- _. . - . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .

I 3

I

I

Environmental Protection A CO Cork, Ireland

Fax (+353) 21 435 35 59 www cognis corn

Headquarters,

Johnstown Castle Estate, CO Wexford.

PO Box 3000, I

I

1

~

I I

I

Register No. ; Company Name;

1 6‘h March-07

POO52-02 Cognis (Irl) Ltdmenkel Ireland Detergents Ltd..

Dear Sirs

Cognis Ireland/Henkel Ireland Detergents Ltd., in accordance with section 87(5) and section 87(12) of the EPA Acts 1992 and 2003, objects to the following conditions of its proposed licence determination (POO52-02);

\ Condition 1.1 (Schedule A)

The company objects to the use of the word “waste processes” in Schedule A. 1 and requests the deletion of the word “waste” in the first line of this Schedule. This is for two reasons (a) we do not believe that three of these processes are waste process and we consider them an integral part of our overall production process and (b) the classification of these processes as waste processes in an IPPC licence could in hture subject the company to taxes, levies and waste controls (for example, in transfrontier shipments of substances) to which it might not otherwise be subjected. It will not take from the effectiveness of the licence to delete this word.

The Company draws the Agency’s attention to COM (2007)59 final Communication from the Commission (of the European Communities) to the Council and the European Parliament on the Interpretative communication on waste and by-products [Attachment I). This communication provides guidelines “based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and addressing the issues of by-products in relevant industrial sectors, on when by-products should or should not be considered as waste in order to clarifl the legal situation for economic operators and competent authorities”.

Registered in Ireland No. 42876 I.S. EN IS0 14001 LS. EN IS0 9002

Directors: E. G. Quigley (Managing Director), Paul Allen

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:44

In annex I1 of the communication a decision tree is presented for waste versus productlby-product decisions. Based on our understanding of the information presented in this document, and its applicability to the activities listed in schedule A of the proposed licence determination Cognis Ireland Ltd/Henkel Ireland Detergents Ltd therefore objects to the description of the following processes as “waste related processes”

I. Solvent reclamation or regeneration 11. Recovery of acetic acid by phase separation

111. Recovery of aluminium chloride solution

It is the opinion of the Company that these named activities are an integral part of our process and clearly satisfy the criteria outlined in the document thus allowing for the removal of the said processes from the Schedule.

The Company also objects to the permitted quantities of Aldoxime Residue, Ketoxime forecutlresidue, TAED Residue, and Toluene recovery distillate permitted to be co-incinerated annually as detailed in Schedule A2 (Table A.2) of the proposed licence determination. This objection is made based on the potential quantities of these materials generated during a capacity year and from which the Company will want to extract energy value. In a capacity year we will generate up to 4500 tonnes of combined Aldoxime/Ketoxime/TAED residue and we request that the Agency revise the permitted quantity for acceptance into the co-incinerator to 4500 tonnes accordingly.

Likewise the Company will produce up to 1 100 tonnes of toluene recovery distillate in a capacity year and we request permission to accept such quantities of this distillate into the co-incineration plant annually. Consequently we request a revision of Table A.2 to facilitate the acceptance of these additional quantities of residues and toluene distillate to the co-incinerator on an annual basis.

The amounts limited will result in a limitation on the productive capacity of the company, a matter which is of the gravest impact in the competitive environment in which it operates. This will not distort the proportion of substances to conventional fuel used because increases in production lead to a corresponding and proportionate increase in the use of conventional he1 oil.

A failure to allow the maximum amount requested will also result in the loss of an opportunity to conserve natural resources and the additional expense of purchasing fuel on the market. Moreover, it will also result in the export of these valuable supplementary fuels off site instead of their beneficial use as an integral part of the production process.

Condition 3.2

Cognis Ireland Ltd/Henkel Ireland Detergents Ltd operates continuously day and night, seven days a week, and has a constant security presence at its main entrance. Consequently the information specified in Condition 3.2 is readily available directly fiom our security office at the main entrance. For this reason the Company does not consider the provision of a Notice Board necessary and we request the removal of this condition from the licence.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

Condition 3.9.2

The Company objects to the timeframe allowed for the provision of adequately sized firewater retention facilities on site. We do not believe that it will be possible to design and construct this facility by September 2007. Condition 3.9.1 requires the company to update its current firewater assessment document within 3 months from the date of grant of the licence. This assessment must then be approved by the Agency before any works on implementation of our firewater retention project can be initiated. The Company will not delay with the provision of additional firewater retention facilities, as may be required by a firewater retention report, but in view of the scope of this project, we request that the timeframe for completion be extended until 30th September 2008. It is important to note, however, that completion of this project is dependant on agreement by the Agency to the Emission Limit Value increases sought in relation to discharges at emission point SE 1, as outlined in our objection to schedule B.3 of this correspondence.

Condition 3.15.2

The Company objects to the timeframe allowed for the installation of a temperature probe near the inner wall or at another representative point of the combustion chamber as authorised by the Agency. The Company has in the past attempted to fit temperature probes into the combustion chamber but on each occasion the probes failed. We believe that these failures may be due to the high temperatures within the chamber. In order for us to source, test, fit and commission a suitable temperature probe to the boilers we believe that additional time will be required and consequently we request an extension of this timeline from 3-months to 12-months from the date of grant of the licence. In addition, all increases in expenditure have to be justified and sanctioned by our patent company and this also takes time.

Condition 3.15.3

As per Condition 3.15.2 the Company objects to the timeframe for the submission of a report specifying the residence time of the boilers under the most unfavourable operating conditions. Such a report will require the engagement of recognised boiler experts. The Company must source this expert help and then acquire their service to conduct tests and issue a report. The Company does not consider 3-months to be adequate time to complete this work and consequently we request the Agency to extend the timeframe for compliance with this condition to 12-months from the date of grant of the licence.

Condition 3.15.5

The Company objects to this condition on the grounds that it is necessary to by-pass the Disa Filter abatement unit as part of standard operations, in order to ensure continued safe operation of the abatement equipment. This abatement equipment was installed to reduce the visual impact of the stack gas emission associated with particulates generated during combustion of the Aldoxime supplementary fbel. It is not designed to abate gaseous emissions of SOX, NOx, CO or VOC’s. As part of the normal safety operation of this filter it will go to bypass in the event of elevated

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

temperatures or pressures in the inlet gas stream and during start up operations. It would be unsafe to maintain the filter on-line under these conditions. The Company will ensure that the filter operates on line at all times during which Aldoxime is being combusted, save for periods of soot blowing as specified in Condition 6.17. The Company requests the Agency to revise the wording of Condition 3.15.5 to specify that the abatement system must be operational at all times during which Aldoxime is being combusted.

Condition 3.15.6

The Company objects to the timeframe provided for the installation of an automatic system to prevent the introduction of waste liquid feed to the boilers. The provision of such a system will require the installation of combustion chamber temperature probes in the boilers. These probes will have to be sourced, tested, fitted and commissioned and interlocks will have to be written into the operating system for the boilers. This will require external expertise and we do not believe it reasonable to have this working completed within a 3-month timeframe. The Company requests an extension of this timeframe to 15-months from the date of grant of the licence. Also, in the event that waste liquid feed to the boilers must be stopped due to any of the conditions outlined in 3.15.6, the Company must ensure that such procedures are carried out safely. Whereas it is possible to quickly stop entry of TAED, Toluene distillate and Aldoxime residue to the boilers it is not possible to immediately stop entry of Ketoxime forecut to the boilers. This is because the fuel line to the boiler must be pre-heated to prevent blockages due to the high viscosity of Heavy Fuel Oil. The Company requests the Agency to include wording which allows for the safe shutdown of liquid waste fuels to the boiler.

Condition 3.16.2

The Company interprets Condition 3.16.2 as meaning the recovery of heat by means of combined heat and power such as that currently in use on boiler 5. Boiler number 4 is not a high pressure boiler and consequently its use is not suited to CHP operation. In view of this fact the Company requests the removal of condition 3.16.2 from the licence because it is impossible to fulfil it in Boiler 4.

Condition 4.1.2

The operation of our co-incineration plant necessitates the regular shutdown of boilers for maintenance and cleaning and the effective start-up period following such shutdowns takes up to 5-hours to complete (see attachment 2 - start-up procedure). Due to the nature of our operations we are required to carry out as many as 20 ‘cold starts’ of our boilers annually. Given the length of time required to reach standard operating conditions following a cold start-up the Company does not consider the imposition Condition 6.17 (for boilers 4 and 5) as technically appropriate and consequently request its removal from the licence.. It would be impossible for the Company to comply with this condition given the nature of its processes and methods of operations.

The Company already has monitoring software which records emissions from the boilers in 30 minute intervals and provides calculated values in relation to 97% daily average values not exceeding 1.2 times specified limits; values, if any, greater than twice the specified limit; and daily average concentrations. The software does not provide for1 0-minute average reports.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

The Company will replace this software with an upgraded package which can fully comply with the requirements of this licence. We request, however, that the Agency grants the Company until March 2009 to comply with this condition due to the fact that capital will be required to purchase new monitoring software and this must be approved by our parent organisation. Given the significant amount of capital investment required to comply with the licence the Company will have to prioritise investment on the basis of urgency. It is our opinion that the existing software can continue to be used to archive environmental data without reducing the effectiveness of the licence.

The Company seeks clarification on the emission limits to be applied, if any, during start-up, or when HFO only is being burned.

During start-up periods the boiler will be fired on HFO only and our experience of these situations is that carbon monoxide emissions can reach elevated levels during this process. Likewise SO2 emissions can not comply with a limit of 635mg/m3 during start-up periods and at other times when Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) alone or Heavy Fuel Oil/TAED Residue is being used to fuel the boilers. The Company requests that the previously set concentration limit of 1 700mg/m3 SO2 be applied during times when HFO or HFO/TAED is being burned in the boilers and that no limit be placed on CO during start-up periods.

Sulphur emissions are directly related to the sulphur content of the fuel oil (typically 1%) and it will be impossible for the Company to comply with an ELV of 625mg/m3 when HFO is being solely utilised to fuel the boilers or in the event that HFO and TAED are being co-combusted in the absence of either Aldoxime or Ketoxime forecut residues. This is because the TAED residue must be burned in conjunction with one of the other residues or with Heavy Fuel Oil. In the event of there being no other residue available (for example if the Aldoxime and Ketoxime plants are shutdown) then it will be necessary to burn the TAED residue together with Heavy Fuel Oil. In this situation the SO2 emission will directly relate to the quantity of HFO in the fuel mix and consequently the Company requests an ELV of 1700mg/m3 to be granted in this event.

A considerable amount of optimisation work has been carried out on our boiler operations over the years to reduce emissions. Much of this work focussed on NOx reduction. This includes the operation of the boilers at low excess oxygen. This strategy, however, limits our ability to reduce CO emissions and there is a delicate balance between the requirement to reduce NOx emissions and at the same time control CO emissions. Energy recovery is a critical element of our site operations and the continued sustainability of the site is contingent on our continued ability to extract energy from our process by-products.

The Company will carry out investigative studies where necessary to ensure compliance to this licence, however, due to the critical importance of our energy recovery operations to site management we request the Agency to consider granting a 2-year derogation to allow the Company time to carry out investigations and implement measures as may be required to ensure compliance.

The Company strongly requests the Agency to consider the critical impact of the imposition of stringent restrictions on our use of these by-products for energy recovery on our continued sustainability when setting ELV’s and timelines for compliance.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

Condition 4.5 and Schedule B4

The Company objects to the Sound Pressure Limit dB(A)Lmo, day-time, permitted at Boundary Location B3. Recent independent noise monitoring reports indicate that the main source of noise at this location is from passing road traffic with the Cognis/Henkel site only providing a background contribution. Results recorded in 2006 indicated noise levels of 57dB(A), day-time at this location, caused predominately by road traffic.. The Company cannot influence the impact of passing road traffic and we do not believe that we can comply with the imposed limit of 54dB(A) at this location. The noise impact at this site boundary from site operations is negligible and consequently we request an increase to 60dB(A), day-time at this point. The Company also request that in the event of noise emissions exceeding the specified limit, where this can be demonstrated to be largely due to external sources, that this not be considered to be a non compliance to schedule B4 of the licence, and that this statement is included as a footnote on the licence.

We include a copy of the latest noise monitoring report, carried out on our behalf by AWN Consulting, for consideration by the Agency {Attachment 3).

Condition 6.13.2

In relation to the determination of normal levels of TOC in uncontaminated surface water the Company proposes that the most appropriate time to complete this determination is when the site project to collect all site surface water and firewater run-off is complete. In our objection to condition 3.9.2 above, we requested an extension of the time frame for completion of this project until September 2008. In relation to condition 6.13.2, therefore, and for logistical reasons, the Company requests the Agency to allow a similar time-frame for the determination of normal TOC levels in surface water discharge and the subsequent submission of a management philosophy governing the setting of action and trigger levels for response.

Condition 6.17

The Company already possesses a software system which collects archives and provides reports environmental monitoring data generated on site. This software, however, cannot graphically present data and does not have sufficient installed flexibility to enable modifications to be easily written. The Company will replace this software with an upgraded package which can fully comply with the requirements of this licence. We request, however, that the Agency grants the Company until March 2009 to comply with this condition due to the fact that capital will be required to purchase new monitoring software and this must be approved by our parent organisation. Given the significant amount of capital investment required to comply with the licence the Company will have to prioritise investment on the basis of urgency. It is our opinion that the existing software can continue to be used to archive environmental data without reducing the effectiveness of the licence.

Schedule B . l - Emission Al-1 and A1-2

The Agency has specified a limit of 170mg/m3 for oxides of sulphur on the emission from boilers 1,2, and 3 fiom 3 lSt December 2007. The current supplier specification for gas oil is 0.1 -.0.2% sulphur. At the upper end of the specification the Company will not be able to comply with an

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

emission limit of 170mglm3. Consequently the Company requests that the limit of 340mg/m3 be granted for the duration of the licence. Additionally the Company does not consider it possible to convert the use of boilers 1,2, and 3 to diesel or bio-diesel by 30fh September 2007. This conversion will involve significant investment associated with the provision of a large diesel storage tank in a bunded location, together with associated pipework and pumps. In common with other conditions which will require capital investment this must first go through normal budgetary planning and be approved by our parent companies. This process takes time to complete and consequently the Company requests the Agency to defer this condition until March 2009.

We attach the supplier specification for gas oil for the consideration of the Agency [Attachment 4).

Schedule B.3 Emission to Sewer

The Company objects to the following emission limit values at emission point SE 1 on the basis that these ELV’s will inhibit the Company’s ability to operate at h l l manufacturing capacity and will result in licence non compliance;

1. BOD Load (1 800 Kg/day) 2. COD Load (4000 Kg/day) 3. Oils, fats and grease (2.4 Kg/day) 4. Aluminium (1 0 mg/l)

We have had discussions with both Cork City Council and Cork County Council in relation to the emission limit values acceptable to them and we have received agreement from both Authorities to increase the permitted limits as follows;

& BOD to increase from 1800kg/day to 3000Kg/day & COD to increase from 4000Kg/day to 5000Kg/day > The Kg/day allowance for oils, fats and grease to increase from 2.4 Kg/day to 16Kg/day,

in recognition of the error in calculation of the permitted discharge load for this parameter. & Aluminium to increase from lOmg/l to 20mg/l

We await a letter of confirmation from Cork County Council which will outline their acceptance of revised effluent limits as specified above and we will provide a copy of this letter to the Agency as soon as we are in receipt of same.

Attachment 5 is a copy of a fax to Cork Corporation requesting a copy of their approval notification

In relation to the measurement of Heavy metals the Company requests an increase to the emission limit value from 1mg/l to 1 Smgll. This is due to the fact that the Agency is including Iron and Manganese in the list of heavy metals to be analysed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

The Company has explained its reasons in relation to its request for increased ELV’s at emission point SE 1 in its letter to the Agency, dated 20th September 2006. A copy of this letter is included with this correspondence (Attachment 6).

The Company requests the Agency to give due consideration to this request which is critical to site operations.

The Company request the Agency to take into consideration the significant financial resources required to comply with this licence determination and the strain that this places on the Company. We estimate that upgrade works associated with the licence will cost the Company upwards on €1.5 million.

These upgrades will include the provision of extended firewater retention, warehouse bunding and stormwater collection, the up-grade of our effluent neutralisation system, installation of continuous TOC monitoring of surface water discharge, upgrade of environmental software for collection and reporting of specified environmental data, provision of additional monitoring data in relation to our boiler operations and the requirement of significant additional on-going monitoring costs. Significant financial demands such as this must be notified to and approved by our parent organisations and can take time to acquire.

The Company therefore requests that the Agency also takes account of this when considering the individual grounds for the objections listed above; in particular when adjudicating on the timeframes allowed for the implementation of the measures outlined in the various conditions to which the Company has lodged objections.

Yours Sincerely,

Ciaran McCabe Safety, Health and Environment Manager

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

!

I t

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 2 1.2.2007 COM(2007) 59 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on the Interpretative Communication on waste and by-products

EN EN

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

1 . 2 . 2.1.

2.2.

3 . 3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3

background to the Communication .............................................................................. 4

Scope of the Communication ....................................................................................... 4

Context of the Communication .................................................................................... 4

The application of the European Court of Justice case law ......................................... 6

General notions around the definition of waste ........................................................... 6

Is the material concerned a production residue or a product? ...................................... 6

Conditions where a production residue would not be waste ........................................ 7

Other factors used by the court to distinguish between waste and by-product ............ 9

Annex 1 . examples of wastes and non-wastes ....................................................................... 11

1 . Slags and dusts from iron and steel production ......................................................... 11

2 . By-products from the food and drink industry . animal feed ..................................... 11

3 . By-products from combustion . flue gas desulphurisation gypsum .......................... 12

4 . Off cuts and other similar material ............................................................................. 12 . .

EM

Annex I1 . a decision tree for waste versus by-product decisions ........................................... 13

2

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . -. . - . . . -. . . . . . . . . . .

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on the Interpretative Communication on waste and by-products

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. INTRODUCTION

The definition of waste has been a key part of protecting the European environment from the impacts of waste generation and management over the past thirty years. Objects or substances that are defined as 'waste' are controlled by Community waste legislation in order to protect human health and the environment. The definition of waste is applied by the competent authorities specified by Directive 2006/12/EC' (the Waste Framework Directive), on a case by case basis, when making waste shipment or permit decisions. In general it is clear what is or is not waste. However, a number of issues have arisen in relation to the interpretation of this definition.

One of these is related to the distinction between materials that are not the main objective of a production process but can be considered as non-waste by-products, and those that should be treated as wastes. In reality, there is not a black and white distinction, but rather a wide variety of technical situations with widely differing environmental risks and impacts and a number of grey zones. However, for the purposes of applying environmental legislation, it is necessary to draw a clear line between the two legal situations on a case by case basis - waste or not waste. It is this distinction that has on occasions proved difficult to apply.

In order to improve the legal certainty of waste legislation, and to make the definition of waste easier to understand and apply, this Communication seeks to guide competent authorities in making case by case judgements on whether a given material is a waste or not, and to give economic operators information on how these decisions should be taken. The Communication will also help to smooth out differences in the interpretation of these provisions throughout the EU.

The Communication aims to explain the definition of waste set down in Article 1 of the Waste Framework Directive, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, in order to ensure that the Directive is properly implemented. In EU waste law, notions such as by-product or secondary raw material have no legal meaning - materials are simply waste or not. For the purposes of this Communication only2, the following illustrative terms, in addition to waste as defined in the Directive, will be used:

- Product - all material that is deliberately created in a production process. In many cases it is possible to identify one (or more) "primary" products, which is the principal material produced.

OJ L 114,27.4.2006, p. 9-21. I

2 The definitions do not represent a legal interpretation of the European Commission and are not destined to be used outside of the context of this Communication.

3

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

- Production residue - a material that is not deliberately produced in a production process but may or may not be a waste.

- By-product - a production residue that is not a waste.

As announced in the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, the effectiveness of the guidelines proposed in the Communication will be reviewed in 2010, in the context of the review of the strategy. At the same occasion, there will be a review whether further jurisprudence from the ECJ has made a revision of the guidelines necessary.

2. BACKGROUND TO THE COMMUNICATION

2.1. Scope of the Communication

The scope of this Communication is the distinction between waste and non-waste in a production process context. It is not relevant to other waste such as municipal waste or other similar waste streams, or to consumption residues. It does not deal with the issue of when a product may become a waste, or when a waste ceases to be a waste. It does not deal with waste that is excluded from the scope of the Waste Framework Directive.

2.2. Context of the Communication

Article 8(2)(iv) of Decision 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 20023, laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, called for a clarification of the distinction between waste and non-waste. In the Communication towards the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste of 27 May 20034, the Commission outlined the situation on the definition of waste, called for a wide, evidence backed debate on the issue and asked stakeholders with better alternatives to the existing definition of waste to come forward with them. The majority of the comments asked rather for the basic definition of waste to be kept and for certain specific aspects to be made clearer.

In the light of this consensus, the Commission committed itself in the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, adopted on 21 December 2005', to come forward with a "Communication containing guidelines, based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and addressing the issues of by-products in relevant industry sectors, on when by- products should or should not be considered as waste in order to clarifjl the legal situation for economic operators and competent authorities." This document now carries out that commitment.

2.2.1. Why are guidelines needed?

The evolving jurisprudence and relative absence of legal clarity has made in some cases the application of the definition of waste on this issue difficult for competent authorities and economic operators alike. There is some evidence of differing case by case solutions on similar facts by competent authorities in different Member States -this leads to inequalities in the treatment of economic operators and obstacles in the internal market. An excessively wide

3

4 COM(2003)301 Final. 5 COM(2005)666 Final.

OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1

4 EN

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

.. .

interpretation of the definition of waste imposes unnecessary costs on the businesses concerned, and can reduce the attractiveness of materials that would otherwise be returned into the economy. An excessively narrow interpretation could lead to environmental damage, and undermine Community waste law and common standards for waste in the EU.

The Commission considers that guidelines are better suited to delivering legal clarity than a definition of by-products in the Waste Framework Directive. Notably, a distinction between waste and by-product that is based on whether the material is destined for recovery or disposal, or based on whether or not the material has a positive economic value, would not seem to offer the necessary guarantees for the protection of the environment. Alternatively, the direct translation in the text of the Directive of some of the language used by the ECJ, outside of its context, may simply result in creating new uncertainties. Other options, including any list type approach, appear to be impractical in operational terms and in terms of legal enforcement. Within the legally binding criteria set out by the ECJ, guidelines represent a flexible tool, adaptable to new evidence and technologies.

2.2.2. Industrial context

There are a wide variety of different types of materials that are produced in industrial processes and could be concerned by this Communication. In business vocabulary, these may be identified as by-products, co-products, intermediate products, non-core products or sub- products. None of these terms have any meaning in community environmental law, i.e. products and by-products have the same status: materials are simply waste or not.

Industrial production processes are often complex and can generate several different materials with different economic values, environmental impacts and wastehon-waste statuses. In addition to this the consequences of wastehon-waste status can vary from sector to sector. In some sectors, materials that are sold whilst being classified as wastes are traded freely amongst businesses throughout the internal market. In other sectors, such as the food and drink sector, a clear distinction between waste and product is crucial to the economic exploitation of the material concerned. The technical situation is evolving continuously, with rapid changes in technology, both in production processes and the waste treatments available.

2.2.3. Environmental situation

It is clear that both products and wastes can contain toxic materials and be a risk to human health and the environment if badly handled or controlled. Additionally, industrial and extraction wastes often have characteristics that mean that they may pose particular risks for the environment, when compared with products. These are linked to the fact that whereas the content of products is generally specifically designed and controlled, the composition of wastes may be less clear.

This means that from an environmental point of view, it is extremely important that materials are correctly classified as wastes or not. Waste law protects the environment from the consequences of industrial waste in a number of ways, and notably through permitting and shipment procedures, and specific standards for the incineration of waste. If a material is not a waste, this does not mean that it falls completely out of the system of environmental protection set down in Community law. Product based regulation, and other legislation such as the proposed REACH Regulation aim at protecting human health and the environment from the potential environmental impacts of products and other materials that are not wastes.

EN 5

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:45

I , 3. THE APPLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE CASE LAW

3.1.

The ECJ has consistently stated that the definition of waste must be interpret

General notions around the definition of waste

d id ly, in order to be consistent with the aim of Directive 2006/12/EC, and with Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty which provides that Community policy on the environment is to aim at a high level of protection. The definition of waste in Directive 2006/12/EC makes reference to its Annex 1, and to the European Waste List in Commission Decision 2000/532/EC6. However, as both of these sources are indicative, the definition of waste essentially turns on the notion of ‘discard’.

The court has stressed on several occasions that whether a material is a waste or not depends on the specific factual circumstances, and that therefore the decision must be taken by the competent authority on a case by case basis.

Finally, it is important to note that even where a particular material satisfies the tests set out by the ECJ (and described in sections 3.3) in order to be considered as a non-waste, if it is in practice discarded, it must clearly be considered and treated as a waste.

3.2.

In Palin Granit7, the E

Is the material concerned a production residue or a product?

oduction resid-ue is12someth ctlx, seeks 1 to i produce. In Sa ncerned was “the result of a technical choice” (to

deliberately produce such a material) it could not be a production residue.

Therefore, the first question to be asked when determining whether a material is waste or not is did the‘ manuxacturer deItib.erately, choose to, prpduce the material in question!

If the manufacturer could have produced the primary product without producing the material concerned but chose to do so, then this is evidence that the material concerned is not a production residue. (%her/; ,evid technical choice, could include a modification material concefigd specific technical characteristicS.

The case of petroleum coke

In the case of Saetti and Frediani, the ECJ was asked to give an opinion on whether petroleum coke, a carbon based material produced in the refining of crude oil, was a waste or not. The court held that petroleum coke could not be classified as a production residue as the production of coke is the result of a technical choice, specifically intended for use as a fuel. They also held that even if petroleum coke was an automatic result of the refining process, if it was certain that the coke production in its entirety would be used, mainly for the same purposes as other substances (produced in the refining process), then petroleum coke was also a petroleum product, manufactured as such, and not a production residue.

6

7

8

As last amended by Council Decision 2001/573EC, OJ L 203 28.7.2001 p. 18. Case C-9/00 Palin Granit Oy (2002) ECR 1-3533. C-235/02, Saetti Order, 15‘h January 2004.

EN 6

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:46

3.3.1. Is the further use of the material a certainty not a mere possibility?

If there is a possibility that the material is in fact not useable, does not meet the technical specifications that would be required for it to be useable, or there is no market for that material, then it should continue to be considered as a waste. The waste status protects the environment from the potential consequences of this uncertainty. If it subsequently turns out that the waste can in fact serve a useful purpose, then the material will lose its waste status when it is ready for use as a recovered product (see Mayer Parry9).

EM

3.3. ~ Conditions where a production residue would not be waste

Even where a material is considered to be a production residue, the Court has indicated that it is not necessarily a waste. The characteristics of the material in terms of its readiness for further use in the economy can mean that it should not be considered to be a waste.

In recent jurisprudence, (Palin Granit and following cases):; the ECJ.<ha \put la three ipart oduct. The court

without any further processing prior to reuse and as part of a continuing process of production, then the material would not be a waste. This test is cumulative - all three part@U,&,f&

-5- must be met. In addition to this test, the ECJ has noted that the use for which the by-product is destined must also be lawful - in other words that the by-product is not something that the@hhCLCL manufacturer is obliged to discard or for which the intended use is forbidden under EU or national law (see Decision tree in Annex 11).

ion, residueli the’ fukher

er to, be ,consideTed as a. ial wa$ not a mere possibility but a certainty, O&&d

u.6

f rz>crss,

In some cases, there may be the potential for a certain proportion of the material to be used, with the rest needing to be disposed of, If, in the case by case judgment of the competent authority, certain use cannot be guaranteed for all the material concerned then the material should start as a waste. However, the existence of long term contracts between the material holder and its subsequent users can be an indication that the material covered by the contract will be used and therefore that certainty of use is present.

Similarily, if the material is going to be stored for an indefinite amount of time, prior to a potential but not certain re-use, then it should be considered as a waste while it is being stored (Palin Granit).

3.3.1.1. Further use will bring a financial advantage to the waste holder

Where a manufacturer can sell the material concerned for a profit, this can indicate that it is more likely that such a material will certainly be used. (Palin Granit) However, this alone is not definitive - see previous case law confirming that waste can have an economic value. (Vessoso and Zanetti”, Tombesi”). The Commission considers that it is also important to weigh up the costs of treatment of waste when considering this test, as there is a risk that a token price could be offered to have the material classified as non-waste, and therefore allow it to be treated outside of proper waste treatment facilities. However, a high price, in line with or above current market prices for the material, may indicate that the material is not waste.

C-444/00 Mayer Parry (2003) ECR 1-6163. Cases C-206/88 and 207/88, Vessoso andzanetti (1990) ECR 1461. Joined cases C-304194, C-330194, C-342/94 & C-224/95 Tombesi (1997) ECR 1-3561.

9

lo

I I

7

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:46

The Spanish Manure cases

In the joined cases of Commission v Spain (C-416/02 and C-121/03), the court held that manure will not be waste where it is used as soil fertiliser as part of a lawful practice of spreading on clearly identified parcels (regardless of whether the parcels are within or outside the agricultural holding that generated the effluent) and if its storage is limited to the needs of those spreading operations.

3.3.2. Can the material be used again without any furtherprocessing?

In some cases, this can be a difficult test to apply. Often, in the value chain of a by-product there is a chain of tasks that must be undertaken as part of the further use of the material: The material is produced, it may then be washed, dried, refined or homogenised, characteristics or other materials that are necessary for its further use may be added, its quality will be controlled and so on. Some tasks will be carried out on the production site of the manufacturer, some on the site of the next user, and some by intermediaries. To the extent that these tasks are an integral part of the production process (see next section), they do not prevent the material from being considered as a by-product.

The Court has found that if an additional recovery process is required before further use, even if such subsequent use is certain, this is evidence that the material is a waste until the process has been completed (Avesta Polarit").

3.3.3. As part of the continuing process of production?

of the continuing tlfeniit is a by-

In this situation, the competent authority will need to decide whether the tasks described in the section above are an integral part of the continuing process of production. In doing so the Commission considers that they will need to make a distinction based on all the facts: the degree of readiness of the material for further use, the nature and extent of the tasks needed to prepare the material before further use, the integration of these tasks into the main production process and whether the tasks are being carried out by someone other than the manufacturer, could all be relevant. BREF documents could also be taken into consideration by the competent authority as guidance when deciding whether the tasks are an integral part of the continuing process of production. It should be noted that the approach set out by the Court in the Palin Granit, Niselli13 and Spanish manure cases indicates a narrow rather than a broad approach to the notion of production process.

If the material leaves the site or factory where it has been produced in order to undergo further processing then this may be evidence that such tasks are no longer a part of the same production process. However, with the increasing specialisation of industrial processes, this cannot be taken as definitive evidence. Next users and intermediated companies may be involved in preparing the material for further use, through carrying out the type of tasks described above in 3.3.2.

l 2 Case C-ll4/01 AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy judgment 1 1 September 2003. C-457/02, Niselli, order of 1 lth November 2004. 13

8 EM

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:46

If the material is needed as part of the primary activity of the manufacturer then this is evidence that the material concerned is not a waste.

The case of the leftover rocks

In the cases of Avesta Polarit and Palin Granit, the Court was asked to settle in what circumstances leftover rock from mining and quarrying should be considered as a waste. The Court stated that where the rocks were being stored prior to a possible future use or a future waste treatment obligation, they would be waste. Where certain residues that could be physically identified were being stored prior to a potential but not certain re-use, without being processed, in order to fill in underground galleries for stability purposes as required for the principal activity of the mine (extraction of ore), they would not be waste.

3.4.

In Arco Chemie14, and in other similar jurisprudence, the ECJ lists a whole range of factors that may indicate that a material is a waste. None of these elements are necessarily conclusive, but some may be helpful in some circumstances.

Other factors used by the court to distinguish between waste and by-product

3.4.1. No other use than disposal can be envisaged, or the use has a high environmental impact or requires special protection measures

As the ECJ noted, if a given material has no possible use, and therefore will have to be disposed of, it would seem normal that such a material would be considered waste from the moment of production. In some cases further use of the material is prohibited, or the material must be disposed of or recovered as a waste in an obligatory procedure. This could occur for environmental, safety or public health reasons. One example of EU legislation that could lead to it being obligatory to dispose of a given material or to treat it as waste is Directive 96/59 on PCBsPCTs”. Equally, if the material does not meet product legislation standards for its potential use, then it should be treated as a waste until it is ready to meet such standards.

The issue of the potential for environmental damage from a given material, and the need for special environmental protection measures to be taken in order for the material to be used is more complex. A number of primary products also have a high potential for environmental damage, and require careful use in order not to damage the environment. However, following the ECJ position on interpreting the waste definition, if a by-product has a higher environmental impact than an alternative material or product that it replaces, this may affect the boundaries of the wastehon-waste decision in situations where a comparison is possible and relevant.

The contrary situation, the absence of a clear risk to the environment from a material, does not prove that it is not a waste. In Palin Granit, the ECJ considered that even if it was proven that the material in question does not pose any real risk to human health and environment; this was not a relevant criterion in order to consider that a material was not waste. This is logical - inert industrial waste dumped in an inappropriate area may pose no risk to human health or to the environment. However, it undoubtedly constitutes a nuisance and should be covered by the scope of the waste definition. Following on from this, the fact that a substance can be

EN

l 4 Joined Cases C-4 18/97 & C-4 19/97 ARC0 Chemie (2000) ECR 1-4475. 0 J L 243,24.9.1996 P. 31-35. 15

9

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:46

recovered as a fuel in an environmentally responsible manner and without substantial treatment does not mean that the substance is not a waste (Arco Chemie). The waste definition exists to ensure that this environmentally responsible treatment is indeed carried out on wastes.

In the same case, the ECJ stated that neither the place of storage of a material or the composition of a material was relevant to whether the material was waste or not. In some cases - marble quarrying, for example - waste production residues such as off cuts can indeed be composed of exactly the same material as the primary product. However, if they are destined to be discarded, then they will still be waste.

3.4.2. The treatment method for the material in question is a standard waste treatment method

In some circumstances, the destination of the material can give a strong hint as to the status of that material. The ECJ has, however, also held that whether the operation that will be applied to the material is or is not a waste treatment operation listed in Annex IIA or IIB cannot provide the definitive answer on whether the material is waste or not (IViselli). This is inevitable, as several methods of treatment or disposal listed in the Annex could also be perfectly validly applied to a product, and vice versa. Notably, there is no way of distinguishing between the combustion of a fuel as a product and the combustion of a waste based on the treatment method.

3.4.3. The undertaking perceives the material as waste

In Arco Chemie the Court has noted that the perception of the material as waste could be a factor that could indicate that the material concerned was waste. However, the Commission considers that this test could encourage a negligent approach to waste law, by giving an advantage to businesses that are not aware of their legal obligations or who seek to avoid compliance with these obligations. In addition, as the notion is extremely subjective, it could lead to the concept of waste varying from one Member State to another.

3.4.4. The undertaking seeks to limit the quantity of material produced

Again in Palin Granit, the ECJ noted that if the undertaking seeks to limit the quantity of material produced this could be an indicator that the material is a waste. This is not definitive, as it is possible to seek to vary the quantities produced of a given material for factors related to cost, price and markets, rather than as a desire to minimise the quantities of a material that is to be discarded. Further, applying this criterion in a rigorous manner could dissuade companies from adopting waste prevention policies in some circumstances.

10 EN

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:46

Annex 1 -.examples of wastes and non-wastes

These examples are designed to illustrate some cases in which materials may be classified as wastes or not. They are taken from a number of different sectors, but are neither definitive nor comprehensive. There are many other examples that could have been used, and even the examples here may vary across the EU in some circumstances, notably if there is no certainty of use for a given by-product, or on the contrary, if use is certain for a material in a region or Member State, where this is not the case across the whole EU.

1. SLAGS AND DUSTS FROM IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION

Blast furnace slag is produced in parallel with hot iron in a blast furnace. The production process of the iron is adapted to ensure that the slag has the requisite technical qualities. A technical choice is made at the start of the production process that determines the type of slag that is produced. Moreover, use of the slag is certain in a number of clearly defined end uses, and demand is high. Blast furnace slag can be used directly at the end of the production process, without further processing that is not an integral part of this production process (such as crushing to get the appropriate particle size). This material can therefore be considered to fall outside of the definition of waste.

In contrast, de-sulphurisation slag is produced due to the need to remove sulphur prior to the processing of iron into steel. The resulting slag is rich in sulphur, cannot be used or recycled in the metallurgical circuit and is therefore usually disposed of in a landfill. Another type of example is dust extracted from the steel production process when cleaning the air inside the plant. This is captured in filters via an extraction process. These filters can be cleaned and the metallic content returned to the economic cycle via a recycling operation. Both of these production residues are therefore wastes from the point of production with the iron content extracted from the filters ceasing to be waste once it has been recycled.

2. BY-PRODUCTS FROM THE FOOD AND DRINK INDUSTRY - ANIMAL FEED

A major use for by-products from the food and drink sector is animal feed. The production processes in numerous sectors (e.g. sugar production, oilseed crushing, starch production and malt production) generate materials that are used as feed material either directly by farmers or by the animal compound feed industry. Although not all production residues destined for animal feed are automatically non-wastes16, the above feed materials are produced deliberately in adapted production processes, or may not be produced deliberately but meet the cumulative by-product criteria of the court as their further use in animal feed is certain, without further processing outside of the production process of that material. In addition, the feed material is governed by legislation such as Regulation 178/2002 on food lawI7 and Directive 96/25/EC on the circulation and use of feed material". In both cases, this material can therefore be considered to fall outside of the definition of waste.

l 6 (as per the position of the Commission before the court in pending case Commission v Italy, C-195/05 - the existence of specified technical characteristics and certain re-use is not enough on its own - the three cumulative elements of the ECJ jurisprudence must be applied). OJ L 100, 8.4.2006, p. 3. 17

18 OJ L 123,23.5.1996, p. 35-58.

11

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:46

3. BY-PRODUCTS FROM COMBUSTION - FLUE GAS DESULPHURISATION GYPSUM

Flue gas desulphurisation facilities remove sulphur from the flue gases that are produced when sulphurous fossil fuels are combusted in power plants, in order to prevent these emissions contributing to air pollution and acid rain. The resulting material, flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) gypsum is used for the range of uses that natural gypsum can be put to and notably the production of plasterboard. The process is modified and controlled to produce FGD gypsum of the required characteristics. In addition, use of the material is certain, without further processing prior to re-use and as part of an integrated production process.

A number of other coal combustion products can have further uses with little or no further processing. Some, however, are in practice regularly landfilled - lignite fly ash, for example. As there is therefore no certainty of use at an EU wide level, they do not fulfil the ECJ criteria across the EU and will therefore often be wastes, although in some local situations an application and therefore certainty of use may exist.

4. O F F CUTS AND OTHER SIMILAR MATERIAL

Sawdust, wood chips and off cuts from untreated wood is generated at saw mills or at secondary operations such as the manufacturing of furniture or pallets and packaging, along with the primary product, cut wood. These elements are then used as the raw material for the production of wood based panels such as chip board or in paper production. Use is certain, as part of an integral production process and without fwrther processing other than being adapted to the appropriate size for being integrated into the final product.

In more general terms, excess material from a primary production process, or material that is deficient only in a cosmetic way but that is materially similar to the primary product, such as rubber compound and vulcanisation mix, cork shavings and pieces, plastic scrap and similar material may be seen as by-products. For this to be the case they must be able to be reused directly either back in the primary production process or in other integrated productions where reuse is also certain. Materials of this type can also be considered to fall outside of the definition of waste.

Where material of this kind requires a full recycling or recovery operation, or contains contaminants that need to be removed before it can be further used or processed, this would indicate that the material is a waste until the recycling or recovery operation is completed.

EM 12

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:46

Annex I1 - a decision tree for waste versus by-product decisions

Is the intended use of the material lawful?

Then material is a product, not a production i residue

Material is a waste

> E l

’ certain? Material is a waste

- without further processing (other than normal processing as an integral part of the production process)?

Material is a waste

Then the material is a non-waste by- 4

product E l

EN

Is the material produced as an integral part of the production Material is a waste process? E l

13 EN

I

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:46

Operaizkg instmdonsfor the boikr and its associated eq@ment, togtber with a brief summa?y of the operating instmdonsfor the burner equ@menL

cOntrolsystt3nl A detailed description of the boiledbumer control system and its operation is contained in Appendix B: Control System. A detailed description of the start sequence, with paaicular emphasis on the burner management and safety systems, is given in section B1 of the Rodenhuis en Verloop Combuston System Operation Manualcontained in volume 2 of these boiler operation and maintenance manuals.

Priortostart-up An external examination of the boiler should be carried out by the operator. This examination should include, but not be limited to :

1. Correct installation of the equipment

2. All equipment powered up

3. Air, Water, Steam and Fuel systems checked for tightness.

4. Alarms. 5. FDfan.

6. Auxdmyairfan.

7. Fan inlet openings clear.

8. Burners.

9. Levelgauge.

I O . Gauges.

I I. Valves.

12. Lines de-spaded.

13. The position of all manual valves should be checked.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

I O P E R A T I N G I N S T R U C T I O N S

I !,.-

14.The pressure of the fuel supplies must be checked, and proper

15. A lamp test on the burner conttol panel should be canied out.

16. Any b s or Trip conditions indicated should be attended to as

recirculation of any heated fuels c o n h e d .

necessary.

A more detailed check list is given in Append2 D - Statt-trp Check List. The operator must be satisfied that all requirements for safe operation of the boiler are met and that the boiler is in a safe condition prior to start-up.

Filling the Boiler Check all boiler drain valves are closed, includvlg the manual blowdown valve and the automatic contiauous blowdown valve, the water column and level gauge drain valves, and all pressure gauge and pressure sensor vent valves.

Check that the upper (steam) drum and superheater vent valves, and the superheater drain valves, are open. Open the water column and level gauge isolating valves, and all pressure gauge and pressure sensor isolating valves.

Fill the boiler with properly treated, deaerated feedwater. In order to minimise t h e d stresses, the feedwater temperature should be withjn 50-1OO0C of the boiler temperabe. To do this, select on the D m Level Controller (controller 1 , loop 1) and set the output to zero, if not already so. Start the boiler feed pump and open the manual feedwater isolating valves. Open the boiler feedwater control valve until a suitable feedwater flow is achieved; this is done by setting the manual output of the Drum Level Controller to a value greater than zero: with no pressure in the boiler, a value of 10% will result in a feedwater flow of 5-6 t/hr when there is no pressure in the boiler.

Fill the boiler to about 25-35 mm below the middle of the level gauge. Note that the remote level indicator may not indicate the correct level until the boiler has begun to boil and reached a pressure of 2-3 bar g, as some of the water in the water column steam leg may have boiled off when the boiler was depressurised, so causing erroneous readings until it is replenished by condensate. Check that the low-low water level alarm has cleared, and no alarms (red hghts) are lit on the two Gestra water level switch controls.

CddStartUp Procedure When the boiler is to be started from a cold condition, certain conditions should exist:

I. FD fan shutters open.

2. b e scanner in position and connected; scanner isolating valve open.

3. Steam drum vent valve fully opened.

4. Blowdown valves closed.

1Q

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

.-. ........ ...... .... ~ ....... ~ ...... ... ...... -

0 P E R A T IN G IN S T R U C T I O N S

i

r

5. Water level established at least 180 mm above the bottom of the level gauge.

6. Boiler steam stop valve fully open.

7. Boiler feed pump and a supply of feedwater available.

8. Superheater drain valves and bypass valves fully open.

Follow the directions for the burner, controls, fans, and fuel system, and start firing at the minimum firing rate.

Venfy the water level in the level gauge. The water level should initially be well below the centre line of the water level gauge - as much as 40 mm below the centre line is acceptable for a cold start

Select Manual on the Drum Level Controller (controller 1, loop 1) and set the output to zero, if not already so. Note this is the only operator-controllable loop on controller 1; the other loops, loops 3 and 4, are for displaying boiler conditions only.

Select Manual on the Boiler Master Controller (controller 2, loopl) and set the output to zero, if not already so. Note this is the only operator-controllable loop on controller 2; the other loops, loops 3 and 4, are for displaying boiler conditions only.

The Furnace Purge is initiated fiom the control room panel by the operator action of starting the FD and auxdmy air fans and, if necessary, opening the FD fan manual inlet damper.

The Furnace Purge Complete indicator on the panel will flash. After an interval of 2 minutes from the FD Flow Correct indicator hghting, the Furnace Purge Complete indicator will go steady, assuming the purge has been completed satisfactorily.

If the control panel has been switched off, or if the bumer did not purge successfully on the previous shut-down, a bumer purge may now commence automatically. The bumer purge cycle will complete in about 1-2 minutes, depending on the number of fuel lines to be purged. If the igniter does not hght, the burner purge will time out after a short time, and a fault condition will be indicated on the control paneL

Before starting the burner, check that the superheater dr&s are open, both the isolating valves and the steam trap bypass valves. The bypass valves may be closed once is clear that superheated steam is being discharged from the boiler - the degree of superheat may be seen on the IC2X computer monitor, on page 55 or 56 - or when the steam temperature exceeds 300°C.

A bumer is started from the control room panel by the operator action o f pressing the Start Oil Burner button. For the following description, it will be assumed that the HFO bumer will be selected to start

20

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

O P E R A T I N G I N S T R U C T I O N S

If safe boiler conditions still exist following the purge then the sequence wiU advance immediately to start the igniter bixner. The lgniter bumer will start, and five seconds later the lgniter burner will be in operation.

When the ignite bumer is in operation, as proven by its own safety system, the HFO burner will start to hght automatically. After about 10 seconds the HFO burner will be in operation, and the igNter burner will be extinguished.

N.B. The appropriate flame detectors must register a flame for the igmter burner and then for the main bumer at each stage. If this does not happen then the burner will trip.

The boiler staa-up vent will open automatically when the burner starts to ensure an adequate flow of steam through the superheater. This valve opens automatically whenever a flame intensity greater than 40% is detected and there is a steam flow less than 3 t/hr. The start-up valve will close automatically when the steam flow exceeds 8 t/hr, but it may also be closed from the control panel once the steam flow is greater than 3 t/hr (or if the burner stops). The start-up valve is controlled from the 6 bar g Steam and Start-up Valve Controller, controller 8, loop 2.

21

The boiler is then allowed to heat up gradually. It should be allowed to take about 3 hours to commence bo% (say 0.3 bar s) from cold, i.e. from a furnace temperature below 25OC, or 1 hour from a furnace temperature of 75430°C.

To allow the boiler time to warm up gently and without unnecessary stress, it will be necessary to start and stop the bumer from time to time, with rest periods of 5- 6 minutes between each finng. A h g rate of about 20% MCR (minimum lire, 3.5 MXV, equivalent to a fuel flow rate of 270-280 kg/hr) will be sufficient for initial heating. A suitable regime would be intervals of 5 minutes fimg followed by 5 minutes rest for the first forty minutes, after which the firing intervals could be increased by 5 minutes every forty five minutes or hour until bo- commenced, ie., for a cold start:

In the first 40 minutes times

5 min on followed by 5 min off, repeated 4

In the next 45 minutes 3 times

10 rnin on followed by 5 min off, repeated

Inthenexthour 15 min on followed by 5 min off, repeated 3 times

Once the boiler reaches a pressure of 0.3 bar g, the burner may be left on continuously at minimum fire. If the boiler is left at minimum fire it will normally take about 3 hours to reach 55 bar g pressure from the commencement of b o w (say 0.3 bar s). However, a lugher firing rate, of not more than 25% MCR (4.1 MW, equivalent to an oil flow rate of 350 kg/hr), may be used at steam pressures from 5 bar g up to 25 bat g. The €iting rate may be increased gradually to 100% MCR (16 Mw, equivalent to an oil flow rate of 1,360 kg/ht.) at steam pressures above 25 bar g.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

O P E R A T I N G I N S T R U C T I O N S

I

N.B. The heat input to the boiler is set manually by adjusting the Steam Pressure control output up or down in the Boiler Master Controller (controller 2, loop 1). When the burner starts, this control will automatically be set to its value, 3.5 m. Monitor the drum water level during this time and take any necessary corrective action to maintain the water level. Check the boiler water level gauge from time to time as until the boiler has reached a pressure of 2-3 bar, the level on the level controller may not be correct - see Filling the Boiler above for the explanation.

When a steady, pure steam flow is established through the steam drum vent (at approx. 0.2 bar g) the drum vent should be closed.

The Drum Level control (controller 1 , loopl) may be put into Auto mode at this point, with a set point of 215 mm.

Drain, and warm the steam h e by opening the steam trap bypass valves at the initial firing stages. Ensure that all steam trap isolating valves are M y open. Before opening any steam stop valves, all condensate should be drained from both sides of the valves. The steam trap bypass valves may be closed once is clear that superheated steam is being discharged from the boiler - the degree of superheat may be seen on the IC2X computer monitor, on page 55 or 56 - or when the steam temperature exceeds 300°C.

To prevent stop valves and non-return valves from sticking during the pressure raising period, they should be checked frequently to be sure that they are not seated too tightly. By-pass valves should be used, when provided, to warm steam lines and to equalise pressures thus reducing the throttling action across the stop valves when they inidly open.

The boiler pressure should be allowed to rise gradually. At a pressure of approximately 25 bar g, the stop valve to the 55/16 bar g pressure reducing station may be opened, if required. At a pressure of approximat& 40 bar g, the stop valve to the steam turbine may be opened to commence warming the steam line. Again ensure that the steam main is fully drained afier the boiler main stop valve; keep all drains open for as long as required to ensure that all condensate is properly drained from the line. Failure to observe this precaution catefdly will result in water hammer when steam statts to flow.

Once an export steam flow greater than 3 t/ht (minimum) is measured, the boiler start-up vent may be closed. Note that since the staa-up valve discharges about 3.1 t/hr at 55 bar g, the total steam flow will need to be at least 6.5-7 t/hr if the start- up vent is not to open again automatically.

When it is clear that no condensate is being discharged, the steam main drains/steam trap bypass valves may be closed. Check that all steam trap isolating valves are fully open. Any further condensate will be cleared by the steam traps.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

O P E R A T I N G I N S T R U C T I O N S

!

, ' .

The Drum Level control (controller 1, loopl) should now be put into Remote mode.

The load demand on the boiler is then slowly increased to allow the boiler to take up the load. The steps of increase in the load demand should not exceed 2 Mw each, with time allowed between each step increase for the boiler to stabilise at the new load. Once the boiler has been reached the desired operating pressure, the rate o f increase in the steam flow should be about 1 t/hr per minute; under no circumstances should the rate of increase of steam output exceed 1.6 t/hr per minute. When the boiler reaches the required load, the Steam Pressure control (controller 2, loop 1) may then placed in Automatic mode.

The Boiler Master Controller then takes control of the bumer management system and maintains the boiler pressure at the set value.

In cases of a single boiler installation, the stop valves can be opened and throttled as necessary to warm the steam lines before the boiler pressure reaches n o d operating pressure.

Startap and Loading Curves Start-up and loading m e s the boiler are given below:

Boiler Start-up Curve

8

7

F6 k5 s 4 a Q,

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

p h ? , ? ? , , g ? ? , g o o l - . r c u n I m m d - U ) (0

Time [ EZZl Firing Rate (MW) +Boiler Pressure (bar g) I

60

50 n En

40 e

30 2

20

3 v) U)

n 10

0

The interrupted firing shown above for when the boiler is cold is indicative only. When the boiler is cold, it should not be fired for continuous periods of more than 5-10 minutes each, with 5 minutes rest between each firing period. The fuing periods can be extended as the boiler begins to warm. Continuous firing should only commence as the water begins to boil.

23

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

O P E R A T I N G I N S T R U C T I O N S

Boiler Loading Curve 18.0

16.0

14.0 h

6.0

g .0

.w

4- B.0

63.0

t j 4.0

2.0

0.0 Y P Z ? Z k 2 O r c u m * m u ) b a h n ~ r

r -. I +Recommended loading rate (1 .O t/hr/min) do- Fast loading rate (1.6 t/hr/rnin)j

lmmedbtely after going on line. The Low Water Level Alarms should be checked at this point, the boiler level gauge blown down and the drum water level vedied as being correct with the level gauge-

The TDS, ie. continuous, blowdown line should be opened as soon as possible after going on line, and the calibration of the blowdown controller checked against a sample of water taken horn the boiler. The conductivity measured by the blowdown controller is displayed on the 55 bar g Steam Temperature/TDS Blowdown controller, controller 5, loop 2.

Ensure that the D m Level Controller is in Remote mode and that the drum level is being satisfactorily maintained.

Durinsoperation When the boiler has been placed on line and steady state conditions reached then a water sample from the boiler should be taken and examined for:

TDS

Hardness

PH

Sulphite/hydrazine content

24

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

1

TECHNICAL REPORT

ANNUAL INTEGRATED POLLUTION CONTROL NOISE SURVEY

FOR

Cognis Ireland Limited Little Island

Cork

Report prepared by: Niall Vaughan, B.Sc. Our reference: NV06/3548NR01

Date: I 3 December 2006

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

NV06/3548NR01 AWN Consulting Limited

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 .O INTRODUCTION

2.0 SURVEY DETAILS

2.1 Measurement Locations

2.2 Survey Periods

2.3 Personnel and Instrumentation

2.4 Procedure

2.5 Measurement Parameters

2.6 Results

Appendix A Measurement Results (113 Octave Band Data)

Appendix B Comparisons with Previous Surveys

Figure 1 Measurement Locations

Page 2

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

NV06/3548NR01 AWN Consulting Limited

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AWN Consulting have been commissioned by the Cognis facility in Little Island, Co. Cork to

carry out their annual IPC noise monitoring survey. The purpose of this survey is to fulfil the

noise requirements of the Cognis Annual Environmental Report (AER). The noise survey is

carried out within the Cognis facility and at two designated noise sensitive locations.

An environmental noise survey was carried out at the designated noise monitoring locations

during the month of December 2006. The survey data has been analysed and it may be

concluded that the Cognis facility is in compliance with the relevant sections of their IPC

Licence at their designated noise sensitive locations.

NIALL VAUGHAN

Acoustic Consultant

TERRY DONNELLY

Senior Acoustic Consultant

Page 3

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

NV0613548N RO 1 AWN Consulting Limited ._

Location Daytime Night-time (LAeq930 min) (LAerh15 m i d

B I -West Boundary 67 63

82 - North Boundary 68 68

83 - East Boundary 54 49

84 - South Boundary 66 52 I -

1 .O INTRODUCTION

AWN Consulting Limited has been commissioned to conduct an environmental noise

survey at the Cognis facility, Little Island, Co. Cork. This work has been

commissioned in order to assess compliance with their IPC Licence No 52 in relation

to noise.

A series of surveys have been carried out at Cognis since 1995. During 1997 and

1998, specific corrective actions were taken to address some of the primary sources

identified during these initial noise surveys. This report seeks to meet the Annual

Environmental Reporting (AER) requirements of the Cognis IPC licence and

determine the current ambient levels at the boundaries.

The boundary conditions of the Cognis Integrated Pollution Licence No 52 in relation

to noise are summarized as follows:

Noise from the activity shall not give rise to sound pressure levels (LAeq,lB min), which

exceed the limit value(s) by more than 2 dB.

Page 4

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

NV06/3548N RO 1 AWN Consulting Limited

2.0 SURVEY DETAILS

Two environmental noise surveys were conducted in order to quantify the existing

noise environment. The survey was conducted generally in accordance with IS0

1996: 1982: Acoustics - Description and measurement of environmental noise.

Specific details are set out below and the EPA publication - Guidance Note for Noise

In Relation To Scheduled Activities: Specific details are set out below.

2.1 Measurement Locations

Measurements were conducted at four boundaries and two noise sensitive

locations in the vicinity of the Cognis facility. Figure 1, at the rear of this

document, details the approximate locations of the measurement positions.

Location 1 - BI:

Location 2 - B2:

Location 3 - B3:

Location 4 - B4:

B1 is the West boundary location. The boundary is

located adjacent the main roadway to the area. The

West boundary has a direct line of sight across the

adjacent waterway to the sensitive area SI .

B2 is the North boundary location. The boundary is a

common boundary with a neighbouring facility and is

therefore screened from the sensitive area of North

Esk, S2.

83 is the East boundary location. The boundary is again a common boundary with a neighbouring facility.

The location is along an open area with new facilities

located to the North and the main access road to Little

Island to the South of the location.

64 is the South boundary location for all

measurements. The boundary is located adjacent the

main access roadway to the area. Both the South and

West boundaries are adjacent to the main access

roadway to Little Island.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

~~~ ..... ...... ..... ..... . ~ ..... .. ..----- - -

AWN Consulting Limited NV06/3548N RO 1

Location 5 - S I :

Location 6 - S2:

2.2 Survey Periods

This is a private residence adjacent St. Luke’s Home in

Mahon along the Ringmahon road. The residence has

a line of sight across Cork Harbour to the facility.

North Esk is a small residential area located directly

North, North East of the facility. The residence is part

of small cluster of properties located immediately North

of the N25. The residence has a partial line of sight to

the facility. S2 also has a line of sight to four other

adjacent industrial facilities on Little Island.

Measurements were conducted over the course of two survey p-riods ,

follows:

S

0 14: 15hrs to 18:35hrs on 1 I December 2006;

0 22:04hrs to 00:05hrs on 11/12 December 2006.

During the survey periods noted above, the facility was in full operation.

The weather throughout both of the survey periods was dry and calm.

2.3 Personnel and Instrumentation

Niall Vaughan (AWN) conducted the noise level measurements during both

the daytime and night-time survey periods.

The measurements were performed using a Bruel & Kjaer Type 2260

Investigator Sound Level Meter. Before and after the survey the

measurement apparatus was check calibrated using a Bruel & Kjaer Type

4231 Sound Level Calibrator.

Page 6

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:47

1 ’ I .

NV06/3548NR01 AWN Consulting Limited

2.4 Procedure

Measurements were conducted over two periods. Sample periods were 30

minutes long during the daytime and 15 minutes long during the night-time

surveys. The results were saved to the instrument memory for later analysis.

Survey personnel noted all primary noise sources contributing to noise build-

UP.

2.5 Measurement Parameters

The survey results were taken in 1/3 octaves and the data for each

measurement in presented in Appendix A. The survey results are presented

in terms of the following parameters:

L ~ e q is the equivalent continuous sound level. It is a type of average and is

used to describe a fluctuating noise in terms of a single noise level over

the sample period.

L ~ m a x is the instantaneous maximum sound level measured during the sample

period.

LATO is the sound level that is exceeded for 10% of the sample period. It is

typically used as a descriptor for traffic noise.

LASO is the sound level that is exceeded for 90% of the sample period. It is typically used as a descriptor for background noise.

The “ A suffix denotes the fact that the sound levels have been “A-weighted”

in order to account for the non-linear nature of human hearing.

All sound levels in this report are expressed in terms of decibels (dB) relative

to 2x1 o - ~ Pa.

Page 7

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

NV06/3548NR01 AWN Consulting Limited

Start Time

2.6 Results

Measured Noise Levels Period . (dB re. 2x1 Om5 Pa) Comments

LAeq I LAMax I LAIO I LASO

2.6.1 Location 1 (SI)

15:19

22:31

The results of the measurements taken at B1, the West boundary, are

summarised in Table 1 below.

I Day 59 78 62 55

Night 56 64 57 55 E.T.P. Road traffic.

Start Time

r

1554

2251

Measured Noise Levels Period (dB re. ~ x I O - ~ Pa) Comments

L~eg LAMax LAIO LASO

Day 65 70 66 65

Night 65 72 65 64 Facility & Adj. Facility

F I I 1 Table 1 Summary of results for Location 1 (BI).

For the duration of the daytime period the dominant noise sources were a

combination of road traffic and the Cognis facility. The Cognis facility was

considered to be the dominant source of noise during the night-time period

due to a reduction in the volume of traffic on the nearby Little Island access

road. The facility’s Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP), which is near to this

location, was not in operation during the survey period. This could account

for the drop in recorded noise levels between the 2005 and 2006 surveys.

Daytime and night-time noise levels were of the order of 59dB and 55dB

LASO and 56dB LA^ and 55dB L A ~ O respectively. There were no peaks or tonal

components evident.

2.6.2 Location 2 (B2)

The results of the measurements taken at B2, the North boundary, are

summarised in Table 2 below.

Page 8

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

NV0613548N RO 1 AWN Consulting Limited

Start Time

operating intermittently in the neighbouring tank farm had a considerable

effect on the ambient noise levels.

Measured Noise Levels

LA~S 1 LAM~X I LAIO 1 LASO

Period (d8 re. 2x105 Pa) Comments

Noise levels during the daytime and night-time were of the order of 65dB LAes

and 65dB LAQO and 65dB LAeq and 64dB LAQO respectively. There were no

peaks or tonal components evident.

23:lO

2.6.3 Location 3 (B3)

~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~

Nearby facilities. Road traffic. Night 51 62 52 49

The results of the measurements taken at B3, the East boundary, are

summarised in Table 3.

Road traffic. Facility. 14:38 I Day 1 57 1 65 1 6o I 52 1 Neighbouringfacilities.

At location 63 the daytime noise environment was dominated by road traffic

from the nearby Little Island access road. The Cognis facility along with other

neighbouring facilities was considered as a background noise source. During

the night-time period the dominant noise source was a combination of the

surrounding industrial facilities. Occasional noise from passing road traffic was noted as a background noise source.

Daytime and night-time noise levels were of the order of 57dB LAeq and 52dB

LA~O and 51dB LAeq and 49dB LAQo respectively. There were no peaks or tonal

components evident.

2.6.4 Location 4 (B4)

The results of the measurements taken at B4, the South boundary, are

summarised in Table 4.

Page 9

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

NV0613548NR01 AWN Consulting Limited

Start Time

16:02

23:31

Measured Noise Levels Period (d6 re. 2 ~ 1 0 ‘ ~ Pa) Comments

LAeq h M a x LAIO LAQO

Day 65 78 68 56 Road traffic. Facility.

Night 55 67 56 54 Facility. Road traffic.

The ambient noise source for the duration of the daytime period was from

road traffic on the nearby Little Island access road. The Cognis facility was

audible as a background source. During the night-time period the dominant

noise source was a combination of road traffic and the Cognis facility.

Start Time

Daytime and night-time noise levels were of the order of 65dB LAW and 56dB

L~go and 55dB LAeq and 54dB L A ~ O respectively. There were no peaks or tonal

components evident.

Measured Noise Levels Period (d6 re. 2x1 0” Pa) Comments

LAeq I LAM^^ I LAIO I L A ~ O

2.6.5 Location 5 (SI)

13:26

22:04

The results of the measurements taken at S I , Ringmahon, are summarised in

Table 5.

~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~

Day 56 72 58 45 Road traffic.

Night 48 62 47 45

At S I road traffic noise was the dominant noise source for both the daytime

and night-time periods. The traffic noise was from the adjacent Ringmahon

road and distant traffic noise from the N25 dual carriageway. The Cognis

facility was not audible at any point during the noise monitoring periods.

Daytime and night-time noise levels were of the order of 56dB LAeq and 45dB

L~go and 52dB LAeq and 48dB LAQO. There were no peaks or tonal components

evident.

2.6.6 Location 6 6 2 )

Page 10

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

NV0613548NR01 AWN Consulting Limited

Start Time

17:ll

00:31

The results of the measurements taken at S2, North Esk, are summarised in

Table 6.

Measured Noise Levels

LA~S LAM^^ LAIO L A ~ O Period (dB re. 2x10” Pa) Comments

Day 63 84 63 58 Road traffic. Birdsong.

Night 49 76 48 45 Road traffic.

Road traffic from the N25 and the local access road were the principal noise

sources during the monitoring periods. Birdsong was noted as an occasional

background noise source during the daytime period. The Cognis facility was

not audible at any point during either of the monitoring periods.

Daytime and night-time noise levels were of the order of 63dB LA^ and 58dB

LAQO and 49dB L ~ e q and 45dB LAQO respectively. There were no peaks or tonal

corn ponents evident.

Page 11

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

NV0613548N RO 1 AWN Consulting Limited

Location

APPENDIX A

MEASUREMENT RESULTS (1/3 OCTAVE BAND DATA)

West Boundary ~~

North Boundary

East Boundary

South Boundarq

Mahon

North Esk

1/3 Octave Band Centre Data (Hz)

Day 44 43 46 48 50 48 48 49 Night 39 42 45 45 46 48' 45 48

~

Day 33 38 41 42 42 42 43 44

Night 35 37 42 45 46 47 47 48

Night1 38 138 143 I 4 3 I 4 5 I 4 5 I 4 4 I 4 5

Day I 30 I 30 I 34 I 32 I 32 I 3 1 I 32 I 36

46 47 50 51 51 53 55 60 56 50

Page 12

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

NV06/3548NR01 AWN Consulting Limited

APPENDIX B

COMPARISONS WITH PREVIOUS SURVEYS

Table A I Daytime Survey Comparisons

Page 13

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

IRISH INDUSTRIAL GAS OIL

SAP No: 40003019

ambient whichever is

Where more than one test method is quoted in the reference specification the one in BOLD is defined as the referee method Tests in ltalrcs do not appear m the above spec/ficat/on but are additional tests required by Irish Shell

I

SAP No: 40003019 FSlA (PSS) No: 44316

Notes:

(a) Applicable periods refer to the distribution of fuel from the refinery. Distribution locations stocks should be managed such that from 1 October fuel supplied to end customers' meets the Winter Quality requirements Deliveries of winter grade product will be required ex refinery before 1 October, to ensure that product delivered to the final customer meets the specification requirements. Deliveries of summer grade product to main terminals may be made prior to 16 March provided this material is not delivered to customers before this date.

GOCl BS2869 2006 / IS251 1998 EFFECTIVE: 27TH April 2006

Page - 1

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

JOPA7 FNFRGY I TD - PRODUCT SUPPI Y SPFClFlCATlON

(b)

(c)

Because of vehicle load restriction lifting company to be advised if density exceeds 860.0 kglm’

During September the refinery may, after d h s s i o n with SUK OP Supply Dept be required to produce an ‘Interim’ quality product with a higher maximum Cloud Point and CFPP to assist in turning over any remaining Summer Quality product in the supply system The exact dates when fuel of this quality is required each year will be agreed with SUK OP Supply Dept

Cold flow improvers are permitted to achieve the CFPP specification. See also Appendix I I .

Min 62°C applies ex refinery, min 60°C for supplies ex terminal The figure of min 60°C is higher than that set in BS 2869 (min 56°C) but is a commonly agreed minimum within the UK Oil Industry for many reasons. Eg: safety, switch loading, and most importantly the ability to market this fuel in the marine market where a minimum of Flash point of 60°C is reauired.

(d)

(e)

(h)

(i)

Static dissipator additive to be added. Target conductivity is 200 pSlm with an absolute minimum, in refinery tankage, of 50 pSlm. See also Appendix !I.

Product with a Sulphur content below 500PPM is permitted, HOWEVER to ensure adequate lubricity performance with such material it shall have a maximum wear scar of 460 microns when tested by the HFRR method. A lubricity additive may be used to achieve this lubricity specification. EU Directive 1999l32lEC stipulates 0.1% Sulphur from Jan IST 2008

Carbon Residue test method. The specification BS 2869 is due to be re-issued shortly, it is in the final stages of publication and will approve D 4530 as the test method (in line with all other Gas Oils). This method may be used with immediate effect where equipment for the current test, D5242, is not available - however this method remains for the present the referee one.

,

(i)

GOCl BS2869 2006 I IS251 1998 EFFECTIVE: 27TH April 2006

Page - 2

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

Hello Earnom, Following on from ow discussions re the limits of the effluent ex the Henkel Ireland Detergents and Cognis Ireland site, a notification is being sent to you by Cork County Council outlining the changes and requesting formal approval from you aflowing these changes. This will then be taken on board by the EPA and they will incorporate any changes into the IPPC licence, which they hope to issue with immediate effect. The EPA have indicated that they would ideally like for us to forward this approval notification to them by Friday 16/03/07 I would appreciate it if you could help us in this matter. Please contact me at 02 1 45 17 165 if you have my queries.

Technical Services M

00SLTGiP-TZ-ELiE : 131

1 ldOd3kI N O I l V 3 I J I E I f i NOISSIWSNWI

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

- . . . - . . . - __ . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . .. . . . . .- . -. . . -. -

a

.

Licensing Unit Office of Licence and Guidance, Environmental Protection Agency, PO Box 3000, Johnstown Castle Estate, Co. Wexford

20th Sept.’06

Reference No. IPC Reg No P 0052-02

Dear Sirs,

In accordance with section 87( l)(b) of the EPA Acts 1992 and 2003, and following instruction in your letter dated 28th August 2006, Cognis Ireland Ltd/Henkel Ireland Detergents Ltd hereby provides additional information in relation to emissions to sewer, calculated emission limit values in respect of emissions to atmosphere from boiler emission point Al.3 (EP l/8). We also include a copy of the revised letter issued to Cork County Council in advisement of our application for an IPPC licence (Attachment 5), and a copy of the newspaper notice posted in the Irish Examiner newspaper on 15* August 2006 (Attachment 6)

As part of its IPPC review application Cognis Ireland Ltd/Henkel Ireland Detergents Ltd. is seeking to review its effluent discharge conditions at emission point SEI. These amendments are being sought in order to facilitate increased production throughput, and to ensure future compliance with discharge consent conditions.

The Company requests the following emission limit values;

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

. . .-..... .... ... .... ~. . .. ..

Schedule 2(i) Emissions to Sewerwater

Emission Point Reference Number WP 1 Location Volume to be emitted Maximum rate per hour

Parameter

Temperature

PH

BOD COD Suspended Solids Ammonia-N Oxidised Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Oils, fats and grease

07595N 173650 E 800m3 per day 40m3

Emission Limit Value

25 6-9

Kg/Day Remove from Schedule

5000 100 10 45 5

24

The Company requests the removal of B.O.D. from Schedule 2(i) of its licence due to continued inconsistencies with measurement of this parameter. Our experience with the BOD test is that the same sample can give several different results and this will undoubtedly lead to future compliance issues for the Company. For example, an effluent sample submitted in duplicate for analysis on 1 7th August produced B.O.D. results of 3 100mg/l and 2200mg/l.

With regard to COD the Company is seeking to increase the permitted daily discharge load to 5000 Kg per day from the current allowance of 4000Kg per day. The Company does not anticipate that COD loads of 5000Kg/day would be continuous over prolonged periods of time, however this discharge limit increase is sought to facilitate increased manufacturing activity and plant throughput which has arisen since our application for review was requested in June 2005, and to facilitate the forecasted increases in production over the next two to three years. On an annual average basis, however, the Company will not exceed 4000Kg per day C.O.D.

In our original licence application the Company sought to increase the emission limit value for Oils, fats and grease to 2.4Kg/day. The Company had intended to seek an increase in this parameter to 24Kg/day but due to a typographical error in the application a lower value of 2.4 Kg was requested. This value is not achievable and consequently we request that our intended limit of 24Kg per day, oils, fats and grease is granted during the review process.

In terms of the expression of emission limit values on Schedule 2(i) the Company requests that the Agency consider the use of Mass Emission values only, and remove the concentration (mg/l) values from the licence. All effluent on site passes through an 1122m3 equalisation tank prior to discharge we believe that the reporting of emissions in terms of mass load better expresses the - characteristics of the emissions.

Supporting information in the form of completed Table E3.(ii) is included as Attachment

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

The Company is also seeking to increase the level of sulphates in its effluent from 1000mg/l to 5000mg/l. Hydroxylamine sulphate has been an integral raw material in our process since site operations began in 1974 and its use results in the generation of sulphate in our effluent discharge. Mass balance calculations determine that the expected concentration of sulphate in the effluent discharge will be up to 5000mg/l. This level of sulphate has always been present in our effluent streams and has not impacted in any way to the integrity of our concrete effluent tanks or sewer pipes.

Nickel

8 13

<0.85 3 1 16 5 10 14 15 7

<0.47 3 6

Cognis Ireland Ltd/Henkel Ireland Detergents Ltd has no source of heavy metals in its processes and we have been monitoring for heavy metals in effluent discharges since 1997. Results obtained since January 2005 are outlined below. This table also details the phenol concentrations detected in our effluent since 2005.

Zinc

59 46

<1.8 22.5 22.5 23.7 <4.6 59.3 56.4 51 22

22.1 17.5 <4.6

ugn

In view of the low levels of heavy metals present in the effluent discharge the Company requests the Agency to consider the removal of this parameter from the licence.

Date

Jan-05 Feb-05

Apr-05 May-05

Sep-05

Ma-05

Aug-05

Oct-05 NOV-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06

Phenols

<1 <1 <1 <1 <I <1

<0.1 <o. 1 <o. 1 <o. 1 <o. 1 <0.1 CO. 1 <o. 1

ugn Cadmium

<0.09 <0.09 <0.09 <0.09 C0.09 <0.09 <O .09 C0.09 <0.09 <0.09

1 <0.09 <0.09 c0.09

ugn Chromium

10 9 18 5 30 6 3 10 10 18 7 10 5

ugn Copper

13 7

<0.2 3

C0.2 12 8 11 10 8 10 12 8 10

ugh Lead

4 2

<3.7 10

<0.38 3 2 2

132 1 4 1 1 1

ugh

Regarding the co-combustion of supplementary fuels in our boilers the Company engaged the services of its in-house legal compliance experts, Dr Wofgang Schmitt and David Pie1 to calculate the appropriate emission limit values in accordance with Annex I1 of the Waste Incineration Directive.

The calculations, based on combustion with an excess of 3 .O% oxygen in the case of boiler 4 and 1.7% excess oxygen in relation to boiler 5, result in the following emission limit values, (utilizing the Annex I1 mixing rule formula);

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48

Dust (mg/m3) NOx (mg/m3) SO2 (mg/m3) C waste 10 400 50

CO (mg/m3) 50

C proc

V proc

I c emission limit 6.45%

50 600 850 80 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.16

32.77 V waste 1 513.84 I 505.37 I

6.18 6.18 6.18 6.18 67.08

c . . . emission limit 3% I 40.53 1 635.52 I 625.04 I 82.96

88.95 I c emission limit 1.7% 1 43.45 1 681.42 1 670.18 1

In relation to the emission limit values calculated at 3% oxygen, which is applicable to our boiler 4 operation, the Company does not believe that it can fully comply with the NOx emission limit value of 635mg/3 during periods when TAED is being co-burned.

The Company will investigate how it may be possible to reduce its NOx emissions during this operation but in the interim we respectfully request the Agency to consider granting permission to retain its existing emission limit value of 850mg/m3 NOx while TAED is being combusted.

The details behind the calculated values are included in this submission as Attachment 2.

Also included in this submission are completed Tables E. 1 (ii) - Main emission points to atmosphere (Attachment 3), and Tables E. 1 (iii) - Chemical Characteristics of emissions to atmosphere (Attachment 4).

If you require any additional information in relation to our application please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely,

Ciaran McCabe Safety Health and Environment Manager

Encl.

Attachment 1 - Table E.3 (ii), revised Attachment 2 - Supporting documentation re. Emission

Attachment 3 - Tables E. 1 (ii) Attachment 4 - Tables E. 1 (iii)

WID) nit values for A1.3 (EP1/8) (Annex I1

Attachment 5 - copy of letter to Cork County Council, lgth Sept 2006 Attachment 6 - copy of newspaper notice, 1 5th Aug. 2006

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 25-07-2013:21:22:48