aurivo dairy ingredients limited · 162605e, 294415n carbon monoxide mg/m3 - 20,000note 1 - -...

Unit 5 Caherdavin Business Centre,

Ennis Road,

Limerick.

[email protected]

00353 61 324587

Aurivo Dairy Ingredients Limited Dublin Road, Ballaghadereen, Co Roscommon

Air Dispersion Model Report

Report Reference Number: 2210-18-01

Version: 1

Date of Issue: 29-03-2018

Air I Noise I Water I Soil I Environmental Consultancy

www.axisenv.ie

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-06-2018:04:37:20

mailto:[email protected]

Air Dispersion Model Aurivo Dairy Ingredients Limited

Rev 1

2 | P a g e

Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8

2. Process Description and Air Pollutant Sources.................................................................................................................. 9

Fig 2-1: Location Map ............................................................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Potential Air Emissions ............................................................................................................................................ 9

3. Air Dispersion Modelling Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 10

3.1 Modelling Approach ............................................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Building Downwash ............................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3 Dispersion Options ................................................................................................................................................ 10

3.4 Receptor Grid Selection ........................................................................................................................................ 11

3.5 Terrain................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.6 Meteorological Options .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 3-1: Met Data ............................................................................................................................................ 13

Table 3-1: Met Data Summary 2014 - 2016 ..................................................................................................................... 14

4. Model Inputs ................................................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Emissions from the Facility .................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 4-1: Source Information Data .................................................................................................................... 15

Table 4-2: Emission Rates .................................................................................................................................. 15

4.2 Existing Baseline Air Quality Data ......................................................................................................................... 16

Table 4-3: Background Data for Zone D .......................................................................................................................... 16

5. Model Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 17

5.1 Carbon Monoxide Dispersion Results .................................................................................................................... 18

Table 5-1: CO 8 Hour Results for A1-2 for Biomass Boiler with Elevated ELV of 20,000 ................................................. 18

Fig 5-1: 8 Hour Contour Plot Process Contribution .......................................................................................................... 18

5.2 Nitrogen Dioxide Dispersion Results ..................................................................................................................... 19

Table 5-2: NO2 Annual Results for A1-1, A1-3 and A1-4 .................................................................................................. 19

Fig 5-2: Annual Contour Plot Process Contribution ......................................................................................................... 19

Table 5-3: NO2 1 Hour Results for A1-1, A1-3 and A1-4 .................................................................................................. 20

Fig 5-3: Hourly Contour Plot Process Contribution .......................................................................................................... 20

Table 5-4: NO2 Annual Results for A1-2, A1-3, A1-4 ........................................................................................................ 21


Table 5-5: NO2 Hourly Results for A1-2, A1-3 & A1-4 ...................................................................................................... 22

Fig 5-5: Hourly Contour Plot Process Contribution .......................................................................................................... 22

5.3 Sulphur Dioxide Dispersion Results ....................................................................................................................... 23

Table 5-6: SO2 Annual Results for A1-1 and A1-3 ........................................................................................................... 23


Table 5-7: 24 SO2 Hour Results for A1-1 and A1-3 .......................................................................................................... 24

Fig 5-7: 24 Hour Contour Plot Process Contribution ........................................................................................................ 24

Table 5-8: SO2 Hour Results for A1-1 and A1-3 ............................................................................................................... 25

Fig 5-8: 1 Hour Contour Plot Process Contribution .......................................................................................................... 25

Table 5-9: SO2 Annual Results for A1-2 and A1-3 ............................................................................................................ 26


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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

3 | P a g e

Table 5-10: SO2 24 Hour Results for Both A1-2 and A1-3 ................................................................................................ 27

Fig 5-10: 24 Hour Contour Plot Process Contribution ...................................................................................................... 27

Table 5-11: SO2 1 Hour Results for Both A1-2 and A1-3 .................................................................................................. 28

Fig 5-11: 1 Hour Contour Plot Process Contribution ........................................................................................................ 28

Table 5-12: PM10 24 Hour Results for A1-2, A2-1, A2-3 and A2-4 .................................................................................... 29

Fig 5-12: 24 Hour Contour Plot Process Contribution ...................................................................................................... 29

Table 5-13: PM10 Annual Average Results for A1-2, A2-1, A2-3 and A2-4 ....................................................................... 30

Fig 5-13: Annual Average Contour Plot Process Contribution ......................................................................................... 30

5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Report Date 29-03-2018 Site Contact(s): Bill Staunton

Report Issued By Mark Mc Garry Version No: 1

Signed:

Client: Aurivo Dairy Ingredients

Limited

Notes:

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

4 | P a g e

Executive Summary

An air dispersion modelling exercise involving the AERMOD dispersion software was conducted to predict the

impact of emissions on ambient air quality from emission points existing and proposed at Aurivo Dairy

Ingredients Limited:

Emission Point Reference Description Licence Status

A1-1 Main HFO Boiler Licenced

A1-2 Biomass Boiler Licenced

A1-3 Auxiliary Boiler Applied

A1-4 New Spray Dryer Burner Applied

A2-1 Niro Spray Dryer Licenced

A2-3 Anhydro Spray Dryer Licenced

A2-4 New Spray Dryer Applied

The assessment was completed for submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of a

licence review for the installation.

Aurivo currently operates a biomass boiler which would be the primary source of steam and hot water to the

factory. This would fulfil approximately 60 – 70% of the stream requirement of the installation during peak

production. This biomass is then supplemented by steam from the main heavy fuel oil boiler (A1-1).

However, in the event of either boiler going off line for assessment, repair, maintenance or other reason, there

is a requirement at the company to have back up to meet steam demand. Neither A1-1 or A1-2 has the

capacity to meet the steam requirements in full on their own and therefore both boilers would normally

supplement each other. In order to prevent steam and hot water deficiencies due to a boiler defect, the

company are requesting to re-licence and reintroduce the auxiliary HFO standby boiler which will be available

in the event of substitute boiler requirement. This boiler would only operate in line with either A1-1 or A1-2

and would never be required to operate at the same time as A1-1 and A1-2 together.

The emission values for the model were obtained from existing limits for A1-1 and A1-2 in the Industrial

Emission Licence P0802-02. The proposed emission limits for A1-3 are consistent with emission limit values

this boiler was previously licensed by the Agency for in P0802-01.

As part of the licence review there will also be an application made to remove Carbon Monoxide limits from

the licence for A1-2. As part of the model, the emissions of carbon monoxide was increased from 125 mg/m3

to 20,000 mg/m3 to prove that there is no impact locally from totally exaggerated carbon monoxide limits. The

boiler operates in the region of 250 – 2,000 mg/m3 depending on the moisture content of fuel supplied to the

boiler. Moisture content of the fuel is variable in Ireland due to climatic conditions.

The contribution of mobile source emissions both on and off the facility were not considered as part of the

modelling project, moreover the emissions from these sources were considered as part of the background

concentration value for general parameters measured by the EPA.

The applicant is also proposing to introduce a new spray dryer to the installation which will have its own

integrated and dedicated liquid natural gas burner (LNG). These two new emission points have been labelled

A2-4 and A1-4 respectively. The emissions from these stacks will consist of milk powder particulate (A2-4)

and NOx from combustion of LNG fuel (A1-4).

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

5 | P a g e

Building and terrain effects were included as part of the modelling analysis, and the meteorological data set

was defined using wind speed and direction from Knock Airport Met Station, Co Mayo which is located

approximately 15km west of the installation. Three years of met data was used in the model to estimate worst

case ground level concentrations during the period (2014 to 2016). This was the closest and most appropriate

station with the required meteorological data and minimal missing information in any annual period.

A receptor grid system was determined using a multi-tier grid system that extended out to 10km from the

production facility boundary line. This included a 100 metre resolution inner grid, a 500 metre middle grid and

a 1000m outer grid to 10km from the boundary. Special receptors including nearby houses and amenities

were included as part of the receptor network.

With all the input files established, the air dispersion model was executed. The model was run using the rural

option based on the Auer (1978) Land Use categories.

Table 1-1 Summary of Combustion Input Parameters

Parameter Units A1-1

Main Boiler

A1-2

Biomass

Boiler

A1-3

Auxiliary

Boiler

A1-4

Burner

Co-Ordinates - 162760E,

294375N

162767E,

294403N

162756E,

294389N

162605E,

294415N

Carbon Monoxide mg/m3 - 20,000Note 1 - -

Oxides of Nitrogen mg/m3 1,000 600 1000 200

Sulphur Dioxide mg/m3 1,700 700 1,700 -

Stack height m 28 28 28 36

Stack diameter m 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.7

Exit temperature 0K 573 573 573 473

Exit velocity m/s 17.491 21.181 53.475 10.001

Exit flow rate Nm3/hr 30,000 23,100 18,000 8,000

Position - Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical

Chinese Cap - None None None None

Note 1: The emissions would never be anywhere near 20,000mg/m3, the factor was applied to indicate even in unrealistic emissions of CO,

that ground level concentrations would not be adversely impacted in line with appropriate legislation.

Note 2: Limit from medium combustion plant directive used for the burner;

Note 3: Volumetric and concentration emissions are normalised to licensed reference conditions 3% oxygen liquid and gas, 6% solid, dry

gas.

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

6 | P a g e

Table 1-2 Summary of Process Input Parameters

Parameter Units A1-2

Biomass

A2-1

Spray Dryer

A2-3

Spray Dryer

A2-4

Spray Dryer

Co-Ordinates - 162767E,

294403N

162726E,

294445N

162632E,

294430N

162611E,

294411N

Total Particulate mg/m3 30 50 20 10

PM10 mg/m3 30Note 1 30Note 2 12 Note 2 6 Note 2

Stack height m 28 30 34 36

Stack diameter m 0.9 1.6 1.25 1.5

Exit temperature 0K 408 373 373 373

Exit velocity m/s 15.082 33.867 46.414 29.009

Exit flow rate Nm3/hr 23,100 179,325 150,000 135,000

Position - Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical

Chinese Cap - None None None None

Note 1: An assumption has been made that 100% of the total particulate emitted from this source is PM10 which is a gross

overestimation. PM10 is not required to be tested in the licence therefore no data was available in the breakdown.

Note 2: An assumption has been made that the total particulate emissions consist of 60% PM10. The emissions have been

tested routinely for TSP and PM10 and 60% is an overestimation of the concentration of PM10 in the total dust emissions.

See Appendix I for more information on the breakdown.

Table’s 1-3 and 1-4 summarises the results of the model runs for the installation, and their comparisons with

the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards currently applicable in Ireland are the ambient

standards EU 2008/50/EC, Clean air for Europe (CAFÉ) Directive. Background concentrations were obtained

from EPA published data for Zone D sites for this report.

Table 1-3 Summary of Worst Case Model Combustion Results

Pollutant Avg. Period Impact from

site

(µg.m-3)

Background

(µg.m-3)

Combined

Result

(µg.m-3)

Air Quality

Standard

(µg.m-3)

A1-2

CO 8 hours 1,437.9 500 1,937.9 10,000

A1-1, A1-3, A1-4 in operation

NO2 1-hour Note 1 78.04 11 89.04 200

Annual 7.82 5.5 13.32 40

SO2

1-hour Note 2 323.75 4 327.75 350

24-hour Note 3 98.46 4 102.46 125

Annual 8.65 2 10.65 20

A1-2, A1-3, A1-4 in operation

NO2 1-hour Note 1 67.82 11 78.82 200

Annual 7.58 5.5 13.08 40

SO2

1-hour Note 2 210.99 11 221.99 350

24-hour Note 3 83.01 11 94.01 125

Annual 5.92 2 7.92 20

Note 1: 19th highest value in line with 2008/50/EC; Note 2: 25th highest value in line with 2008/50/EC;

Note 3: 4th highest value in line with 2008/50/EC;

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

7 | P a g e

Table 1-4 Summary of Worst Case Model PM10 Results

Pollutant Avg. Period Impact from

site

(µg.m-3)

Background

(µg.m-3)

Combined

Result

(µg.m-3)

Air Quality

Standard

(µg.m-3)

PM10 24 hour Note 1 29.46 12.5 41.96 50

Annual 7.24 12.5 19.74 40

Note 1: 36th highest value in line with 2008/50/EC;

Note 2: PM10 emissions obtained from calculation and worst case scenarios – See Appendix I ;

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

8 | P a g e

1. Introduction

Aurivo Dairy Ingredients Limited requested AXIS environmental services to complete an air dispersion model

as part of a licence review to assess the impact of existing and proposed emission points on the local

environment.

Four of the emission points are currently licenced and in operation. The additional emission points include:

An auxiliary boiler which would be used on site in the event of emergency i.e. if either one of the two

main boilers (A1-1 or A1-2) are down for any extended period during peak season at the plant; and;

A new spray dryer (A2-4) with a designated integrated liquid natural gas (LNG) burner (A1-4).

There is also a request as part of the review to have the Carbon monoxide limit of 125 mg/m3 removed from

the licence for A1-2. There are no limits under the medium combustion plant directive for carbon monoxide,

but there is a requirement to monitor it.

This report describes the air dispersion modelling analysis for:

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2);

Carbon Monoxide (CO);

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2);

Particulate Matter with diameters between 2.5 – 10 microns (PM10).

Modelled ground level concentrations are required to be compared against limits applied in the CAFÉ directive

for Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The cumulative air quality impact analysis from background concentrations are also included as required by

the EPA Guidance Note AG4.

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

9 | P a g e

2. Process Description and Air Pollutant Sources

Aurivo Dairy Ingredients Limited currently has two licenced boiler emission points located at the facility. It is

proposed to reintroduce previously licenced auxiliary boiler to the installation called A1-3 which will operate on

heavy fuel oil (HFO). This boiler would only be required to operate if one of the 2 main boilers was not available

(i.e. breakdown, maintenance, servicing, etc).

There is also a new burner proposed which will be integrated into the proposed dryer building.

The model has accounted for ground level concentrations from A1-1, A1-3 and A1-4 in operation together, and

A1-2, A1-3 and A1-4 operating together.

There are currently three licensed dryers A2-1, A2-2 and A2-3 at the installation. A2-2 has a limitation applied,

that it will not operate without prior agreement of the Agency. There is no request for a change to this limitation.

There will be an additional emission point to be licensed from the proposed spray dryer called A2-4.

Fig 2-1: Location Map

2.1 Potential Air Emissions

The primary air pollutants that could impact ambient air quality from the facility is flue gases in the form of

Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulphur Dioxide, and particulate for the combustion process.

As there is a request to remove the ELV from the licence pertaining to carbon monoxide, an exaggerated

emissions concentration was used to outline that there would be no impact from CO emissions from this site.

There are air extracts from the spray dryers emitting milk powder as part of the production process. These are

assessed as PM10 in the model.

A1-1 and

A1-2

A1-3

A1-4, A2-4

A2-3 A2-1

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

10 | P a g e

3. Air Dispersion Modelling Methodology

3.1 Modelling Approach

The assessment methodology for the air dispersion modelling exercise follows the guidance specified by the

Environmental Protection Agency, AG4, Air Dispersion Modelling from Industrial Installations Guidance Note,

2010.

One of the detailed models recommended in the document is AERMOD. The model of selection was the

Breeze AERMOD/ISC which is designed to estimate pollutant concentrations and deposition from an industrial

source complex. The latest version of AERMOD with the most current version of the AERMOD terrain pre-

processor (AERMAP) was used on this assessment.

3.2 Building Downwash

The emissions sources at the facility were evaluated in terms of the proximity to nearby structures. All buildings

located reasonably close to the point sources on the property were included in the modelling analysis. Breeze

guidance would suggest that any building within 100 metres of the point source should be included.

The purpose of the downwash evaluation was to determine if stack discharges may become caught in the

turbulent wakes generated by these structures. AERMOD incorporates the Plume Rise Model Enhancements

(PRIME) algorithms for estimating enhanced plume growth and restricted plume rise for plumes affected by

building wakes.

Direction specific structure dimensions and the dominant downwash structure parameters used as input to

AERMOD were determined using the BREEZE®BPIPP software, developed by Trinity Consultants, Inc. The

software incorporates the algorithms of the U.S. EPS’s sanctioned SPIP PRIME (BPIPP). The software creates

the downwash input cards that were used in AERMOD.

3.3 Dispersion Options

AERMOD was utilised using the regulatory default option.

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

11 | P a g e

3.4 Receptor Grid Selection

Ground level concentrations were calculated for receptors covering a region that extends 10km from all edges

of the boundary line. As per the guidance note, receptors inside the site boundary would not be assessed in

the model. Sensitive discrete receptor locations were located at a local private residence’s closest to the

installation boundary.

Fig 3-2: Property Boundary

The property boundary line is a discrete receptor grid with receptors spaced at 10m intervals along

the property line. All receptors inside the property line have been removed from the model run;

The inner grid contains 100 m resolution spaced receptors extending to 1,000 m from the property

line;

The middle grid contains 500 m resolution spaced receptors extending to 5,000m from the property

line;

The outer grid contains 1000 m resolution spaced receptors extending to 10,000m from the property

line;

A series of 8 discrete receptors were included in the model run as these were the closest receptors

to the installation.

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

12 | P a g e

Fig 3-3: Discrete Receptors

3.5 Terrain

The terrain elevation for each modelled building, source and receptor was determined using Digital Terrain

Model (DTM) Data from the Ordinance Survey of Ireland (OSI). The terrain height for each modelled source,

building and receptor was calculated using the AERMOD terrain pre-processor AERMAP. AERMAP computes

the terrain height from the digital terrain elevations surrounding the modelled receptors, sources and buildings.

It also computes the hill height scale required for the receptors.

Fig 3-3: Terrain Data and Receptor Grid

H8 H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H7

H6

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

13 | P a g e

3.6 Meteorological Options

The facility is located in an area designated by the EPA as Zone D. The closest met station to the plant was

Knock Airport Met Station, Co Mayo. Three years of data was obtained from 2014 – 2016 for this location. The

met station is located approximately 15km west of the installation.

There are two types of meteorological files used in this model, a file containing surface scalar parameters and

a file containing vertical profiles. Both data filters for the surface and mixing heights were used to generate the

meteorological files required by the AERMOD dispersion model, using the AERMET meteorological pre-

processor programme. This AERMET programme has three stages to process the data. The first stage extracts

met data and assesses data quality through a series of quality assessment checks. The second stage merges

all data available for 24 hours’ periods and writes these data together in a single intermediate file. The third

and final stage reads the merged met data and estimates the necessary boundary layer parameters for

dispersion calculations by AERMOD.

The AERMOD model requires hourly surface data values for wind speed, wind direction, temperature, rainfall,

relative humidity, pressure, cloud cover, ceiling height and solar radiation and at least once daily mixing height

data.

The wind rose for the respective years modelling is included in the table below. The wind rose shows the most

predominant wind direction blows from south west indicating that the emission plumes will mainly be dispersed

in the opposing direction.

The met station has less than 10% of missing data, calculated by the model programme as 1.75% which

complies with the EPA guideline requirements. The guidelines also require that the model run would have

greater than 90% data coverage on a seasonal basis. The calculated coverage during this run was 98.2%.

Figure 3-1 Met Data

Knock Airport Wind Rose 2014 - 2016

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

14 | P a g e

Table 3-1: Met Data Summary 2014 - 2016

Direction \ Speed

<= 1.54 <= 3.09 <= 5.14 <= 8.23 <= 10.80 > 10.80 Total

0.0 0.43 0.87 2.06 0.52 0.05 0.00 3.93

22.5 0.30 0.67 1.29 0.10 0.01 0.00 2.36

45.0 0.17 0.51 0.97 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.70

67.5 0.22 0.32 0.73 0.23 0.06 0.00 1.56

90.0 0.19 0.43 1.89 0.65 0.06 0.01 3.22

112.5 0.25 0.81 2.90 1.30 0.22 0.03 5.50

135.0 0.50 1.45 3.74 1.76 0.38 0.05 7.89

157.5 0.60 1.34 3.35 2.01 0.71 0.18 8.19

180.0 0.59 1.22 3.82 2.51 0.84 0.22 9.20

202.5 0.46 1.40 4.67 2.93 0.92 0.47 10.85

225.0 0.42 1.37 4.83 2.37 0.58 0.17 9.74

247.5 0.36 1.05 4.27 3.12 1.22 0.58 10.61

270.0 0.31 0.76 3.73 2.53 0.93 0.39 8.65

292.5 0.21 0.64 2.76 2.00 0.46 0.20 6.27

315.0 0.30 0.62 1.94 1.24 0.30 0.06 4.47

337.5 0.33 0.79 2.34 1.16 0.19 0.02 4.82

Total 5.65 14.25 45.27 24.48 6.93 2.39 98.96

Calm 0.75

Missing 0.29

Total 100.00

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

15 | P a g e

4. Model Inputs

4.1 Emissions from the Facility

A critical step for conducting air dispersion modelling is to quantify the emissions from the various sources at

the facility. The emission rates from the sources identified were determined from actual emission limit values

on the current Industrial Emissions Licence and limits which are proposed for the licence review.

Table 4-1 outlines the source information data determined for the facility. The emission rates were based on

licenced and previously modelled data from the boilers.

Table 4-1: Source Information Data

Source

ID

Type Description X Co-ord.

m

Y Co-ord.

m

Elevation

metres

Height

metres

Diameter

Metres

A1-1 Point Source HFO Main

Boiler 162760 294375 67.72 28 0.9

A1-2 Point Source Biomass

Boiler 162767 394403 68.53 28 0.9

A1-3 Point Source HFO Standby

Boiler 162756 294389 68.06 28 0.5

A1-4 Point Source LNG Burner 162605 294415 77.19 36 0.7

A2-1 Point Source Niro Dryer 162626 294445 77.59 30 1.6

A2-3 Point Source Anhydro Dryer 162632 294430 76.55 34 1.6

A2-4 Point Source New Dryer 162611 294411 75.09 36 1.5

Table 4-2: Emission Rates

Source ID Exit Velocity,

(m/s)

Exit Temp.

(OK)

CO

(g/s)

NOx

(g/s)

SO2

(g/s)

PM10

(g/s)

A1-1 27.508 573 - 8.333 14.167 -

A1-2 17.476 573 128.333Note 1 3.850 4.492 0.193Note 2

A1-3 50.000 573 - 5.000 8.500 -

A1-4 21.181 473 - 0.444 - -

A2-1 33.850 373 - - - 1.494Note 3

A2-3 46.414 373 - - - 0.500 Note 3

A2-4 29.009 373 - - - 0.225 Note 3

Note 1: This is a gross overestimation of the emissions from the biomass boiler to give confidence that there is no impact from this plant;

Note 2: An assumption has been made that the PM10 content of the emissions is 100% of total particulate, this is an overestimation;

Note 3: The PM10 concentration was calculated from direct measurements over the years of licensed monitoring at the plant. The worst case

ratio of PM10 to Particulate was <60%. In reality the ratio has been proven far lower on a consistent basis making this a worst case scenario.

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

16 | P a g e

4.2 Existing Baseline Air Quality Data

When modelling the release of pollutants, it is important to consider the existing parameters present in the

environment and at what concentration. The Process Contribution (PC) should be added to the Background

Concentration (BC) to obtain the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC), which is the figure used for

final assessment with the appropriate legislative limits.

The EPA manages the National Ambient Air Quality Network and routinely monitors ambient air quality at c.

33 locations in Ireland. The data is collected and collated for publication in the Annual Air Quality Reports.

The EPA have divided the country into zones for assessment and management of air quality. Zone A is the

Dublin conurbation; Zone B is the Cork conurbation with Zone C comprising 23 large towns in Ireland with a

population >15,000. Zone D is the remaining area of Ireland.

The number of monitoring locations required is dependent on population size and whether ambient air quality

concentrations exceed the upper assessment threshold, are between the upper and lower assessment

thresholds, or are below the lower assessment threshold.

For this report, the air quality in the appropriate monitoring stations within the zone was averaged to formulate

a background concentration for the area.

Table 4-3: Background Data for Zone D

Annual Mean NOx as NO2

µg/m3 SO2

µg/m3 CO

µg/m3 PM10

µg/m3

Emo Laois 3 - - -

Castlebar 8 - - 13

Kilkitt 2 2 - 9

Shannon Estuary - 2 - -

Claremorris - - - 10

Enniscorthy 9 2 500 18

Average 5.5 2 500 12.5

2 times Annual Mean

11 4 - -

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

17 | P a g e

5. Model Results

With the various sources identified, a model domain established of 10km from the site boundary and centred in the

middle of the proposed facility, the necessary input files created, model predictions were made for each of the

pollutants for averaging periods for which there are Ambient Air Quality Standards under the CAFÉ Directive.

Model impacts were run for point sources alone and combined with EPA ambient air quality data published under

the national ambient air quality monitoring programme for a predicted environmental concentration.

The following assumptions have been made in this model:

The site is in operation 24 hours per day, 365 days per year;

The point sources are emitting continuously and consistently at maximum ELVs;

Of the combustion sources, there are only 2 boilers and the dryer burner in operation at any one time;

3 years of met data have been used from the closest met station which is representative of met conditions

at this site;

The maximum ground level concentration for the appropriate reporting percentile value was recorded

outside the boundary of the facility;

An assumption has been made that the CO from A1-2 was 20,000 mg/m3;

Background concentrations were determined in line with EPA / DEFRA guidelines as outlined in EPA

AG4;

Factors applied to NO2/NOX conversion are short term of 0.5 and annual mean of 1.0;

Emissions of PM10 have been overestimated based on particulate emission limit values and ratios of PM10

/ Total particulate from surveys carried out. PM10 is always lower than 60%, regularly <10%. The ratio of

PM10 to total particulate used in this study would be considered worst case scenario.

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

18 | P a g e

5.1 Carbon Monoxide Dispersion Results

Table 5-1: CO 8 Hour Results for A1-2 for Biomass Boiler with Elevated ELV of 20,000 mg/m3

Receptors Year Model Result Background Cumulative Limit

The limit for Carbon Monoxide

under 2008/50/EC for an 8 hour limit

Compliant

Process Contribution

(PC)

Average of Annual Mean for

Zone D EPA monitoring

stations

Predicted Environmental Concentration

(PEC)

ug.m-3 ug.m-3 ug.m-3

8 hours 1st High Result 528858.60, 5972062.30

2014 - 2016

1,437.9 500 1,937.9 10,000 Compliant

Fig 5-1: 8 Hour Contour Plot Process Contribution

Contours (ug/m3)

450 400 350 300 250

Table 5-1-1: Sensitive Receptors:

House UTM East UTM North Carbon Monoxide

µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 631.32

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 525.32

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 675.85

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 693.63

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 522.66

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 831.37

House 7 529415.8 5972369 314.03

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 621.91

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

19 | P a g e

5.2 Nitrogen Dioxide Dispersion Results

Table 5-2: NO2 Annual Results for A1-1, A1-3 and A1-4


The limit for Nitrogen Dioxide

under 2008/50/EC for an annual limit

Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)


Annual 1st High Result 528275.5, 5972326.2

2014 - 2016

7.82 5.5 13.32 40 Compliant

Fig 5-2: Annual Contour Plot Process Contribution

Contours (ug/m3)

5 4 2.5 1 0.5


House UTM East UTM North NO2

µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 2.50

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 2.75

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 3.89

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 4.08

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 1.06

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 2.58

House 7 529415.8 5972369 2.18

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 3.89

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

20 | P a g e

Table 5-3: NO2 1 Hour Results for A1-1, A1-3 and A1-4



under 2008/50/EC for an hourly limit

Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)


1 hour 1st High Result 528758.6, 5972162.3

2014 - 2016

78.04 11 89.04 200 Compliant

Fig 5-3: Hourly Contour Plot Process Contribution

Contours (ug/m3)

45 40 35 30 20



µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 37.00

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 32.77

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 40.62

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 38.82

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 23.19

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 38.89

House 7 529415.8 5972369 22.55

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 35.09

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

21 | P a g e

Table 5-4: NO2 Annual Results for A1-2, A1-3, A1-4



under 2008/50/EC for an annual limit

Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)



2014 - 2016

7.58 5.5 13.08 40 Compliant


Contours (ug/m3)

6 5 4 3 2



µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 2.11

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 2.35

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 3.27

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 3.41

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 0.87

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 2.13

House 7 529415.8 5972369 1.63

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 3.20

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

22 | P a g e

Table 5-5: NO2 Hourly Results for A1-2, A1-3 & A1-4



under 2008/50/EC for an hourly limit

Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)


1 hour 1st High Result 528758.6, 5972062.3

2014 - 2016

67.82 11 78.82 200 Compliant

Fig 5-5: Hourly Contour Plot Process Contribution

Contours (ug/m3)

45 40 30 25 20



µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 28.75

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 25.96

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 30.96

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 29.62

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 18.60

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 30.97

House 7 529415.8 5972369 16.31

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 26.00

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

23 | P a g e

5.3 Sulphur Dioxide Dispersion Results

Table 5-6: SO2 Annual Results for A1-1 and A1-3


The limit for SO2 under

2008/50/EC for an annual limit

Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)



2014 - 2016

8.65 2 10.65 20 Compliant


Contours (ug/m3)

8 7 6 5 3


House UTM East UTM North SO2

µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 3.13

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 3.19

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 4.63

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 5.07

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 1.65

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 4.09

House 7 529415.8 5972369 3.47

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 5.26

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

24 | P a g e

Table 5-7: 24 SO2 Hour Results for A1-1 and A1-3




Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)


24 Hour 4th High Result 528358.6, 5972358.6

2014 - 2016

98.46 4 102.46 125 Compliant


Contours (ug/m3)

70 60 50 40 30



µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 56.35

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 41.14

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 71.95

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 64.38

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 31.85

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 48.54

House 7 529415.8 5972369 33.61

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 52.43

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

25 | P a g e

Table 5-8: SO2 Hour Results for A1-1 and A1-3




Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)


1 hour 25th High Value 528958.6, 5971662.3

2014 - 2016

323.75 4 327.75 350 Compliant


Contours (ug/m3)

200 170 140 120 80



µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 126.53

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 112.66

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 135.81

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 133.06

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 115.61

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 152.84

House 7 529415.8 5972369 78.65

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 125.79

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

26 | P a g e

Table 5-9: SO2 Annual Results for A1-2 and A1-3




Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)



2014 - 2016

5.92 2 7.92 20 Compliant


Contours (ug/m3)

4 3 2.5 2 1



µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 2.16

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 2.21

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 3.15

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 3.45

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 1.16

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 2.91

House 7 529415.8 5972369 2.21

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 3.57

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

27 | P a g e

Table 5-10: SO2 24 Hour Results for Both A1-2 and A1-3


The limit for SO2

under 2008/50/EC for

an 24 hour 99.2th %ile

Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)


24 Hour 4th High Result 528758.6, 5972062.3

2014 - 2016

83.01 11 94.01 125 Compliant


Contours (ug/m3)

50 40 30 20 10



µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 39.05

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 29.67

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 46.49

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 43.01

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 22.27

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 33.35

House 7 529415.8 5972369 21.79

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 34.19

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

28 | P a g e

Table 5-11: SO2 1 Hour Results for Both A1-2 and A1-3


The limit for SO2

under 2008/50/EC for an 1 hour 99.7th

%ile

Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)


1 hour 25th High Value 528958.6, 5971662.3

2014 - 2016

210.99 11 221.99 350 Compliant


Contours (ug/m3)

140 120 100 80 50



µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 82.60

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 72.57

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 86.20

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 85.66

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 76.26

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 100.70

House 7 529415.8 5972369 49.77

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 82.25

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

29 | P a g e

Table 5-12: PM10 24 Hour Results for A1-2, A2-1, A2-3 and A2-4


The limit for PM10

under 2008/50/EC for a

24 hour 90.4th %ile

Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)


24 hours 36th High 528271.6, 5972317.0

2014 - 2016

29.46 12.5 41.96 50 Compliant


Contours (ug/m3)

20 18 15 10 5


House UTM East UTM North PM10

µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 9.24

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 9.71

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 10.51

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 8.98

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 1.91

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 2.27

House 7 529415.8 5972369 1.84

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 5.98

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

30 | P a g e

Table 5-13: PM10 Annual Average Results for A1-2, A2-1, A2-3 and A2-4


The limit for PM10

under 2008/50/EC for an annual mean

Compliant


(PC)



stations


(PEC)


Annual Average 1st High 528275.5, 5972326.2

2014 - 2016

7.24 12.5 19.74 40 Compliant

Fig 5-13: Annual Average Contour Plot Process Contribution

Contours (ug/m3)

5 4 3 2 1


House UTM East UTM North PM10

µg/m3

House 1 528111.1 5972322.9 1.04

House 2 528140.3 5972376.3 1.17

House 3 528167.9 5972436.6 1.45

House 4 528193.7 5972483.1 1.41

House 5 528157.6 5972217.9 0.26

House 6 528992.7 5971873.5 0.38

House 7 529415.8 5972369 0.38

House 8 528422.4 5972611.6 1.13

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

31 | P a g e

5. Conclusions

The following conclusions may be made as a result of the air dispersion model completed for Aurivo Dairy

Ingredients Limited;

A model was completed in line with the Environmental Protection Agency Guidance Note for Air

Dispersion Models, AG4;

The results quoted are worst case scenarios Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PEC) for the

actual source emissions outside the boundary of the installation;

Background concentrations were used to obtain PEC’s by use of Zone D ambient air quality within

the EPA network for 2015;

Carbon monoxide was predicted to be in compliance with the ground level concentration limit for

protection of human health over the 8 hour running average over the modelled period. Given that an

emission rate equivalent to 20,000 mg/m3 was used, it still resulted in less than 15% of the CAFÉ

directive limit being consumed in the local environment during worst case met conditions;

Oxides of Nitrogen were predicted to comply with the limits applied in 2008/50/EC. The annual

average and 19th highest 1 hour GLC over the modelled period were both within the applied limit

values;

SO2 was modelled for 1 hour (25th high), 24 hours (4th high) and annual mean predicted environmental

concentrations. This parameter was predicted to be within each of the three respective limits as

applied in the CAFE Directive;

PM10 emissions were modelled for 24 hour and annual average ground level concentrations. The

PM10 concentrations were within the limits applied in the CAFÉ directive.

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20


Rev 1

32 | P a g e

Appendix I: PM10 Emissions Assessment

2012 Test Results

A2-1 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 A2-3 Run 1 Run 2

Particulates 20 31.8 9.4 Particulates 11.2 1.2

PM10 8.6 16.2 4.4 PM10 0 0.7

% PM10 43 50.9 46.8 % PM10 0 58.3

2013 Test Results


Particulates 41.2 20.25 14.88 Particulates 3.64 2.07

PM10 8.27 10.51 6.42 PM10 0.75 0.62

% PM10 20.1 51.9 43.1 % PM10 20.6 30.0

2014 Test Results



PM10 5.24 9.4 1.32 PM10 0.66 0.96

% PM10 55.0 48.7 7.6 % PM10 14.6 33.6

2015 Test Results


Particulates 8.98 20 8.1 Particulates 11.27 1.07

PM10 4.53 8.95 2.96 PM10 1.91 0.12

% PM10 50.4 44.8 36.5 % PM10 16.9 11.2

2016 Test Results



PM10 5.24 9.4 1.32 PM10 0.66 0.96

% PM10 55.0 48.7 7.6 % PM10 14.6 33.6

Average PM10 Ratio 2012 - 2016 38.1% Average PM10 Ratio 2012 - 2016 23.3%

Maximum PM10 Ratio 2012 - 2016 55.0% Maximum PM10 Ratio 2012 - 2016 58.3%

Maximum Ratio of PM10 in Total Particulate Matter Emissions = 58.3%

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 09-06-2018:04:37:20

aurivo dairy ingredients limited · 162605e, 294415n carbon monoxide mg/m3 - 20,000note 1 - -...

Documents