! ,I j

I

:I ; I

This Report has been cleared for submission to the Director by Senior Inspector, Patrick Byrne

I Signed: y+ Date: 14/09/2016 I 8 'I , -

.

. .

...-

. &I 4 %

J

* i i OFFICE OF !

ENVIRONMENTAL '' 4 - ' - SUSTAINABILITY . , ..

To: Dara Lynott, Director

' From: ,Martins Nolan, Inspector Environmental Licensing Programme

Date: 14th September 2016 Application for review of an Industrial Emissions (IE) licence from Eamon Clerkin, Edergole, Rockcorry, Co. Monaghan. Licence Register RE':

; . :r' fi NO. PO827-02 .

Application Details

Licence review application received:

Classof adivity under First Schedule of EPb Act 1992 as amended:

, J

~~~

Category of Activity under IE'Directive (2010/75/EU):

Title of BREF document (main):

r ,

Notices under Regulation 10(2)(b)(ii) I .

issued:

Information under Regulation 10(2)( b)( ii) received :

EIS received:

Application compliant with Regulation 9:

Submissions received:

Site notice(s) inspected:

Site visit:

Additional'Information: I a ._

22"d April 2016

Class 6 3 (a): The rearing of poultry in installations where the capacity exceeds ' 40,000 places. t +.

6.6(a) Intensive rearing of poultry with more than 40,000 places for poultry.

BREF Document on Best Available Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs (July 2003). I i -

13th June 2016 . - . 1

24th June 2016 . .

15th April 2016 , . .

24th June 2016 .

1.Health. Service . Executive . (HSE), 7th June 2016 '

2.Monaghan County Council, 2gth June.2016

26th April 2016

16th August 2016

17th August 2016

1

1. Installation and Licensee

.. .

:. - . , '

Mr Eamon Clerkin owns and operates a poultry (broiler) rearing farm at Edergole & West, Rockcorry, Co. Monaghan.

Mr. Eamon Clerkin was issued a licence (PO827-01) on the 18th October 2007. The was amended by Technical Amendment A on the 22nd April 2013 and Section 8 Amendment to Industrial Emission Licence on the 16th December 2013. The licence currently provides for the accommodation of 85,'OOO broilers within 3 poultry houses. On the 2nd March 2016, Monaghan County Council granted planning permission for the construction 1 new poultry house to accommodate a further 55,000 broilers at Edergole/Coolkill West.

The present enterprise provides part-time employment for the licensee. The main activities a t this installation occur during normal working hours between 06.00 a.m. and 20.00 p.m. Stock inspections are carried out every day, including weekends and bank holidays and additional essential activities may be undertaken outside of core working hours. The installation currently operates in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the -Marine (DAFM) and the .Bard Bia. Poultry- Products Quality Assurance Scheme (PPQAS).

2. Reasons for Review

The application for a review of the licence is to allow the licensee anfincrease in the number of places for birds from 85,000 broilers to 140,000 broilers. This increase in bird places requires the construction of an additional poultry house and an expansion of the installation boundary.

' I 0 . 1

3. Process description t - .

The process involves the rearing of stock specifically bred for lean poultry meat production, from day olds delivered from the hatchery until they are removed from'the installation to the processing installation (approximately 5 to 6 weeks). At the end of each rearing cycle the houses are destocked and the birds are sold for processing. Following a period of 2 weeks to allow for removal of the poultry litter (organic fertiliser') and' complete drying after the cleaning process, the houses are restocked.

The type of broiler house used for this activity is a simple closed building of block and timber/wood construction on an impervious concrete base. The houses are thermally insulated with a forced computer controlled ventilation system and artificial lighting. Automatic feeding and ventilation systems operate on a 24 hour basis. The solid flooring of each broiler house is bedded with wood shavings/chopped straw over its entire area immediately prior to housing each new batch bought from the hatchery.

The principal inputs to the operation are feed, water, veterinary medicines and energy (electricity and gas for heating). The main by-product of poultry rearing is poultry litter (organic fertiliser). These are discussed in further detail below.

4. Planning Permission, EIS and EIA Requirements

4.1 EIA Screening

1

!

1

Any fertiliser other than that manufactured by industrial process and includes livestock manure, dungstead manure, farmyard manure, slurry, soiled water, silage effluent, non-farm organic substances such as sewage sludge, industrial by-products and residues from fish farms.

I

2

In accordance with Section 83(2A) of the EPA Act <1992, .as amended, the Agency must ensure that before a licence or revised licence is granted, that the application is made subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), where the activity meets the criteria outlined in Section 83(2A)(b) and 83(2A)(c). I n accordance with the EIA Screening Determination, the Agency has determined that the activity is likely to 'have a significant effect on the environment, and accordingly is carrying out an assessment for the purposes of EIA. An EIS was submitted with the review application. I "

- , .: " - i , , / . * . 1

4.2 Plannina Status . . ,: / .

Details of the most recent planning application and permission (15/464) in relation to the construction 1 new poultry house to accommodate a further 55;OOO broilers has been

Monaghan County Council required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS9 in support of planning permission Reference Number 15/464. The licensee has submitted the most recent

Having specific regard to EIA, this report is intended to identify, describe and assess for: the Agency the direct and indirect effects of the proposed activity'on e environment, as respects' the matters that come within the functions of the Agency, i'ncluding any interaction between: those effects and the related development forming part of the wider project, and to propose ,conclusions to the Agency in relation to such effects.

The EIS 'submitted, the licence application, the submissions and obsehations received from third parties, the assessment carried out by the planning authority, consultations with the planning authority, the relevant planning decisions and any additional information submitted by the licensee have been examined and assessed and are considered below for that

1 - provided in the application form. , $ 1 'I , ' I . f ' .

EIS required by Monaghan County Council. * . . .. ' . < d .. , I L i % a "

t i

" 7 I purpose. I .

4.3 Content of EIS and Licence Application I

I have considered and examined the content of the licence application, the EIS and other relevant material submitted with it.

It was considered that the EIS and licence 'application did not adequately address the following areas and this information was requested under Regulation 10 of the EPA (Industrial Emissions) (Licensing) Regulations 2013:

1:

2.

3.. 4.

5. 6.

7.1. 8.

. I

!

Details of the quantity of diesel generally used for the back-up generator, and the capacity and typel of the fuel storage facilities ,on-site, clarification as-to the location

Details of the, amount of electricity used per annum for the existing and proposed activity; Details on the final use of organic fertiliser (poultry litter and wash water); Clarification on the storm water collection system that will be in place,on completion of the proposed development; I . ,

Clarification on surface water pattiways; An updated site layout plan identifying the location of all existing and proposed storm water discharge points; , I

Clarification of the+presence, if any, of on-site groundwater wells; and A copy of the Appropriate Assessment Screening document'.

of the back-up generator; I I ' . , I

I

I

On receipt of further information, all of the documentation received was examined and I consider that the information as submitted contains a satisfactory description of the project, the alternatives studied by the licensee, the aspects of the environment likely to be signifkantly affected by the activity, the likely effects of the activity on the environment, the

3

I

~

Consultation

Notice under Section 87( lE)(a) ,issued:

Response to Section 87(1E)(a) Notice . I

received : I -

Comments on planning application and EIS requested by planning authority under Section 87(1F):

’

forecasting methods used, the prevention and mitigation measures envisaged;, the la difficulties and deficiencies encountered and a non-technical summary.

I consider that the EIS, when considered in conjunction with the additional submitted with the application, also complies with the requirements of the EPA (In Emissions)(Licensing) Regulations 2013.

I have considered and examined the documents furnished by Monaghan County CO relation to the impacts assessed by them; in particular the planner‘s report and the

I have considered the issues that interact with the matters that.were considered by the above authorities and which relate to the ,activity in Section 19.0 of this report.

Having considered the application and EIS, the submissions by members of the public, the submissions of state and public authorities-and the matters resulting from the planning authority decision, I consider that the likely significant effects of the activity on the environment are as set out in Section 19.0 below.

’ 4.4 Consultation with ComPetent Authorities

Consultation was carried out between Monaghan County

I

f ’ . dated 5* April 2016 (ref 15/464). . A

1

,a ‘ I

f ’

unci1 and the Agency as follows: I

Date

26th April 2106 to Monaghan County Council

23rd May 2106 from Monaghan County Council

17th December 2015 from Monaghan County Council in relation to planning application ref 151464 r

1,

Comments on planning application and EIS made to planning authority under Section 87( 1 F) : 1

I ,

7th January 2016 to Monaghan ’ County Council in relation to planning application ref 15/464

,

5. Submissions + I

Two submissions were received in relation to the licence ‘application. These submissions were taken into consideration during the preparation of the Recommended Determination

1) Claire 0’ Dwyer, Principal Environmental Health Office;, Health Service Executive (HSE), HSE Dublin/North East, Cavan Monaghan, 18 The Grange, Plantation ,$Walk, Monaghan,

2) Mr. John Paul Mc Entee, Acting Executive Chemist, Environment Section, Carrickmacross Civic Offices, Monaghan County Council, Riverside Road, Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan, received on the 2gth June 2016.

(RD).

received on the 7th June 2016. , (4 ’

,

4

The submission points are summarised below followed by the Inspectors response, however the original submission should be referred to for full details.

Submission 1: Ms. Claire 0' Dyer , HSE

The Agency received a submission on the 29* April 2016.from Claire 0 Dwyer, Principal Environmental Health Officer, HSE, which enclosed a report from Ms. Irene McCabe. The report is based on a site'visit and available documents and provides a summary report of their findings. The report makes twelve observations in relation to the licence application. The issues raised include- manure, soiled water, surface water, water supply, waste, energy supply, chemicals, odour, noise, receptors, pestl control and visual impact. The PHSE also confirmed in their submission that they have not received any complaints relating to odour or noise from the installation to date. The submission refers only to those areas within the remit of the HSE.

Response: The main issues raised in the submission are noted-and addressed in the relevant sections of the Inspectors Report (IR).

", ,

1 1 I e t . <

. r

I 1

r. John Paul Mc Entee, Acting Executive Chemist, 'Monaghan 'County' Council recommending in the interest of sustainable use of poultry litter produced from this activity, that the Agene requests information in relation to the disposal of poultry litter.as outline in the submission.

Response: . , r 1, , : c ~ ~ s : . I

The issues raised in the submission are noted and addressed in the ,relevant.sections of the Inspectors Report (IR).

. ., 1

1 - . . I , , ,

' 1

6. Consideration of Best Available Techniques (BAT) and BAT Conclusions

Section 86A(3) of the EPA Act 1992 as amended, requires that the Agency shall apply BAT conclusions as'a reference for attaching one or more' conditions to a licence or a revised licence (Article 14(3) of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)). Therefore BAT for the installation was assessed against the BAT Conclusions contained in the following documents:

BREF Document for the Intensive rearing of Poultry ,and Pigs (July 2003) [Main -

JI,-' ' . I 1 , Applicable BREF activity12 - ,

, . ~ - BREF Document on Energy Ef%c'iency (February 2009) ~

8 6 '

- BREF Document for Emissions from-Storage (July 2006) $ f ?

The licensee submitted an assessment of the activity against the relevant BAT Conclusion requirements contained in the above BREF Documents. The licensee has demonstrated that the installation will comply with all applicable BAT Conclusion requirements specified in the Poultry and Pig BREF and those contained in the additional BREF Documents.

I consider that the applicable BAT Conclusion"' requirements are addressed through:

1 , '

, (i) the technologies and techniques asdescribed in'the'application; and ~

' > . ~ (ii) the'standard conditions specified in'the RD.

,- . a <

' Y I < h

> , t

', BREF cukently under review

5

7. Emissions , . / * . 7.1 Emissions to Air/Odour

The licensee states that potential emissions to air from the activity should be I odour emissions associated with the general operation of the activity such as em warm air from the ventilation system, as well as the loading of organic fertiliser removal. Increased emissions may at times be associated with loading of poult loading of organic fertiliser. The potential impact from loading organic fertiliser is be a minor issue due to the fact that it is removed only once in every 6 to 8 weeks and only takes 4 to 5 hours to completely remove the organic fertiliser from the houses. No organic fertiliser (poultry litter) is stored on-site, following, removal from the houses. It is loaded directly onto lorries and dispatched off-site. :, 1-

Odour will be minimised by implementing appropriate management practices on the installation such as:

I . , 7 '1 i ' - a high standard of litter management; ' - - maintaining stock density at design level; . -

- the use of automated f , feeding and ventilation systems; -

r

adequate use of bedding material;

- I

state of the art insulation'standards used, in house design;

carcases to be stored in covered leak proof containers pending collection; the use of feed with optimum crude protein levels to minimise nitrogen excretion and ammonia emissions from ventilation; maintenance of water and feed system maintaining a good standard of cleanliness on-site.

- minimisation of carcasses by good flock management; ,:' 1 - -

I

L . , * I I . - - . . I

The nearest third p a 6 residential dwellings 'are 45 m :west and 50 m north east of the installation. The planned construction of an additional ~ poultry house will not bring ;the (

installation boundary any closer to ,the nearest third party residential dwelling as the new house is to be located beyond the existing houses. The land in the immed,iate vicinity of the installation is farmland,. The licensee states that no complaints regarding odour fi-om ,the installation have been received and, the EPA has not received any complaints relating to odour for the existing licensed activity.

Condition 5 of the RD requires that,amenities, the environment and any legitimate uses of the environment beyond the installation boundary shall not be impaired or interfered with by emissions, including odour or dust, arising from the activity.

The RD also be requires the licensee to.prepare and implement an odour management programme, with the agreement of the Agency, and'this programme shall be reviewed and submitted annually as part of the Annual Environmental Report (AER) for this activity.

Ammonia emissions from intensive agricultur'al activities may have an impact on sensitive receptors (e.g. lichens, bryophytes etc.), however, ammonia emissions have been modelled using a screen model (SCAIL Agriculture, http://www.scail.ceh.ac.uk/) and the predicted concentration of ammonia at the European Sites will not cause an impad. on these Sites {see Section 13 below).

Dust may arise as fugitive emissions from the ventilation systems on-site. Good housekeeping practices will minimise the occurrence of dust.

The licensee uses gas burners to heat the houses and they also have a back-up generator should the electricity supply be interrupted. Approximately 40 to 45 litres of gas per

. . I : '

'

6

'i ' ,

. , , I

' i ,

i i

I

i I I'

,.

, , " '

\i

I

,

,

i

1

I

i.

' ! i

!

I I

i

I

I

thousand birds will be used per; annum. These-emissions are considered minor and therefore

The RD requires a Resource Use and Energy Programme to be established and an energy audit to be carried out and repeated a t in

ELVs have not been applied. 1 , . _ 1 , 1

als as required by the Agency. . I , . , , c1.

, . , . 4

' ' a : J . . .. . < . . . . .

! .' . i I '.. . , , , 7.2 Emissions to Sewer

nere'are no emiiiions ~ . . ttj . -seyer . , .. fro ,*,

7.3 Emissions to Waters

There I .,.I is no process . .

1 , . .

~ . . ..: , . 8 . . ,

'

uent discharge from the installation. , . " * ' 'L. - .'' .' ' . I a'

I , * , . . . . * ' . . . < , . . : . . I

. . , - . . - 7.4 Surface Water

Surface water arises on-site from storm water collected from yards and the roofs of buildings. All clean'storm water is diverted away from soiled areas of the installation and is collected in a storm water collection system around each house and is diverted by gravity to be discharged via the existing discharge point (SW1) and one new discharge point (SW2) into a field drain on the south west boundary of the installation. This drain'flows to the Coolkill fough Stream, which passes through' Coolkill Lough, and joins the Rockcorry Stream which flows through the Drumgole and Drumhay Loughs and enters the Dromore River approximately 15 km downstream of the installation. The Dromore River currently has a Water Framework Directive (WFD) status of "POOR as does the Coolkill Lough Stream and the Rockcorry Stream. The Coolkill Lough Stream is at "POOR status at its source upstream of the installation. The Drumgole Lough is an identified drinking water abstraction point and is located approximately 7 km downstream of the installation on the Rockcorry Stream.

The storm water discharged through SW1 and SW2 should be uncontaminated and, therefore, should have no impact on receiving surface waters. The only period-during which there is potential for contamination of surface waters is during removal of organic fertiliser from the poultry houses, i.e. once every 8 week rearing cycle, the associated washing of houses and the annual washing of yards. All soiled surface water is diverted to the existing 4 wash water storage tanks, on completion of construction there 'will be 5'wash water tanks on-site. ' , I f * I

Storm water from the yards at the back of the houses flows into the collection drains which direct the clean surface water to SW1 and SW2. However whennannual yard washing is taking place the licensee manually diverts the storm water drainage system to the wash water tanks to ensure that no potentially polluting matter is discharge to the storm water emission points.

Condition 6.9 requires that measures are taken to ensure that wash water will be diverted to the wash water storage tanks prior to the commencement and during washing poultry houses or yards -until such time as washing is complete and that a written procedure and records are maintained. The risk of'surface water, ground or groundwater contamination as a result of'accidental emissions during poultry removal and washing activities is considered to be minimal for the following reasons:

every six' to eight weeks

4 -; < :,: * I -

:

A .

0, Poultry litter removal and washing onyy oc I * , (at the end of each batch); p . a

Yard washing is carried out on an annual basis; and 8 -

The wash water results from water being used to wash the suqaces of the houses . and/or,yard areas and is not therefore coming in contact with poultry litter. The

nutrient content of wash water is relatively low compared to livestock slurry.

Therefore it is considered . that the requirement of,. Condition 6.9 is sufficient protection of surface water and groundwater during poultry litter removal and activities.

The discharge to the'storm water discha 'point (sw1& S W ~ ) mist de visually in weekly and monitored for BOD and COD as required by the Agency, in.accordan Schedule C.2.3 Monitoring of Storm Water Emissions.

The RD requires the licensee to provide.and maintain a storm water/rainwater colle drainage system for all poultry houses on-sitej' and to provide and maintain an inspedion chamber at each discharge point within three months of grant of licence.

The RD also requires the storage of all liquid fuels, Fhemicals, etc., in bunded areas to avoid spillage. The RD specifies that there shall be no unauthorised discharge of polluting matter to water.

The RD includes a requirement to ensure that a documented Accident Prevention ,Procedure is in place, that, addresses the hazards on-site, particularly in relation to, the prevention of accidents with a possible impact on the environment. This procedure should also address the operation of the diversion chamber to ensure wash water. is not discharged to the surface water system. The'RD requires that'should any accident occur the procedure will, be updated to prevent any reoccurrence of that accident or incident.

These measures will aid in achieving good water quality in the Dromore River.

11:

7.5 Emissions to qround or qroundwater ,

The licensee states in the application that there has been' no historical 'contamination I of

There are no emission,s to ground or groundwater from this activity.

There is no on-site septic tank or percolation proposed for this activity. .

groundwater at the site. , . a - 4 ,

The primary source of water for the installation is the Drumgole Group Water t , Scheme (GWS). - . I _ . 8

It is, noted that the installation is situated over the Cavan aquifer which is a poorly productive bedrock aquifer, which is generally unproductive except in local zones, with low vulnerability and a WFD status of "GOOD".

The RD includes requirements for bunding and storage of materials as well as requirements for accident/incident prevention which will minimise the potential for spillages that could impact on groundwater. 1 -

' , 7.6 Baseline ReDort (Industrial Emissions Directive [2010/75/EC))

A baseline report in accordance with Section. 866 o< the EPA A; 1992 as amended was not provided with the licence review application. e licensee carried out screening of the activity to determine if a baseline report was required. The licensee states that the activity does involve the use of small amounts of hazardous substances including fuels, disinfectants and fluorescent tubes. However they state that limited quantities, will be' stored on-site a t any one time and materials will be stored in designated storage areas protected from breakage and regularly removed from the installation, with minimal if any risk of soil/groundwater contamination. The licensee concludes that screening was' sufficient and that no Baseline Report is necessary.+

Taking' into account the small quantities'- of subsfarices used; the' location of these substances at the installation in view of the soil and groundwater characteristics, and the

3 ,

!I I I _ - I I ' . a t ,

8

measures to be taken to prevent accidents and incidents, the possibility of soil and/or groundwater- contamination at the. site of the installationl is considered to be low. Having regard to the ' possibility of soil and groundwater- contamination. .and to the European Commission Guidance concerning baseline reports under Article .22(2) of Directive 2010/75/EU, I am satisfied that a'baseline report is not required.

The RD does not require that relevant hazardous substances are monitored in so the reasons set out above. I I I .

. I !

. I ' . 7.7 Oraanic Fertiliser I . I *

The installation will necessarily generate organic fertiliser (poultry litter and wash water). The '.licensee proposes that the poultry litter, approkimately 1,225 tonnes and 'the wash water, approximately 225 m3;/annum, will be sent off-site for use as fertiliser in accordance with the European Union (Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Waters) Regulations 2014, (Nitrates Regulations) and the European Animal By-Product Regulations (EC Regulation No 1069/2009 and Commission Regulation 142/2011), (Animal By-product Regulations).

The installation current produces 743.75 tonnes of poultry litter per annum, this is expected to increase by- 481.25 tonnes per annum following expansion, totalling 1,225 tonnes per

I '

!A I , 1 , I ,

" , I

I ' i [ 7.7.1 Poultry Litter [Orqanic Fertiliser) ' '

I / .I i'

The organic fertiliser generated by the birds during,'the course of a batch remains in the houses under the birds until the birds are removed to the factory, (every 6-8 weeks). The organiclfertiliser is then cleaned and brushed,out and loaded into lorries for export offysite.

The application includes a letter from'CLR' Co-op Ltd'. .confirming they take poultry litter from theinstallation to mushroom compost production facilities, or to recipient farmers for use as organic fertiliser. CLR Co-op Ltd. are a registered contractor with the DAFM for the transport

The Animal By-product Regulations impose legal requirements on the .licensee, the 'commercial haulier' (registered by DAFM) that is used to transport the organic fertiliser and the user of the organic fertiliser. These requirements include use of a 'commercial document' to record the consignor (licensee/poultry farmer),' the consignee (customer farmer/mushroom compost facility operator receiving the organic fertiliser), the carrier (haulier), means of transport, the quantity and'the date of dispatch. The consignor is required to receive a completed copy of the 'commercial document' from the consignee confirming the final destination. Documents in relation to legal obligations and good practice guidelines for use and disposal of poultry litter are available on the DAFM website at: htt~://www.aqriculture.aov.ie/aari-foodindustrv/animal bvproducts/poultrylitter- leaalobligationsandquidelines/ and an example of the commercial document is available at:

products/animal bv-~roducts-tradernotices/TN012015CommercialDocumentsRev2250315.~df.

The licensee (poultv farmer) is required under the Nitrates Regulations to submit to DAFM by the 31' December annually details in relation to the quantity of organic fertiliser (poultry litter and washwater) exported (Record 3 form). These details can be taken from the commercial documents returned to the consignor (poultry farmer) from the consignee (recipient. farmer / composter)., DAFM can use the record of export of organic fertiliser to identify the recipient of the organic fertiliser, including farmers who are recipients of organic fertiliser and the quantity received. The record shall also be maintained at the installation for inspection by the Agency, Local Authority or DAFM.

c * > (

of animal by-products (poultry litter), DAFM Reference No. CLR. . . . ,

~. http://www.aariculture.aov.ie/media/miciration/aqri-foodindustry/animal by- ' 5

9

The poultry litter collected by CLR Co-op Ltd. may be used as a feedstock for the pro of mushroom compost. CLR Co-op Ltd. supply poultry litter to .authorised mu compost producing facilities. The use of poultry litter from the licensees installation by t k s e composting facilities will not cause environmental pollution and I am satisfied * that, this method of handling the organic fertiliser (poultry.litter) from the activity will not h$v&a

8 . . . ”. I ‘

significar;lt effect on the environment. > $ . 4

I n the event that the contractor delivers the orqanic fertiliser tob,farmers for I , ’

organic fertiliser on land, the transport of the poultry litter is subject to the Animal By- Product Regulations and records are required under the Nitrates Regulations and the application to land is subject to the Nitrates Regulations. The Nitrates Regulations specifies when organic fertiliser can be applied to land, the application rates etc. and are enforced by the DAFM and Local Authorities. I am satisfied that the use,of poultry litter as fertiliser$ in accordance with the Nitrates Regulations will not have a $significant effect on the environment. ‘

The RD provides that *poultry litter may be sed off-site-for use as fertiliser by farmers in accordance with the Nitrates Regulations.

The Nitrates Regulations requires that at least 26 weeks storage capaci6 for organic fertiliser is provided.’ As the organic fertiliser ‘is removed off-site to mushroom compost production facilities or by a registered contractor, the licensee is exempt from the requirement to provide a minimum 26 weeks on-site storage for organic fertiliser, as would otherwise be required under Article lO(1) of the Nitrates Regulations, subject to the licensee having a contract for access to a treatment facility for livestock manure (organic fertiliser) or for the transfer of organic fertiliser to a person. registered under and in accordance with the European Communities (Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies and Animal By- Products) Regulations 2008 (SI 252 of 2008) to undertake the transport of organic fertiliser. Such exemption is,provided, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Nitrates Regulations. The organic fertiliser storage capacity currently provided on-site is 1,245.4. m3, however ;the

. *

1 r . . ,

licensee does store poultry litter onkite. , I f .. L .

f 1 ” 7:7.2 ‘,Wash water - - I -

i

Wash water is generated by the activity every 6-8 weeks, after the poultrjl litter has been removed from the poultry houses. Prior to washing the houses the floors are brushed to reduce the quantity of poultry litter remaining in the houses. The houses are then washed down with water and disinfectant applied. As .described in Section 7.4 above, the wash water is directed to wash water storage tanks where it is contained until sent off-site for,use as fertiliser. The wash water consists of water ‘contaminated with poult4 litter and small, quantities of disinfectant. The wash water is considered suitable for use on land as fertiliser. and such use is provided for by the Nitrates Regulations.and the Animal By-product Regulations. , ,1 .

The licensee has identified that the wash water will be used on approximately 6.5 hectares (ha) of the licensee’s landholding which adjoins the installation. The licensee has calculated that the identified land has capacity to accept the 1 225 m3 of wash water which . . .will be

The RD requires the movement of the wash water to land be recorded and the submission of a record of‘the export (Record 3) to DAFM in accordance with the Nitrates Regulations; as outlined above for poultry litter. The transport .and use of wash water as fertiliser in accordance with the Nitrates Regulations and Animal By-product Regulations will not cause

1 . , I

generated by, the activity. . . ! I I

! environmental pollution. . f ,

* / ,’ . I \

10

. ,

1

1 ,

!

I !

' ! i

t

,I 'I '

' j I,::

. ,

, "

I " t ;, r I ,

3 '

The RD requires that records are kept of all organic fertiliser movements off-site and-that such records shall be available on-site and sent to the -DAFM annually, as required in

Wash water from the a&ty is collected in 4 wash watei coliectiontanks with,an estimated capacity of 146.'1 m3 this will increase to 182 m3 on the installation of the additional wash wate; storage tank associated with ttie new poultry house. During cleaning of the yard area, surface water is diverted to this tank, and is diverted back to the surface water system on completion of cleaning. The wash water storage tanks provide '42 weeks storage capacity. This is well in excess of the 26 week storage requirements of the European Union (Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Waters) Regulations 2014 (S.I. NO. 31 of 2014). The RD requires that a freeboard of at least 200 mm from the top of each covered organic fertiliser storage tank and 300 mm from the top of uncovered organic fertiliser storage tanks is maintained, as a minimum, at all times. The required freeboard shall be clearly indicated in the tank. i I ?

I . accordance with the Nitrates Regulations. I . < , - t i

- I

The RD also requires that the integrity of all underground effluent storage tanks is assessed within.twelve months of the date of grant of this licence, and at least once every five years thereafter. Each of these measures significantly reduces the likelihood of spillages from+ the

- 4 1 '

wash water storage tanks themselves. I - , .\ ' 4 .

8. Wake 5 : , ' .' ' i . ' , ' L . '.*

The ak$y does not produce significant quantities of waste. There are no waste disposal or recovery activities undertaken on-site. Waste arising on-site includes fluorescent tubes, fallen stock (poultry tissue waste), veterinary/chemical waste containers and general waste. The licensee states that waste is minimised by maintaining a high health status on the farm and maintaining stock ~ levels in line with animal welfare requirements,. employing best technologies combined with good management practices on-site and,. the minimisation of

Carcasses, are stored temporarily on-site in covered containers, before being transported to an appropriately authorised installation where the material will be rendered in accordance with the Animal By-product Regulations (Regulation (EC) No. 1069/2009). The RD ~2 requires that animal carcasses are removed from the installation at least fortnightly.

The RD requires that waste sent off-site is transported and, recovered/disposed ,of inj accordance with National and European Legislation and requires maintenance of records 'on matters relating to the waste management operations and practices at the installation.

a 1

recycling where possible. , ..

9. Noise

Given the nature of the operations on-site and theactivity, noise is not expected to be an issue at or beyond the installation boundary, as per most poultry farms in the country. The nearest noise sensitive receptor is 45 m west of the installation and at the time of writing the report, no noise complaints have been received by the ,installation, the HSE or the Agency. Therefore standard noise conditions and emission limit values have been included in the RD.

, I 5 -

10. Use of Resources,, , * j , - 1 , , I

2. Energy , e "

Electricity is used to power all processes on-site. Approximately 68,520 kWh of electricity is required for the activity per annum, this will increase to 110,000 kWh. The electricity supply is backed-up by two gas powered on-site generators.

ii

Heating for the poultry houses is primarily provided by gas. All buildings are in reduce. the requirement for gas -for heating. The average volume of gas us approximately 40 to 45 litres per 1,000 birds. I n order to minimisel gas licensee has fitted heat exchange units to the existing houses and has propos them in the ’ proposed development. The existing’ and proposed cross-fl exchangers use the warm air being taken from the ’building through the v system to effectively pre-heat the cooler exkernal fresh air being brought building. This is done in a manner that warm’house air and cold fresh air simult pass through the exchanger bundles without mixing, and can result in overall energy savings of in excess of 30%.

The RD requires a Resource Use and Energy Programme to be established and an.energy audit to be carried out andxepeated at intervals as required by the Agency. The BREF on

I Energy Efficiency should be referred to ins the context of the Resource Use and Energy

I , ( I i

Programme. . 8

The licensee estimates that 6;730 m3 of water ik used for this activity’per annum. The primary source of water for the activity is‘the Drumgole Group Water Scheme. h e poultry house will be physically cleaned of organic fertiliser and brushed/blown down in order to minimise washing and water consumption.

The RD requires the licensee to install and maintain a water meter on all water supplies serving the installation and to maintain records of water usage on-site.

There are four stages of rations fed throughout the lifecycle of the birds: Starter, Grower; Finisher and Withdrawal, which are formulated to match the bird’s requirements for protein, energy, minerals and vitamins at the various ages and to minimise excretion, and to maximise rate of development and meat quality. Feed is supplied’by specialised suppliers and stored in feed storage bins/silos located adjacent to the poultry houses: Total annual feed consumption for this activity is approximately 3,640 tonnes. I

Medication and disinfectant will be stored inside in designated areas at the installation.

Condition 7 of the RD includes conditions dealing with water, energy and raw material use, reduction and efficiency on-site.

11. Greenhouse gas emissions and Climate Change impact

L , I . - Water . i . * 8

. , b

, < , . . Feed

. . . !

/ . I ’< 0 Medication and Disinfectant

I I

With regard to reducing the climate impact of the installation “under IED the RD requires energy efficiency and resource use efficiency to be addressed as part of the Resource Use and Energy Programme.

12. Prevention of Accidents and Cessation of activity

12.1 Measures to prevent accidents and’limit the‘ir Consequences ,

The application details a range of measures that will help to prevent accidents at the installation and limit their environmental consequences. These include:

Provision of a suitable storm water drainage system to collect and discharge all clean’ storm water/rain water from roofs and, clean yard areas to storm water emission

f Y

, I

t

-

. points; 3 I ’ i t

I C

12

- Provision of a soiled water drainage system to collect~all effluent or soiled/wash -7 water and divert it to the nearest soiled/wash water tank; - Appropriate collection and removal of all litter from the installation; - Appropriate storage and removal of all soiled/wash water generated on-site; - Appropriate collection, storage and removal of wastes generated on-site; - Comprehensive cleaning and hygiene routine to be maintained on-site to minimise

potenial odour from the installation; and ' - Appropriate maintenance and inspection procedures to ensure that all feeding, water

supply, litter removal and ventilation systems are working to maximum efficiency I ensuring litter are maintained as dry as possible and minimising energy consumption.

Condition 9 of the RD requires procedures to be put in place to prevent accidents with a possible impact on the environment and to respond to emergencies so as to minimise the impact on the environment. It also requires the accident prevention procedure to be updated in light of experience. I n addition, the RD specifies the minimum organic fertiliser

apacity to be maintained, assessment of organic fertiliser storage tanks, control

,

gement of organic fertiliser on-site, storm water monitoring etc. 1 -

* ' , ' Measures to be taken uDon cessation , ?

/ I

The application details a range of measures to be employed upon cessation of the activity:

- Operations on-site would cease; - -

Saleable stock will be sold to the usual outlet; Wastes will be removed as per normal procedure;

- Feed.& medicines returned to suppliers; 1 - 1

I - Organic fertiliser removed from houses & transported off-site as per normal

- The buildings, once empty of stock, would be washed clean and all wash '

- -

! * procedure;

water/organic fertiliser removed as per normal procedures; Houses washed, disinfected and left idle; and- I f Class A disease incident occurs, any non-saleable stock would be humanely put down and consigned either for rendering or for incineration. The actions undertaken would be under the supervision of veterinary division of DAFM:

As outlined in Section 7.6 above, a Baseline Report was not requ/red due to the low risk of soil or groundwater contamination by relevant hazardous substances.

Condition 10 of the RD specifies decommissioning and residuals management requirements.

Condition 12-of the RD requires that an annual statement is provided in the AER as to the measures taken or adopted a t the installation, in relation to the prevention of environmental damage, for remedial actions following closure/decommissioning or accidents/incidents, as may be associated with the carrying on of the activity. The licensee must have regard to the Environmental Protection Agency's Guidance on * Assessing and Costing Environmental Liabilities (2014) ,and, as appropriate, Guidance on Financial Provision for Environmental Liabilities (2015) when doing so.

13. Compliance with EU Directives

Birds Directive r2009/147/ECl & Habitats Directive r92/43/EEC]

The instaliation is not located within a European Site. There are a number of European Sites in the vicinity of the installation. Any European Sites up to 20 km distance from the

, " .

installation have been considered for the purposes of this assessment. The table the European Sites assessed, their associated qualifying interests and conset#don f t objectives.

European Site

(Site code) Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC (001786)

Upper Lough Erne SPA (UK9020071)

Magheraveely Marl Loughs

(UK0016621) SAC 1.

" ' I .

Slieve Beagh SPA (004167)

1 '*

. , , , . I

Lough Oughter & Associated Loughs SAC (000007)

Upper Lough Erne SAC (UK0016614)

Disbnce & Direction from

installation 13.7 km north westofthe : e

installation. I

(

* . . . 14 km west of the installation

. I ' . ,.

14.5 km north west of the installation

. . -. ' . . . I

I,.

19.4km'north of the installation

. ; ,

.. .

17.3 km west of the installation

'1'. \ _:, .

. . 19.1 km west of the installation

Qualifying Interests '(* denotesa priority habitat) '

Habitats ' I

3 140:, Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters nith benthic vegetation of Chara spp. 7210: Calcareous fens with Cladium markusand species of the Caricion '

gavallianae* 7230: Alkaline fens .

Species . 1092: White-clawed Crayfish Austropotamobius pall ips

Species , I _. , 31

Whooper Swan - wintering population ,

, I .* < +

> '

.( . ., . - ,,

Habitats 3140: Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. , 7210: Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscusand species of the Caricion davallianae* 7230: Alkaline fens

Species . j * & -

1092: Whiteyclawed Crayfish Austropotamobius pall@es

4

Species 1 -

A082: Hen Harrier Clrcus waneus

I . , ' , 3 - , '

' .

.- I

Habitats 3150: Naturai eutiophic lakes with Magnopotarnion or Hydrocharition - type vegetation' 91DO: Bog woodland*

Species 1355: Otter Lu ta lutra . * -

Habitats 3150: Natural eutropliic lakes with Magnopolamin or Hydrocharition -

L.

&Lvationij, ( * I 1 objectives , l I

As per NPWS (2015) Conservation objectives for Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC (001786). Generic version 4.0. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (dated 13/02/2015).

. ,

As per Upper Lough' Erne SPA. (UK9020071) Conservation Objectives. Version 3. Depa'rtment of Environment Northern Ireland (dated 01/04/2015).

As per Magheraveely Marl Loughs SAC (UK0016621) . . Conservation Objehives. Version 2. Department of Environment Northern Ireland (dated 01/04/2015) 9 '

. I I 1 ~.

I

As per NPWS (2015) ' Conservation objectives for Slieve Beagh SPA ", (004167). Generic version 4.0. Department of Arts; Heritage and I . the Gaeltacht, (dated 13/02/2015).

As.per NPWS (2015) Conservation objectives for Lough Oughter & Associated Loughs SAC (000007). Generic version' 4.0. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (dated 13/02/2015).

'

As per Magheraveely Marl,Loughs SAC .

I (UK0016614). -

14

typevegetation I 1

91DO: Bog woodland 91AO: Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles 91EO: Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno- Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion alvae) 7230: Alkaline fens 6410: Molinia meadows on calcareious *peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molnia werulea)

Species 1355: Otter Lutra lutra Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

L Currently known as Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

Conservation Objectives. Version 2. Department of Environment Northern Ireland (dated 01/04/2015)

. . ' i ,

' 1 I j.

In consideration of the documents submitted with the licence application and all submissions and observations made on the licence application, and having considered the processes and

associated with the activity (as now outlined throughout this Inspector's Report), a screening for Appropriate Assessment was undertaken to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge and the conservation objectives ,of the site, if the activiw, individually or in combination with other plans or projects is likely to .have a significant effect on any European Site. I n this context, particular attention was paid to the European Sites listed in the table above. The activity is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of any European Site and the Agency considered, for the reasons set out below, that it can be excluded on the basis of objective 'information, that the activiv, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, will have a significant effect on any European Site,

rdingly determined that an Appropriate Assessment of the activity was not required. ~ i , ' * rmination was based on the following reasons: . - ,

- I The-installation is not located within a European Site. G - : The only surface water pathway connecting the installation toda European Site arises

where the clean storm water from the installation discharges to a drain through SW1 and SW2 which flow via the Coolkill Lough Stream, which passes through Coolkill Lough and joinsithe Rockcor@ Stream which flows through the Drumgole and Drumhay Loughs and enters the Dromore River approximately 15 km downstream of the installation. The Dromore River flows south west before joining the River Annalee ,which continues to flow south westward before it flows through the LoughcOughter & Associated Loughs SAC. Therecis approximately 40 kms of surface water between the installation and the Lough Oughter & ASsociated Loughs SAC. The risk of surface water or groundwater contamination as a result of accidental emissions during washing activities, or from spillage from the wash water tanks, is minimal. The provision? of bunding and the protection of surface water and groundwater during washing activities are sufficient to ensure that accidental emissions from the activity will not impact on the qualifying interests of the European sites identified above. 1

I Given the distance between the activity and the Cough Oughter & Associated'Loughs . SAC, the quantity of wash water and the low level of contaminants in the wash . water, it is considered that if an accidental emission of wash water were to occur the

-.

15

wash water and its constituents will be. assimilated in the water body be reaches any European Site. The litter generated at the installation has high dry matter content and - within the concrete-floored, covered broiler houses until all broilers are rem the end of the batch. Therefore there is no pathway between the litter and su water/groundwater while the houses are stocked. When the houses are destocked the litter is removed from the sheds and loaded onto lorries for transport off-site for mushroom compost production or use as fertiliser on land and the houses are brushed and washed down. Considering the controls in place in relation to the management of organic fertiliser on-site, I am satisfied beyond reasonable scientific doubt that this method of handling the organic fertiliser (poultry litter) from the activity within the installation boundary will not have a significant effedt on any European Site. Wash 'water is used as a fertiliser on lands, that' are not within the installation boundary, in accordance with the Nitrates Regulations. Poultry litter is transported by 1 1

a contractor to mushroom compost production facilities or may be, used as an organic fertiliser on land in accordance with the Nitrates Regulations. The site of the activity for which the licence application is made, i.e. the rearing of poultry within the installation boundary, does'not extend to the' lands on which organic fertiliser may be used as fertiliser.-These lands are under the regulatory controls as outlined in the Nitraies Regulations, and these controls make it possible for.Depakment of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to know and take account of the additional input of nitrogen and phosphorous from the activity, with a view to ensuring there is no downstream environmental pollution. The movement of organic fertilisers is also regulated by the European Animal By-product ' Regulations '(EC Regulation No 1069/2009 and Commission Regulation 142/.011), (Animal By- Product Regulations), as the movement of the organic fertiliser m-ust be carried out

-It is considered that the regulatory systems in place will ensure that cumulative impacts as a result of the use of organic fertiliser on land from this activity will not have a significant effect on any European Sites In addition, the Agency notes that the activities which, can take place within European Sites are restricted by legislation.< All persons must obtain the written consent from the relevant Minister before performing particular operations on, or affecting, particular habitats where they occur on lands/waters within the Special Area of Conservation. Hence, further regulatory controls exist for the spreading of fertilisers within European Sites. Therefore I consider that the use of poultry litter and wash water as fertiliser in accordance with the Nitrates Regulationsawill not cause environmental pollution and I am satisfied beyond reasonable scientific doubt that use of wash water and poultry litter as fertiliser from the activity will not have a significant effection any European Sites. The use of the installations poultry litter for; mushroom compost production will not cause environmental pollution and I am satisfied beyond reasonable scientific doubt $hat this method of handling the organic fertiliser (poultry litter) from the activity will not have a significant effect on any European Site.

i l ' * I 1 ,

I

' by commercial hauliers, registered with the DAFM. 3 ,

I

I

Based on the use of SCAIL Agriculture3,~ammonia emissions from this activity are'not predicted to have- a significant impact on sensitive receptors within the European Sites listed above. Based on the model output, nitrogen deposition as a result of this activity will not have a significant effect on sensitive receptors within these European Sites. Noise levels from poultry installations are very low and as the nearest European Site is 13.7 km northwest of the installation (klroosky Lough Cluster SAC), it is considered that noise will not impact on the qualifying interests within that European Site . The installation is located in a rural area where the predominant farming activities involve the rearing of livestock. There are two licensed intensive agriculture installations within 5 kms of the installation. Given the small scale of emissions associated with these activities, it is considered that the activity in combination with other plans or projects will not have a significant effect on any European Sites.

7 ,

1

,

+

For the foregoing reasons it was concluded there will be no significant effects on the qualifying interests of any European Sites arising from air emissions, water emissions, noise emissions or accidental emissions from the activity.

* I 1 ,

14. Capacity of Installation

Monagtian County Council have confirmed in its planners report that the maximum capacity permitted by the planning permissions granted for this installation is 140,000 broilers. The EIS prepared in support of.,the planning application (dated November 2015) refers to a capacity of approximately Y40,OOO. It .is noted that the .licence application was made for a capacity of 140,000 birds.

Therefore Schedule A. of the RD limits the number of birds housed on-site to 140,000 broilers.

4 . . *

I -

15. Cross Office Liaison

Caroline Kelly, Inspector, OEE' provided details of the current installation compliance status and conditions contained in the current licence which have been complied with and those that may require updating.

Extensive communication has taken place between the Environmental Licensing Programme (ELP) and the OEE in relation to licensing of the poultry sector. Advice and guidance issued by the OEE co-ordinated Intensive Agricultural Sectoral Working Group was followed in the assessment of this application.

16. Site Visit ,

A site visit was undertaken on 16th August 2016 by Martina Nolan (ELP). The following aspects were noted and/or discussed during a tour of the site:

Site levelling works for the construction of the additional, (4th) poultry house has commenced, although no 'structural work has commenced; The manner in which wash water is controlled and separated from storm water was discussed;

0 I The capacity of the new wash water storage tanks is to be approximately 36 m3.

/ 1

, .

. I

. . 1 . = , I

3 SCAlL Agriculture is a web based screening tool available at http://www.scail.ceh.ac.uk/

17

The map included in the application was representative of what was visible The location of the storm water discharge points were discussed; . i

. I 0 There are silt traps present on-site; and * . I , I . ;/I

0 There was no odour apparent on-site or off-site; i

- 1

i

There is no well available to the site, only the Drumgole GWS. 1 1

’ 11gi . .

Based on this visit and the information provided by the licensee and the Planning Authoqty, I am satisfied that a further site visit for the purposes of the assessment of this application is not required. , - ‘ *

17. Compliance Record ’ 1

No incidents or complaints were recorded for this installation since Licence Reg. No. P0827- 01 was granted. Following a site inspection on the 21St May 2013, 1 non-compliance was issued which related to Conditions 3.6 and 11.8 for an incomplete 2012 AER.

On the day’of the last OEE site visit (Ref. SV03624, 31St July 2015), the licensee was found to be in compliance with the conditions of the licence a t the time of the site visit.

18. Fit & Proper Person Assessment

The Fit & Proper Person test requires three elements of examination:

I - 1 ”

i

Technical Ability

The licensee, Eamon Clerkin is the owner and operator of this installation..Eamon Clerkin is an experienced operator of this poultry farm, which has been operating in excess of 20 years. It is considered that the licensee has demonstrated the ,technical knowledge required. The licensee has held a licence issued by the EPA since 18* October 2007, PO827-01.

Leqal Standing

Neither the licensee nor any relevant person has relevant convictions under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 as amended, the Waste Management Act 1996 as amended, the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts 1997 as amended, the Air Pollution Act 1987 and the Air Pollution Act 1987 (Environmental Specifications for Petrol and Diesel Fuels)(Amendment) Regulations 2004.

Eamon Clerkin has no history of incidents or legal infringements with regard to the effect of the existing poultry farm on the local environment.

Financial Standing

The licensee has supplied a declaration confirming that he has the financial ability to meet any liabilities associated with the activity. Due to the nature of the activity, poultry rearing, it is not likely to lead to significant environmental liabilities.

It is my view, that the licensee can be deemed a Fit & Proper Person for the purpose of this review application. I

19. Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) ’

The following sections identify, describe and assess the likely significant direct and indirect effects of the activity on the’ environment, as respects the matters that come within the functions of the Agency, for each of the following factors: human beings, flora, fauna, soil, water, air, climate, the landscape, material assets and cultural heritage.

The main mitigation measures proposed to address the range of predicted significant impacts arising from the activity have also been outlined. The cumulative impacts with other

’

. ‘

* a

r

18

developments in the vicinity of the activity have also been considered, as regards the

This section must be read in conjunction with the analysis carried out in all sections of this report. 1

* I impacts of emissions from the activity. , I

19(a) Human Beings

Likely significant effect.

Odour nuisance

. \

Noise impact beyond the installation boundary

I . . .

Dust deposition beyond the installation boundary

! > , . . z

Nuisance from landspreading . 7 1

8 . .

Description of effect

Odour arising from site operations, organic fertiliser management and waste management may result in neighbouring ,residents experiencing odour nuisance'on occasion. Noise from the operation of the installation may result in neighbouring residents experiencing noise nuisance on occasion. Dust may arise from the expelling of warm air from the ventilation systems, filling of meal storage bins or the loading of organic fertiliser into lorries, which may deposit beyond& the installation boundary. Landspreading is not conducted and/or permitted on-site. Where organic fertiliser -,is transported off-site for landspreading as fertiliser, it could lead to nuisance being experienced by affected residents.

Assessment of Effects on Human Beings : I S

19[a)[i) Odour Nuisance

I, , ' -.. .

Assessment addressed in

Section: 19(a)(i)

19(a)( ii)

19(a)(iii)

19(a)(iv) 1 ,

4 I '

. I . . Odour arising from the installation could have the potential to cause nuisance for those living in the vicinity of the installation. The nearest dwelling house to the installation is 45 m to the west. However, as discussed in Section 7*.1 above, odour is not expected to be a significant environmental issue at or beyond the installation boundary. Therefore direct impacts as a result of odour from the activity are considered to be neither likely nor significant.

The installation is situated in an agricultural area where odours from agricultural activities outside the installation may occur on occasion but any odours experienced will most likely be of short duration. It is noted that there are no other intensive activities (pig or poultry, rearing) in the vicinity of the installation that would generate a continuous significant odour. There.are two licensed intensive agriculture installations within 5 km of the installation. It is considered that there will be no significant cumulative odour impact from the activity and other odour generating activities in the area. It is also considered that no secondary or indirect effeqts are likely as a result ofodour from the activity.

Mitigation Measures

I . *

3 ' T

8 ,

- - -

Maintaining a high standard of litter management; Adequate use of bedding material; Stocking density maintained at design level;

- -

Quality.ventilation due to computerised/automated control; Minimisation of carcasses by maintaining stock density. at design levels and high health status; Storage of carcasses in covered, leak proof containers pending collection; The use of low protein diets. Using feed with optimum crude protein con minimise nitrogen excretion. This will keep ammonia emissions from venti

Maintaining water and feed systems in optimum condition and operating them in a manner so as to minimise water and feed wastage.

- -

systems and organic fertiliser transportation to a minimum; and 9 -

. r , t

These odour management measures and their effectiveness will be addressed and monitored in an odour management plan which is required by condition in the RD. The RD requires that this programme shall be reviewed and submitted annually, as part of the Annual Environmental Report (AER) for this activity.

Condition 2.5 of the RD (Communications Programme) has been included in the RD to facilitate a specific consultation process with local residents on matters relating to nuisance from the installation.

Condition 5 of the RD requires that amenities, the environment and any legitimate uses of the environment beyond the installation boundary shall not be impaired or interfered with by emissions, including odour, arising from the activity.

Conclusion

I am satisfied that based on the above assessment, the nature of the activity and the mitigation measures' in place, that the likelihood of a significant odour nuisance effect occurring is negligible. The odour management'plan will facilitate on-going monitoring of the effectiveness of odour mitigation measures.

Accordingly, if the activity is carried out in accordance with the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The conditions of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce,the likelihood of accidental emissions occurring and limit the environmental consequences of an accidental emission should one occur.

1

+

< . 8 , r >

19fa)fii) Noise imDact beyond the installation boundary ' 1

Noise may be generated from the operation of equipment, and during loading and unloading operations (feed, organic fertiliser and birds). Noise from the activity could have the potential to cause nuisance for nearby sensitive receptors. However as discussed in Section 7 above, noise is not expected to be an issue a t or beyond the installation boundary, as per the experience from other established poultry farms in the country. The installation is located in a rural setting with the nearest dwelling house to-the installation located 45 m to the west. No noise complaints have been received by the licensee, the HSE or the Agency. Therefore direct impacts as a result of noise from the activity are considered to be neither likely nor significant.

There are no other installations or. akivities'in the vicinity that are likely to generate noise to an extent that could lead to likely' or significant cumulative effects beyond the installation boundary.

1 )

I t ...

I . , I

20

Mitigation Measures i -, I .

The following mitigation measures will reduce the likelihood of a negative impact on human beings from noise nuisance:

Activities on-site to be' managed so as to occur at times when the effects (including noise) within/outside of the installation will be minimal;

Use 'of automated feeding and watering systems; .

Appropriate maintenance of water, feed and ventilation systems; High insulation levels of the buildings; Organic fertiliser/bird movements will be timed where possible to reduce noise

Houses to be cleaned out as quickly as possible.

c ' l 'I,

-

r . - Maintaining stock density at design level; I "

+ I . - 1 - -

, 8 1 ,

' * 7 . effects on people; and . . : -

5 of the RD requires that amenities, the environment and any legitimate uses of the environment beyond the installation boundary shall not'be impaired or interfered with by

The RDirequires the-licensee to carry out a noise survey and noise monitoring, as required by the 4gency. Standard noise conditions and emission limit values have been included' in the RD. \ <

I am satisfied that there will not be significant effects on the environment from noise from the installation.

Accordingly, if the activity is carried 'out in accordance with the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The conditions of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the-likelihood of accidental emissions occurring and limit the environmental consequences of ar;l accidental emission should one occur.

' I : emissions, including noise, arising from the,activity. *.

' 1 ,

Conclusilon i r

I .

' 19(a)(iii) Dust deposition bevond the installation boundary

4 '

Dust arising from the activity could have the potential to deposit beyond the installation boundary, causing nuisance for those living nearby and potentially affecting habitats located close to the installation boundary. The nearest dwelling house,to the installation is 45 m to the west. While minimal, dust impact may occur locally within the installation boundary during organic fertiliser loading operations (which only occur every 8-10 weeks); dust is not expected to be a significant issue beyond the installation boundary, in keeping with experience for poultry rearing activities in Ireland and the British Isles. Therefore direct impacts! as a result of dust from the activity are considered to be neither likely nor significant .' There are no other installations or activities in the vicinity which are likely to be a significant source of dust that could lead to likely or significant cumulative effects from dust deposition on any area beyond the installation boundary. Mitigation Measures a .

The following mitigation measures will further reduce the likelihood of an impact from dust arising on-site:

Dust emissions are minimised by the regular and thorough cleaning of houses between batches, and having an appropriate ventilation system in place, The

r # '

-

2 i'

I i . taken where appropriate; I ' l

- - All organic fertiliser and wastes leaving .the installation will be .done

The RD requires that dust associated with the activity does not resultsin an impair or an interference with, amenities or the environment a t the installation or beyond the installation boundary or any other legitimate uses,of the environment beyond the installation boundary. * r

Conclusion - I r

Based on the above assessment, I am satisfied that there will not be significant effects on the environment from dust emissions from the installation..

Accordingly, if the activity is carried out in accordance with, the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The conditions of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the likelihood of accidental emissions occurring and limit the environmental consequences of an accidental r i

emission should one occur.

Yard areas will be regularly cleaned in order to minimise dust; and

appropriately designed and covered trailers.

'

I &

'. I # *

f - <

<

. .

' _ * I ' _ .

19[a)(iv) Nuisance from landspreadinq

Landspreading is not conducted and/or permitted within the installation boundary so nuisance from landspreading or direct impacts, on soil, water and groundwater quality and habitats in the immediate vicinity of the installation and consequential indirect effects on people, water, soil, flora and fauna and their habitats will not occur.

As outlined in Section 7.7 above, wash water from washing activities is used as a fertiliser on the licensee's farmland. i

Poultry litter may be sent for use as an organic fertiliser on land or for use in th'e mushroom compost production industry.

It is important to note that the I E licence relates to the site of the activity for which the licence application is made and does not extend to the lands on which organic fertiliser may be used as fertiliser. The organic fertiliser (wash water and poultry- litter) will pass beyond the control of the licence conditions when it leaves the installation. The transportation and use of organic fertiliser beyond the installation boundary is subject to the documentation and control described in Section 7.7. While impack could occur on or near the spreadlands (nuisance, pollution of water/groundwater/soil, impacts on flora and fauna) these would be' indirect effects of the activity only and are subject to the control of the Nitrates Regulations system. As discussed and reasoned in Section 7.7 above, I consider that the transport and use of organic fertiliser as fertiliser in accordance with the Nitrates Regulations and Animal By-product Regulations will not cause environmental pollution.

From a cumulative impacts perspective, the installation is located in a rural area where the predominant farming activities involve the rearing of livestock, pig and poultry, therefore all farms in the area will produce a quantity of organic fertiliser which they a're individually obliged to manage and utilise in accordance with the Nitrates Regulations. , ,

The Nitrates Regulations specify a maximum organic nitrogen loading per ha on all farmers of 170 kg/ha, a farmer may seek a derogation to apply up to 250 kg/ha, however if the farmer applies for a derogation he cannot import organic fertiliser. I n addition, the Nitrates Regulations specifies when organic fertiliser can be applied to land; the application rates etc. and these regulations are enforced by the DAFM and Local Authorities. Failure by a farmer

22

to comply with the Nitrates Regulations may'result in DAFM"imposing a penalty (deduction from the farmer's single farm payment). I n addition to the.requirements of the Nitrates Regulations, landowners who have lands which ha$e: been designated European Sites must comply with any additional requirements of the designation (see Section 13 above). 3

The quantity of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) generated by the activity is 33,600 kgs and 12,600 kgs, respectively, based on the figures available in the Nitrates Regulations (annual nutrient excretion rates for livestock). The organic fertiliser generated by, the activity represents a negligible quantity relative to the quantity of organic fertiliser arising from the livestock sectors in the Republic of Ireland (cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry). The national production of organic fertiliser from livestock, .based on 2013 livestock figures was approximately 462,000 tonnes of N and 30,000 tonnes of P. Relative to the national quantity of organic fertiliser the proposed activity will generate an insignificant amount of nitrogen and phosphorous which*will have no impact+on the State's ability to achieve its objectives under the Nitrates Regulations and Directive.

Aside from potential pollution and nuisance, which are negative in nature, the application of organic fertiliser to land as fertiliser is a positive effect of the development. There has been a steady reduction in the sale (tonnes) of fertiliser N and P over the last 25 years. Nitrogen

sales in 1990 were 380,000 tonnes-and increased to 443,000 tonnes in 1998 by a general decline to 330,000 tonnes in 2015. Phosphorus fertiliser sales fell from

almost 65,000 tonnes in 1990 to 20,000 tonnes in 2010. This data shows a reduction in the N and P,pressure, Where the land and crop grown thereon has capacity to use the fertiliser, its agricultural utility'is increased, and the use of locally sourced organic fertiliser has a positive environmental effect in reducing the demand for, and transport of, 'manufactured (inorganic) fertilisers. I

With regard to sending organic fertiliser for composting it is considered (as outlined .in Section 7.7) that the use of the licensee's poultry litter will not cause environmental pollution and I am satisfied that the method of handling the organic fertiliser (poultry litter) from the activity will not have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures 8 '

Any landspreading occurring outside' of the installation boundary must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Nitrates Regulations and will be monitored and controlled by the DAFM and Local Authorities.

The RD requires that records of organic fertiliser sent off-site for use on land are maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Nitrates Regulations.

Records of organic fertiliser that is sent for cornposting must also be maintained. Conclusion . ,

There is no landspreading of organic'fertiliser within the installation boundary and I am satisfied that there will be no significant effects on the environment from landspreading which is subject to the controls of the Nitrates Regulations.

Accordingly, if the activity is carried on in accordance with the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The conditions of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the likelihood of accidental emissions occurring and limit the environmental consequences of an accidental emission should one occur.

. '

I

6 j'

23

Assessment of Positive Effects on Human Beings

Positive effects on human beings from the activity will include provision of food-supplfi employment associated with the installation. These are outside the Agency's remit and; dealt with by the planning auttiority.

19(b) Flora &:fauna

Likely significant effect

Water pollution damaging aquatic habitats or directly impacting '. aquatic fauna/flora;.

I

Attraction of pests/rodents.

1 "

Noise impact beyond the installation boundary.

Dust deposition beyond the installation boundary. .

' -

Air pollution damaging habitats or directly impacting flora/fauna.

. . %

j , 1 ,

Description of effect I '

Potential fo i contamination of surface water systems from the sites activities and from landspreading I of organic fertiliser which could damage aquatic habitats and/or . individual aquatic species. Dead birds . can result in high populations of scavengers and has the potential for increasing the spread of bacteria and disease.

Scavenging vermin may be attracted to uncovered waste. Noise from the operation of the installation may result I in fauna experiencing noise on occasion. Dust may arise from the expelling of warm air from the ventilation systems, filling of meal storage bins or the loading/unloading of animals/organic fertiliser, which may impact on flora and fauna. Ammonia emissions from the installation could have the potential to impact on flora and fauna.

e 1

t:

i, , . I ./I/ I\ .

Effect '

assessed in ' Section:

19(a)( iv) 19(d)(i)

r . I ,

I

19(a)( ii) .i' , I ,

19(a)( iii).

19(e)(i) .

I Assessment of Effects on Flora and Fauna

19(b)(i) Attraction of pest/rodents

The storage of uncovered wastes and dead birds at the installation could attract pests/rodents to the installation. Where infestation 'by pests occurs, this has negative secondary effects for humans in terms of amenity and potential spread of disease. Predation and spread of disease could also be an issue for flora and fauna beyond the installation boundary.

However, the RD requires that bird carcasses are stored in covered, leak-proof containers and removed at least fortnightly to an approved installation. All other wastes must be appropriately segregated, stored, labelled and removed from the installation which will significantly reduce the likelihood of pests being' attracted to the installation. This 'will prevent the occurrence of possible primary, secondary, direct r and " 1 I indirect negative effects.

There are no other large scale developments or activities close to the installation where pests could arise at levels that might lead to cumulative effects.

I

24

Mitigation Measures I .

The following mitigation measures will further reduce the likelihood of- a negative impact from pests and vermin:

Appropriate storage and regular removal of wastes (including carcasses) which could attract pests;' Regular removal of wastes and carcasses which could attract pests; Good housekeeping around the site, including vermin control to avoid an impact on the amenities outside the installation boundary; Maintenance of feed systems to minimise spills which could attract pes&; Weed control around the site to remove any potential cover for vermin; and Vermin/pest control system in place, with vermin control carried out in accordance with Bord Bia and DAFM requirements.

The RQ requires the implementation of a pest control programme and includes conditions for waste , I management at the installation.

conclusion

Based on the above assessment and the mitigation measures in place, I am satisfied that there will not be significant effects on the environment from pests or vermin.

Accordingly, if the activity is carried out in accordance with the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The conditions of the @D and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the likelihood of accidental emissions 'occurring and limit the environmental consequences of an accidental< emission should one occur.

19(c) Ail

-

- -

- - -

- , h i 4

+ A . , I _

e t

.Description of effect

Accidental spillages or wash water tank failure could impact on soil quality. Contamination of soil from spreading organic fertiliser /wash water.

I .

' I . !

'

Effect assessed in

Section: 19(d)(i)

19(a)(iv)

i , I I

I ! i

i ,

tikely significant effect I ,

Contamination from accidental spillages. Reduction in soil quality of spreadlands.

I

- . Assessment of Effects on Soil t

See assessments documented in Sectiqns 19(a)(iv) and 19(d)(i).

Conclusion

I am satisfied that there will not be significant effects.on soil from the operation of the activity. , . I

Accordingly, if the activity is carried out in accordance with the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The conditions of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the likelihood of accidental emissions occurring and limit the environmental consequences of an accidental emission should one occur.

,

. ..

19(d) Water

.Likely significant effect

Diffuse pollution of surface water/groundwater from landspreading soiled water.. Pollution of surface water/ groundwater from accidental spillages or storage of organic fertiliser at the installation.

Description of effea

Potential run-off to local water courses if organic fertiliser is over applied.

I ,

Assessment of Effects on Water

Potential contamination could occur if washing activities on-site are not managed appropriately and if wash water collection tanks are not adequately managed and maintained. Unexkcted spillages of chemicals, disinfectants etc. could. impact on surface water and groundwater.

.. , I

, : '

I . . .

. I ,

19[d)[i) Pollution of surface water/groundwater from accidental spillaaes or storaqe of organic fertiliser at the installation

n - Accidental spillages of various hazardous and non-hazardous substances could occur on-site which could cause pollution to surface water, groundwater and soil. This could affect those using the gcoundwater body as a source of drinking water. It could also have the potential to indirectly affect surface water quality downstream, as well as aquatic habitats within that surface water. As outlined in Section 7.6 above; the' possibility of soil and 'groundwater contamination from hazardous substances at the site of the installation is 'considered to be low.

Other materials stored on-site are mainly solid materials (e.g. organic fertiliser, feedstuffs and wastes) and the risk of that material entering soil; water or groundwater is very low and would be limited to times when the houses are being washed out. As the likelihood of spillages is low, damage to aquatic habitats or species . , as a result of spillages is unlikely.

As outlined in Sections 7.4 and 7.7 above, wash water arising from the washing and disinfection of the poultry houses is collected via collection drains and diverted to the four underground storage tanks (one for each house and an additional one for the nitrates store).

The RD requires that the storm water drainage channels are diverted to"the underground storage tanks prior to the commencement of any yard washing activities and that .a written' procedure and records are maintained. Should wash water accidentally discharge to surface water or ground; this could potentially affect the quality of surfacec water, soil and groundwater directly, which could affect those using the surface water or groundwater body as a source of drinking water. It could also have the potential to indirectly affect surface water quality downstream, as well as aquatic habitats within that surface water. As outlined in Section 7.4 and 7.7 above, the risk to soil, groundwater and surface water from accidental spillages of wash water during washing or, poultry litter removal is minimal and it is considered that any effect that might occur would be limited, insignificant and of short duration.

As further outlined in Section 7.7, the wash water storage tanks provide 42 weeks storage capacity. This is well in excess of the 26 week storage requirements of the European Union (Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Waters) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No. 31 of 2014).

26

There are requirements in the RD regarding maintaining a'freeboard and the periodic assessment of all underground effluent storage tanks which will significantly reduce the

As outlined in Section 7.7. organic fertiliser (other than wash water) +arising from -the installation is not stored'at the installation.

There are no other installations or activities in the viciniGwhere there could be'a significant risk of release of wash water or other substances to ground that could lead to likely or significant cumulative effects on groundwater, soil, surface water or habitats when considered in tandem with the activities at this installation.

likelihood of spillages from the wash water storage tanks themselves. * t

7 - ,

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures will further reduce the likelihood of an impact on water and soil quality from organic fertiliser (including wash water) and from accidental spillages arising on-site: ,

' -

- The poultry litter is dry; s

-

The licensable activity takes place on an impermeable concrete,base;

All houses are thoroughly brushed out and all organic fertiliser is removed from site before washing commences, reducing the nutrient content of the resulting washwater; No organic fertiliser storage on-site (other than wash water); 211 wash water is diverted to wash water storage tanks; and I n excess of 26 weeks organic fertiliser (wash water) storage capacity is provided on- site.

The RD ,requires that the wash water storage tank are fitted with high level indicators within %elve months of the date of grant .of this licence. It also requires that all underground effluent storage tanks are assessed within twelve months of date of grant of this licence, and at least once every five years thereafter.

- - -

As the collection drains at the installation must be manually diverted to direct soiled water from yard washing to the storage tanks, Condition 6.9 requires that the drainage channels are diverted to the underground storage tanks prior to the commencement of any washing activities and that a written procedure and records are maintained.

The RD also requires that the storm water discharge points are visually inspected weekly and monitored for BOD and COD as required by the Agency, in accordance 'with Schedule

The RD includes conditions in relation to materials handling. The RD requires appropriate storage of materials and wastes, that loading and unloading of materials shall be carried out in designated areas protected against spillage and leachate run-off, and ,that bunding be provided for all tank and drum storage areas.

The RD also requires that accident and emergency response procedures are put in place and that there is. an adequate supply of containment booms and/or suitable absorbent material to contain and absorb any spillage a t the installation.

These measures will, help to, control any impacts which could occur should any mitigation measures<fail. I - ?

Conclusion I .I I

C.2.3,Monitoring of Storm Water Emissions. I , .

Based on the above assessments and the mitigation measures proposed, I am satisfied that there will not be significant effects on the environment from the storage and management

27

of organic fertiliser (including wash water) or from accidental spillage of materials to water, groundwater or soil a t the installation.

Accordingly, if the activity is carried on in accordance with the RD ana the CO attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The conditihs of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the likelih accidental emissions occurring and limit the environmental consequences! of an acc emission should one occur. I )

. , ( .

. ,' I _ I

19(e) Air

. Likely significant effect

installation boundary '

Noise impact beyond the installation boundary

Dust deposition beyond the installation boundary

habitats and species

Description of effect

Odour arising from site operations, organic fertiliser management and waste management may result in a deterioration of air quality in the vicinity of the installation. Noise could arise from ventilation systems on the houses and from the loading of poultry and organic fertiliser at the end of each batch. Dust may arise from the expelling of warm air from the ventilation systems, filling of meal storage bins or the loading of organic fertiliser into lorries, which may .deposit beyond the installation boundary. Habitats and species (including flora and fauna) have the potential It0 .be impacted by ammonia emissions from the activity.

' Assessment of Effects on Air

, 1. ' 7 . , I .

Effect assessed in

I Section: 19(a)(i>

19( a) ( i i ) I

19(a)( iii) : ' I .

.. . ,

I,

19(e)(i) . '

See assessments documented in Sections 19(a)(i), 19(a)(ii) and 19(a)(iii).

19(e)[i) Ammonia emissions imDacting habitats and species

Ammonia emissions from this activity could have the potential to impact sensitive receptors

As outlined in Section 13, such qualifying interests in European Sites will not be affected by ammonia emissions from the installation. The presence of sensitive receptors outside of the European Sites has not been identified. In addition, the infrastructure on-site is considered BAT for ammonia reduction. , f I

The- 'area surrounding the installation is rural with rural dwellings and typical mixed grassland farming activities. Farming activities in ttie vicinity of the installation are grassland based livestock production and tillage, and do not pccur a t an intensive level.

Therefore significant effects from ammonia emissions on air quality or on lichens and bryophytes, or indirectly on those species which depend on them, are unlikely.

,

(e.g. lichens, bryophytes etc.) in the vicinity of the installation.l !

28

I

, . .

I :

i 'I

I !

' i j i

, I I

I , , ' I ' I i

I

, i . . i 1

In addition, I ~ consider that the risk of significant cumulative impacts a from ammonia emissions on air quality or on lichens and bryophytes, or indirectly on those species which depend on them, is low.

Mitigation Measures

The odour reduction tmeasures outlined %in Section 19(a)(i) will help to mitigate against ammonia emissions occurring.

Conclusion

Considering the assessment above, it is concluded that there will be no significant effect on the environment from ammonia emissions from the licensable activity.

Accordingly, if the activity is carried on in3 accordance with the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The conditions of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the, likelihood of accidental emissions occurring and even if an accidental emission should, occur, it will not have a significant effect on the environment, and the conditions are such as to ensure it will not be repeated.

19(f) Climate I

Likely significant effect 1 )

. I

Release of climate altering substances.

$ 1

Description of effect

Climate altering substances may be released in small quantities from animal housing, storage of organic fertiliser, from 'traffic, and as a result of heating the poultry houses.

Effect assessed in

Section: 19Q(i> I,

. I

I I

Assessment of Effects on Climate

19tflli) Release of climate altering substances - *

Climate change is a significant giobal issue which affects weather and environmenk. conditions which consequently affects human resources and amenities as well as biodiversity and habitats. Climate change is caused by the warming of the climate system by enhanced levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human -activities, including intensive agriculture. In Ireland, the greenhouse gases most3 commonly associated with agriculture are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

Poultry litter is a dry, solid material and remain; in the poultry house until the end of the batch. The litter is completely removed from the installation a t the end of each batch (every 6-8 weeks). With appropriate management and bedding during a batch, methane emissions from the poultry litter during a batch will be minimal.

Heating for the poultry houses at this' installation is provided by gas burners. Two gas fuelled back-up generators provide electricity. Both sources are considered minor emissions. Electricity is used to power the equipment on-site. The licensee states that they will operate the installation in order to maximise resource efficiency.

The impact of trakc movements associated with the development is'dealt with in the decision of the planning authority to grant planning permission for the poultry houses and is not controlled by the Agency. The planning authority has considered the impacts to be acceptable.

. L

,

A I I , ' i

29

Given the small quantity of climate altering substances that could be released fro activity, in a national context, I consider that the cumulative impact of any emission

MitQation Measures ,

The RD requires energy efficiency and resource use efficiency to be addressed as part Resource Use and Energy Programme.

Conclusion

the installation on climatic considerations should be insignificant. . J

I am satisfied that there will not be significant effects on climate from the,operation of the activity.

Accordingly, if the activity is carried out in accordance with the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The conditions of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the likelihood of accidental emissions occurring and limit the environmental consequences, of an accidental emission should one occur.

19(g) Landscape, Material Assets & Cultural Heritage

Likely significant effect

Disturbance of archaeology from the operation of the activity

Disturbance of architecture from the operation of the activity.' Landscape and visual impact from the operation of the activity

Cultural impacts from the operation of the activity

Use) of natural resources and generation of wastes . -

1

Description of effect Effect Passessed in

Section: There is no evidence of any 19(g)(i) archaeological features . within the

'

installation boundary. The operation of the activity is unlikely to impact on '

archaeoloqical features. There are no buildings of architectural 19(g)(i) siqnificance located on the site. The installation is located in a rural 19(g)(ii) area. No additional impacts on the landscape are expected from the operation of the activity. I

The operation of the activity is unlikely 19(g)(ii) to negatively impact on the agricultural culture of thetarea. Water, oil, gas, wood chips and 19(g)(iii) ele'ctricity will be used in the operation of the activity. I

Small quantities of waste will be produced including waste veterinary products, fluorescent tubes, carcasses and other qeneral waste. -

I

. .-,

[ I '

1 2

Assessment of Effects on landscape, material assets and cultural heritage,

19(a)[i) Disturbance of archaeoloav and architecture from the operation of the activity

Any loss of archaeological or architectural heritage could impact negatively on human beings. These matters are dealt with in the decision of the planning authority to grant planning permission for the poultry houses and are not controlled by ithe Agency. The planning authority has considered the impacts to be acceptable.

There are no buildings or features of architectural significance and no known archaeological features a t or near the site of the installation, and it is very difficult to envisage any pathway

t

f , .

I : I

I

! ! 1 "

I . I :

( .

by which emissions from the operation of the activity could impact any feature which might be present.

No mitigation measures have been proposed. . . *

I ? ' ~ 3 ' I - ' f '

< ,

-~ I MitMation Measures 1 36

I am satisfied thatthere will not be significant effects on archaeology or architecture from the operation of the activity.

Accordingly, if the activity is carried out in accordance with the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution.

19[qIfii) LandscaDe, visual and cultural imDact

Any disturbance of the landscape or the cultural heritage of an area has'the potential' to impact on human beings andstheir enjoyment of the surrounding area. These matters are dealt with in the decision of the planning authority to grant planning permission for the poultry unit and are not controlled by the Agency. The planning authority has considered the impacts to be acceptable. 1 .

The installation'is located in an agricultural area that is not highly populated. Emissions from the operation of the activity will not impact on the agricultural landscape and culture of the area. The existing poultry houses have been in situ for more than 20 years.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures have been proposed?

i

Conclusion

I am satisfied that there will not be significant effects on the landscape, visual or cultural heritage of the area from the operation of the activity.

Accordingly, if the activity is carried out in accordance with the RD and the conditions attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution.

I

19(qMiii) Use of natural resources and qeneration of wastes

As outlined in Section 10 *of this report, the RD includes conditions dealing with water, energy and raw material use, reduction and efficiency on-site. The use of natural resources by the activity will not be significant.

As discussed in Section 8, the activity does not produce significant quantities of waste and waste generation is minimised by employing best technologies combined with good management practices on-site and maintaining a high health status on the installation.

The installation is located in a rural area:with most of the developments in the vicinity of the installation being dwelling houses and farm yards, all of which would use minimal amounts of resources and produce minimal amounts of waste. There are two other intensive agricultural activities within 5 kms of the installation. However, significant cumulative effects on the environment from the use of resources or production of waste by this installation and other developments are not likely.

Mitigation Measures .

The RD requires that waste is appropriately segregated and stored while on-site and that all waste sent off-site is transported and recovered/disposed in accordance with National ' and European Legislation and that waste records are maintained.

- A I i ' .i , . . 1 ' 1

3 i

Conclusion i

I am satisfied that there will not be significant effects on the environment from the natural resources or the generation of waste from the operation of the activity.

Accordingly, if the activity is carried out in accordance with the RD and the con attached, the operation of the activity will not cause environmental pollution. The con of the RD and the mitigation measures proposed will significantly reduce the likelihodd [,of accidental emissions occurring and I limit the environmental consequences of an accidental emission should one occur. i

\ . ', ' . .I . . , . \ -

t

I - -

19(h) Interaction of effects L !

I have considered the interaction between the factors referred to in Tables (a)'to (9) above and the interaction of the likely effects identified.

The interaction between factors as a result of the operation of the installation are summarised below, as provided by Figure 4.1 of the EIS submitted as part of the application:

I, I

' i , . - '

1 .. ." . . . ., , ..

I > l

The most significant interaction, as addressed in the earlier parts of this report, is as follows:

Water, soil and flora and fauna . , . Accidental discharges of wash water or other substances to ground may directly and indirectly impact on soil, groundwater quality, surface water quality downstream, aquatic

32

I

! I ' I j

t

I

' : j , /

1

' I

, "

!

habitats and aquatic flora and fauna. Indirect effects on soil, groundwater quality, surface water quality, habitats and flora and fauna may arise from landspreading wash water which arises from the activity. As demonstrated in Sections 19(a)(iv) and 19(d)(i) above, such impacts are considered not to be likely or significant.

Based on the assessment in Parts 19(a) to (9) above, and the mitigation measures proposed (including the relevant conditions in the RD), I do not consider that the interactions identified are likely to cause or exacerbate any potentially significant environmental effects of the activity.

Reasoned Conclusion on Envimnmental Impact Assessment

Having regard to the impacts (and interactions) identified, described and assessed above, I consider that the mitigation measures proposed will enable the activity to operate without causing environmental pollution. I also consider that the potential impacts on the environment identified above, even if they occur, are unlikely to damage the environment, and the risk of them occurring is not unacceptable.

20. Recommended Determination (RD)

I n prepar;ing this report and the RD I have consulted with Agency technical and sectoral advisors as appropriate. The RD specifies the necessary measures to provide that the installation shall be operated in accordance with the requirements of Section 83(5) of the EPA Act11992 as amended, and has regard to the AA screening and EIA. The RD gives effect to the re4uirements of the Environmental Protection Agency Acts 1992 as amended and has regard to submissions made.

21. Charges

The annual enforcement charge recommended in the RD is €2,552, which is considered appropriate to cover the costs associated with the enforcement of the RD. The Agency's 2016 enforcement charge for PO827-01 is listed as €2552; hence there is no change in the annual enforcement charge to be applied in the RD.

22. Recommendation

I recommend that a Proposed Determination be issued subject to the conditions and for the reasons as drafted in the RD.

Signed,

-<LA - Marti'a Nolan

Procedural Note

, . I n the event that no objections are received to the Proposed Determination of the application, a licence will be granted in accordance with Section 87(4) of the Environmental Protection Agency Acts 1992 as amended as soon as may be after the expiration of the appropriate period.

33