This memo has been cleared for submission to the Board by Senior Inspector, Dr Tom Mcl oughlin Signed: ;pet~ ... Date: ·u;j o"l- f l <t-

RESOURCE USE

INSPECTORS REPORT ON A LICENCE APPLICATION

To: Directors

From: St uart Huskisson ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSING

PROGRAMME

Date: 26th February 2014

Application for an Indust rial Emissions Licence from Mayo

RE: Renewable Power Limited, Killala Business Park, Tawnaghmore Upper and Tawnaghmore Lower, Killala, County Mayo

Licence Register P0958-01

Application Details

Class of activity:

Category of Activity under IED (2010/75/EU):

Title of BREF Document (main activity):

Additional applicable Chapters of the IED:

CRO Number:

Licence application received:

Additional information requested:

Addit ional information received:

Section 82A(3) letter issued:

Section 82A(3) response received:

Submissions received:

Site notice inspected:

Site visits:

2.1: Combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input of 50MW or more

1.1: Combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input of 50MW or more

BREF Document for Large Combustion Plants (July 2006)

Chapter III - Special Provisions for Combustion Plants

419426

3rd February 2012

30th March 2012, 28th March 2013, 21st October 2013,, 16th January 2014

1st February 2013, 20th May 2013, 29th October 2013, 1t h November 2013, 21st January 2014, 1t h February 2014

13th February 2014

17th February 2014

16th April 2012 - Health Service Executive

24th February 2012 and 21st February 2014

21st February 2014

Page I of2 1

1. Company Mayo Renewable Power Limited (MRPL) has applied for an Industrial Emissions Licence to operate a proposed new 132MWth Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant at the Killala Business Park, 3.2km south of Killala, County Mayo (Figure 1. Installation Location Map, at the end of this report). The capital cost of the proposed installation is €150M and the construction phase is expected to take approximately two years. The main fuel to be used will be wood biomass fuel briquettes (renewable) with gas oil used for back-up and during start up and shutdown. Gas oil will not be used as part of the primary fuel during regular operation.

The plant will be built on a site formerly part of the now closed Asahi Synthetic Fibres (Ireland) Limited site (IPPC licence Reg. No. P0232-01). Asahi ceased operations in 1997 and was voluntarily liquidated in 1998 and the site is now owned by Norbertune Limited. The Asahi IPPC licence has not been surrendered. SSE Generation Ireland Limited operates an Industrial Emissions licenced power plant (Reg. No. P0566-02 - original licence issued on 20th August 2000) on an adjacent site, which was also previously part of the Asahi site.

The majority of the approximately 2. 7 hectare site of the proposed installation is currently owned by Nobertune Limited, however MRPL has entered into conditional contracts for sale and upon completion of the acquisition MRPL will be the legal owner of this land. The remainder of the site is owned by Mayo County Council and MRPL is in negotiation with the County Council in relation to its acquisition (Figure 2. Installation Boundary at the end of this report).

MRPL is wholly owned by Weichert Enterprise, LLC (Weichert) which is a private equity investment concern located in New Jersey, USA. Weichert has participated in more than $!billion of financing and its investment interests span a range of sectors including power plants, industrial businesses and pharma manufacturing.

Planning permission for the power plant at Killala was granted in 2011 (Planning Register No. Pl0/997). An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required as part of the planning process. The Agency carried out EIA screening for this application on the 6th December 2012. This confirmed that an EIA, as respects the matters that come within the functions of the Agency, is not required for this activity. The EIA threshold for this sector relates to power stations and other combustion installations with a heat output of 300 megawatts or more.

The plant will be operated by Dalkia Limited on behalf of MRPL and will operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. There will be a total of 19 employees working over three shifts.

2. Process Description MRPL will generate steam using wood biomass briquettes to fuel a water cooled stoker grate boiler. The main processes to take place at the installation are power generation in the turbine building, raw water treatment, wastewater treatment, re-use of flue gas heat using a condensing economiser and storage of ash prior to re-use/disposal off site. Waste heat generated by the CHP plant will be utilised for the drying of wood chips brought onto the site and subsequently transported by conveyor to either a covered truck or sealed bags for onward sale. The plant will have a fully integrated, computer based automatic control system.

The fuel biomass briquettes, comprising of: (i) virgin wood material from the forestry industry; (ii) reclaimed wood from pallets; and (iii) segregated construction wood residuals; and meeting Irish Standard I.S. EN 15234-1:2011 Solid biofuels, will be imported from the USA and delivered to the installation. This fuel is the subject of an 'End of Waste' request, under Article 28 of the European Communities (Waste Directive) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 126 of 2011), which is being considered separately by the EPA. Further information is included in the Waste section of this report.

Fuel briquettes will be stored in dry fuel domes. The biomass fuel will be transferred to two storage domes each with a capacity of 11,000m3 and then fed into the boiler at a rate of 30 tonnes per hour at 7% moisture content. The heat input is calculated as 131.97 MWth·

Page 2 of21

Gas oil for a 7.33MW,h auxiliary back-up generator will be stored in a 340m3 bunded tank at the installation. This fuel oil will be used as a back-up fuel and during the start-up and shut­down process.

In the boiler, the biomass is burned on a water-cooled, vibrating stoker grate that can be adjusted to maintain optimal combustion conditions. Oxygen levels are also adjusted to ensure efficient combustion. The boiler system is designed to continuously produce 204,953kg/hr of 116.18 bar steam at a temperature of 510°C. Steam is fed to the turbines to generate electricity,

The steam will be extracted at several stages of the turbine to provide feed-water heating, and to improve the cycle efficiency. Steam will be exhausted from the turbine into a water cooled surface condenser designed to minimise the turbine exhaust pressure and optimise the turbine efficiency,

Flue gas is passed through an air quality control system consisting of Selective Catalytic Reduction for NOx control, and multi-cyclone dust collector and Electrostatic Precipitator for particulate removal. Latent heat from these streams is recovered by a series of heat exchangers.

A condensing economiser is utilised to recover heat from the boiler flue gas through a combination of indirect and direct contact heat exchangers, to preheat boiler feed water and the condensate. Utilisation of this recovered heat provides a significant improvement to the overall energy efficiency of the installation and reduced heat loss to atmosphere.

The electrical efficiency is expected to be 35.7% with an overall plant efficiency of 81.1 %. These values were submitted to and approved by the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) in MRPL's High Efficiency Combined Heat and Power application.

Biomass/Wood Drving Heat from the plant will be used for the drying of wood chip brought to the installation specifically for the purpose of drying, prior to being loaded to enclosed trucks or bags prior to being transported off site for use as a fuel. A portion of the waste heat in the circulation water at a temperature of 50°C will be used to warm ambient air to 45°C by passing through heat exchangers located in four belt type biomass dryers. The warm air will be passed through a moving bed of biomass, enabling drying down to 7% moisture content. The waste heat not utilised within the dryers will be directed to evaporative cooling towers.

2,495m 3 of wet fuel (wood chip) storage is available to feed into the dryers. The overall capacity from the dryers is 30 tonnes per hour of dry wood chip (7% moisture) with a bulk density of 220 kg/m3

• The dried fuel will be top fed into a 33 metre diameter storage dome with a capacity of 6,247m3

• The dried wood chips will be removed for offsite use. The applicant has advised that wood will not be chipped at the installation.

Boiler Ash The fly ash is collected from the gas stream at various points in the boiler system including air heater, electrostatic precipitator and multi-cyclone dust collector. The ash is then sent by screw conveyer through a rotary seal valves, moved into a common ash transfer drag chain conveyor and then transferred to the fly ash storage silo, prior to removal from the site. Water spray is used for dust suppression during loading.

Bottom ash is discharged to a submerged drag chain conveyor that is designed to quench the ash and convey it to a covered skip for temporary storage prior to removal from site for re-use or disposal. It is MRPL's intention that the boiler bottom ash be sold for use as forestry fertiliser. MRPL submitted an Article 27 By-Product notification under the European Communities (Waste Directive) Regulations 2011 to the Agency on 27'h July 2013 in relation to the use of bottom ash as a fertiliser in forestry or agriculture which is under separate consideration by the Agency. This process is currently on-going.

Pagc3of21

The RD provides for the control of the combustion process at the installation. Irrespective of the Agency's consideration of the By-Product notification (Article 27), the conditions in the RD in relation to waste management will remain the same. However, the applicability of some conditions will only be relevant if the material is considered to be waste, e.g., waste controls, record keeping, monitoring, etc. In the event that the Agency agrees with the applicant that the boiler ash is a by-product, no additional controls would be required to be included within the RD.

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

BAT for the installation was assessed against the BAT Conclusions contained in the following documents:

• BREF Document for Large Combustion Plants (LCP) (July 2006) [Main Applicable BREF activity] Note 1

• BREF Document for Industrial Cooling Systems (December 2001)

• BREF Document on Energy Efficiency (February 2009) • BREF Document for Emissions from Storage (July 2006)

Note 1: BREF currently under review.

The applicant submitted an assessment of the installation activity against the relevant BAT Conclusion requirements contained in the above BREF Documents. The applicant has demonstrated that the installation will generally comply with the 15 BAT Conclusion requirements specified in the LCP BREF and will comply with all of the applicable BAT Conclusion requirements contained in the additional BREF Documents.

I consider that the applicable BAT Conclusion requirements are addressed through: (i) the technologies and techniques as described in the application; (ii) the standard conditions specified in the RD; and (iii) where applicable, the inclusion of additional specific conditions (see Table 1 below).

Table 1. Additional Conditions in RD to address BAT Conclusion requirements

BREF Document for Large Combustion Plants Additional Requirement: Condition/Schedule ELV for Total Ammonia to atmosphere and period monitorinq Schedule B.1 & C.1.2 Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Schedule C.1.2 Inclusion of dust control condition Condition 3 Inclusion of requirement to address 'Fire Prevention' in the Accident Condition 9 Prevention Policy BREF Document on Energy Efficiency Inclusion of Energy Efficiency Management in EMS Condition 2 BREF Document on Energy Efficiency Inclusion of requirement for leak detection I Condition 3

The applicant has advised that for combustion efficiency and control purposes Carbon Monoxide will be monitoring continuously. Therefore this frequency is specified in the RD.

The LCP BREF BAT Conclusion requirements specify BAT associated emission levels for biomass fired plants of 25mg/m3 for Hydrogen Fluoride and for Hydrogen Chloride. The licensee has indicated that there will be no significant emissions of these substances and on this basis no ELV for these parameters is specified in the RD. BAT AELs are not required to be specified until a new BREF and BAT Conclusion has been published.

The applicant has proposed the use of a water-cooled stoker grate, which is a variation on the spreader stoker grate firing technique listed in the BAT Conclusions section of the BREF Document for Large Combustion Plants for biomass. The applicant provided a BAT assessment of this proposed technique using evaluation criteria from the IPPC Reference Document on Economics and Cross Media Effects (July 2006). This assessment includes consideration of: (i)

Page4 of21

the inventory of emissions; (ii) calculation of cross-media effects; and (iii) interpretation of cross-media conflicts. The key outcomes of the assessment are that the:

• Pollutant emission releases from the installation are compliant with BAT requirements. • MRPL plant will be a co-generation heat and power plant which is BAT for biomass. • Use of waste heat leads to a higher overall efficiency and thus minimises the consumption

of resources and emissions of C02 • This is considered BAT and the plant will achieve 81.1% overall efficiency, which is within the 75 to 90% range which is considered BAT.

In conclusion, the assessment states that "there are no additional significant environmental impacts associated with the use of a water cooled stoker grate boiler relative to the listed BAT technology. In addition the proposed technology is significantly less expensive that the listed BAT technology". On the basis of the applicant's assessment, it is considered that the use of the water cooled stoker grate is a BAT in this installation.

I have examined and assessed the application documentation and I am satisfied that the site, technologies and techniques specified in the application and as confirmed, modified or specified in the attached RD comply with the requirements and principles of BAT. I consider the technologies and techniques as described in the application, in this report, and in the RD, to be the most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment having regard - as may be relevant - to the way the facility is located, designed, built, managed, maintained, operated and decommissioned.

The ELVs specified in the RD have been determined on the basis of BAT/Large Combustion Plant Regulations 2012 in addition the specified noise limits have been determined on the basis of published EPA Guidance.

4. Emissions 4.1 Emissions to Air The most significant air emissions are combustion exhaust gases from the main boiler emission point (Al-1) which is 66.3 metres above ground level. Additional emissions from the vents and valves at the installation are all considered to be minor. Minor/potential emissions to atmosphere also arise in the form of dust emissions from wood handling and drying processes.

The applicant submitted an air dispersion modelling assessment of the emissions from the combustion plant via emission point Al-l as part of the licence application, which is considered in the following section of this report. Predicted concentrations of all pollutants (including background levels) reach a maximum of 72.9% of the Air Quality Standards and are not considered to have a significant impact on the atmospheric environment.

The flue gas from the boiler will pass via an air quality control system that consists of a Multi­Cyclone Dust Collector and Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) for the control of dust emissions and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system to control Nitrogen Oxide emissions. These abatement systems are BAT for the installation. The control system is designed so that emissions from the boiler do not exceed the relevant BAT Emission Limit Values (ELVs).

The ELVs proposed by the applicant are in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (2010/75/EU) for plants that start to operate after the 7th January 2014. The requirements of Chapter 3 of the IED are implemented by S.I. No. 566 of 2012 Large Combustion Plants Regulations (2012). As the application is for a new plant which will meet the requirements of the IED, these are specified in the RD (including the following ELVs: NOx 200mg/Nm 3

, S02 200mg/Nm3 and Dust 20mg/Nm3).

Additional BAT Conclusion requirements included in the RD are outlined in Section 3 of this report.

PageS of21

Minor/Potential Emissions The applicant has identified 51 minor emissions to atmosphere (32 from belt dryers, 8 from process vents, 5 safely valves, 5 minor emissions from the cooling towers and 1 intermittent steam blow-down). MRPL has identified 9 potential emissions to atmosphere (8 from points of transfer of wood chips in the event of malfunction of the misting system and 1 from the stand­by generator (A4-1) (operated in the event of a power failure at the installation)). The stand­by generator will be tested bi-weekly for 1-hour duration to ensure it is operational when required.

Impact of Air Emissions on Receiving Environment The applicant provided cumulative impact concentrations for N02 and Sulphur Dioxide (as included above) based on background concentration, including the maximum contribution from the neighbouring licenced installation and the maximum predicted contribution from the proposed activity. Due to the lack of available data in relation to particulate emission from the neighbouring installation (P0566-02) the applicant did not provide cumulative impact concentrations for PM 10 and PM 2.5 • However due to the low proposed emissions the licensee states that no significant cumulative particulate impacts are envisaged. The process contribution from the proposed installation is predicted to be 0.16% of the PM 10 24hr AQS, 0.28% of the PM 10 Annual Mean AQS and 0.35% of the PM2.s Annual Mean AQS.

The applicant completed air dispersion modelling of the emissions from the installation using US EPA approved AERMOD model.

The model was run using emission concentrations based on the relevant ELVs specified in the LCP Regulations (S.I. No. 566 of 2012). Meteorological data from Ballina from 2001 to 2005, terrain data and building wake effects were considered in the model. The modelled Ground Level Concentrations (GLCs) represent the maximum single predicted 1-hour concentration, 24-hour concentration and annual average concentrations, where appropriate, for the specific parameters.

The proposed development site is predominantly rural in character and is therefore designated as a Zone D site. Background air quality concentrations for Nitrogen Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Particulate Matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) and Sulphur Dioxide were provided for the pollutant concentrations recorded in Zone D and as outline in the EPA document "Air Quality in Ireland 2011, Key Indicators of Ambient Air Qua/it/'.

The modelled emissions include the provision of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) to reduce the Nitrogen Dioxide emissions from the stack and provision of dust abatement including Electrostatic Precipitator for the reduction of particulate emissions.

Table 1: Predicted Maximum Ground Level Concentrations compared with Air Quality Standards

Maximum . Averaging

Background Predicted Air .Quality Parameter Concentration Ground Level Standards pg/m3

Period pg/m• Concentration {OfoofAQS) pg/m3

·.

Nitrogen 99.791h%ile of max 54.6 Note 1 66.7 200 (33.4%) Dioxide 1 hour cone.

(as N02 ) Annual Mean 16.8 Note 1 17.15 40 (42.9%)

Nitrogen Annual Mean 9.8 11.24 30 (37.5%) Oxi"es (NOx)

PM 10 90.41h%ile of 18.7 Note 1 19.5 50 (39%)

Particulate max 24hr cone.

Matter PM 10 Annual mean 11.5 11.61 40 (29%)

PM 2.5 Annual mean 7.5 Note2 7.57 25/20 (30.3%/37.9%)

Page 6 of21

-- -·-·----·-·· ···-·--··-· ·. 99.73t"%ile of max

103 .6 Note l 350 (40.7%) 1 hour cone. 142.6

Sulphur ·.·.

Dioxide 99.18th%ile of max 75.6 Note l 91.1 125 (72.9%) 24hr cone .

. · .. ··• ..... Annual mean 2.3 4.77 20 (23.9%)

Note 1: Background Concentration from EPA Air Quality Data for Zone D Site recorded in 2012 and including the maximum predicted contribution from the neighbouring licensed installation.

Note 2: Based on an assumption of 65% of PM 10 as PM 2.5, from EPA Monitoring data at Zone D.

Discussion of Modelling Results

The air dispersion modelling assessment predicts that the maximum Ground Level Concentrations (GLCs) will generally occur at the north eastern boundary of the installation and the maximum GLCs will not result in the exceedance of any relevant Air Quality Standard (AQS).

The EPA guidance 'Air Dispersion Modelling from Industrial Installation Guidance Note (AG4)' sets out that not greater than 25% of the AQS should be allocated to one installation when assessing cumulative impacts. The contributions from the proposed MRPL installation are significantly below this level for all of the parameters, with the highest installation contribution being 12.4% of the daily Sulphur Dioxide Air Quality Standard.

The ELVs specified in Schedule 8.1 Emissions to Air are in accordance with BAT and the LCP Regs. 2012. An Ammonia ELV of 5mg/m3 (as referenced in the LCP BAT Conclusions) is included in the RD. The applicant advised that Ammonia emission from the installation will not exceed this limit, but did not model for this parameter. On the basis of the air dispersion modelling results for other parameters, the maximum ground level concentrations of Ammonia are predicted to be less than 1 1Jg/m3

, which is significantly below the 300 1Jg/m3 Danish C­value- Danish Industrial Air Pollution Control Guideline value for Ammonia. The RD includes a requirement to monitor emission point Al-l for Ammonia quarterly.

The monitoring and interpretation of emissions to air in the RD are based on the requirements of the LCP Regs. 2012. Condition 6.4 includes the LCP Regs. requirement for automated measuring systems.

Other requirements of the LCP Regs. are as follows: Schedule C1.2 of the RD specifies monitoring for A2-1. Condition 3 sets the requirements in the event of breakdown or malfunction of abatement and control equipment. Condition 11.2 also requires records to be maintained of the total emissions of Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides and Dust, the hours of operation and the frequency, duration and reason for power plant shut down.

Dust The main sources of dust at the installation are likely to be from the loading/unloading of wood/biomass and wood handling and drying processes. Biomass/wood will be loaded and unloaded and transported around the site via a covered conveyer system. Drying will take place in four belt dryers with the warm air blown down through the wood chips to assist in minimising dust generation. Condition 3 of the RD requires the transportation and handling of biomass/wood to be carried out in a manner which does not give rise to dust emissions and these materials are required to be stored in closed containers or enclosed stores. The RD requires annual dust monitoring to be carried out at an ambient monitoring location, to be agreed by the Agency. Schedule 8.5: Ambient Dust Limit of the RD specifies a dust deposition limit of 350mg/m3/day based on a 30 day composite sample. Schedule C6.2: Dust Monitoring of the RD requires the applicant to undertake annually monitoring during the period of May to September, or as otherwise agreed by the Agency.

Page 7 of21

4.2 Emissions to Sewer Three distinct wastewater streams will be discharged to sewer from the installation. These are: (i) process effluent; (ii) sanitary effluent; and (iii) surface water.

Section 99E discharge consent was obtained from Mayo County Council (received 24'h December 2013) in relation to the discharge of waste water to an existing sewer pipeline which then discharges directly to Killala Bay. From January 2014 this sewer was transferred to Irish Water. The RD contains the appropriately worded consent conditions and emission limit values as specified in the Section 99E consent. The requirement for faecal coliforms, escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci monitoring are included as these have been specified in the Section 99E consent.

The consent ELVs for BOD and 'Fats, Oils and Grease' are 25mg/m3 and 50mg/m3,

respectively. As the discharge to sewer is not subsequently treated in an Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant, but is conveyed directly to receiving water (Killala Bay), the emission levels are required to offer an equivalent level of protection as BAT. Therefore, the RD specifies a BOD ELV of 20mg/m3 and 'Fats, Oils and Grease' ELV of 10mg/m3

, which are in line with the BAT emission levels specified in the EPA Guidance Note on Best Available Techniques for the Energy Sector (Large Combustion Plant Sector) (1st Edition- 2008).

The impact of the discharge from the installation on Killala Bay was considered as part of the Appropriate Assessment which is discussed in Section 9.8 of this report.

Process Effluent

Process effluent will flow to a storage reservoir and then be discharged to sewer via SEl. The effluent will comprise of backwash from the raw water filter system, regeneration discharges from the boiler water treatment system, blow down from the cooling towers and boiler and waste streams from uses of service water (e.g., wash down, etc.). The regeneration streams will be treated by pH neutralisation prior to combining with the other effluent streams. There will be no emissions of process effluent to surface water.

Sanitarv Effluent

Sanitary effluent from staff welfare facilities will be treated in an onsite package treatment plant. The licensee has advised that sewage from an adjoining premise, to the east, is also proposed to be treated in the treatment plant. The RD requires that no trade effluent be treated in the sanitary effluent WWTP. The package treatment plant will have a capacity for 14 Population Equivalent (p.e.) and the treated effluent will be discharged to the Irish Water sewer. The BOD and Suspended Solids ELVs specified in the RD are in accordance with the limits proposed by the applicant, i.e., 20mg/l and 30mg/l, respectively.

A monitoring sump will be installed to monitor quality and flow of the treated waste water emissions prior to discharge to sewer via SE3. The RD requires the discharge to be monitored quarterly for BOD and Suspended Solids concentrations.

A municipal waste water treatment plant is planned to be constructed to serve the Killala agglomeration (Waste Water Discharge Authorisation Reg. No. D0067-01), approximately 300 metres from the site of the installation. The applicant has advised that when this WWTP is built they will seek permission to discharge the untreated sewage effluent to this plant and discontinue the use of the proprietary treatment plant.

Surface Water

There will be no emissions to surface water from the installation. Storm water run-off from roadways and hard standing areas within the site will discharge, via a silt trap and Class I oil separator, to sewer via SE2. Storm water from roofs is required to be discharge to surface water drainage system without passing via a silt trap.

The discharge to sewer flows, without further treatment, directly to Killala Bay therefore the RD specifies the separator to be a Class I full retention oil separator, as this discharge is

Page 8 of21

equivalent to a direct discharge to receiving water. Monitoring point (SE2) will be located at the boundary of the MRPL site to monitor the discharge quality. The RD requires this discharge to be monitored continuously for pH and Total Organic Carbon, monthly for Suspended Solids and Conductivity and visually inspected daily.

4.3 Emissions to Water There are no proposed emissions to surface water from the on-site processes. As outlined above, storm water runoff from the roofs, hardstanding and concrete areas will flow to the on­site surface water system, pass through a Class I full retention oil separator prior to being discharged to sewer (via SE2).

Additional The applicant proposes to install a 3,000m3 firewater storage tank to be located on the site of the installation. Condition 3.6 specifies the requirements in relation to the bunding of storage areas. Condition 3 of the RD requires the applicant to complete a firewater retention risk assessment in advance of commencement of the activity.

4.4 Emissions to ground There are no emissions to soil or groundwater from the installation.

According to the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) the site of the proposed installation is located on a "Locally Important Aquifer" for which the bedrock is moderately productive only in local zones. The applicant states that the aquifer vulnerability for the area Tawnaghmore and in the vicinity of the installation is classified by the GSI as "Extreme" due to the presence of rock near the ground surface. The licensee has identified that the GSI online database indicated that there are no gravel aquifers or karstified aquifers in the nearby vicinity of the site.

There are no groundwater abstractions for drinking water within 10km of the site of the installation.

As mentioned previously the site of the installation was previously part of the Asahi Synthetic Fibres (Ireland) Limited site. The Baseline Report section (Section 9.1) of this report provides a summary in relation to the ground/groundwater monitoring and assessments which have been carried out at the site of the proposed installation.

Due to the activity being an 'Industrial Emissions Directive Activity' and due to the elevated groundwater concentrations for some parameters, the RD requires the applicant to carry out biannual groundwater monitoring and soil monitoring at least every five years.

5. Waste Boiler Ash Two streams of ash will be produced at the plant- (i) bottom ash and (ii) fly ash.

ill Bottom ash: As mentioned previously the applicant has submitted a by-product declaration in relation to biomass bottom ash to the Agency which is being considered separately (see Section 2 of this report).

(ill Fly ash: The fly ash is collected from the gas stream at various points in the boiler system and then transferred to the fly ash storage silo, prior to removal from the site for disposal.

As mentioned previously, the applicant has submitted an End of Waste request, under Article 28 of the European Communities (Waste Directive) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 126 of 2011), to the Agency in relation to the proposed wood based briquette fuel which is being considered separately. Schedule A: Limitations of the RD requires that no combustion of waste takes place at the installation.

The majority of the wastes generated at the installation will be non-hazardous and will include biomass bottom ash (300 tonnes/month), lubricant oils, mixed recyclables, bulky wastes, mixed municipal waste, metals, wood and electrical waste. Hazardous solid and liquid waste

Page 9 of21

will include biomass fly ash (200 tonnesjmonth), waste oil, grease, electronic waste, batteries and fluorescent tubes.

All waste generated at the installation will be removed by authorised waste collection permit holders. All waste streams will be sorted on-site prior to being collected and transported of-site by specialist waste management companies to appropriate treatment, recovery/disposal facilities.

6. Noise Baseline noise monitoring was undertaken at the site, along with modelling of noise impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors. Cladding installed in the boiler and turbine building will abate noise emissions from internal equipment. It is not anticipated that there will be any discernible noise impact at sensitive receptors associated with the installation.

The site of the installation is located in a generally rural location situated close to the R357 road, with a low density of housing nearby. The site is located adjacent to another Agency licensed installation (SSE Generation Ireland Limited (Killala) Reg. No. P0566-02). The nearest noise sensitive location (NSL) is situated approximately 400 metres south of the installation boundary. The main operational noise sources will be from process vents, the turbine building, boiler building, cooling tower, dryer, conveyers, vacuum pump skid and transformers.

The applicant proposes to attenuate noise from the power plant to the required level through the use of appropriate sound insulation for the buildings. In addition external noise sources will be attenuated to the required level by means of acoustic enclosures and attenuators.

The applicant has submitted the results of a noise baseline study conducted at the proposed site in September 2011. Noise measurements were carried out at three monitoring locations. One located close to the northern site boundary, N 1, and N2 located 200 metres south east of the proposed site and N3 located approximately 200 metres south west of the site. The monitoring results show exceedance of the standard day time noise level limit (55dB(A)) at N2 only (57LAeq). This was attributed to intermittent traffic on local roads, cattle noise from an adjacent field, intermittent dog barking and constant bird noise. The daytime noise levels at N1 and N3 were determined to be 49dB and 44dB, respectively.

The night time monitoring carried out at the same monitoring locations exceeded the standard night time noise level limit of 45dB(A) at two locations (N2 (55.4dB) and N3 (46.3dB)). These elevated noise levels were attributed to intermittent traffic on local roads, including HGV movements and constant bird song. It should be noted that the monitoring at N2 and N3 took place between 7am and Sam, which does not fall within "night-time" as defined in the new EPA 2012 Noise Guidance Note (NG4) (i.e., 23:00 to 07:00).

The LA90 noise level is considered to represent 'background noise' and can be used as an indicator of a typical floor level for continuous industrial noise. It is noted that the lAgo day­time and night-time noise levels at the monitoring locations were below 55 and 45 dB, respectively.

The noise impact assessment report also included noise modelling and the identification of the noise levels at the twelve nearest NSLs of the site. The results demonstrated that noise levels at the NSLs to the north (max. 26dB LAeq) are significantly less that the locations to the south (max. 34dB LAeq) due to the screening provided by the buildings to the north. All of the predicted noise levels are below the daytime, evening-time and night time noise limits of 55/50/45dB(A), respectively. There are no expected sources of vibration from the operation of the plant.

In the EPA document 'Guidance Note for Noise in relation to Scheduled Activities' 2006, it states that 'in particularly quite areas, such as remote or rural settings, where background noise levels are very low (e.g., below approximately 35dB measured as L90) lower noise limits may be more appropriate. None of the daytime noise measurements were below an LA90 of 35dB. Therefore the RD specifies noise limits of SSdB(A)LAeq (daytime), 45dB(A)LAeq (evening-

Page 10 of21

time) and 40dB(A)LAeq (night-time), at the Boundary of the installation. There shall also be no clearly audible tonal component or impulsive component in the noise emission from the activity at any NSL. Noise monitoring is required annually unless otherwise agreed by the Agency.

The RD specifies annual monitoring at three noise sensitive locations of the installation (N1-N3).

7. Use of Resources Mayo County Council will provide water to the installation, which will be abstracted from Lough Conn at an average rate of 20 litresjsecond (maximum rate of 40 litres/second). This raw water will be delivered to a raw water storage tank and will be used for boiler water systems cooling system, high pressure spray water and service water. 3,000m3 of fire water storage will be provided in fire fighting water tanks on the site.

The Office of Environmental Assessment (OEA) were contacted in relation to the proposed abstraction and advised that there was not a requirement for further impact assessment of the abstraction as "the Lough Conn catchment is relatively large and can sustain the proposed abstraction rate'.

A water treatment plant will be installed to prepare demineralised water for use as boiler make-up water.

Electricity usage is predicted to be 43,800 MWh per annum, which will be self-generated at the installation.

Wood biomass fuel briquettes will be used in the combustion plant and it is predicted that the annual usage will be approximately 230,000 tonnes. Gas Oil will be used for back-up and during start up and shutdown, with an expected annual consumption of 5 tonnes.

The applicant has advised of 28 List I substances under the Dangerous Substances Directive that will be stored and used at the installation. This includes 5 tonnes of No. 2 Fuel Oil which will be used to operate the backup generator and fire pump, as required. The majority of the additional List I substances are lubricants, hydraulic oils, gear oils and greases which will be stored and used in relatively small quantities.

The applicant has identified 2 List II substances that will be stored and used at the installation. This includes approximately 250,000 litres of Ammonia to be used annually for the Selective Catalytic Reduction of emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and 0.5m 3 of 18% solution of Sodium Hypochlorite for raw water treatment.

The licensee has identified six chemicals, which are to be used in production processes (predominantly small quantities of hydraulic fluids/lubricants), which are classified as 'dangerous to the aquatic environment'. The 98% Sulphuric Acid to be used for the pH control in the cooling tower has the classification 'danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure'.

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impact With regard to reducing the Climate impact of the installation under IED the RD requires energy management to be addressed as part of the EMS and an energy efficiency audit and an assessment of resource use efficiency to be carried out. The EMP objectives and targets include use of cleaner production.

As the proposed installation is predicted to use greater than 1% (approximately 4%) oil fuel for start-up and shut-down purposes, the proposed installation requires a Green House Gas (GHG) Permit in accordance with the European Communities (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading) Regulations 2004, (S.I. 437 of 2004 and amendments), from the Agency prior to commencement of the licensable activity. Regulation 23 requires that the Agency shall not have regard to ELVs, BAT, or require a licence review, with respect to greenhouse gases unless it is necessary to ensure no significant local pollution. Carbon Dioxide (C02) will be the only such greenhouse gas emitted from the installation in significant quantities.

Page II of21

The total annual emission of C02 from the proposed power station (based on biomass fuel) has been calculated, by the applicant, as 0.036 million tonnes per year.

The applicant has advised that the potential for C02 benefit arises from the use of forestry residues. Biomass power stations are a lower carbon emission means of generating power and the proposed power station will have an overall efficiency of 81.1 %.

9. Compliance with EU Directives

9.1 Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (2010/75/EU)

This installation falls within the scope of category 1.1 (Combustion of fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input of 50 MW or more) of Annex I of Council Directive 2010/75/EU concerning industrial emissions.

As a new activity the !ED requires that the competent authority take account of the general principles set out in Article 11 when determining the conditions of a permit. These require that installations be operated in such a way that:

all the appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution; the best available techniques are applied; no significant pollution is caused; the generation of waste is prevented in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC; where waste is generated, it is, in order of priority and in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC, prepared for re-use, recycled, recovered or, where that is technically and economically impossible, it is disposed of while avoiding or reducing any impact on the environment; energy is used efficiently; the necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their consequences; the necessary measures are taken upon definitive cessation of activities to avoid any risk of pollution and return the site of operation to the satisfactory state defined in accordance with Article 22.

Schedule C.1.2: Monitoring of Emissions to Air of the RD requires a monitoring point location for emission point Al-l to be agreed. This addresses the requirement of Article 38.3 of the !ED which requires the Agency to determine the location of the sampling or monitoring points used for the monitoring of emissions.

The Recommended Determination (RD) as drafted takes account of the relevant requirements of the !ED including all of the relevant requirements of Chapter III 'Special Provisions for Combustion Plants'.

Baseline Report As part of the licence application MRPL submitted a baseline report (as set out in the Industrial Emissions Directive (!ED)). This is required so as to allow for the making of a quantified comparison of the state of the soil and groundwater upon definitive cessation of activities. The proposed installation site is a Brownfield site, which was previously occupied by Asahi Synthetic Fibres (Ireland) Limited (P0232-01). A detailed ground investigation of the proposed installation site was carried out on behalf of MRPL in Aug/Sept 2011 to establish the geotechnical profile across the site and to carry out an environmental evaluation.

The detailed ground investigation included: • 16 rotary core boreholes to a maximum depth of 12.7 metres below ground level • 80 trial pits to a depth of 3 metres and • 57 dynamic probes

This investigation was in addition to a preliminary ground investigation carried out in 2006 comprising of 18 trial pits and a further ground investigation comprising of 32 trial pits for the purpose of environmental sampling was also undertaken in 2012.

Page 12 of21

The site geology has been determined from the intrusive ground investigations and geophysical surveys and is generally described as 'Made Ground' overlaying overburden soils comprising soft to firm gravelly silt, with sand and gravel noted in a number of locations.

'The Made Ground is variable in thickness across the site with an average thickness of approximately 1 metre'. 'Construction and Demolition waste was also present within the manmade ground in numerous locations across the site and comprised occasional to frequent inclusions of brick, concrete blocks, timber and wire as well as placed and compacted granular fill. Ash and clinker pockets were detected within made ground, concentrated in 2-3 locations.'

The Dutch Intervention Values (DIV) results for soil remaining in-situ show that none of the 2006 samples exceeded, six out of twenty samples exceeded in 2011 and one out of twenty seven exceeded in 2012.

The applicant applied Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) limits to soil classified for disposal. Elevated soil concentrations were detected in one out of eleven samples in 2006, fifteen out of twenty samples in 2011 and three out of twenty seven samples in 2012. The 2011 ground investigations highlighted "hotspots" of Total Organic Carbons, where coal ash stockpiles existed and elevated 504 related to specific previous activities. The results of the 2011 WAC survey indicated that the soils exceed the limits for disposal to an inert landfill.

In the 2011 site investigation the samples were analysed for asbestos, but none of the twenty samples indicated the presence of asbestos. Loose fibres of white asbestos (chrysotile) were detected in three of the twenty seven samples in January 2012. The asbestos quantification results indicated all three samples were blow the limit of detection, of 0.001% total mass of the sample.

Groundwater Investigation Groundwater sampling was undertaken in 2006 and 2012, as well as historic testing between 1996 and 1998. In 2006 the results showed that four out of the five boreholes sampled exceeded the EPA threshold value for one or more parameters.

S:uapl. Eln:ated Param•tu~ Coaceatr~ti.oa Thndaold , . alae (!0~

BH97-3 Rudne~ 220m gil 200mg/l EPA IGV

Mmganese O. l 92mgll 0.05m.gll EPA IGV

Nitrate (as N03) 32.9m,gll 25mg.ll EPA IGV

Lead 0.0014mg.ll O.OOlm.gJl EPA IGV

BH97-7 Ammonia 0.3mg/l 0.15mgll EPA IGV

Nitrate (as N0 3) 45.Smgll 25mg.ll EPA IGV

Orthopho:;phali! 0.2mgll O. lmg.ll EPA IGV

Chlorofo1m 0.0022mgll 0.0012mgll EPA IGV

BH97-S Ammonia 3.0mgll 0.15mgll EPA IGV

Rudness 220m gil 200mg/l EPA IGV

OrthophosphatE 5.25mgll O.lm~I! EPA IGV

Total Suspe.nded Solids 290m gil 25m gil Irish S;dmonid Water limit

BH98-l Ammonia l.Smg/1 0.15mgll EPA IGV

The applicant advised that due to collapse or limited access only one of the nine boreholes sampled in 2011 had previously been sampled in 2006. Therefore the concerns in the individual sample locations from 2006 are still considered to be prevalent across the site, albeit at a reduced level.

The 2011 investigation showed that no groundwater samples were in exceedance of the threshold values. The applicant confirmed that by comparing the 2011 results with the 2006 sample results 'it can be seen that natural attenuation within the groundwater has resulted in a

Page 13 of 21

reduction in parameter levels'. This process will continue and it is expected that the levels will reduce further.

The groundwater body name is Bellacorick-Killala, with the code: IE_WE_G_0041. The overall objective of this groundwater body is to 'Protect' and the overall risk is 2a 'Probably Not At Risk'.

The Baseline Report is considered to identify the state of the soil and groundwater contamination by relevant hazardous substances at the site of the proposed installation. Where the installation has caused significant pollution of soil or groundwater by relevant hazardous substances compared to the state established in the baseline report, the operator shall take the necessary measures to address that pollution so as to return the site to that state.

Due to the requirements of groundwater and soil monitoring in the IED and due to the elevated levels of some substances in the groundwater and soil, the RD requires groundwater to be monitored on a biannual basis and soil monitoring to be carried out every five years.

9.2 Seveso Directive (96/82/EC) as amended by 2003/105/EC

The licensee states that the activity is not classified as a Seveso site under S.I. 74 of 2006 (European Communities (Control of Major Accident Hazards involving Dangerous Substances) Regulations) which gives effect to European Directive 96/82/EU as amended by 2003/105/EC (Seveso II Directive).

9.3 Air Oualitv Directives (2008/50/EC and 2004/107 /EC)

The CAFE Directive has been transposed as the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 180 of 2011) and has also introduced an ambient limit for PM 25 • As previously outlined, dispersion modelling of emissions to air was undertaken by the applicant. This indicates that emissions from the installation will not cause any breach of the relevant Air Quality Standards, as specified in S.I. No. 180 of 2011 and jor S.I. No. 58 of 2009.

9.4 Emissions Trading Directive (2003/87 /EC)

Due to the quantity of fossil fuel to be used during start-up and shut-down (i.e., greater than 1% of the total annual energy input), the proposed installation requires a Green House Gas (GHG) Permit in accordance with the European Communities (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading) Regulations 2004, (S.I. 437 of 2004 and amendments), from the Agency prior to commencement of the licensable activity. An application for a GHG was submitted to the Agency on 3'd December 2013 (Reg. No. IE-GHG167-10433), and is currently under consideration.

9.5 Environmental Liabilitv Directive (2004/35/CEl

The Environmental Liabilities Directive has been transposed into national legislation by European Communities (Environmental Liability) Regulations 2008 (S.I. No. 547 of 2008). The location of the proposed installation is at a brownfield site. The RD includes conditions and schedules, which require the licensee to control operation of the activity and meet the specified emission limit values. The RD includes, under Condition 9, measures to be taken by the licensee in the case of an incident, and under Condition 10, the licensee is required to review and amend the submitted Closure, Restoration, and Aftercare Management Plan (see Section 12.3.2 of this report). A Baseline Report for the installation was submitted with the application and is summarised in Section 9.1 of this report.

9.6 Water Framework Directive [2000/60/EC]

There are no process emissions to surface or groundwater from the installation. The impacts of process effluent emissions to sewer are discussed in Sections 4.2 and 9.10 of this report.

9.7 European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations, S.I. No. 272 of 2009 and European Communities Environmental Objectives (Ground Water) Regulations, S.I. No. 9 of 2010 (which transposes the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) and (2006/118/EC))

Page 14of21

There are no process emissions to surface waters/groundwater from the installation.

The groundwater body name is Bellacorick-Killala, with the code: IE_WE_G_0041. The overall objective of this groundwater body is to 'Protect' and the overall risk is 2a 'Probably Not At Risk'

There is some historic contamination at the site which relates to the previous use of this brownfield site by Asahi Synthetic Fibres (Ireland) Limited. The OEE provided comments on the state of the previously occupied site. They advised that a hydrogeological investigation from 1998 indicated that Nitrate was the key contaminant. All surface waters around the site drain to Meelick Lough and, as there was considered to be no deep groundwater flow beneath the site, this is the ultimate receptor for any contaminants. It was noted at that time that dilution by receiving waters resulted in "no threat to environment at that time or for future". The subsequent monitoring information submitted in the baseline report, indicates that natural attenuation within the groundwater is continuing.

The contamination at the site is not causing the groundwater body status (IE_WE_G_0041) to fail and indications are that the contamination plume is not expanding. Condition 6 of the RD requires trend assessment of the monitoring data to verify this. In addition Condition 6 requires the applicant to review the most recent hydrogeological assessment report or, where relevant, arrange for a new assessment, with any actions (including the setting of groundwater compliance values, if appropriate), required to demonstrate compliance with the Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations 2010, to be implemented before 22"d December 2015.

9.8 Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) & Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)

The land on which the proposed installation is to be located is not within a designated European Site and there are no designated sites within 1km of the installation. However, the process effluent, treated sanitary effluent and storm water would be discharged through an existing underground discharge pipeline (taken in change by Mayo County Council in December 2013 and now the responsibility of Irish Water) to the Killala Bay/May Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (Site Code 000458) 1km north of the installation and the Killala Bay/May Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) (Site Code 004036) 1.7km North of the installation.

The Killala Bay/May Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (Site Code 000458) site has an excellent range of good quality coast habitats, including a number listed on Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive. The presence of the Annex II snail, Vertigo Angustior, and the importance of the area for wintering waterfowl, including two Annex I Birds Directive species, add further significance to this area. The site is extremely scenic and is a significant regional amenity are for its beaches and for fishing.

The Killala Bay/Moy Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) (Site Code 004036) site is one of the most important coastal sites in the region for wintering waterfowl. It supports six species that have populations of national importance, including a very substantial population of Grey Plover (2.4% of national total). The presence of Redthroated Diver, Golden Plover and Bar-tailed Godwit is of particular note as these species are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive. The wintering birds are monitored annually.

The Special Conservation Interests of the SPA are: Ringer Plover and Bar-tailed Godwit. Additional Special Conservation Interests are: Golden Plover, Grey Plover, Sanderling, Dunlin, Curlew, Redshank and wetland and water birds. The main conservation objective is to maintain the special conservation interests for this SPA at favourable conservation for the selected species. The favourable conservation status of a species is achieved when: (i) Population data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself, and (ii) the natural range of the species is neither being reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and (iii) there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.

Page 15 of21

A screening for Appropriate Assessment was undertaken to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge and the conservation objectives of the site, if the proposed activity, individually or in combination with other plans or projects is likely to have a significant effect on a European Site(s). In this context, particular attention was paid to the European sites at Killala Bay/Moy Estuary SAC, Killala Bay/Moy Estuary SPA and the Agency considered, for the reasons set out below, that the proposed activity is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of those sites as European Sites and that it can be excluded on the basis of objective scientific information, that the proposed activity, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, will have a significant effect on a European site, and accordingly the Agency determined that an Appropriate Assessment of the proposed activity is not required.

This determination was made on the basis that the discharge is to Irish Water's sewer and the predicted impact on the marine environment would be imperceptible.

Given the nature and location of the proposed installation, and the potential emission sources, pathways and receptors, it has been determined that there will be no resulting significant impact on the designated European Site(s) either as a result of this development or in combination with any other developments.

10. Cross Office Liaison I consulted with Inspector Sean O'Donoghue, Environmental Licensing Programme (ELP), as the sector expert for energy. I consulted with Deirdre Tierney and Bryan Kennedy of the Office of Environmental Assessment (OEA), in relation to the abstraction from Lough Conn. I consulted with the Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE) Inspector Helen Boyce in relation to EPA licensed sites in the vicinity of the proposed installation.

11. Environmental Impact Statement An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not submitted with the application. The Agency carried out Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening of the application on 06/12/12 and determined that an EIA, as respects the matters that come within the functions of the Agency, is not required for the activity to which this licence application relates. This is due to the activity being below the EIA threshold of 300 megawatts heat output.

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

12.1 Technical Ability MRPL has provided details of the qualification, technical knowledge and experience of key personnel. The application also includes information on the on-site management structure and responsibility for environmental management, details of operational control procedures and a copy of Dalkia's environmental manual.

MRPL will also be required to complete the regulatory processes administered by the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER). An authorisation to construct a generating station must be obtained prior to commencing construction of the installation. A licence to generate electricity must also be obtained prior to commencement of operation. In their assessment the CER can consider factors which may include, for example, the availability of sufficient appropriate financial, managerial or technical resources to ensure that the generator is able to comply with the terms and conditions that would govern the electricity generation licence.

12.2 Legal Standing As detailed previously, Mayo Renewable Power Limited is wholly owned by Weichert Enterprise, LLC ("Weichert") which is a private equity concern located in New Jersey, USA. MRPL was registered with the Companies Registration Office on 3'd May 2006.

MRPL has not been convicted of an offence under the EPA Act 1992 as amended, the Waste Management Act 1996 as amended, the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 as amended or the Air Pollution Act 1987 as amended.

Page 16of21

12.3 Financial Standing The applicant must demonstrate that they are likely to be in a position to meet any financial commitments or liabilities that may have been or will be entered into or incurred in carrying on the activity to which the application relates or in consequence of ceasing to carry out that activity.

The applicant was requested to prepare and submit an Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment (ELRA), a Closure, Restoration, and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP) and to address the mechanism(s) proposed for financial provisions.

An Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment (ELRA) and Closure Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP) was received from MRPL on 29th October 2013. The Office of Environmental Enforcement was requested to assist in reviewing these documents.

12.3.1 Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment (ELRA) The ELRA considers the risk of unplanned events occurring during operation of the installation. In Table 9 of the ELRA (Risk Analysis) the applicant has identified a total of 14 environmental risks. The risks have been assessed and scored on the basis of the severity rating and the likelihood of occurrence. The applicant has not proposed additional mitigation measures as they consider that the best practice controls to be incorporated into the installation are adequate and no further risk mitigation are considered necessary at this time. The licensee proposes to review the risk register and update the ELRA to reflect site specific activities following completion of the installation.

Regarding castings, the applicant has used a 'worst case' financial model (based on the 2006 EPA guidance) and has not included a contingency in the cost calculations. The calculated cost of the worst case scenario is €555,000.

The OEE commented that they would have liked to have seen fire risk more comprehensively assessed and consideration of any potential domino effects. The risks of adverse weather are not discussed, risks from the storage of fry and bottom ash (capacity to store 60 tonnes at any one time) are not mentioned and potential for loss to the environment due to traffic incidents are not discussed.

The OEE (Waste and Thematic Unit) agreed that the applicant has generally followed the 2006 methodology guidance in preparing and costing the ELRA. The calculations take the cost of each single event after it has been factored down and multiplied by the probability and the results of these values are then added together to give the final amount. The use of probability often results in a low final cost. For example, Risk ID 7 (fire explosion) has a cost of >€1 million and risk ID 2 (release of Ammonia) and ID 6 (disposal of waste off-site) each have a cost scenario of €1 million. Were any of these risks to materialise to the maximum costs indicated, financial provision based on €555,000 would not cover them. The OEE recommend that the applicant identify the worst case scenario, as outlined in the Draft 2013 guidance (which differs from the 2006 worst case scenario), as the event that poses the maximum environmental liability, including any domino effects. The applicant has not put in place a financial provision, but has provided an insurance quotation for a range of levels of cover.

Condition 12 of the RD requires the applicant to arrange for an independent and appropriately qualified consultant to review the ELRA, as submitted with the licence application, and to submit a reviewed report on the Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment in advance of the commencement of the activity. Condition 12 also requires the applicant to make financial provision to cover any liabilities associated with the operation of the installation in advance of the commencement of the activity.

Page 17 of2!

12.3.2 Closure, Restoration, and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP)

As part of the ELRA the applicant carried out an Initial Screening and Operational Risk Assessment as specified in the relevant EPA Guidance 1• The installation was identified as Risk Category 2 (moderate risk) due to the Class of Activity and the environmental sensitivity. The CRAMP addresses both short/medium term (Closure Plan) actions and a longer term programme (Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan) for the MRPL installation.

Known liabilities (for decommissioning and closure of the installation) are identified and costed as part of the CRAMP. On cessation of activities and following decommissioning the applicant anticipates there will be no remaining environmental liabilities, i.e., clean closure is expected.

The total estimate for decommissioning and closure is €2,449,700 (as included in Table 16 of the CRAMP). The OEE (Waste and Thematic Unit) agreed that the applicant has generally followed the 2006 methodology guidance in preparing and costing the CRAMP, but some points for clarification have been identified.

Condition 10 of the RD requires MRPL to review and amend the CRAMP to the satisfaction of the Agency prior to the commencement of the activity. The RD also requires the applicant to put in place a suitable financial provision instrument in advance of commencement of the activity.

Recommendation: It is my view that the applicant can be deemed a Fit & Proper Person for the purpose of this licence.

13. Submissions

There was one valid submission made in relation to this application.

1. Submission from Ms. Catherine Cosgrove, Principal Environmental Health Officer, Health Service Executive (HSE) - 16/04/12

The HSE state they have carried out an assessment of the licence application, site visit and discussions with the Consultant Engineers for the project and they have no additional comments to make.

(i) The HSE go on to recommend that as Killala is located in a High Radon Area that the issue of Radon as a health issue be addressed when the facility is operational.

EPA Comment The EPA Act 1992 as amended does not provide for control of an emission of a radioactive substance and so radon cannot be controlled by way of the Industrial Emissions Licence. Measures in relation to radon reduction/elimination can be included by way of building design and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland provide expert information and services in relation to radon risk and measurement.

14. Recommended Determination {RD) The RD permits the development of the proposed biomass fired power station subject to the conditions and schedules specified in the RD. Schedule A Limitations requires that there be no combustion of waste at the installation. The RD gives effect to the requirements of the EPA Act 1992 as amended, and having regard to the AA screening. I have consulted with Agency technical and sectoral advisors for the Energy sector.

15. Charges The proposed annual charge is €7,020.96, and is based on the anticipated enforcement effort required for the proposed installation.

Guidance on Environmental Liability Risk Assessment, Residuals Management Plans and Financial Provision, Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.

Page 18of2!

16. Recommendation Having regard to the requirements of Section 83(5) of the EPA Act 1992 as amended, I recommend that a Recommended Determination be issued subject to the conditions and for the reasons as drafted in the RD.

Signed

Stuart Huskisson

Office of Climate Licensing & Resource Use

Procedural Note

In 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 Act 1992 as amended as soon as may be after the expiration of the appropriate period.

Page 19 of21

Figure 1. Installation Location Map Mayo Renewable Power Limited CP0958-01)

~ SI6\0ey_.._No. EHIDJ!I130-GIIn:l>nd

20

Figure 2. Installation Boundary Map Mayo Renewable Power Limited CP0958-01l

~ lfMeug

Sc31o 1:2500

21

rz:zJ loUyo Co. Co. Lond5

~~L>nds

c:J Mich.MIIiogorl

_ .. <lit 12.ICICI ),.... ...,:au ---Pbnning

;;~.00 1=- ~