TMS Environment Ltd Report Ref 7588-1 Page 95 of 95

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:33:05

environmental protection agency · cembureau have also reported that there is no significant...

Documents