Noise & Vibration 14

Noise & Vibration 14

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR IRISH DISTILLERS LTD., MIDLETON - NOVEMBER 2011 | 143

14 Noise & Vibration

14.1 Introduction

The proposed expansion will consist of a number of new process equipment / buildings that is expected to double the output capacity of the distillery. The production facility expansion areas are all to be located within the existing distillery grounds and will replace and expand upon existing structures.

AWN Consulting Limited has been commissioned by PM Group on behalf of IDL to conduct an assessment into the likely noise and vibration impact associated with the proposed development (for both construction and operational phases).

14.2 Survey Details

An environmental noise survey was conducted in order to quantify the existing noise environment. The survey was conducted in general accordance with ISO 1996: 2007: Acoustics — Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise. Specific details are set out below.

Choice of Measurement Locations Measurements were conducted at four locations along the Irish Distillers facility property boundary.

Location NSL1 This measurement position is located along the northern boundary adjacent to the nearest residence.

Location N1 This measurement position is located along the western boundary approximately 150m away from Midleton College.

Location N2 This measurement position is located along the southern boundary and is adjacent to a green field site.

Location N3 This measurement position is also located along the southern boundary and is also adjacent to a green field site.

The nearest noise sensitive locations to the facility are a number of detached houses along the northern boundary adjacent to NSL1. Midleton College, a primary school and crèche are located approximately 150m to the east of N1; we will refer to the nearest educational/childcare building as NSL2. Additional detached houses are located to the south and east of the facility. We will refer to these dwellings as NSL3 and

NSL4 respectively. All survey measurement and nearest noise sensitive locations are illustrated in Figures 14.1.

Survey Period Measurements were conducted over the course of both day and night time survey periods as follows:

Daytime: 15:25hrs to 19:00hrs on 20 October 2011;

Night-time: 23:00hrs to 01:20hrs on 20/21 October 2011.

The weather throughout the daytime survey period was cool and misty with a breeze of approximately 2 – 3 m/s.

The weather throughout the night time survey period was cool and dry with a calm breeze of approximately 1 - 2 m/s.

Personnel & Instrumentation Brian S. Johnson (AWN) conducted the noise level measurements during both survey periods.

The measurements were conducted using a Brüel & Kjær Type 2260 Type 1 Sound Level Meter which satisfies BS EN 60651:1994. The measurement apparatus was check calibrated both before and after the measurement survey using a Brüel & Kjær Type 4231 Sound Level Calibrator.

Procedure Measurements were conducted at all four boundary locations on a cyclical basis during both daytime and night time survey periods. Sample periods for the noise measurements were nominally 15 minutes. The results were noted onto a Survey Record Sheet immediately following each sample, and were also saved to the instrument memory for later analysis where appropriate. Survey personnel noted all primary noise sources contributing to noise build-up.

Measurement Parameters The survey results are presented in terms of the following five parameters:

LAeq 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.

LAmax is the instantaneous maximum sound level measured during the sample period.

LAmin is the instantaneous minimum sound level measured during the sample period.

LA10 is the sound level that is exceeded for 10% of the sample period. It is typically used as a descriptor for traffic noise.

LA90 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 2x10 5 Pa.

Results at Four Boundary Locations

Location NSL1 The survey results for Location NSL1 are summarised in Table 14.1 below.

Table 14.1 - Summary of noise measurements at NSL1

Daytime noise measurements at this location were dominated by plant noise. There were also contributions from roosters crowing at a nearby residence and occasional car park event contributions. There were also dog barking events that occurred during the first two survey periods. Noise levels were in the range of 51 to 54dB LAeq and 49 to 50dB LA90. No audible tonal or impulsive characteristics were noted in plant noise emissions at this location.

Night time noise measurements were dominated almost exclusively by plant noise with occasional contributions from car park events. Noise levels were in the range of 49 to 50dB LAeq and 46 to 47dB LA90. No audible tonal or impulsive characteristics were noted in plant noise emissions at this location.

Period Measured Noise Levels

(dB re. 2x10-5 Pa)

Dominant Noise

Sources

LAeq LAmax LAmi

n LA10

LA9

0

15:25 – 15:40 54 68 49 56 50

16:40 – 16:55 52 72 48 55 49

17:55 – 18:10

Day

51 69 48 51 49

23:00 – 23:15 49 68 45 49 46

00:15 – 00:30 Night

50 71 49 52 47

Plant Noise

N o i s e & V i b r a t i o n 14

144 | ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR IRISH DISTILLERS, MIDLETON - NOVEMBER 2011

Figure 14.1

Noise Measurement Locations



Location N1 The survey results for Location N1 are summarised in Table 14.2 below.

Table 14.2 - Summary of noise measurements at N1

Time Period Measured Noise Levels (dB re. 2x10-5 Pa)

Dominant Noise

Sources

LAeq LAmax LAmin LA10 LA90

15:40 – 15:55 58 76 53 61 54

Plant noise. Playground

noise.

16:55 – 17:10

55 63 53 55 54

18:15 – 18:30

Day

55 65 54 56 54

23:20 – 23:35 54 62 52 54 53

00:30 – 00:45

Night

54 60 52 54 53

Plant Noise

Daytime noise measurements at this location were dominated by plant noise. There were also occasional contributions from activity noise in the adjacent school playground, especially during the first survey period. Noise levels were in the range of 55 to 58dB LAeq and of the order of 54dB LA90. No audible tonal or impulsive characteristics were noted in plant noise emissions at this location.

Night time noise measurements were exclusively dominated by plant noise. Noise levels were of the order of 54dB LAeq and 53dB LA90. No audible tonal or impulsive characteristics were noted in plant noise emissions at this location.


Table 14.3 - Summary of noise measurements at Location N2


Dominant Noise

Sources


16:00 – 16:15

50 69 48 51 49

17:15 – 17:30 50 72 48 51 49

18:35 – 18:50

Day

50 63 47 51 49

23:35 – 23:50 48 55 46 50 47

00:50 – 01:05

Night

47 54 43 49 45

Plant Noise

Daytime noise measurements at this location were dominated by plant noise with some slight wind generated noise from the nearby trees. Noise levels were of the order of 50dB LAeq and 49dB LA90. No audible tonal or impulsive characteristics were noted in plant noise emissions at this location.

Night time noise measurements were exclusively dominated both by noise from the main plant facility and the nearby pumping station. Noise levels were in the range of 47 to 48dB LAeq and 45 to 47dB LA90. No audible tonal or impulsive characteristics were noted in plant noise emissions at this location.


Table 14.4 - Summary of noise measurements at Location N3


Dominant Noise

Sources


16:15 – 16:30 47 59 44 48 46

17:35 – 17:50 47 63 44 48 45

18:45 – 19:00

Day

47 62 44 48 45

23:55 – 00:10 43 61 40 44 41

01:05 – 01:20 Night

41 62 39 43 40

Plant Noise

Daytime noise measurements at this location were exclusively dominated by plant noise with some slight contributions from wind generated noise in the nearby trees. Noise levels were of the order of 47dB LAeq and 45 to 46dB LA90. No audible tonal or impulsive characteristics were noted in plant noise emissions at this location.

Night time noise measurements were exclusively dominated by main facility plant noise. Noise levels were in the range of 41 to 43dB LAeq and 40 to 41dB LA90. No audible tonal or impulsive characteristics were noted in plant noise emissions at this location.

14.3 Characteristics of Proposal

When considering a development of this nature, the potential noise and vibration impact on the surroundings must be considered for each of two distinct stages: the short term impact of the construction phase and the longer term impact of the operational phase.

The construction phase will involve excavation throughout a number of different areas of the site and the erection of a number of new buildings and structures as well as a number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV’s) operating on smaller, rural roads. This impact is considered relatively short-term in nature and is assessed in the appropriate section of this document.

The primary sources of noise in the operational context will be deemed long-term and are discussed below:

mechanical equipment process noise; and;

additional vehicular traffic on public roads.

14.4 Potential Outward Impact of the Proposal

Construction Noise Criteria There is no published statutory Irish guidance relating to the maximum permissible noise level that may be generated during the construction phase of a project. Local authorities normally control construction activities by imposing limits on the hours of operation and may consider noise limits at their discretion.

In the absence of specific noise limits, appropriate criteria relating to permissible construction noise levels for a development of this scale may be found in the British Standard BS 5228 – 1: 2009: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites: Noise.

The approach adopted here calls for the designation of a noise sensitive location into a specific category (A, B or C) based on existing ambient noise levels in the absence of construction noise. This then sets a threshold noise value that, if exceeded, indicates a significant noise impact is associated with the construction activities.

Table 14.5 sets out the values which, when exceeded, indicate a significant effect at the facades of residential receptors as recommended by the above standard. Please note that these are cumulative levels, i.e. the sum of both ambient and construction noise levels.

Table 14.5 - Example threshold of significant effect at dwellings

Assessment category and threshold value period (LAeq)

Threshold value, in decibels (dB)

Category A A Category B B Category C C

Night-time (23:00 to 07:00hrs) 45 50 55

Evenings and weekends D 55 60 65

Daytime (07:00 – 19:00) and Saturdays (07:00 –

13:00) 65 70 75

Note A) Category A: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are less than these values.

Note B) Category B: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are the same as category A values.

Note C) Category C: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are higher than category A values.



Note D) 19:00 – 23:00 weekdays , 13:00 – 23:00 Saturdays and 07:00 – 23:00 Sundays.

It should be noted that this assessment method is only valid for residential properties. The adjoining educational and childcare buildings will be assessed in accordance with the criteria in Table 14.6 (see below).

The following method should therefore be followed for all adjacent residential locations:

For the appropriate period (e.g. daytime) the ambient noise level is determined and rounded to the nearest 5dB (if required). The measurement conducted at NSL1 had ambient noise levels of the order of 51 to 54dB LAeq. Given the setting of the adjoining noise sensitive locations, properties in the vicinity of the development would likely have ambient noise levels lower than these. All properties will therefore be afforded a Category A designation.

If the total noise level (i.e. construction noise plus existing ambient noise level) exceeds the appropriate category value (e.g. 65dB LAeq during daytime periods) then a significant effect is deemed to occur.

Table 14.6 outlines typical overall levels of construction noise that should not be exceeded at the adjoining educational and childcare buildings.

Table 14.6 - Maximum Permissible Noise Levels At The Facade of Noise

Sensitive Locations During Construction (NRA Guidelines for the

Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes, 2004)

Days and Times Noise Levels (dB re. 2x10-5 Pa)

LAeq(1hr) LAmax

Monday to Friday 07:00 to 19:00hrs 70 80

Monday to Friday 19:00 to 22:00hrs 60* 65*

Saturdays 08:00 to 16:30hrs 65 75

Sundays & Bank Holidays 08:00 to 16:30hrs 60* 65*

Note * Construction activity at these times, other than that required for

emergency works, will normally require the explicit permission of the relevant

local authority.

Operational Noise Criteria Due consideration must be given to the nature of the primary noise sources when setting criteria. In this instance, there are two primary sources of noise associated with the development once operational.

In considering process noise from mechanical equipment, it is appropriate to consider the criteria put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in relation to noise at the Irish Distillers facility.

Condition 9 of the relevant IPPC Licence (P0442-01) states the following:

On site noise shall not give rise to noise levels off site, at noise sensitive locations which exceed the following sound pressure limits (Leq, 15mins) subject to Condition 3 of this licence within 6 months of the date of grant of this licence:

Daytime 55dB(A)

Night time 45dB(A)

There shall be no clearly audible tonal or impulsive component in the noise emission from the activity at any noise sensitive location.

Condition 3.4.1 of the relevant IPPC Licence (P0442-01) states the following:

Noise from the activity shall not give rise to sound pressure levels (Leq,T) measured at the specified noise sensitive locations which exceed the limit value by more than 2dB(A).

The increase in traffic noise level that arises as a result of vehicular movements associated with the development will be quantified in terms of the LA10 parameter (the ten percentile noise level).

In order to assist with the interpretation of the noise associated with vehicular traffic on public roads, Table 14.7 offers guidance as to the likely impact associated with any particular change in traffic noise level.

Table 14.7 - Likely impact associated with change in traffic noise level

Change in Sound Level (dB LA10)

Subjective Reaction Impact

< 3 Inaudible Imperceptible

3 – 5 Perceptible Slight

6 – 10 Up to a doubling of

loudness Moderate

11 – 15 Significant

> 15

Over a doubling of loudness

Profound

Vibration Guidelines Vibration standards come in two varieties: those dealing with human comfort and those dealing with cosmetic or structural damage to buildings. In both instances, it is appropriate to consider the magnitude of vibration in terms of Peak Particle Velocity (PPV).

It is acknowledged that humans are particularly sensitive to vibration stimuli and that any perception of vibration may lead to concern. In the case of road traffic, vibration is perceptible at around 0.5mm/s and may become disturbing or annoying at higher magnitudes. However, higher levels of vibration are typically tolerated for single events or events of

short duration. For example, rock breaking and piling, two of the primary sources of vibration during construction, are typically tolerated at vibration levels up to 12mm/s and 5mm/s respectively. This guidance is applicable to the daytime only; it is unreasonable to expect people to be tolerant of such activities during the night.

Guidance relevant to acceptable vibration within buildings is contained in the following documents:

British Standard BS 7385 (1993): Evaluation and measurement for

vibration in buildings Part 2: Guide to damage levels from ground borne

vibration, and;

British Standard BS 5228 (1992): Noise control on construction and

open sites Part 4 Code of practice for noise and vibration control during

piling.

BS 7385 states that there should typically be no cosmetic damage if transient vibration does not exceed 15mm/s at low frequencies rising to 20mm/s at 15Hz and 50mm/s at 40Hz and above. These guidelines relate to relatively modern buildings and should be reduced to 50% or less for more critical buildings.

BS 5228 recommends that, for soundly constructed residential property and similar structures that are generally in good repair, a threshold for minor or cosmetic (i.e. non-structural) damage should be taken as a peak particle velocity of 10mm/s for intermittent vibration and 5mm/s for continuous vibration. Below these vibration magnitudes minor damage is unlikely, although where there is existing damage, these limits may be reduced by up to 50%.

Forecasting Methods Prediction calculations for the expansion mechanical equipment process noise have been conducted using proprietary noise calculation software. The selected software, Brüel & Kjær Type 7810 Predictor, is a proprietary noise calculation package for computing noise levels in the vicinity of noise sources. Predictor predicts noise levels in different ways depending on the selected prediction standard. In general, however, the resultant noise level is calculated taking into account a range of factors affecting the propagation of sound, including:

the magnitude of the noise source in terms of sound power;

the distance between the source and receiver;

the presence of obstacles such as screens or barriers in the propagation path;

the presence of reflecting surfaces;

the hardness of the ground between the source and receiver.



An existing Predictor computer model of the Irish Distillers facility that had been previous constructed by AWN Consulting was used in this instance. New sources and building structure geometry were added based on drawings and noise source information provided by PM Group. Figure 14.3 and Section 14.4 provide a description and the location of the various elements of the proposed development.

Traffic noise levels are predicted in accordance with guidance set out in Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) , giving results in the form of L10(18hour) values.

Construction Phase A variety of items of plant will be in use for site preparation purposes, building construction and road works. There will also be vehicular movements to and from the site that will make use of existing roads. Due to the nature of these activities, there is potential for generation of significant levels of noise.

Although the construction programme has not been clearly established yet, we understand that the bulk of the construction is to last somewhere in the region of 18 months. During this period, all earthmoving, foundation laying and facilities / services installations will be conducted.

Although it is difficult to calculate the actual magnitude of noise emissions to the local environment, it is possible to predict typical noise levels using guidance set out in BS5228: Part 1: 1997: Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Code of practice for basic information and procedures for noise and vibration control.

Prediction calculations have been prepared for each of the adjacent noise sensitive locations. Predictions are based on the utilisation of plant for 66% of a working day and assume that each individual construction site will be screened by site hoarding a minimum of 2m in height.

Tables 14.8 through 14.11 below summarise the construction noise prediction calculations.

Table 14.8 - Typical noise levels during Fermentation area construction works

(dB LAeq,1hr)

Fermentation

Phase Plant Item (BS 5228 Ref.)

Plant Noise

Level at 10m

Distance1 (dB LAeq)

Predicted Noise Level (dB LAeq,1hr) at

NSL 1 (90m)

NSL 2 (150m)

NSL 3 (615m)

NSL 4 (1,125m)

Tracked excavator (C3.22)

76

Dumper (C4.2) 74

Pneumatic rock breaker (D2.2) 85

Demolition & Site

Preparation

Bulldozer (C.5.14) 86

65 63 38 22

Roadworks / Landscaping

Surfacing (C8.25)

80 56 54 29 14

Compressor (D7.6)

76

Poker Vibrator (C4.33) 74

Foundation Laying

Cement Mixers (C4.22) 70

58 56 31 16

1 All plant noise levels are derived from BS 5228: Part 1.

Table 14.9 - Typical noise levels during Still House area construction works

(dB LAeq,1hr)

Still House / Still House Tank Farm


Plant Noise

Level at 10m

Distance2 (dB LAeq)


NSL 1 (200m)

NSL 2 (125m)

NSL 3 (600m)

NSL 4 (1,230m)


76

Dumper (C4.2) 74


Demolition & Site

Preparation


54 64 38 22

Sheet Piling Sheet Pile (C12.31[1])

81 46 57 30 15

Compressor (D7.6)

77

Poker Vibrator (C4.33) 78

Foundation Laying


47 58 31 15

Wheeled Mobile Crane (C4.38) 78

Steel Erection Articulated Lorry

(C11.10) 77

46 57 30 14

Compressor (D7.6)

77

Diesel Hoist (C7.98) 76

Pneumatic Circular Saw

(D7.79) 75

Generator (C4.84)

74

General Construction

Internal Fit Out 70

47 58 30 14




Table 14.10 - Typical noise levels Distillation Columns area construction works

(dB LAeq,1hr)

Distillation Columns / Distillation Columns Tank Farm



Plant Noise

Level at 10m

Distance3 (dB LAeq)

NSL 1 (175m)

NSL 2 (200m)

NSL 3 (530m)

NSL 4 (1,075m)


76

Dumper (C4.2)

74


Demolition & Site

Preparation


49 52 39 23

Sheet Piling Sheet Pile (C12.31[1]) 81 41 45 32 15

Compressor (D7.6)

77

Poker Vibrator (C4.33)

78 Foundation

Laying


42 46 32 16

Wheeled Mobile Crane (C4.38) 78

Steel Erection Articulated Lorry

(C11.10) 77

41 45 31 15

Compressor (D7.6)

77

Diesel Hoist (C7.98)

76

Pneumatic Circular Saw

(D7.79) 75

Generator (C4.84)

74

General Construction

Internal Fit Out 70

42 46 31 15


Table 14.11 - Typical noise levels during Waste Water Treatment Plant area

construction works (dB LAeq,1hr)

Waste Water Treatment Plant



Plant Noise

Level at 10m

Distance4 (dB LAeq)

NSL 1 (300m)

NSL 2 (360m)

NSL 3 (360m)

NSL 4 (1,000m)


76

Dumper (C4.2)

74


Demolition & Site

Preparation


39 42 47 38

Roadworks / Landscaping

Surfacing (C8.25) 80 30 34 39 30

Compressor (D7.6)

76

Poker Vibrator (C4.33)

74 Foundation

Laying


32 36 41 32

All of the predicted noise levels are within the criterion of 65dB LAeq for construction activities on a weekday at all adjacent noise sensitive locations. Given that these noise levels constitute worst case conditions with the listed construction activities all being conducted at the closest development area location to the nearest noise sensitive location, actual construction noise levels will likely be much quieter than the levels listed above.

With respect to the impact of construction traffic noise on residences located along roadways in the vicinity of the facility, the traffic impact of the proposed development is assessed in Chapter 8. Information from this chapter has been used to determine the predicted change in noise levels on the roadways in the vicinity of the facility due to the additional construction vehicular traffic.

For the purposes of assessing potential noise impact, it is appropriate to consider the relative increase in noise level associated with traffic movements with and without the construction traffic figures using the provided AM peak traffic flow figures (which represent the higher increase in noise level when compared with PM peak traffic figures).

The results of this impact analysis are presented in Table 14.12.


Table 14.12 - Changes in traffic noise levels predicted for construction traffic

Location 2011 AM Peak (7:15am – 8:15am)

Change in noise level

(dB(A))

Without Construction

Traffic

With Construction

Traffic

Broomfield Village Road 84 100 +0.8

Meadowlands Lane 81 98 +0.8

R627 (Dungourney Road) North 196 234 +0.8

Connolly Street 299 430 +1.6

Main Street – West 504 568 +0.5

Main Street – East 509 576 +0.5

R626 (Youghal Road) 227 270 +0.8

R629 (St. Mary’s Road) 239 263 +0.4

N25 (Waterford Road) East 1250 1292 +0.1

The predicted increase in traffic flows associated with the development will result in an increase of the order of +0.1 to +1.6dB in areas adjacent to roadways in the vicinity of the facility during the construction phase. Reference to Table 14.7 confirms that all increases in respect of traffic increases would be inaudible and the resultant impact imperceptible.

With respect to potential vibration impact, the only significant source of vibration is expected to be due to rock breaking activities and from heavy goods vehicles driving over uneven surfaces. However, the distance between the areas where these activities are to occur and the nearest noise sensitive locations are such that all vibration transmission would be both imperceptible and well below recommended guideline criteria.

Operational Phase There are two expected primary sources of noise in the operational context.

mechanical equipment process noise and;

additional vehicular traffic on public roads.

Both of these primary noise sources are addressed in turn.

Note that there are no significant sources of vibration associated with the operational phase of the proposed development.

Mechanical Equipment Process Noise In order to assess the noise impact of the additional processes and the equipment associated with the proposed expansion, the following



information was used in order to develop an iteration of the existing noise model developed for the site.

Process Expansion Overview

The following areas comprise the proposed facility process expansion areas considered in this chapter:

New Still House & Associated Tank Farm;

New Distillation Columns & Associated Tank Farm;

New Fermenters;

Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion;

New Substation Extension, and;

New Firewater Retention Pond.

In addition to the expansion areas above, there are also currently a number of additional project works that are not part of the proposed expansion but which are expected to be completed prior to commencement of the proposed expansion construction. These project works are comprised of the following:

New Brew House Extension;

New Water Treatment Area, and;

New Warehouses.

Please note that the contribution from noise sources associated with these buildings are considered in the overall noise emission levels along with those in the proposed expansion areas. Given that these noise sources are not part of the expansion application, their noise contribution is considered as part of the existing noise environment. These noise sources are incorporated into the computer model as part of the existing site (i.e. pre-expansion). Noise contributions from sources in these areas will therefore be contained in calculations conducted for both the ‘existing background’ and ‘proposed process expansion’ scenarios.

The locations of each of the principal components of the proposed development described above are highlighted on Figure 14.2.

Figure 14.2 - Facility Expansion Area Map

Facility Expansion Process Noise Sources There is a range of mechanical equipment plant that will be required to operate processes in most of the proposed expansion areas. Most of this plant is expected to operate 24 hours a day and, hence, would be most noticeable during quiet periods (i.e. overnight). Although selections for the actual equipment will not be made prior to submission of this Environmental Impact Statement, the types, amount and approximate locations of the mechanical equipment plant that is likely to be provided was estimated by PM Group as worst case scenarios and confirmed by Irish Distillers Limited. Given the similarity of the vast majority of these proposed plant items to the ones currently operating on site, source sound power levels have been assumed for each item of plant by conducting sound pressure level measurements of existing equipment and assuming similar noise emission levels.

A list of the process expansion plant items is provided below and their sound power levels are detailed in Table 14.13.

1. New Fermenters (note: duplicate of existing Fermenters area)

4 900 Series Gridlestone Pumps

3 PM 1402 Pumps

1 Hot Water Pump 2115

Base of Tank Opening

2. New Still House & Tank Farm

3 thermal compressors

10 still house pumps

Steam emission point

Low level & high level louvres (all facades)

6 tank farm pumps (external)

3. New Distillation Columns & Tank Farm

Low level & high level louvres (all facades)

6 tank farm pumps (external)

4. Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion

2 Equalisation tanks

2 Aeration tanks

5. New Substation Extension

No significant noise sources

6. New Fire Water Retention Pond

No significant noise sources

7. New Brew House Extension (considered in ‘existing background’ scenario)

3 Ventilation louvres on east, west and south facades (all equipment internal)

All existing Brew House sources replaced

8. New Water Treatment Plant (considered in ‘existing background’ scenario)

6 pumps (external)

1 air blower

1 air compressor

2 agitators

9. New Warehouses (no significant noise sources)



Table 14.13 - Facility process expansion source sound power levels (dB(A))*

Please note that the source noise levels used in this assessment should be considered

indicative only. Actual plant items should be selected using the above levels as maximum

sound power level criteria and be subjected to an on-going review as the detailed design

progresses.

Predictor Model Analysis As previously discussed, contributions to the facility’s existing emission levels from noise sources associated with the Brew House Extension and Water Treatment Plant are considered as existing sources in order to obtain an accurate idea of the overall facility noise level emissions prior to the proposed expansion. This was accomplished by modifying the existing Brüel & Kjær Type 7810 Predictor computer model of the Irish Distiller facility to incorporate the buildings and sources associated with

these two areas. Predicted noise emission levels were then calculated for this ‘Existing Background’ scenario based on the updated model.

In order to assess the expected level of noise emission from the proposed expansion, all of the proposed buildings and noise sources were incorporated into the Predictor model. The predicted noise emission levels were then recalculated for the ‘Proposed Process Expansion‘ scenario.

Contour maps of the resultant noise emissions for both existing and future scenarios are provided in Figures 14.3 and 14.4 at the rear of this chapter. A summary of the predicted noise level results at the locations of interest along with their relative increases are provided in Table 14.14 below.

Table 14.14 - Predicted Noise Level Emission (dB, LAeq)

Location Type

Location

‘Existing Background’

Noise Emission Level

(dB, LAeq)

‘Proposed Process

Expansion’ Noise Emission

Level (dB, LAeq)

Change In Noise Level (dB)

NSL 1 50.1 50.4 +0.3

NSL 2 40.1 41.6 +1.5

NSL 3 38.5 38.6 +0.1

Noise Sensitive Location

NSL 4 30.1 30.1 +0.0

Assessment The relative noise impact on each of the adjacent noise sensitive locations are discussed individually as follows:

1. NSL1

The results of the noise prediction assessment indicate that facility noise emission will increase by 0.3dB to 50.4dB LAeq at NSL 1. This predicted overall noise emission level would be within the 55dB LAeq daytime noise criterion but slightly in excess of the 45dB LAeq night time criterion. However, a +0.3dB increase in noise level would be considered an imperceptible change in noise level. Of additional relevance, it should be also be taken into consideration that the predicted noise level of 50.4dB LAeq is slightly less than the noise levels measured during our survey at this location (which would be considered current).

An investigation into the model results indicated that this noise emission decrease is due to a combination of the removal of the existing Brewhouse external sources that directly overlook NSL 1 and a new shielding effect that the new Brewhouse Expansion building and new Fermenter tanks impose on the existing noise producing areas of the facility. This would mean that provision of the Brewhouse Extension in conjunction with the proposed facility expansion would result in no significant noise increase and potentially even cause a slight noise decrease when compared with the current noise level at this location.

Taking this consideration into account, the likely noise impact of facility process noise on NSL 1 would therefore be considered imperceptible.

2. NSL2

The results of the noise prediction assessment indicate that the facility noise emission will increase by 1.5dB to 41.6dB LAeq at the nearest education/childcare building. The predicted overall noise emission level would be within both the 55dB LAeq daytime and 45dB LAeq night time criteria.

The likely noise impact of facility process noise on NSL 2 would therefore be considered not significant.

Source A-weighted Sound Power Levels (dB(A) re. 10-12W)

at Octave Band Centre Frequency (Hz)

31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k

Gridlestone pumps 42 58 69 83 82 87 88 80 74

PM 1402 pumps 52 67 85 88 87 89 89 84 75

Hot water pump 52 71 81 88 95 98 98 92 81 New Fermenters

Base of tank opening 33 56 62 68 72 78 74 62 51

Thermal compressors 38 65 79 87 90 89 87 83 76

Stillhouse pumps 55 68 77 83 91 95 95 90 83

Steam emission point 44 59 68 77 84 92 95 97 94

High level louvres 34 52 60 69 73 74 75 71 66

Low level louvres 34 52 60 69 73 74 75 71 66

New Still house & Tank Farm

Tank farm pumps 55 68 77 83 91 95 95 90 83

High level louvres 35 54 59 69 74 77 76 69 61

Low level louvres 35 54 59 69 74 77 76 69 61 New Distillation Columns &

Tank Farm

Tank farm pumps 52 67 85 88 87 89 89 84 75

Equalisation tanks 58 79 84 77 77 85 77 73 72

Aeration tanks 24 38 46 51 64 72 69 68 57 Wastewater Treatment Plant

Expansion

Centrifuge 13 22 27 33 40 51 56 60 57

New Brewhouse Extension

Ventilation louvres 41 61 69 71 82 84 82 75 63

Pumps 41 53 78 88 96 95 94 84 80

Air blowers 51 66 76 80 88 86 85 82 73

Air compressors 38 65 79 87 90 89 87 83 76 New Water Treatment Plant

Agitators 21 36 41 49 54 60 63 63 59



3. NSL3

The results of the noise prediction assessment indicate that facility noise emission will increase by 0.1dB to 38.6dB LAeq at NSL 3. The predicted overall noise emission level of 39dB LAeq would be within both the 55dB LAeq daytime and 45dB LAeq night time criteria.


4. NSL4

The results of the noise prediction assessment indicate that facility noise emission will not cause any quantifiable increase at NSL 4 and would still be of the order of 30.1dB LAeq. This level of overall noise emission would be within both the 55dB LAeq daytime and 45dB LAeq night time criteria.


Additional Vehicular Traffic on Public Roads

The traffic impact is assessed in Chapter 8 and information from this report has been used to determine the predicted change in noise levels on the road routes in the vicinity of the facility for the future year 2025.

For the purposes of assessing potential noise impact, it is appropriate to consider the relative increase in noise level associated with traffic movements both with and without the development using the provided AM peak flow figures (which, again, represent the higher increase in noise level when compared with PM peak figures). The results are presented in Table 14.15.

Table 14.15 - Changes in traffic noise levels predicted for facility expansion traffic

Location 2011 AM Peak (7:15am – 8:15am)

Change in noise level

(dB(A))

Do Nothing Do Somethng

Broomfield Village Road 105 114 +0.4

Meadowlands Lane 101 109 +0.3

R627 (Dungourney Road) North 245 257 +0.2

Connolly Street 373 397 +0.3

Main Street – West 629 641 +0.1

Main Street – East 635 647 +0.1

R626 (Youghal Road) 283 290 +0.1

R629 (St. Mary’s Road) 298 303 +0.1

N25 (Waterford Road) East 1558 1565 +0.0

The predicted increase in traffic flows associated with the development in the year 2025 will result in increases all less than 0.4dB along roadways in the vicinity of the facility. Reference to Table 14.7 confirms that all

noise emission increases in respect of traffic increases would be inaudible and the resultant impact imperceptible.

This aspect of the expansion would therefore have a negligible noise impact on the surrounding environment.

14.5 Ameliorative, Remedial or Reductive Measures

Construction Mitigation Measures The construction contractor will be obliged to give due regard to BS 5228, which offers detailed guidance on the control of noise from construction activities. In particular, it is proposed that various practices be adopted during construction, including:

limiting the hours during which site activities likely to create high levels of noise are permitted;

establishing channels of communication between the contractor/developer, local authority and residents;

appointing a site representative responsible for matters relating to noise;

monitoring typical levels of noise during critical periods and at sensitive locations.

Vibration from construction activities will be limited to the values set out in Table 14.16 but will likely be far below these values. It should be noted that these limits are not absolute, but provide guidance as to magnitudes of vibration that are very unlikely to cause cosmetic damage. Magnitudes of vibration slightly greater than those in the table are normally unlikely to cause cosmetic damage, but construction work creating such magnitudes should proceed with caution. Where there is existing damage, these limits may need to be reduced by up to 50%.

Table 14.16 - Allowable Vibration During Construction Phase

Allowable vibration (in terms of peak particle velocity) at the closest part of any

sensitive property to the source of vibration, at a frequency of

Less than 10Hz 10 to 50Hz 50 to 100Hz (and

above)

3 mm/s 3 to 8 mm/s 8 to 10 mm/s

Operational Phase Mitigation Measures

Mechanical Equipment Process Noise The noise impact assessment outlined above has demonstrated that mitigation measures are not required if the mechanical plant is selected appropriately. However, an acoustic consultant should be engaged during the design development stage of the project to supervise

equipment selection and ensure that the selected equipment, plant layouts, ventilation openings, etc., are all in line with what was considered in this assessment and whom can recommend source noise control measures where required.

Additional Vehicular Traffic on Public Roads The noise impact assessment outlined above has demonstrated that mitigation measures are not required.

14.6 Residual Impact of the Proposal

This section summarises the likely noise impact associated with the proposed development, taking into account the mitigation measures.

Construction Phase During the construction phase of the project, there should only be a slight impact on nearby residential properties due to noise emissions from site traffic and other activities. Given that the construction phase of the development is temporary in nature, it is expected that the various noise sources will not be excessively intrusive. Furthermore, the application of binding noise limits and hours of operation, along with implementation of appropriate noise and vibration control measures, will ensure that noise and vibration impact is kept to a minimum.

Operational Phase

Mechanical Equipment Process Noise The increase in mechanical equipment process noise emission levels at all adjacent noise sensitive locations is predicted to range from 0.0dB(A) to 1.5dB(A).

The resultant noise impact is therefore not significant.

Additional Vehicular Traffic on Public Roads The increase in the level of road traffic noise on most of the existing roads will be less than 0.4dB(A) along delivery and adjacent traffic routes.

The resultant noise impact is therefore not significant.

Air Quality & Climate 15


15 Air Quality Chapter

15.1 Introduction

This Chapter describes the potential impacts on ambient air quality from the proposed distillery expansion at Irish Distillers Ltd, Midleton, Co. Cork. Particular attention is given to sensitive receptors, including local houses adjacent to the project, and to the potential exposure of these receptors to airborne pollutants resulting from the proposed development. Impacts on air quality will arise during the construction phase, such as from the generation of construction dust, construction plant emissions and from emissions of construction traffic. The construction activities have been examined to identify those that have the potential for air emissions. Where applicable, a series of suitable mitigation measures have been listed. There will be a potential increase in direct impacts on climate as a result of the operation of the proposed development through changes in emissions generated by the new development and intensification of some existing operations. These emissions are produced by new processes to be provided within the development and through intensification of use of existing scheduled emission points.

The scope of the study consists of the following components:

Review of background ambient air quality in the vicinity of the plant

using available reference data generated by the EPA,

Identification of the significant substances which are released from the

proposed facility development and as a result of the project,

Review of maximum emission levels and other relevant information

needed for the dispersion modelling study for identified compounds,

Air dispersion modelling of significant substances released from the site,

Identification of predicted ground level concentrations of released

substances at the site boundary and at identified sensitive receptors in

the immediate environment,

A full cumulative assessment of significant releases from the site taking

into account the releases from all other significant sources such as

traffic,

Evaluation of the significance of these predicted concentrations,

including consideration of whether these ground level concentrations are

likely to exceed the ambient air quality standards and guidelines,

Assessment of other air quality impacts such as construction dust and

emissions from construction and operational phase traffic.

15.2 Methodology

Site visit A number of visits were conducted to the existing facility in order to establish air emission levels of classical air pollutants such as Carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, particulate matter and odours.

Study Methodology-Assessment Criteria The EU has introduced several measures to address the issue of air quality management. In 1996, Environmental Ministers agreed a Framework Directive on ambient air quality assessment and management (Council Directive 96/62/EC). As part of the measures to improve air quality, the European Commission has adopted proposals for daughter legislation under Directive 96/62/EC. The first of these directives to be enacted, 1999/30/EC, has set limit values which replaced existing limit values under Directives 80/779/EEC, 82/884/EEC and 85/203/EEC in April 2001. The new directive, as relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, lead, PM10 and nitrogen dioxide are detailed in Table 15.1. EU Council Directive 2000/69/EC defines limit values for both carbon monoxide and benzene in ambient air and are presented in Table 15.1.

The National Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 180 of 2011) transpose those parts of the “Framework” Directive 92/30/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management not transposed by Environment Protection Agency Act 1992 (Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Management) Regulations 1999 (S.I. No. 33 of 1999). The 2002 Regulations also transpose, in full, the first two “Daughter” Directives 1999/30/EC relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air and 2000/69/EC relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air.

Council Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe (21/09/2005) has recently stated that it is to revise and combine several existing Ambient Air Quality Standards including Council Directives 96/62/EC, 1999/30/EC and 00/69/EC. In regards to existing ambient air quality standards, it will not modify the standards but will strengthen existing provisions to ensure that non-compliances are removed. It does however set a new ambient standard for PM2.5 In regards to PM2.5, the proposed approach is to establish a limit value of 25 μg/m³ , as an annual average (to be attained by 2015), coupled with a non-binding target to reduce human exposure generally to PM2.5 between 2010 and 2020. This exposure reduction target is currently proposed at 20% of the average exposure indicator (AEI). The AEI is

based on measurements taken in urban background locations averaged over a three year period.

Table 15.1 - Irish and EU Ambient Air Standard (SI 180 of 2011, 1999/30/EC

and 2008/50/EC).

Pollutant Regulation Limit Type Margin of Tolerance Value

Hourly limit for protection of

human health - not to be exceeded more than 18

times/year-1 hour average

50% until 2001 reducing linearly to 0% by 2010 for 199/30/EC

40% from the date of entry into force of these Regulations, reducing on 1 January 2003 and every 12 months thereafter by equal annual percentages to reach 0% by 1 January 2010 for SI 271 2002

200 μg/m3 NO2

Annual limit for protection of

human health-Annual


40% from the date of entry into

force of these Regulations, reducing on 1 January 2003

and every 12 months thereafter by equal annual percentages to reach 0% by 1 January 2010 for

SI 271 2002

40 μg/m3 NO2

Nitrogen Dioxide

1999/30/EC

SI 180 OF 2011


vegetation-Annual

None

30 μg/m3 NO + NO2

Lead 1999/30/EC


human health-Annual average

100% until 2001 reducing linearly to 0% by 2005

0.5 μg/m3

Hourly limit for protection of

human health – not to be

exceeded more than 24


43% until 2001 reducing linearly until 0% by 2005 for 199/30/EC

90 μg/m3 from the date of entry into force of these Regulations, reducing on 1 January 2003 and every 12 months thereafter by 30 μg/m3 to reach 0 μg/m3 by 1 January 2005 for SI 180 OF 2011

350 μg/m3

Sulphur Dioxide

1999/30/EC

SI 180 OF 2011

Daily limit for protection of


exceeded more than 3 times/year-

24hr average

None 125 μg/m3

A i r Q u a l i t y & C l i m a t e 15


Annual & Winter limit for the

protection of ecosystems-

Annual

None 20 μg/m3

24-hour limit for protection of


exceeded more than 35



30% from the date of entry into force of these Regulations, reducing on 1 January 2003 and every 12 months thereafter by equal annual percentages to reach 0% by 1 January 2005 for SI 180 OF 2011

50 μg/m3

PM10

Particulate Matter

Stage 1

1999/30/EC

SI 180 OF 2011


human health-Annual


12% from the date of entry into force of these Regulations, reducing on 1 January 2003 and every 12 moths thereafter by equal annual percentages to reach 0% by 1 January 2005

40 μg/m3

PM10

24-hour limit for protection of


exceeded more than 7 times/year-24 hour average

To be derived from data and to be equivalent to Stage 1 limit value for 1999/30/EC

Not to be exceeded more than 28 times by 1 January 2006, 21 times by 1 January 2007, 14 times by 1 January 2008, 7 times by 1 January 2009 and zero times by 1 January 2010 for SI 180 OF 2011

50 μg/m3

PM10 Particulate Matter

Stage 2

1999/30/EC

SI 180 OF 2011


human health-Annual

50% until 2005 reducing linearly to 0% by 2010 for 1999/30/EC and SI 180 OF 2011

20 μg/m3

PM10

PM2.5 2008/50/EC


human health-Annual

25μg/m3

PM2.5

Benzene

2000/69/EC

SI 180 OF 2011

Annual limit for protection of human health

100% until 2003 reducing linearly to 0% by 2010 for

2000/69/EC

100% from the date of entry into force of these Regulations, reducing on 1st January 2006 and every 12 months thereafter by 1 µg/m3 to reach 0 µg/m3 by 1st January 2010

5 μg/m3

Carbon Monoxide

2000/69/EC

SI 180 OF

8-hour limit (on a rolling basis) for protection

of human

50% until 2003 reducing linearly to 0% by 2005 for

2000/69/EC

10 mg/m3

2011 health 6 mg/m3 from the date of entry into force of these Regulations, reducing on 1st January 2003 and every 12 months thereafter by 2 mg/m3 to reach 0 mg/m3 by 1st January 2005

The above standards have been set by environmental and health professionals across Europe following extensive worldwide research and are designed to protect the most sensitive of receptors, including for example elderly humans with existing respiratory ailments and areas valued for their flora and fauna.

15.3 Receiving Environment - Air

General The receiving environment is described in the human context in Chapter 17 of the EIS.

Sensitive receptors There are a number of sensitive receptors including local housing estates, once off housing and businesses in the vicinity of the existing facility which were taken into account in the predicted impacts from the facility. These are presented in Table 15.2 and Figure 15.1. Such sensitive receptors could be impacted upon negatively as a result of the expansion and intensification at the facility and therefore specific air quality impact is predicted at each location and compared to the air quality standards presented in Section 15.2 and Tables 15.1.

.

Table 15.2 - Location of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Irish Distillers

Ltd facility, Midleton, Co. Cork.

Receptor identity X coordinate (m) Y coordinate (m)

R1 188607 74200

R2 188518 74198

R3 188610 74067

R4 188412 73988

R5 188471 73872

R6 188393 73813

R7 188536 73825

R8 188553 73756

R9 188444 73739

R10 188439 73665

R11 188267 73615

R12 188210 73322

R13 188568 73282

R14 188787 73087

R15 189259 73408

R16 189915 73571

R17 189974 73618

R18 189861 73902

R19 189703 74079

R20 189688 74723

R21 189587 74763

R22 189138 74778

R23 188724 73304

R24 189077 74493

R25 188928 74479

R26 188789 74352



Figure 15.1 - Location of sensitive receptor locations relative to the existing facility.

Desktop Baseline Air quality assessment The EU Air Framework Directive deals with each EU Member State in terms of Zones and Agglomerations for Air Quality. For Ireland, four zones, A, B, C and D have been defined and are included in the Air Quality Standards (AQS) Regulations (SI No 271 of 2002). Midleton and its environs would be classified as falling within Zone C - Other cities and large towns located in Ireland. While there is some availability of recent and historic data for air quality in Cork City, there is limited data available from the national air quality monitoring database for air quality specifically in Midleton. As such, available data from the EPA Monitoring Sites located across a number of Zone B / C areas has been referenced for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and PM10 and PM2.5

evels (see Table 15.3) and is considered representative of background air quality in the study area.

Carbon monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is produced as a result of incomplete burning of carbon-containing fuels including coal, wood, charcoal, natural gas, and fuel oil. It can be emitted by combustion sources such as un-vented kerosene and gas heaters, furnaces, woodstoves, gas stoves, fireplaces and water heaters, automobile exhaust from attached garages, and tobacco smoke. carbon monoxide interferes with the distribution of oxygen in the blood to the rest of the body. Depending on the amount inhaled, this gas can impede coordination, worsen cardiovascular conditions, and produce fatigue, headache, weakness, confusion, disorientation, nausea, and dizziness. Very high levels can cause death. The symptoms are sometimes confused with the flu or food poisoning. Foetuses, infants, elderly, and people with heart and respiratory illnesses are particularly at high risk for the adverse health effects of carbon monoxide.

At each of the baseline EPA monitoring locations (see Table 15.2), the air quality data was analysed for carbon monoxide over a one year period. The results are presented in Table 15.3.

As can be observed in Table 15.1, the baseline annual average eight hour concentration of carbon monoxide expected in this region is between the range 300 to 500 µg/m³ which is well within the limit value of 10,000 µg/m³.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Nitrogen is a constituent of both the natural atmosphere and of the biosphere. When industrial metabolism releases nitrogen to the environment it is considered a "pollutant" because of its chemical form: NO, NO2, and N2O. These oxides of nitrogen can be toxic to humans, to biota, and they also perturb the chemistry of the global atmosphere. In the transportation sector, the NOx emissions result from internal combustion engines. In power plants and industrial sources, NOx is produced in boilers. The overwhelming fraction of nitrogen oxide



emissions arises from the high temperature combustion of fossil fuels; emissions from metal-processing plants and open-air burning of biomass are insignificant.

Nitrogen dioxide is classed as both a primary pollutant and a secondary pollutant. As a primary pollutant NO2 is emitted from all combustion processes (such as a gas/oil fired boiler or a car engine.

As a secondary pollutant NO2 is derived from atmospheric reactions of pollutants that are themselves, derived mainly from traffic sources (e.g. volatile organic compounds). Secondary pollution is usually derived from regional sources and may be used as an indicator of general air quality in the region. Nitrogen dioxide has been shown to reduce the pulmonary function of the lungs. Long-term exposure to high concentrations of NO2

can cause a range of effects, primarily in the lungs, but also in the liver and blood.

At each of the baseline EPA monitoring locations (see Table 15.1), the air quality data was analysed for oxides of nitrogen over a one year period. The results are presented in Table 15.3.

As can be observed in Table 15.3, the baseline annual average concentration of oxides of nitrogen expected in this region is between the range 10 to 17 µg/m³ which is well within the limit value of 40 µg/m³ presented in Table 15.1.

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) Sulphur dioxide is a colourless gas, about 2.50 times as heavy as air, with a suffocating faint sweet odour. Sulphur dioxide occurs in volcanic gases and thus traces of sulphur dioxide are present in the atmosphere. Other sources of sulphur dioxide include smelters and utilities, electricity generation, iron and steel mills, petroleum refineries, pulp and paper mills, metallurgical processes, chemical processes and the combustion of the iron pyrites, which are contained in coal. Small sources include residential, commercial and industrial space heating.

SO2 can be oxidised to sulphur trioxide, which in the presence of water vapour is readily transformed to sulphuric acid mist. SO2 is a precursor to sulphates, which are one of the main components of respirable particles in the atmosphere. Health effects caused by exposure to high levels of SO2 include breathing problems, respiratory illness, changes in the lung’s defences, and worsening respiratory and cardiovascular disease. People with asthma or chronic lung or heart disease are the most sensitive to SO2. It also damages trees and crops. SO2, along with nitrogen oxides, are the main precursors of acid rain. This contributes to the acidification of lakes and streams, accelerated corrosion of buildings and reduced visibility. SO2 also causes formation of microscopic acid aerosols, which have serious health implications as well as contributing to climate change.

At each of the baseline EPA monitoring locations (see Table 15.1), the air quality data was analysed for sulphur dioxide over a one year period. The results are presented in Table 15.3.

As can be observed in Table 15.3, the baseline annual average concentration of sulphur dioxide expected in this region in the range 2 to 3 µg/m³ which is well within the limit value of 20 µg/m³ presented in Table 15.1.

Particulate matter (as PM10 and PM2.5) Major sources of particulates include industrial/residential combustion and processing, energy generation, vehicular emissions and construction projects. The particulate matter created by these processes is responsible for many adverse environmental conditions including reduced visibility, contamination and soiling, but also recognised as a contributory factor to many respiratory medical conditions such as asthma, bronchitis and lung cancer. PM (Particulate Matter 10 and 2.5) refers to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 and 2.50 �m. Generally, such particulate matter remains in the air due to low deposition rates. It is the main particulate matter of concern in Europe and has existing air quality limits.

At each of the baseline EPA monitoring locations (see Table 15.1), the air quality data was analysed for PM10 and PM2.5 over a ,one year period The results are presented in Table 15.3.

As can be observed in Table 15.3, the baseline annual average concentration of Particulate matter as PM10 and PM2.5 expected in this region is between the range 18 to 27 and 10 to 16 µg/m³ , respectively, which is well within the limit value of 40 and 25 µg/m³ presented in Table 15.1.

Benzene The sources associated with individual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) tend to be dependent on the nature of industries in the sample region. Methane is a naturally occurring volatile organic compound (VOC) from plants and animals but is also generated as a by-product of certain industries. Benzene and other aromatic/alkanes are most likely derived from petrol driven vehicle exhausts. Heavier semi-volatile organic compounds are frequently derived from diesel-powered engines. Benzene is a known carcinogen, poisonous by inhalation and a severe eye and moderate skin irritant.

At each of the baseline EPA monitoring locations (see Table 15.1), the air quality data was analysed for benzene over a one year period. The results are presented in Table 15.3.

As can be observed in Table 15.3, the baseline annual average concentration of benzene expected in this region is between the range 0.40 and 1.10 µg/m³ which is well within the limit value of 5 µg/m³ presented in Table 15.1.

Table 15.3 - EPA Baseline air quality monitoring data.

Compound Newbridge 2010

(µg/m3)

Celbridge 2010

(µg/m3)

Ennis 2010

(µg/m3)

Limerick

Park Rd 2010

(µg/m3)

Glashaboy, Co.

Cork 2010

(µg/m3)

Heatherton Park 2010

(µg/m3)

Carbon monoxide 8 hr (Annual mean) 500 300 - - - -

Oxides of nitrogen (Annual mean) 17 12 - 14 10 -

Sulphur dioxide (Annual mean) 2 2 3 - - -

Particulate matter as PM10 (Annual mean) 20 18 27 - - 18

Particulate matter as PM2.5 (Annual mean) - - 16 - - 10 (2009)

Benzene (mg/m3) (Annual mean) 1.10 (Old station

Rd, Zone B)

0.40 (Emo Court,

Zone D) - - - -



Odours The predicted impacts of the existing facility for odours was examined utilising collected baseline odour emission rate data as presented in Table 15.5 in accordance with procedures and methods contained in the publications:

Air quality - Determination of odour concentration by dynamic

olfactometry, Comité European de Normalisation (CEN).

H4 Guidance Parts 1 and 2, Environment agency, UK,

AG4 Air guidance document – Air dispersion modelling guidance

document for industrial installations Guidance note AG4, EPA 2010.

AERMOD Prime 11103 and five years of hourly sequential meteorological data representative of the study area were utilised within the dispersion model.

The procedure is described as follows:

Dispersion model AERMOD Prime

The AERMOD model was developed through a formal collaboration between the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). AERMOD is a Gaussian plume model and replaced the ISC3 model in demonstrating compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Porter et al., 2003) AERMIC (USEPA and AMS working group) is emphasizing development of a platform that includes air turbulence structure, scaling, and concepts; treatment of both surface and elevated sources; and simple and complex terrain. The modelling platform system has three main components: AERMOD, which is the air dispersion model; AERMET, a meteorological data pre-processor; and AERMAP, a terrain data pre-processor (Cora and Hung, 2003).

AERMOD is a Gaussian steady-state model which was developed with the main intention of superseding ISCST3 (NZME, 2002). The AERMOD modeling system is a significant departure from ISCST3 in that it is based on a theoretical understanding of the atmosphere rather than depending on empirical derived values. The dispersion environment is characterized by turbulence theory that defines convective (daytime) and stable (nocturnal) boundary layers instead of the stability categories in ISCST3. Dispersion coefficients derived from turbulence theories are not based on sampling data or a specific averaging period. AERMOD was especially designed to support the U.S. EPA’s regulatory modeling programs (Porter at al., 2003). Special features of AERMOD include its ability to treat the vertical in-homogeneity of the planetary boundary layer, special treatment of surface releases, irregularly-shaped area sources, a three plume model for the convective boundary layer, limitation of vertical mixing in the stable boundary layer, and fixing the reflecting surface at the stack base (Curran et al., 2006). A treatment of dispersion in the presence of intermediate and complex terrain is used that improves on

that currently in use in ISCST3 and other models, yet without the complexity of the Complex Terrain Dispersion Model-Plus (CTDMPLUS) (Diosey et al., 2002).

Model assumptions

The approach adopted in this assessment is considered a worst-case investigation in respect of emissions to the atmosphere from the operational facility. These predictions are therefore most likely to over estimate the GLC’s that may actually occur for each modelled scenario. These assumptions are summarised and include:

Emissions to the atmosphere from the existing operations were

assumed to occur 81% of a full year and based on existing drier

operating times.

Five years of hourly sequential meteorological data from Cork 2003 to

2007 inclusive was used in the modelling screen which will provide

statistically significant results in terms of the short and long term

assessment. The worst case year 2005 was used for data analysis. This

is in keeping with guidance. In addition, AERMOD incorporates a

meteorological pre-processor AERMET PRO. The AERMET PRO

meteorological pre-processor requires the input of surface

characteristics, including surface roughness (z0), Bowen Ratio and

Albedo by sector and season, as well as hourly observations of wind

speed, wind direction, cloud cover, and temperature. The values of

Albedo, Bowen Ratio and surface roughness depend on land-use type

(e.g., urban, cultivated land etc) and vary with seasons and wind

direction. The assessment of appropriate land-use type was carried out

to a distance of 10km from the meteorological station for Bowen Ratio

and Albedo and to a distance of 1km for surface roughness in line with

USEPA recommendations.

All emissions were assumed to occur at maximum potential emission

concentration and mass emission rates for each scenario and were

assumed to occur for 81% of an operating year, simultaneously (when

the facility is in operation).

AERMOD Prime (11103) dispersion modelling was utilised throughout

the assessment in order to provide the most conservative dispersion

estimates.

All building wake affects were assessed within the dispersion model.

Topographical data was inputted into the model in order to take account

of any rolling terrain in the vicinity of the site (which is the case in this

instance).

Odour impact criterion for process odours

Odours from process operations arise mainly from the release of odourous gases from:

The brewing process

Pumping of liquids between tanks,

Drying of recovered feed,

Feed delivery operations,

Fermentation process itself.

Distilling Process

Any process change which will improve/reduce the nature of the elements above will lead to reduction in potential odour release.

An odour impact criterion defines the odour threshold concentration limit value above baseline in ambient air, which will result in an odour stimulus capable of causing an odour complaint. There are a number of interlinked factors, which cause a nearby receptor (i.e. resident) to complain. These include:

Odour threshold concentration, odour intensity and hedonic tone-defined

measurable parameters at odour source,

Frequency of odour - how frequently the odour is present at the receptor

location,

Duration of odour - how long the odour persists at the receptor location,

Physiological - previous experiences encountered by receptor, etc.

By assessing these combined interlinked factors, the ability for a facility to cause odour complaints can be determined. Odour is not measurable in ambient air due to issues in sampling techniques, limit of detections for olfactometers and the inability to monitor continuously. Therefore dispersion models become useful tools in odour impact assessments and odour risk analysis. Dispersion modelling also allows for the assessment of proposed changes in processes within the facility without actually having to wait for the processes to be changed (i.e. predictive analysis).

Impacts from the facility operations are assessed in accordance with the following requirements. These include:

1. EPA guidance documents “Odour impacts and odour emission control measures for intensive agriculture, EPA, 2001,

2. AG4 - Air Dispersion Modelling from Industrial Installations Guidance Note (AG4) and

3. H Horizontal Guidance notes (2010), UK Environment Agency

Based on these publications, a value of less than 3.0 OuE/m³ at the 98th percentile of hourly averages for five years of screened hourly sequential meteorological data was examined as this was considered the most appropriate odour impact criterion given the nature of the activity.



Meteorological data.

Five years of hourly sequential meteorological data was chosen for the modelling exercise (i.e. Cork 2003 to 2007 inclusive). A schematic wind rose and tabular cumulative wind speed and directions of all five years are presented in Figure 15.3. All five years of met data was screened to provide a more statistically significant result output from the dispersion model. The worst case year 2005 was used for data presentation. This is in keeping with national and international recommendations on quality assurance in operating dispersion models and will provide a worst case assessment of predicted ground level concentrations based on the input emission rate data. Surface roughness, Albedo and Bowen ratio were assessed and characterised around Cork met station for AERMET Pro processing.

Terrain data.

Topography effects were accounted for within the dispersion modelling assessment as terrain was considered complex in the vicinity of the site. 10 m spaced XYZ column format topographical data as gathered from Ordnance survey Ireland was pre-processed using AERMAP (11103) for the dispersion modelling area in order to allow for the characteristics of terrain to be accounted for in the model. A total fine grid area of 0.16 km sq and a course grid area of 1.0 km sq were examined within the dispersion modelling assessment giving a total receptor grid number of 2,122 receptor points in the assessment area.

Building wake effects

Building wake effects are accounted for in modelling scenarios through the use of the Prime algorithm (i.e. all building features located within the facility) as this can have a significant effect on the compound plume dispersion at short distances from the source and can significantly increase GLC’s in close proximity to the facility. All building structures and stack heights and orientations were inputted into the dispersion model in order to allow for wake effects to be taken in to account in the calculations. The latest Building Profile Input Program version (04274) was utilised in the analysis.

Input odour data for the dispersion model

Input odour emission data collected on the existing facility processes is presented Table 15.4. The overall odour emission rate from identified processes is 74,161 OuE/s. This data was inputted into the dispersion model AERMOD Prime 11103 with meteorological data, terrain and building and source characteristics to allow for the examination of base line odour levels at each of the identified sensitive receptors presented in Section 15.3.

Table 15.4. - Odour emission rate data used as input data to the dispersion

model AERMOD Prime 11103 for existing operations.

Existing odour emission rates

Odour source Volume flow rate (m³ /hr)

Odour threshold conc.

(OuE/m³ )

Odour emission rate

(OuE/s)

A2-1 – Feed recovery stack

36,600 5,678 57,726

Evaporator Vacuum pump

125 2,448 85

Primary thin stillage tank 1,067 3,096 918

Combined evaporator stillage process emissions

4,522 968 1,216

Grain intake fan 11,304 828 2,607

Corn Slurry tank 89 724 18

Steam ejector vac pump 62 2,248 39

Continuous cooker corn slurry tank

652 1,448 262

Low temp cooker 2 652 1,280 232

Flash tank 35 - -

Cooker converter 1,086 3,268 986

converter A 3,816 1,780 1,887

Converter B 4,265 1,920 2,275

Lautertun A 993 1,448 399

Lautertun B 1,043 1,280 371

Underback 586 5,276 859

Copper A 554 1,448 223

Copper B 619 724 124

Copper C 521 1,280 185

Inlet waste water tank 29.20 m2 4.28 OuE/m2/s 125

Balance tank 659.40 m2 5.20 OuE/m2/s 3,429

Aeration tank 3.142 21.20 OuE/m2/s 67

Sludge thickening and storage process

8 m2 16 OuE/m2/s 128

Total odour emission rate (OuE/s) - - 74,161

Output odour data from the dispersion model

Table 15.5 and Figure 15.2 presents the baseline odour values in the vicinity of the existing facility. As can be observed in Table 15.5, the maximum predicted ground level concentration of odour at the worst case receptor R7 was less than or equal to 1.17 OuE/m³ at the 98th

percentile of hourly averages for worst case meteorological year Cork 2005. This is 39% of the odour impact criterion. Figure 15.2 presents the plume spread as a result of existing activities. As can be observed the odour plume spread does not impact on any of the identified receptors with the contour travelling mainly in a north south direction and 40 to 50 m beyond the boundary of the facility.

Table 15.5 - Predicted GLC of an odour concentration of less than or equal to

3.0 OuE/m³ for the 98th percentile of hourly averages for worst

case meteorological year Cork 2005.

Receptor identity

X coordinate (m)

Y coordinate (m)

Predicted Odour conc 98%ile (OuE/m³ )

R1 188607 74200 0.65

R2 188518 74198 0.43

R3 188610 74067 0.85

R4 188412 73988 0.40

R5 188471 73872 0.74

R6 188393 73813 0.51

R7 188536 73825 1.12

R8 188553 73756 0.96

R9 188444 73739 0.67

R10 188439 73665 0.59

R11 188267 73615 0.35

R12 188210 73322 0.07

R13 188568 73282 0.19

R14 188787 73087 0.31

R15 189259 73408 0.62

R16 189915 73571 0.28

R17 189974 73618 0.26

R18 189861 73902 0.30

R19 189703 74079 0.36

R20 189688 74723 0.25

R21 189587 74763 0.22

R22 189138 74778 0.34

R23 188724 73304 0.48

R24 189077 74493 0.36

R25 188928 74479 0.22

R26 188789 74352 0.35

Limit value (OuE/m³ )

- - 3.0



Figure 15.2 - Predicted existing odour plume spread for Irish Distillers Ltd of

less than or equal to 3.0 OuE/m³ at the 98th percentile of

hourly averages for worst case meteorological year Cork 2005

15.4 Meteorological Conditions

15.4.1 Microclimate The landscape in the surrounding area is gently undulating with rounded grassland with some undulating hill features and tall vegetation. The prevailing wind direction is from the southwest. Poor dispersion can occur under certain weather characteristics known as inversions that form in very light or calm wind and stable atmospheric conditions. The wind rose illustrated in Figure 15.3 identifies that such wind conditions are very infrequent (0.90% of hours in the years 2003 to 2007).

15.4.2 Meteorological Data The nearest meteorological station to the area is the Met Éireann Station in Cork Airport which lies approximately 29km west south west of Midleton. The weather in the area is influenced by the Irish Sea, resulting in mild, moist weather dominated by cool temperate oceanic air masses. The prevailing wind direction in Ireland is from a quadrant centred on southwest. These are relatively warm winds from the Irish Sea and frequently bring rain. Easterly winds are weaker and less frequent and tend to bring cooler weather from the northeast in spring and warmer weather from the southeast in summer. The 30-year averages from the station at Cork Airport are presented in Table 15.6.

Table 15.6 - 30-year Average Meteorological Data from Cork Airport (Annual

Values from 1961-1990, source: www.met.ie.)

Parameter 30 yr Average

Mean temperature (0C) 9.40

Mean relative humidity at 0900UTC (%)

87

Mean daily sunshine hours (Hrs) 3.80

Mean Annual total rainfall (mm) 1,207

Mean wind speed (Knots) 11.10

The prevailing wind direction for the area is to the southwest as presented in the wind rose for Cork airport in Figure 15.3. Northerly and easterly winds tend to be very infrequent. Wind characteristics vary between a moderate breeze to gales (average 15 days with gales per annum). Monthly average wind speeds range between 9.10 and 12.90 knots with highest wind speeds occurring during winter and spring months (December, January and February). Lowest wind speeds were recorded in the July and August period.



Figure 15.3 - Wind rose for Cork Airport met station years 1998 to 2007.

15.5 Characteristics of the Proposal

The expansion and intensification scheme to be carried out at Irish Distillers Ltd comprises the expansion of production facilities within the existing distillery. It is proposed to increase the existing production capacity from 33.5 million litres to 64 million litres. It is envisaged that this increase in capacity output will happen over time and that full production capacity will approximately occur in Year 2025. The expansion proposals for the distillery are expected to increase staff numbers by approximately 20%. Construction works at the distillery will involve the erection of a, fermenters, still house, tank receiver farm, distillation column and tank farm, fire water retention pond, and expansion of the waste water treatment facility.

15.6 Potential Impacts of the Proposal

Construction Phase air quality The following sections describe the potential impacts on air quality resulting from the construction phase of the proposed development. The impacts have been assessed on a local scale to determine impact on human health. The aspects considered include:

Construction dust and its potential to impact on sensitive receptors and

to cause an environmental nuisance,

Construction traffic related emissions and their potential for impacts on

sensitive receptors.

The impacts are assessed in the following sections with respect to the relevant assessment criteria where appropriate.

Construction dust Construction activities such as excavation, earth moving and backfilling can generate dust, particularly in dry weather conditions. The extent of dust generation will depend on the nature of the dust (soils, peat, sands, gravels, silts etc.) and the location of the construction activity. In addition, the potential for dust dispersion depends on the local meteorological factors such as rainfall, wind speed and wind direction (see Section 15.4). Vehicles transporting material to and from the site also have the potential to cause dust generation along the selected haul routes. Table 15.8 presents a list of distances within which dust could be expected to result in a nuisance from construction sites for impacts such as soiling (dust nuisance), PM10 deposition and vegetation effects. This data has been taken from guidance published by the National Roads Authority for roads schemes but is considered applicable to this linear project. These distances present the potential for dust impact with standard mitigation in place. There is no anticipated impact from dust emissions when the development has been constructed apart from those emissions from scheduled emission points which are discussed in Section 15.6.

Table 15.7 - Assessment criteria for the impact of dust from construction, with

standard mitigation in place (Source: National Roads Authority,

2006)

Source Potential distance for significant effects (distance from source)

Scale Description Soiling PM10 Vegetation effects

Major Large construction sites with high use of haul roads

100m 25m 25m

Moderate

Moderate sized construction sites with moderate use of haul roads

50m 15m 15m

Minor Minor construction sites with minor use of haul roads

25m 10m 10m

Using this screening assessment tool, at a minor to moderate construction site there is a risk that dust may cause an impact at sensitive receptors are located within 50m of the source of the dust generated. All sensitive receptors will be located greater than 50 m away from construction activities and therefore impact can be considered minimal.

Construction traffic emissions Construction traffic can impact on local air quality. In particular, the proposed routes used for deliveries and any sensitive receptors that line these routes may experience the impacts to local air quality. The potential impact of this construction traffic was estimated as a worst case

AADT scenario of 400 with a mean traffic speed 20km/hr. The detailed results of the modelling exercise are presented in Table 15.8.

Table 15.8 - Predicted contribution of air pollutants as a result of construction

traffic.

Operation phase

Air quality impact contribution as part of the operation phase of the project can be as a result of traffic and/or process based emissions. Traffic based air quality emissions will be as a result of increased traffic from additional deliveries and collections to and from the facility and increased numbers of employees working at the facility.

Traffic

Input data to traffic air quality model and assumptions

The predicted increases in traffic volumes as a result of the development along the existing road network are expected to be minimal. The detailed information on traffic provided in the traffic section (see Chapter 8) of the EIS has been used to identify whether any significant impact on sensitive receptors will occur. The traffic information has been inputted into the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11 (ver. 1.03c) model. This model was prepared by the United Kingdom Department of Transport, the Scottish Office of Industrial Development, the Welsh Office and the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland as a screening tool to assess worst-case air quality impact associated with traffic movements.

The screening model uses a worst-case scenario in calculating emissions. The emission factors used for each pollutant are intentionally set to biased and overestimate the actual emission rate. Also, wind speeds are assumed to be 2 ms-1 (approximately 3.90 knots compared to a mean wind speed of between 4 to 5 ms-1 nearest met station (Cork airport met station). These emission rates predicted as a result of traffic are added to the cumulative emissions generated by the facility and

Particulate matter 10 µm

Link location

Carbon monoxide

Annual mean

(µg/m³ )

Benzene Annual mean

(µg/m³ )

Oxides of nitrogen Annual mean

(µg/m³ )

Annual mean

(µg/m³ )

Days > 50

(µg/m³ )

Worst case receptor 5 m from road centreline

0.01 0.01 0.44 0.09 0.00



Table 15.9 - AADT and % HGV traffic data with and without the proposed

development baseline and therefore this is considered a worst case assessment of likely impact. For these reasons, it can be assumed with confidence that a project will not produce air pollution as a result of traffic if this model identifies none.

Traffic figures have been assessed using the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) figures. The Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) percentage was taken from the traffic chapter. As the average speed of vehicles has a significant effect on the generation of pollutants, calculations are carried out at a worst case traffic speed scenarios. The speed is 20 km hr-1, to represent gridlock conditions so as to assess worst case conditions. In addition, it was assumed within the model that the receptor was located within 5 m of the road centreline again to represent worst case conditions. AADT values and % HGV content are presented in Table 15.10.

Output data from traffic air quality model

Tables 15.10, 15.11 and 15.12 present the results of the worst case conservative traffic air quality modelling data that was performed in order to ascertain the likely increase in air quality impact as a result of additional traffic generated as a result of expansion / intensification at the facility. Table 15.10 presents the pollutants generated by the existing

baseline traffic while Tables 15.11 and 15.12 present the data from the do nothing / do something scenarios as a result of the expansion / intensification at the facility. As can be observed there is no significant increase in the air quality impact of named pollutants as a result of increased traffic numbers between 2011 and 2025 versus the do nothing scenario with only a slight increase occurring in pollutant concentration predicted 5 m from the road centreline. This is as a result of improvements that are likely to occur in fuel and engine technology in the coming years, which the model takes into account in it calculations.

In terms of the do nothing versus do something scenario for 2025 presented in Tables 15.11 and 15.12, there is a slight increase in pollutant concentration in the order of 1 to 2 % and therefore this is considered negligible. When this added to baseline data presented in Section 15.3 for each named pollutant, this will remain well within the air quality limits presented in Section 15.2.

Table 15.10 - Predicted contribution of air pollutants as a result of existing

baseline traffic in 2025 without expansion / intensification at the

facility – do nothing scenario

Link location

Baseline

AADT value

2011

Without

development

AADT value

2025

With

development

AADT value

2025

Broomfield Village 2215 2654 2731

Meadowlands Lane 2385 2858 2936

R626 (Dungourney

Road) – North 4056 4904 5003

Connolly Street 5156 6177 6292

Main Street – West 11578 13873 13910

Main Street – East 13259 15887 15964

R626 (Youghal Road) 6537 7833 7875

R629 (St Mary’s Road) 5911 7083 7117

N25 (Waterford Road) –

East 17459 20920 20961

Link location

Baseline %

HGV value

2011

Without

development

%HGV value

2025

With

development

%HGV value

2025

Broomfield Village 3.70% 3.50% 5.80%

Meadowlands Lane 3.90% 3.70% 5.80%

R627 (Dungourney

Road) – North 3.00% 3.70% 5.00%

Connolly Street 4.50% 4.20% 3.70%

Main Street – West 2.70% 2.60% 2.50%

Main Street – East 3.30% 3.10% 3.00%

R626 (Youghal Road) 2.80% 2.60% 2.50%

R629 (St Mary’s Road) 4.80% 4.60% 4.40%

N25 (Waterford Road) –

East 5.20% 4.90% 4.90%

Particulate matter 10µm Link location Carbon monoxide

Annual mean (µg/m³ )Benzene

Annual mean (µg/m³ )

Oxides of nitrogen Annual mean (µg/m³ ) Annual mean

(µg/m³ ) Days > 50 (µg/m³ )

Broomfield Village 0.02 0.02 1.09 0.31 0.00

Meadowlands Lane 0.02 0.02 1.18 0.33 0.00

R627 (Dungourney Road) – North 0.04 0.04 1.70 0.54 0.00

Connolly Street 0.05 0.05 2.40 0.75 0.00

Main Street – West 0.10 0.11 3.94 1.51 0.00

Main Street – East 0.12 0.12 4.66 1.80 0.00

R626 (Youghal Road) 0.06 0.06 2.49 0.86 0.00

R629 (St Mary’s Road) 0.05 0.05 2.75 0.87 0.00

N25 (Waterford Road) – East 0.14 0.16 6.35 2.40 0.00




baseline traffic in 2011 – baseline existing


baseline traffic in 2025 with expansion / intensification at the

facility – do something scenario.

Particulate matter 10µm Link location Carbon monoxide

Annual mean (µg/m³ )Benzene

Annual mean (µg/m³ )

Oxides of nitrogen Annual mean (µg/m³ ) Annual mean

(µg/m³ ) Days > 50 (µg/m³ )




Connolly Street 0.05 0.05 2.03 0.66 0.00

Main Street – West 0.12 0.12 3.53 1.43 0.00

Main Street – East 0.13 0.14 3.99 1.60 0.00

R626 (Youghal Road) 0.07 0.07 2.20 0.81 0.00

R629 (St Mary’s Road) 0.06 0.06 2.34 0.77 0.00


Particulate matter 10µm Link location

Carbon monoxide Annual mean (µg/m³

)

Benzene Annual mean

(µg/m³ )

Oxides of nitrogen Annual mean (µg/m³

) Annual mean (µg/m³ ) Days > 50 (µg/m³ )




Connolly Street 0.05 0.06 1.99 0.67 0.00

Main Street – West 0.12 0.13 3.51 1.43 0.00

Main Street – East 0.13 0.14 3.96 1.60 0.00

R626 (Youghal Road) 0.07 0.07 2.19 0.81 0.00

R629 (St Mary’s Road) 0.06 0.06 2.32 0.77 0.00




Scheduled emission points The predicted impacts of the proposed facility for classical air pollutants and odours from scheduled emission points was examined utilising odour and air quality emission rate data and predicted increases in classical air pollutants and odours as a result of the expansion / intensification at the facility. Cumulative air quality were accounted for through utilisation of predicted air quality impacts as a result of the expansion / intensification at the facility, increased pollutants as a result of increased traffic numbers and baseline data for the surrounding area (see Sections 15.6 and 15.3).

The predicted impacts of scheduled emission points for the proposed facility for classical air pollutants and odour was performed utilising air quality and odour emission rate data as presented in Table 15.14 in accordance with procedures and methods contained in the publications

H4 Guidance Parts 1 and 2, Environment agency, UK,

AG4 Air guidance document – Air dispersion modelling guidance

document for industrial installations Guidance note AG4, EPA 2010.

AERMOD Prime 11103 and five years of hourly sequential meteorological data (Cork 2003 to 2007) representative of the study area were utilised within the dispersion model with the worst case year Cork 2005 used for data presentation.

The procedure for air quality and odour modelling is already described in Section 15.3 of this chapter.

In terms of the intensification / expansion, a new brewing process is being installed to replace part of the existing process and the waste water treatment process is being expanded. Existing scheduled emission point A2-1 (feeds recovery driers) and boiler emission points A1-1, A1-2 and A1-3 (as per IPPC licence P0442-01) will be operated for close to 100% of the operating year. It is expected that the addition of the new brewing process will improve emissions to atmosphere compared with the existing situation, however for the purpose of this impact assessment no change is conservatively assumed. The expansion of the waste water treatment process will potentially lead to an increase in odour emissions from the facility while the operation of the feeds recovery drier for longer periods of time will increase the frequency of odour emission from this process. This is also the case for classical air pollutants where the operation of the existing site boilers for longer periods of time will lead to an increase in the frequency of classical air pollutants emitted from these processes.

Input odour data for the dispersion model for the proposed facility

Input odour emission data collected on the proposed facility processes is presented Table 15.13. The overall odour emission rate from identified processes is 79,446 OuE/s which is a predicted increase of 6.6% over

existing conditions. This data was inputted into the dispersion model AERMOD Prime 11103 with meteorological data, terrain and building and source characteristics as described in Section 15.3 to allow for the examination of predicted odour levels at each of the identified sensitive receptors presented in Section 15.3.

Table 15.13 - Odour emission rate data used as input data to the dispersion

model AERMOD Prime 11103 for proposed operations.

Proposed odour emission rates

Odour source Volume flow rate (m³ /hr)

Odour threshold conc. (OuE/m³ )

Odour emission rate (OuE/s)

A2-1 – Feed recovery stack

36,600 5,678 57,726

Evaporator Vacuum pump

125 2,448 85

Primary thin stillage tank

1,067 3,096 918

Combined evaporator stillage process emissions

4,522 968 1,216

Grain intake fan 11,304 828 2,607

Corn Slurry tank 89 724 18

Steam ejector vac pump

62 2,248 39

Continuous cooker corn slurry tank 652 1,448 262

Low temp cooker 2 652 1,280 232

Flash tank 35 - -

Cooker converter 1,086 3,268 986

converter A 3,816 1,780 1,887

Converter B 4,265 1,920 2,275

Lautertun A 993 1,448 399

Lautertun B 1,043 1,280 371

Underback 586 5,276 859

Copper A 554 1,448 223

Copper B 619 724 124

Copper C 521 1,280 185

Inlet waste water tank

29.20 m2 4.28 OuE/m2/s 125

Balance tank 659.40 m2 5.20 OuE/m2/s 3,429

Aeration tank 3.142 21.20 OuE/m2/s 67

Sludge thickening and storage process

8 m2 16 OuE/m2/s 128

New Brewing process

2,756 (assumed similar to existing brewing process)

-- 1,537

New waste water treatment process

Mirror image of existing

- 3,748

Total predicted odour emission rate (OuE/s)

- - 79,446

Output odour data from the dispersion model for proposed facility

Table 15.14 and Figure 15.4 presents the predicted odour values in the vicinity of the proposed facility when all processes are operating. As can be observed in Table 15.15, the maximum predicted ground level concentration of odour at the worst case receptor R7 was less than or equal to 1.62 OuE/m³ at the 98th percentile of hourly averages for worst case meteorological year Cork 2005. This is 64% of the odour impact criterion. Figure 15.4 presents the plume spread as a result of proposed activities. As can be observed the odour plume spread does not impact on any of the identified receptors with the contour travelling mainly in a north south direction and 90 to 100 m beyond the boundary of the facility.

Table 15.14 - Predicted GLC of an odour concentration of less than or equal to

3.0 OuE/m³ for the 98th percentile of hourly averages for worst

case meteorological year Cork 2005.

Receptor identity

X coordinate (m) Y coordinate (m) Predicted Odour conc

98%ile (OuE/m³ )

R1 188607 74200 1.20

R2 188518 74198 0.68

R3 188610 74067 1.52

R4 188412 73988 0.64

R5 188471 73872 1.17

R6 188393 73813 0.85

R7 188536 73825 1.62

R8 188553 73756 1.41

R9 188444 73739 1.04

R10 188439 73665 0.92

R11 188267 73615 0.51

R12 188210 73322 0.11

R13 188568 73282 0.33

R14 188787 73087 0.46

R15 189259 73408 1.17

R16 189915 73571 0.46

R17 189974 73618 0.40

R18 189861 73902 0.56

R19 189703 74079 0.69

R20 189688 74723 0.39

R21 189587 74763 0.38

R22 189138 74778 0.56

R23 188724 73304 0.68

R24 189077 74493 0.58

R25 188928 74479 0.49

R26 188789 74352 0.48

Limit value (OuE/m³ )

- - 3.0



Figure 15.4 - Predicted proposed odour plume spread for Irish Distillers Ltd of

less than or equal to 3.0 OuE/m³ at the 98th percentile of hourly

averages for worst case meteorological year Cork 2005.

Input air quality data for the dispersion model for the proposed facility

Input classical air quality emission data collected on the existing and proposed facility processes is presented Table 15.15. The overall air quality emission date for carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide and total particulates from identified processes is presented in Table 15.15. This data was inputted into the dispersion model AERMOD Prime 11103 with meteorological data, terrain and building and source characteristics as described in Section 15.3 to allow for the examination of predicted classical air pollutant levels for maximum predicted regime and at each of the identified sensitive receptors presented in Section 15.3.

For modelling classical air pollutants and in order to obtain the predicted environmental concentration (PEC), background data was added to the process emissions. In relation to the annual averages, the ambient background concentration was added directly to the process concentration. However, in relation to the short-term peak one hour concentrations, concentrations due to emissions from elevated sources cannot be combined in the same way. Guidance from the UK Environment Agency advises that an estimate of the maximum combined pollutant concentration can be obtained by adding the maximum short-term concentration due to emissions from the source to twice the annual mean background concentration.

In modelling air dispersion of NOx from combustion sources, the source term should be expressed as NO2, e.g., NOx mass (expressed as NO2) Some of the exhaust air is made up of NO while some is made up of NO2. NO will be converted in the atmosphere to NO2 but this will depend on a number of factors to include ozone and VOC concentrations. In order to take account of this conversion the following screening can be performed.

Worse case scenario treatment

35% for short-term and 70% for long-term average concentration should be considered to assess compliance with the relevant air quality objective.

This is in accordance with recommendations from the Environmental Agency UK for the dispersion modelling of NO2 emissions from combustion processes, www.environmentagency.gov.uk



Table 15.15 - Classical air pollutant data used as input data to the dispersion

model AERMOD Prime 11103 for proposed operations.

Pollutant identity

Emission concentration

(mg/Nm³ )

Volumetric airflow rate

(Nm³ /hr)

Mass emission rate (g/s)

Notes

Emission points A1-1, A1-2 and A1-3 combined Boiler emission points

Carbon monoxide

10 N/A 0.10 -

Oxides of nitrogen

250 N/A 2.50

See IPPC licence P0442-01 for limits

Sulphur dioxide

10.0 N/A 0.10 -

Total particulate matter

5.0 N/A 0.050


Emission point A2-1 - Feed recovery drier

Total particulate matter

50 36,600 0.51


Output air quality data from the dispersion model for proposed facility

Table 15.16 presents the maximum predicted classical air pollutant values anywhere in the vicinity of the proposed facility when all processes are operating. As can be observed in Table 15.16, the maximum predicted ground level concentrations of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter as PM10 and PM2.5 with baseline values and predicted traffic related emissions is well within the air quality limit values presented in Section 15.2.

The predicted maximum ground level concentration including baseline and traffic related emissions for the maximum eight hour carbon monoxide ground level concentration (GLC) is less than or equal to 5.05% of the impact criterion (see Table 15.16).

The predicted maximum ground level concentration including baseline and traffic related emissions for the maximum 99.79%ile one hour oxides of nitrogen ground level concentration (GLC) is less than or equal to 43.50% of the impact criterion (see Table 15.16).

The predicted maximum ground level concentration including baseline and traffic related emissions for the maximum annual average oxides of nitrogen ground level concentration (GLC) is less than or equal to 68.63% of the impact criterion (see Table 15.16).

The predicted maximum ground level concentration including baseline and traffic related emissions for the maximum 99.73%ile one hour sulphur dioxide ground level concentration (GLC) is less than or equal to 2.27% of the impact criterion (see Table 15.16).

The predicted maximum ground level concentration including baseline and traffic related emissions for the maximum 99.18%ile 24 hour sulphur dioxide ground level concentration (GLC) is less than or equal to 3.76% of the impact criterion (see Table 15.16).

The predicted maximum ground level concentration including baseline and traffic related emissions for the maximum annual average sulphur dioxide ground level concentration (GLC) is less than or equal to 15.80% of the impact criterion (see Table 15.16).

The predicted maximum ground level concentration including baseline and traffic related emissions for the maximum 98.08%ile 24 hour Total particulates as PM10 ground level concentration (GLC) is less than or equal to 76.80% of the impact criterion (see Table 15.16).

The predicted maximum ground level concentration including baseline and traffic related emissions for the maximum 90.40%ile 24 hour Total particulates as PM10 ground level concentration (GLC) is less than or equal to 75.80% of the impact criterion (see Table 15.16).

The predicted maximum ground level concentration including baseline and traffic related emissions for the maximum annual average Total particulates as PM10 ground level concentration (GLC) is less than or equal to 73.0% of the impact criterion (see Table 15.16).

The predicted maximum ground level concentration including baseline and traffic related emissions for the maximum annual average Total particulates as PM2.5 ground level concentration (GLC) is less than or equal to 65.28% of the impact criterion (see Table 15.16).

Table 15.16 - Comparison between predicted GLC’s with baseline and traffic

related emissions national air quality data and limit values

contained in Section 15.2.

Identity

Maximum

Predicted %ile GLC -

(μg/m³ )

Baseline conc. value

(μg/m-3) see

Table 15.3

Max traffic related emission GLC

(μg m-3)

Baseline +

Maximum

predicted GLC

(μg m-3)

Impact

criterion

(μg m-

3)2

% of Criterion

Carbon monoxide - 8 hr maximum GLC (μg/m³ )

3.46 500 <2 505.46 10,00

0 5.05

Oxides of nitrogen - 1 hr max 99.79th percentile (μg/m³ )

33

34 (Twice annual

mean as per EA)

<20 87 200 43.5

0

Oxides of nitrogen - Max Annual average (μg/m³ )

5.53 17 <4.92 27.45 40 68.6

3

Sulphur dioxide - 1 hr Max 99.73th percentile (μg/m³ )

1.96

6.0 (Twice annual

mean as per EA)

- 7.96 350 2.27

Sulphur dioxide - 24 hr Max 99.18th percentile (μg/m³ )

1.7 3.0 - 4.7 125 3.76

Sulphur dioxide – Max annual average (μg/m³ )

0.16 3.0 - 3.16 20 15.8

0

Total particulates - 24 hr Max 98.08th percentile (μg/m³ )

3.4 27 <8.0 38.4 50 76.8

0

Total particulates - 24 hr Max 90.40th percentile (μg/m³ )

2.90 27 <8.0 37.9 50 75.8

0

Total Particulates as PM10 - Max annual average (μg/m³ )

0.32 27 <1.88 29.2 40 73.0

0

Total Particulates as PM2.5 - Max annual average (μg/m³ )

0.32 16 - 16.32 25 65.2

8



Ground level concentrations of classical air pollutants were predicted at each of the named sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the facility (see Figure 15.18). As can be observed the cumulative predicted ground level concentration of each pollutants is well within their respective ground level concentration limit (range of less than 5.02 to 72.57% of impact criterion) when the proposed facility is at 100% operation.

Table 15.17 - Predicted cumulative process emissions, baseline and traffic

related emission at each of the identified sensitive receptors.

Figures 15.5 to 15.14 present the plume spread contour plots for each scenarios for process emissions only. These are for illustrative purposes only and provide an indication of the pollutant plume spread as a result of process emission only in the vicinity of the facility.

Figure 15.5 - Predicted eight hour average CO ground level concentration of

1.0 μg/m³ ( ) for process emissions only from proposed facility

operation for Cork meteorological station (worst case year

2005) - 24 hr plant operation.

Receptor identity X cord

(m) Y cord

(m) CO 8 hr

NO2 99.79%

NO2 AA SO2 1 hr

99.73%ile SO2 24 hr 99.18%ile

SO2 AA TP as PM10

98.08%ile

TP as PM10

90.40%ile

TP as PM10 AA

TP as PM2.5 AA

R1 188607 74200 502.41 57.78 22.13 6.29 3.12 3.01 35.63 35.53 28.92 16.04

R2 188518 74198 502.22 57.15 22.07 6.28 3.07 3.01 35.58 35.48 28.91 16.03

R3 188610 74067 502.26 57.32 22.08 6.24 3.10 3.01 35.51 35.43 28.90 16.02

R4 188412 73988 502.72 62.40 22.22 6.53 3.19 3.01 35.61 35.50 28.91 16.03

R5 188471 73872 502.50 60.41 22.15 6.42 3.15 3.01 35.46 35.38 28.90 16.02

R6 188393 73813 502.31 57.35 22.07 6.27 3.11 3.01 35.39 35.32 28.90 16.02

R7 188536 73825 502.66 62.02 22.20 6.50 3.18 3.01 35.49 35.41 28.90 16.02

R8 188553 73756 502.28 57.68 22.05 6.28 3.08 3.01 35.29 35.24 28.89 16.01

R9 188444 73739 502.41 58.18 22.09 6.29 3.12 3.01 35.37 35.31 28.90 16.02

R10 188439 73665 502.60 60.99 22.13 6.48 3.20 3.01 35.56 35.47 28.91 16.03

R11 188267 73615 502.51 59.68 22.12 6.41 3.14 3.01 35.73 35.61 28.92 16.04

R12 188210 73322 502.39 57.65 22.02 6.41 3.10 3.01 35.73 35.60 28.90 16.02

R13 188568 73282 502.48 59.36 22.18 6.38 3.16 3.01 36.14 35.94 28.93 16.05

R14 188787 73087 502.37 59.44 22.23 6.37 3.14 3.01 35.54 35.45 28.93 16.05

R15 189259 73408 502.33 58.45 22.41 6.31 3.11 3.01 35.71 35.59 28.97 16.09

R16 189915 73571 502.24 58.19 22.14 6.32 3.07 3.01 35.38 35.32 28.93 16.05

R17 189974 73618 502.22 58.26 22.09 6.32 3.07 3.01 35.38 35.32 28.92 16.04

R18 189861 73902 502.25 58.69 22.17 6.39 3.09 3.01 36.12 35.93 28.96 16.08

R19 189703 74079 502.42 59.69 22.34 6.38 3.09 3.01 36.21 36.00 29.03 16.15

R20 189688 74723 502.18 58.19 22.15 6.41 3.06 3.01 35.53 35.44 28.94 16.06

R21 189587 74763 502.24 58.29 22.13 6.41 3.07 3.01 35.56 35.46 28.94 16.06

R22 189138 74778 502.40 59.55 22.24 6.43 3.12 3.01 36.07 35.89 28.97 16.09

R23 188724 73304 502.45 59.91 22.28 6.44 3.19 3.01 35.66 35.55 28.95 16.07

R24 189077 74493 502.41 59.77 22.26 6.45 3.12 3.01 36.12 35.93 28.97 16.09

R25 188928 74479 502.34 58.49 22.20 6.35 3.08 3.01 35.96 35.80 28.93 16.05

R26 188789 74352 502.33 58.38 22.19 6.34 3.08 3.01 35.94 35.78 28.93 16.05

Limits - - 10,000 200 40 350 125 20 50 50 40 25



Figure 15.6 - Predicted 99.79%ile 1 hour average oxides of nitrogen ground

level concentration of 10.50 μg/m³ ( ) for process emissions only

from proposed facility operation for Cork meteorological station

(worst case year 2005) - 24 hour plant operation.

Figure 15.7 - Predicted annual average oxides of nitrogen ground level

concentration of 2.0 μg/m³ ( ) for process emissions only

from proposed facility operation for Cork meteorological

station (worst case year 2005) - 24 hour plant operation.

Figure 15.8 - Predicted 99.73%ile 1 hour average sulphur dioxide ground level






Figure 15.9 - Predicted 99.18%ile 24 hour average sulphur dioxide ground level



(worst case year 2005) - 24 hourr plant operation.

Figure 15.10 - Predicted annual average sulphur dioxide ground level

concentration of 0.06 μg/m³ ( ) for process emissions

only from proposed facility operation for Cork

meteorological station (worst case year 2005) - 24 hour plant

operation.

Figure 15.11 - Predicted 98.08%ile 24 hour average total particulates as PM10

ground level concentration of 1.60 μg/m³ ( ) for process

emissions only from proposed facility operation for Cork


operation.



Figure 15.12 - Predicted 90.40%ile 24 hr average total particulates as PM10

ground level concentration of 1.21 μg/m³ ( ) for process

emissions only from proposed facility operation for Cork


operation.

Figure 15.13 - Predicted annual average total particulates as PM10 ground level




Figure 15.14 - Predicted annual average total particulates as PM2.5 ground

level concentration of 0.18 μg/m³ ( ) for process emissions

only from proposed facility operation for Cork meteorological

station (worst case year 2005) - 24 hour plant operation.



“Do-Nothing” Scenario The baseline survey results suggest that air quality in the vicinity of the proposed development is average / good and shows typical levels for suburban area with all pollutants within the relevant Irish and EU limits (for similar sized population centres). The air quality may improve slightly in future years due to improvements in engine technology and greater controls on petrol, diesel, coal and gas composition and purity. If the proposed development were not to take place, the current air pollutant concentrations will remain unchanged followed by potential decreases in future years for the reasons outlined above. In relation to dust, non-development of the site would result in no movement of soils/sands/materials and no construction activity and therefore no dust creation as a result of construction works.

15.7 Remedial or Reductive Measures

Construction Phase These activities are likely to generate some dust emissions. The potential for dust to be emitted depends on the type of activity being carried out in conjunction with environmental factors including levels of rainfall, wind speed and wind direction. In order to ensure that no dust nuisance occurs, a series of measures will be implemented. Site roads shall be regularly cleaned and maintained as appropriate. Hard surface roads shall be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their surface as a result of the development. Any un-surfaced roads shall be restricted to essential site traffic only. Furthermore, any road that has the potential to give rise to fugitive dust may be regularly watered, as appropriate, during extended dry and/or windy conditions.

A full traffic management plan and dust management plan will be incorporated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) in order to minimise such emission as a result of the construction phase of the development. This will be generated specifically for the development when detailed design is completed.

Vehicles using site roads shall have their speed restricted, and this speed restriction must be enforced rigidly. On any un-surfaced site road and on hard surfaced roads that site management dictates speed shall be restricted to 20 km per hour.

Vehicles delivering material with dust potential (soil, aggregates) will be enclosed or covered with tarpaulin at all times to restrict the escape of dust.

Material handling systems and site stockpiling of materials shall be designed and laid out to minimise exposure to wind. Water misting or sprays shall be used as required if particularly dusty activities are necessary during dry or windy periods.

Public roads outside the site will be regularly inspected for cleanliness, and cleaned as necessary.

At all times, these procedures will be strictly monitored and assessed. In the event of dust nuisance occurring outside the site boundary, movements of materials likely to raise dust would be curtailed and satisfactory procedures implemented to rectify the problem before the resumption of construction operations.

In relation to the completion of the proposed development, the hard standing surface, and all roads will be tarmacadamed/concreted where applicable. In periods of dry weather when dust emission would be greatest, a road sweeper, which would also dampen the road, may be employed in order to prevent the generation of dust.

Operation Phase Scheduled emission points operated within the facility are currently regulated through the EPA IPPC licence P0442-01. This assessment demonstrated that the level of emission will not result in any air quality impact in line with Irish and European assessment criteria limits.

15.8 Predicted Residual Impacts of the Development

Construction Phase The effect of construction of the facility on air quality will not be significant following the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. The main environmental nuisance associated with construction activities is dust. However, it is proposed to adhere to good working practices and dust mitigation measures to ensure that the levels of dust generated will be minimal and are unlikely to cause an environmental nuisance. A series of such good working practices and mitigation measures are outlined earlier in this chapter (see Section 15.7).

In terms of good practice construction vehicles and equipment will receive regular maintenance. Technical inspection will be performed on vehicles to ensure they will perform most efficiently. A Traffic Management Plan will be implemented to minimise congestion.

Operation Phase Scheduled emission points operated within the facility are currently regulated through the EPA IPPC licence P0442-01. This assessment demonstrated that the level of emission will not result in any air quality impact in line with Irish and European assessment criteria limits.

“Worst Case” Scenario A worst case of assessment was utilised throughout the air quality impact study in order to assess any risk associated with the proposed operation

of the facility. Emission concentration values will be regulated through the EPA IPPC licence P0442-01, which is the case at present.

Residual impact No residual impacts are envisaged during the construction and operational phases of the development.

Monitoring The current Irish distillers Ltd IPPC licence P0442-01 outlined monitoring requirements for the scheduled emission points and it is recommended that monitoring regime is continued.

Construction Phase It is envisaged that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the surrounding air quality. However, as discussed previously a number of dust mitigation measures have been suggested. Moreover, dust monitoring could be carried out during the construction phase of the development if deemed necessary by the planning authority. If the level of dust is found to exceed 350mg/m² day in the vicinity of the site, further mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction of the proposed site.

Operational phase No mitigation measures required

Reinstatement Not Applicable

Material Assets 16


16 Material Assets

16.1 Introduction & Methodology

Resources that are valued and that are intrinsic to specific places are called ‘material assets’. This chapter assesses the potential impacts of the proposed development on the site and the area’s material assets and details mitigation measures proposed. In the context of the proposed development, it is considered that the relevant material assets are the area’s cultural heritage and in particular the potential archaeology of the site and the protected structures and structures of architectural/cultural significance in the area.

The phrase ‘Cultural Heritage’ is a generic term that spans thousands of years and covers a multitude of cultural, archaeological and architectural sites and monuments within the landscape. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines (2003), define cultural heritage as including history, landscape and garden design, folklore and tradition, geological features, language and dialect, religion, settlements, inland waterways (rivers) and place names.

16.2 Methodology

Methods The methodology used to complete the archaeology section of this EIS comprised the following:

A review of the relevant legislation and guidelines

A desktop assessment of the proposed development site and study area

A site inspection of the proposed development site.

Legislation and Guidelines In Ireland, the primary means of protecting Cultural Heritage are The National Monument (Amendments) Acts 1930 to 2004, The Heritage Act 1995, the relevant provisions of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997, The Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments (Misc. Provisions) Act 1999 and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 2000. The government’s policies for both the archaeological and architectural heritage are relayed in a series of specific published guidelines. This chapter is prepared having regard to the following guidelines:

Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact

Statements, (Environmental Protection Agency, 2002).

Advice Notes on Current Practice in the Preparation of Environmental

Impact Statements, (Environmental Protection Agency, 2003).

Framework & Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological

Heritage, (Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & the Islands, 1999).

Policy & Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation, (Department of Arts,

Heritage, Gaeltacht & the Islands, 1999).

Architectural Heritage Protection, Guidelines for Planning Authorities,

2004. (Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government)

Comprehensive guidelines on the treatment of the archaeological and

architectural heritage during the planning and design of national road

schemes were published by the National Roads Authority in 2005.

These were also used as a guide in the compilation of this EIS.

Guidelines for the assessment of Archaeological Heritage Impacts of

National Road Schemes, (NRA, 2005a).

Guidelines for the assessment of Architectural Heritage Impacts of

National Road Schemes, (NRA, 2005a).

Desktop Study The desktop study provides a cultural heritage overview of the proposed development site and study area.

Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) - This record was established under Section 12 (1) of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994. It lists all monuments and places believed to be of archaeological importance in the County. The numbering system consists of two parts: the first part is the county code (CO for Cork) followed by the Ordnance Survey map number (six-inch to the mile scale); the second part is the number of a circle or box surrounding the site on the RMP map, e.g. CO054-093 refers to circle 093 on OS sheet 54 for County Cork. The circle or box around the site is intended to show the site but not to define its exact extent. The diameter of the circle can vary depending on the size and shape of the site but it averages out at c. 180m. The RMP for County Cork was published in 1998. It is an offence to interfere with any of the sites or monuments listed in the RMP without first giving two months notice in writing to the National Monuments Service (NMS) at the Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht (DoAHG).

Sites and Monuments Database of the Archaeological Survey of Ireland (ASI) - The purpose of the ASI is to compile a base-line inventory of the known archaeological monuments in the State. The large record archive and databases resulting from the survey are being continually updated. This database, complete with maps is now available for consultation via the National Monuments Service (NMS) website at www.archaeology.ie

Archaeological Inventory – The inventories for each county are follow-ons by Dúchas, to the RMPs. They give a written description of each archaeological site in the county. The archaeological inventory for East Cork, Volume 2 was published in 1994 and a follow up volume, Volume 5, was published in 2009.

Consultations – During the compilation of the EIS the following were consulted;

1. Ms Mary Sleeman, County Archaeologist for Cork County Council

2. Ms Mairead Weaver, Planning Office, National Monuments Service, (DoAHG) - no comment was received from the DoAHG.

3. Ms Mona Hallinan, Conservation Officer Cork County Council

4. Files of the National Monuments Service, DoAHG –The NMS was consulted to retrieve information on lists of RMP sites that have been afforded added protection such as;

a. National Monuments in the ownership or guardianship of the state – None in the Study Area

b. Monuments subject to Preservation Orders and Temporary Preservation Orders – None in the Study Area

c. Monuments listed in the Register of Historic Monuments – None in the Study Area.

Midleton Development Plan 2003 – The development plan for Midleton outlines the Town Council’s objectives with regard to the preservation of the archaeological and architectural heritage of the county. As noted in Chapter 3, the 2003 Development Plan is no longer valid and there is currently no statutory plan in place for Midleton Town Council. It is assumed for the purpose of this chapter that the archaeological and architectural heritage objectives of the 2003 Plan will transfer into the forthcoming draft Development Plan. The 2003 Plan lists a number of buildings and sites which are to be placed on the Protected Structures Register. There are a large number of these within 1km of the proposed development site, in Midleton town centre and of them two adjoin the proposed development site; Historic Mills Jameson Distillery (Reference 1) and Midleton College (Reference 10).

Cork County Development Plan 2009 - The Protected Structures Register of the Cork County Development Plan (2009) was also consulted. There are no structures registered within the county boundary of the Distillery site, or within its immediate vicinity. The closest

M a t e r i a l A s s e t s 16


registered structure is RPS 00855 Cahermone Castle (in ruins) which is located approximately 1km north east of the site.

National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) Architectural Inventory of East Cork - The work of the NIAH involves identifying and recording the architectural heritage of Ireland, from 1700 to the present day, in a systematic and consistent manner. It is divided into two parts; The Building Survey and Historic Garden Survey. The main function of both is to provide a source of guidance for the selection of architectural heritage for protection and to supply data to local authorities, which helps them to make informed judgments on the significance of building stock in their functional area. The Building and Historic Garden Survey for County Cork is available on line. There is one historic garden listed in the inventory within the study area, Midleton Lodge. There are 119 buildings within Midleton town and its environs listed in the inventory, this includes The Jameson Experience (historic mill) and Midleton College.

Database of Irish Excavation Reports (www.excavations.ie) - This web site provides a database of summary accounts of archaeological excavations and investigations in Ireland undertaken from 1970 to 2005. The database was queried for any investigations undertaken in any of the townlands within the Study Area. A total of nine archaeological investigations were undertaken in the Study Area during this time.

Site-specific publications – The local history section of Midleton Library was consulted to obtain information on the Study Area. This would have included historical journals, local history publications etc., all of which are listed in the bibliography.

Cartographic Sources – The following maps were consulted;

1. 1:50,000 OSI Discovery Series

2. Ordnance Survey 6-inch maps; 1842 and 1934

3. Ordnance Survey 25-inch map 1888-1913

16.3 Archaeology

The archaeological assessment of the proposed development was carried out by Avril Purcell of Lane Purcell Archaeology, Deanrock Business Park, Togher, Cork. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential impact such a development would have on the cultural heritage of the development site and surrounding area.

There is one recorded archaeological site within the proposed development site, the mill race associated with the historic distillery complex (CO076-025).

There are a total of twenty recorded archaeological sites listed in the Record of Monuments and Places for County Cork (RMP) within a c. 1km radius of the proposed development site. These provide evidence for human settlement and activity in the area dating back to the Bronze Age.

In order to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the Cultural Heritage Environment, a study area within a 1 km radius of the proposed development site was chosen.

Existing Environment The pace of landscape change in Ireland accelerated in the second half of the 20th century and many archaeological sites have been levelled by activities associated with modern development and progress such as agriculture, industry and infrastructural improvements. This has ensured that the present day archaeological landscape is not fully representative of the human occupation of this island, which has spanned some nine thousand years. While many archaeological sites survive today as partially upstanding structures, such as earthworks and stone monuments, many more survive only as subsurface remains, often forgotten and concealed from view. Subsurface archaeological remains are usually uncovered during archaeological investigations in advance of development.

In all, there are twenty recorded archaeological sites listed in the RMP for County Cork within approximately 1km of the proposed development site. Table 16.1 and Figure 16.1 highlight the location and type of archaeological sites.

Figure 16.1 - Extract from 1934 OS 6” map (sheet 76) with RMP imposed on it (reduced scale)

CO076-06301-CO076-06305 are depicted by site number 63 CO076-07301 and CO076-07302 are depicted by site number 73 CO076-02701 and CO076-02702 are depicted by site number 27

RMP Site Type Townland

CO076-04 Cave Park North

CO0076-107 Workhouse Townparks

CO076-108 College School-Land

CO076-106 Bridge Townparks

CO076-112 Corn Mill Townparks

CO076-06301 Graveyard Townparks

CO076-06302 Church of Ireland Church Townparks

CO076-06303 Abbey Townparks

CO076-06304 Market House Townparks

CO076-06305 Historic Town Townparks

CO076-115 Gasworks Townparks

CO076-062 Pit Burial Oatencake

CO076-07301 Cornstore Townparks

CO076-07302 Bridge Townparks

CO076-025 Distillery Townparks

CO076-031 Ringfort Castleredmond

CO076-026 Fulacht Fiadh Killeagh

CO076-02701 Tower house Cahermone

CO076-02702 Fortified house Cahermone

CO076-081 Architectural fragment Cahermone

Table 16.1 - RMP and Sites and Monuments Database sites within a 1km

radius of the proposed development site

A full description of each site is given in Appendix 1 (List of Archaeological Sites within the study area). These sites provide evidence for human settlement and activity within the study area dating back to the Bronze Age. Since this time, human populations have organised and altered the landscape around them for a diversity of purposes, be it agricultural, social, political, or religious.

The proposed development site, lies within the lands of Irish Distillers Limited (IDL), Midleton in the townlands of Park North and Townparks in the parish of Midleton and barony of Imokilly. The IDL site lies on the western side of the town to the north of the historic distillery site (CO076-025), now known as the Jameson Experience Midleton. This was the former home to the IDL complex prior to its relocation to the current site in the 1970s. A small number of structural elements, including boundary



walls, a warehouse and a mill race, associated with the historic distillery lie within the Jameson Experience Midleton complex.

Irish Distillers Limited is seeking planning permission to expand its current manufacturing facility. A number of new structures are proposed to the western and southern portions of the site. Figure 16.2 identifies the development areas and the primary works include:-

i) Demolition of 1 no. warehouse plus ancillary storage structures.

ii) Soil removal and relocation on site.

iii) Installation of new structures including the 21.5m tall Still House (no. 1), the 6.7m tall Receiver Tank Farm (no. 2), the 44m tall Distillation Columns structure (no. 3), the 13m tall Distillation Columns Tank Farm (no. 4) and the 18.5m tall Fermenters (no. 5).

iv) Installation of infrastructure including Fire Water Retention Pond (no. 7), expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (no. 8), new services yard and waste segregation area (No. 9)and an electrical substation extension (no. 6).

v) New Boreholes for Process Water

Figure 16.2 - Proposed Development Areas (Highlighted in Red)

The proposed boreholes will be drilled to the east of the site and in addition to those a new sprinkler tank and pumphouse will be constructed in the centre of the site to the south, 80 metres and 100 metres respectively to the south of Foxes Hollow Cave (CO076-004).

It is considered that there are five primary areas with the potential to impact on cultural heritage. These areas are named as Areas 1-5 in the course of this chapter and are as follows

Area 1 New fermenters

Area 2 New distillation columns and tank farm

Area 3 New still house receiver tank farm

Area 4 New still house; and

Area 5 New fire water retention facility

The boreholes will be in the vicinity of existing infrastructure on the site or in the vicinity of elements of the proposed development.

Figure 16.3 - Close up of above showing approximate location of five areas to be developed; (1) proposed new fermenters, (2) new distillation columns tank farm, (3) new still house receiver tank farm, (4) new still house and (5) fire water retention facility

The Urban Archaeological Survey (Zajac et. al. 1995, 79) describes the origins of Midleton town with a grant of the lands to the FitzGeralds of Cloyne in the 16th century who held them until the Cromwellian confiscation. In 1670 the town received a charter of incorporation granting the Manor of Midleton to Sir John Broderick. The town itself is situated on an important routeway between Cork and Youghal and has access to Cork Harbour through Ballinacurra. The town is named due to its location on the road from Cork to Youghal approximately half way between both towns (Cadogan 1998, 354). In the mid 19th century Lewis describes the town of Midleton as an incorporated market and post-town

occupied by in excess of two thousand people. He associates the origins of the town with the Cistercian Chore Abbey of the late 12th century, the location of which he places near Ballinacurra, rather than in the town of Midleton (Ibid. 354). The following account of the cultural heritage of the Study Area is assessed chronologically.

Prehistoric Period Mesolithic - (c. 8000 to 4000BC); Neolithic - (c. 4000 to 2400BC); Bronze Age (c. 2400 to 500BC) – Iron Age (c. 500BC to AD 400).

Mesolithic and Neolithic The earliest evidence for human colonisation and settlement in Ireland can be dated to 7000BC, the Mesolithic Period. The people of this era were hunter-gatherers, entirely dependent on what food could be obtained through hunting and gathering, amongst other things, edible plants and shellfish. They used flint and other hard stone to manufacture their tools, and their settlements can often be identified by locating scatters of these discarded stone tools in ploughed fields. The transition of these early settlers from hunter/gatherers to a farming way of life in the Neolithic Period brought about revolutionary change. This led to more permanent settlements and substantial houses and a more complex and structured social hierarchy. A steady food supply meant that people had more time to increase their toolkit and domestic equipment and develop specialised crafts. While much evidence for the Neolithic Period now remains below ground, the characteristic upstanding feature of this period is the Megalithic tomb.

There are no known archaeological sites dating to the Mesolithic or Neolithic Periods within the Study Area. The general lack of sites, does not, however, mean that the region is devoid of such early settlement and use. In general, archaeological sites from the early Prehistoric Period leave little or no surface evidence on the landscape. In most cases they only come to light during archaeological testing/monitoring in association with industrial, residential and infrastructural development. Consequently, the potential for finding archaeological sites from the period can never be overlooked and there is always the possibility of finding sites of prehistoric date below ground that would otherwise go undetected. In East Cork the main evidence for the Neolithic Period is in the form of flint scatters along the coastline or occasionally inland such as at Clyduff (CO076-005) approximately 5km to the west. Here material typically characteristic of a Neolithic assemblage, including a leaf-shaped arrowhead and hollow-scraper, were revealed.

Bronze Age The Irish Bronze Age is characterised by the introduction of metallurgy, distinctive pottery styles, changes in burial traditions and an increase in population. The first metal to be used as a raw material in Ireland was unalloyed copper. Much evidence for primitive copper mining in Ireland has been discovered in the south-west, at Ross Island, Co. Kerry and Mountgabriel in Co. Cork. Burials in the Bronze Age, took the form of



cists and pit graves, much simpler than the previous Neolithic Period. The remains, cremated or as inhumations, were placed in relatively shallow underground earth-cut pits or cist, which were stone lined. Grave goods, usually in the form of ceramic vessels, often accompanied the remains. Generally the burials remained unmarked above ground, but some were marked by a mound of stones called a cairn and others by a mound of earth called a barrow. At Oatencake, approximately 800m southwest of the proposed development, a pit burial (CO076-062) was found in the 1940s during drainage works (Power 1994, 56). According to O’Kelly (1947, 126-7) the grave was destroyed before it could be investigated. A Cordoned urn which probably contained the remains of an adult female was recovered which is now in the Cork Museum (Power 1994 56). There is one other recorded site dating to the Bronze Age within the study area, a fulacht fiadh in Killeagh (CO076-026) approximately 800m northeast of the proposed development. This site was discovered during the construction of a gas pipeline and remains unexcavated (Ibid 40).

Fulacht fiadh, also known as burnt mounds, are the most common type of prehistoric site in the Bronze Age. They have been interpreted as cooking places, sometimes recognisable as horseshoe-shaped mounds of heat–shattered stones, often located near a stream or in waterlogged areas. Many of these mounds have been ploughed out and are now only evident as spreads of black earth with burnt stones scattered through them as is the case with the example in Killeagh in the study area. It is possible that fulachta fiadh were the focal points for other activities including brewing, fabric-dyeing or sweat houses, however it is likely that the majority acted primarily as cooking places.

Iron Age The transition from bronze to iron working was a significant technological innovation that had a major impact on agriculture, making it more efficient and productive and thus having an effect on society as a whole. Iron, a much harder substance than bronze was used to make more efficient tools to clear large tracts of dense forest. It is around this time that we see the adoption of the La Tene style of art practiced by the Celtic peoples of Europe, a people who had been using iron as a far superior metal to bronze from around 1000 to 700BC. This La Tene culture is represented in metalwork and some stone sculpture, mainly in the north and west of the country.

Burial practices included cremation and inhumation interred in pits or in pre-existing tumuli. Burial monuments associated with the period include ring barrows, ring-ditches and embanked enclosures. Cremation burial appears to have declined in the Iron Age, a trend that has been attributed to a Roman and Christian influence. There are no sites within the study area dating to the Iron Age, however, a site type known as linear or travelling earthwork is located approximately 2km to the west in the townlands of Ballyvodock East, Ballynabointra, Baneshane and Water-

Rock (CO076-092). The earthwork is locally known as the ‘Claidh Buidhe’ Such sites are generally thought to have defined tribal boundaries during the Iron Age. The dating of these sites is difficult in the absence of excavation, however, the Black Pig’s Dyke which is a large earthwork defining the southern boundary of the ancient kingdom of Ulster was constructed in the last few centuries BC (Ibid 67). It has been suggested that the earthwork is at least one thousand years old based on its location along a tribal boundary which subsequently became the division between the civil parishes of Mogeesha and Carrigtwohill (MacCotter 1998, 10).

Early Medieval Period (c. 500 to 1100 AD) This period in Ireland is characterised by the influx and influence of Christianity, which had become widely established by the 6th century AD. A distinctive feature of the development of early Irish Christianity was the important role played by monasticism. From its monasteries, Irish monks set out as pilgrims preaching the gospel and establishing new communities across the Continent. Monasteries became a focal point for the lay communities spread throughout the countryside in settlements such as ringforts/raths, crannogs and simple huts.

This period is represented in the Study Area by a ringfort in Castleredmond (CO076-031) approximately 1km southeast of the proposed development site and contemporary settlement evidence from a cave in Park North (CO076-004) approximately 400m northeast of the proposed development site and within the lands of Irish Distillers Limited. The cave site is locally known as Fox’s Hollow.

Ringforts also known by the names lios, cathair or caiseal/cashel, generally consist of circular or sub–circular areas enclosed by an earthen bank, made up of material thrown up from a concentric fosse outside the bank. Irish society in the Early Medieval Period was divided into the free elite and the unfree cottiers, tenants-at-will and serfs/slaves. The elite and their families would have lived in ringforts, while the labourers and others of lower status in society lived outside the ringfort in small huts. Cattle dominated the farm economy of the period, with dairying being the primary pursuit. Tillage was secondary, the most important crops being wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax. In the absence of money (coinage did not become widespread until the Medieval period), cattle were the indicator of ones status and were the currency for payment of fines, rent, tributes and gifts. Land was valued on the basis of the number of cows it could support (Feehan, 2003, 55). Cattle raiding was widespread and the ringfort provided protection for the animals at night when they would have been kept within its defensive palisade (Ibid, 62).

The ringfort in Castleredmond comprises a circular area of 35m diameter enclosed by an earthen bank with traces of an external fosse to the north (Power 1994, 93). The cave site in Park North was excavated in the 1940s by Coleman (1942) to attempt to identify Pleistocene faunal remains but instead settlement evidence comprising iron and bronze

objects and worked bone and stone dating to the early medieval or Early Christian period were recovered.

Medieval Period (c. 1100 AD to 1650) The Anglo-Normans arrived in Ireland in 1169 at the request of Diarmait Mac Murchada, the deposed king of Leinster. With Diarmait reinstated to his lands, the Anglo-Normans set about seizing territory for themselves. By 1350 the Norman influence was evident on the rural landscape in the form of manorial villages with open field systems, occupied by colonists from England and Wales (Aalen, Whelan, Stout 1997, 55). The well-drained soils of the south-eastern quadrant of the country were attractive to the Normans. A network of towns was established throughout the country, with the exception of the west and north, which remained largely under Gaelic control (Ibid, 55). Following Anglo-Norman colonisation, the old Gaelic system of farming with its dominance on dairying was replaced. The Anglo-Norman system of agriculture was predominantly arable, based generally on the openfield system used in England with crops such as wheat, rye, flax and corn. New crops such as peas, beans, celery and onions were introduced. Sheep were more important on the Anglo-Norman farm and improved breeds meant that wool and sheepskin exports rose.

The site of an abbey in Townparks (CO076-06303) approximately 400m to the southwest of the proposed development dates to this period. This Cistercian abbey was founded in 1180 and was called St. Mary of Chore (Power 1994, 240). There are suggestions that it was re-built in the late 13th century by the Knights Templar with a leper house built nearby (Wrenne and Duggan 1977, 9). It was suppressed in 1543 and in 1580 the abbey was probably heavily damaged and was described as in ruins in 1615 (Brady 1863, vol. 2, 107). The site of the abbey is now occupied by the Church of Ireland Church and graveyard (CO076-063-02 and CO076-063-01), the construction of which caused the removal of the abbeys last remains. Some stone associated with the abbey survives in the graveyard (Power 1994, 240).

The tower house in Cahermone (CO076-027-01) approximately 1km northeast of the proposed development site also dates to this period. Although named Cahermone Castle this is in fact a tower house built during the 15th or 16th centuries rather than a true military castle, built in the late 12th or 13th centuries. Tower houses are stone built towers of three to five storeys each storey occupied by one main room. An enclosing element usually a bawn wall stands either outside the tower or, more commonly, in part abutting it (Ibid. 218). The tower house in Cahermone now stands to four storeys but was originally higher. It has a rounded wicker-centred vault at first floor level, a murder hole above the first-floor doorway and an inserted fireplace in the second floor. The presence of an inscribed architectural fragment (CO076-081) ‘I.E.G. 1579’ in a farmyard to the south suggests this was a Fitzgerald tower house. The initials are those of John Fitz-Edmond Fitzgerald and the



main residence of the Fitzgeralds was Castlemartyr (Ibid.218 & 223) several kilometres to the east. The remains of a range of building stand to the north of the tower house which may date to the early 17th century and feature tall rectangular chimneys and a number of gun loops (Ibid. 223). This is classed as a fortified house in the RMP (CO076-027-02) but is not included as such in the Archaeological Inventory of Co Cork (Power 1994) or on the National Monuments Service Sites and Monuments database.

Post Medieval Period (c. 1650 – Present) In the Post Medieval Period, the Irish farming landscape began to take on its present appearance, with many of the current field systems and boundaries being laid out. The old order of transhumance and open cattle breeding died out and was replaced by a structure of great landed estates, small tenant farmers (leasees) and a mass of landless labourers. The potato, initially introduced as a garden crop in the mid 17th century, became the main food crop of the tenant and labouring classes. This system continued up to the end of the 19th century until the formation of the Land League began to bring about land reform. In this process of reform, the former tenants and labourers became land owners, with the great estates being broken up into small and medium sized farms and smallholdings. The process continued well into the 20th century with the work of the Irish Land Commission.

The largest portion of recorded sites in the study area date to this period, all but one of them are in Townparks which comprises the main urban centre of Midleton and is also the core of the historic town itself (CO076-06305). The sites in Townparks are a Graveyard and Church of Ireland Church (CO076-06301 and CO076-063-02) 400m to the southwest; a workhouse (CO076-107) 250m to the northwest; a bridge (CO076-106) 500m to the west; a cornmill (CO076-112) 600m to the northwest; a gasworks (CO076-115) 550m to the southwest; a cornstore (CO076-07301) and bridge (CO076-07302) both 400m to the south and a distillery (CO076-025) which adjoins the development site. Midleton College in School-Land (CO76-108) 50m to the west is the site dating to the post-medieval period which does not lie within Townparks, however it too is within the urban centre of Midleton.

Midleton College was founded in the late 17th century as a free school for Protestants. It comprises a H-shaped building of two-storeys over semi-basement, it was re-constructed in the early 19th century and extended at the end of that century. The building is still open as a school with many additions within its grounds. Midleton College is listed as a protected Structure in Midleton Development Plan (2003) (Reference No. 10). The school and its entrance gates, railings and walls are included in the National inventory of Architectural Heritage (Registration Nos. 20830036 and 20830035, respectively). The southeastern corner of its former grounds has been sold and now lies within the lands of Irish Distillers Limited.

The graveyard in Townparks (CO076-06301) is L-shaped in plan and enclosed by a stone wall on the west side of Midleton Main Street (Power 1994, 271). It is on the site of the Cistercian abbey of St. Mary of Chore and on the site of an earlier Church of Ireland Church called ‘St John’s Church’ (Power Op. sit, 301). The graveyard contains a large collection of mostly 18th and 19th century grave monuments as well as some earlier monuments one of which dates to 1698 (Power Op. sit. 271). As mentioned above the existing Church of Ireland Church in Townparks (CO076-06302) was built on the site of the Cistercian abbey of St. Mary of Chore and on the site of an earlier Church of Ireland Church dedicated to St John. The latter was in good repair in 1694 and again in 1750. The existing church was built on the site in 1823-5 and was itself modified in the late 19th century (Ibid.).The church and graveyard are listed as Protected Structures named St John the Baptist Church and Graveyard in Midleton Development Plan (2003) (Reference No. 9).

The workhouse (CO076-107) is depicted on the 1842 Ordnance Survey map. This survives as a 14-bay, 2-storey structure with gabled attic windows along the roof. Three-storey wings were built at right angles to the main block making an H-shaped plan. This was in use as a nursing home in 1992 at the time of the ASI site inspection (Power 1994, 306-7). Both bridges (CO076-106 and CO076-076-07302) in the study area are road bridges over the Owennacurra and Dungourney Rivers, respectively. Both are listed in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. The latter, named Lewis Bridge, is a single segmental arch constructed of limestone ashlar (NIAH Registration No. 20830067). The former, named Cork Bridge, comprises five semicircular arches of cut stone voussoirs (NIAH Registration No. 20830013). It was extended in the late 19th century.

The corn mill (CO076-112) was named as a ‘flour mill’ on the 1842 OS map with a mill race to its west; on the 1902 map it was named ‘condensed milk factory’. When it was inspected in 1992 by the Archaeological Survey of Ireland the building survived as a roofless, eight-bay, five-storey mill which had been burnt on at least two occasions in the recent past (Power 1994, 355). The corn store (CO076-07301) at the south end of Midleton consisted of two ranges of L-shaped buildings with a yard between. The range to the south is a fifteen-bay, five-storey late 18th or early 19th century store, the range to the north is three-storey with an inscription of ‘1865 C’ (Ibid.) The gasworks (CO076-115) is located on the east bank of the Owennacurra River. It comprises a 19th century gas works which was closed in the 1950s. The main block of buildings consisted of a wide gable-ended structure with a chimney on the north gable (Ibid. 361). The market house (CO076-063-04) is a mid 18th century building on Main Street which is now the town library (Ibid. 305).

The distillery (CO076-025) (known as the Jameson Experience Midleton) adjoining the proposed development site to the south was the original site of Irish Distillers Limited. The company moved to the current

premises in 1975 and in more recent times the old distillery was restored and became the Jameson Experience Midleton. It was built in 1796 by Marcus Lynch as a woollen factory which was not successful. Following this it was used as a military barracks before its incorporation as a distillery by the Murphy family in 1825. The complex consists of two main blocks of buildings as well as a number of free-standing ones (Ibid. 350). The distillery is listed as a Protected Structure in the Midleton Development Plan (2003) as Historic Mills Jameson Distillery (including its entrance gates and walling and mill race) (Reference No. 1). Some of the distillery walling and mill race falls within Cork County Council development boundary but these are not listed as Protected Structures within the Cork County Development Plan 2009. The complex is included in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage as the Jameson Experience Midleton (Registration Nos. 20830050, 20830052 – 20830065)

Archaeological Excavations A number of archaeological investigations have been undertaken in townlands within the study area (www.excavations.ie). Of these, two have been carried out in Park North within the lands of Irish Distillers Limited. Both were several hundred metres northeast of the proposed development areas close to the cave site (CO076-04). The nature of the archaeological investigations in both cases was archaeological testing carried out in 2006 and 2007. A possible fulacht fiadh site was identified during the testing in 2007. Three investigations were carried out between the townlands of Townparks and Knockgriffin to facilitate the construction of the Midleton Northern Relief Road. The nature of the investigations was archaeological testing and a metal detector survey. Testing in 2007 revealed a mill race associated with Avoncore Mills (founded 1824) which was preserved below a road (Ni Loingsigh 2008). This was subsequently recorded and archaeologically excavated in advance of its removal. Four archaeological investigations were carried out in Castleredmond of which one was an archaeological excavation of a fulacht fiadh in 1980 in advance of the construction of a gas pipeline. Archaeological testing was carried out on three sites in the townland and no features were identified.

Cartographic Information An examination of the Ordnance Survey mapping from mid 19th century shows the alterations to the area from that time.

The 1842 OS 6” map (Figure 16.4) shows the proposed development site as undeveloped ground adjoining the historic site of the distillery to the north and east. The western end of the proposed development site is shown laid out as gardens adjoined to the east by an orchard or tree-covered area in the mid 19th century. This is the proposed location of Areas 3 and 4 within the proposed development. To the east there is an open field, which is the proposed location of Area 2. North of the latter there is another open field in which it is proposed to locate Area 1 and to the south there is a mill race. South of the mill race there is another open field in which it is proposed to locate Area 5. The historic distillery is



shown to the south of the proposed development comprising almost half a dozen buildings defined by the grounds of Midleton Lodge to the south, the aforementioned garden and orchard to the north and beyond this Midleton College (named endowed school), the town to the west and the townland boundary of both Park North and Park South to the east, beyond which was agricultural land. The distillery’s mill race ran from the Dungourney River at the northeast through Park North, now largely occupied by the modern IDL complex, and into the northeastern end of the historic distillery complex. Some of the buildings within the complex are named including the distillery itself which is depicted towards the centre of the complex with Distillery Cottage to the north. A gate lodge is named to the west and the Queen’s Bond Store to the east. The other buildings are unnamed.

Figure 16.4 - Extract from 1842 OS 6” map showing approximate location of live areas to be developed; (1) proposed new fermenters, (2) new distillation columns tank farm, (3) new still house receiver tank farm, (4) new still house and (5) fire water retention facility

The 1888-1913 OS 25” map (Figure 16.5) shows minor changes to the proposed development site. The garden and orchard, which are the proposed location of Areas 3 and 4, are depicted as open fields with a pathway running around most of their perimeter. The former garden has been subdivided into three while the orchard remains as one. Four unnamed small structures two each against the northern and southern wall of the fields are now shown. The open ground to the east in which Area 2 is proposed to be located remains an open field, as does the ground to the north, the proposed location of Area 1. To the south of the mill race the historic distillery has expanded across the townland boundary into Park North where a large building is shown on the western side of a previously open field shown on the 1842 map. The ground to

the east of this building remains undeveloped and is the proposed location of Area 5. Within the grounds of the historic distillery to the south of the proposed development the extension of buildings shown on the 1842 map and the addition of new ones demonstrates the expansion of the distillery. Midleton College to the north of the proposed development site also shows evidence of expansion since the mid 19th century with the depiction of new buildings in its grounds.

Figure 16.5 - Extract from 1888-1913 OS 25” map showing approximate location of five areas to be developed; (1) proposed new fermenters, (2) new distillation columns tank farm, (3) new still house receiver tank farm, (4) new still house and (5) fire water retention facility

The 1934 OS 6” map (Figure 16.1) depicts the proposed development site largely unchanged from the early 20th century with only minor changes in field boundaries apparent. The historic distillery site to the south is also largely unchanged as is Midleton College to the north of the proposed development site

Site Inspection The primary purpose of a site inspection is to identify any possible features of cultural heritage significance, which have not been previously recorded. Current land use, local topography and environmental conditions are assessed to gain an overall picture of the area. A site inspection of the proposed development site was carried out on the 26th July 2011.

The proposed development site comprises a portion of the IDL site, virtually all of which has been developed since the 1970s. The historic distillery (CO076-025), lying to the south, was converted into a visitor centre sometime after this, The modern IDL site consists of a number of industrial buildings, warehouses, tanks and associated infrastructure.

As noted earlier, there are five areas proposed for development within the distillery complex. These are;

(1) new fermenters to the west of the existing brew house

(2) new distillation columns and tank farm

(3) a new still house receiver tank farm

(4) a new still house and

(5) a new fire water retention facility

Area 1; The new fermenters adjacent to the existing brew house will be located in an area where a tank farm previously stood. The concrete footprint of the tank farm remains in situ (Plate 1). There appears to be no archaeological potential to this area.

Plate 1 - View of Area 1 the proposed location of the new fermenters from east. The concrete footprint of the now demolished tank farm is apparent

Area 2; The northern end of the new distillation columns and tank farm will be located in an area of existing buildings which it is proposed to demolish (Plate 2). This area appears to have no archaeological significance. The southern end will lie across the mill race associated with the historic distillery (CO076-025) (Plates 3 to 6). The mill race has been dry for almost a decade but acts as a storm water drain within the IDL complex. It was dry at the time of the site inspection. Along most it its course it is an earth-cut trench approximately 3m – 5m wide at the base with sloping sides. The earth cut portion has become quite overgrown with trees and low vegetation. In a number of locations it is stone lined, generally at the western end of the site (where it will remain in situ) and in these areas the overgrowth by vegetation tends to be less severe. A number of modern pipes have been run through and across the mill race



and in places it has been concrete lined. The proposed distillation column and tank farm will encroach upon approximately 60m of the mill race at a location where it is earth cut with sloping sides and has been colonised by vegetation.

Plate 2 - View of Area 2 existing buildings on site of proposed new distillation

Plate 3 - View of earth cut portion of mill race looking west

Plate 4 - View of stone lined portion of mill race at western end of site, looking west

Plate 5 - View of pipe running in mill race, looking east

Plate 7 View of Area 3 proposed new stillhouse

receiver tank farm, from north

Plate 6 - View of former intake area of mill race, looking east

Area 3; The new still house receiver tank farm lies in an area of hard standing partially enclosed by a metal fence (Plate 7). There are a number of modern containers within the fence and goods have been stored in the area both within and outside the fence. A copse of mature trees is located immediately to the west and an area of grass to the east (Plate 8). A Bord Gais Eireann Above Ground Installation (AGI) lies to the east. A wall of random rubble construction defines the area to the south, this wall appears to be part of the boundary wall of the earlier distillery (CO076-025). The area in which the new still house receiver tank farm is to be constructed appears to have been previously disturbed and there is no archaeological potential in this area.



Plate 8 - View of lawn and mature trees on eastern end of proposed new still house

Area 4; The new still house will be connected by pipework to the new receiver still house tank farm which lies to its west. The eastern portion of this area is currently occupied by a site road and an area of hard standing in use for storage (Plate 9). This is defined to the east by a high wall of random rubble construction which shows evidence of substantial repair. The wall defines the townland boundary between Townparks to the west and Park North to the east (Plate 10) The western portion of this proposed development area is a green area with the aforementioned Bord Gais Eireann AGI to the south. There appears to be no archaeological potential to the eastern portion of Area 4 however the western portion which is a green area may not have been significantly disturbed in the past.

Plate 9 - View of western end of Area 4, proposed area of new still house, with townland boundary wall at left of photo, from northwest

Plate 10 - View of wall on proposed area of new still house, from north

Area 5; The new fire water retention pond will be located in an area now partially occupied by a warehouse, which was probably constructed in the mid 20th century (Plate 11). The warehouse is not depicted on the 1842, 1934 6” OS map or the 1888-1913 25” OS map. A warehouse to the west is shown on the 1934 6” OS map and 1888-1913 25” OS map. To the north of the warehouse there is a green area which will also be occupied by the proposed pond. The warehouse is of concrete block

construction with an asbestos tiled roof. The green area slopes gently to the south and is at a higher level than the warehouse. A number of semi-mature trees are standing on the western side and numerous underground services run at the eastern side. It is likely that material has been deposited in this green area from the construction of the warehouse, however the underlying ground may not have been significantly impacted and may remain largely undisturbed.

Plate 11 - View of Area 5 warehouses and green area on site of proposed new fire water pond, from north

16.4 Structures of Architectural / Cultural Significance

The Midleton Development Plan (2003) includes the historic mills Jameson Distillery (including entrance gates and walling and mill race) (Reference 1), which adjoins the proposed development site to the south, and Midleton College (Reference 10), which adjoins the proposed development site to the northwest, to be placed on the Protected Structure register” (2003, 32). Buildings are placed on the register due to their “architectural or historical or archaeological significance. Further from the site a large number of buildings located in Midleton town centre are also listed. These include:

Redbrick Chimney Dickinson’s Lane (Reference 3)

Mill Building Drury’s Lane (Reference 4)

St John the Baptist National School (the former) (Reference 8)

St John the Baptist Church & Graveyard (Reference 9)

Old Dispensary Building Youghal Road (Reference 12)

Community Building next door to Old Dispensary (Reference 13)



Town Hall (Former) Main Street (Reference 14)

Courthouse Main Street (Reference 15)

AIB Bank Main Street (Reference 16)

No 32 Main Street mid-18th century house (Reference 17)

No 101 Main Street Victorian House railings porch etc (Reference 18)

No 55/56 Main Street (Reference 44)

Youghal Road parish priest’s residence (Reference 45)

Youghal Road, Midleton Lodge (Reference 46)

Courtenay House off McDermott Street (Reference 48)

Residence of the Dean of Cloyne off McDermott Street (Reference 49)

Youghal Road mid 18th century house to southwest of Lewis Bridge Midleton House (Reference 50)

Main street detached house much altered to northwest of Lewis Bridge (Reference 51)

A number of shop fronts, features of buildings, laneways and street furniture in the town centre are also listed for inclusion.

The National Inventory of Architectural Heritage lists 119 buildings within Midleton town many of which lie within the study area. The properties which adjoin the proposed development site Midleton College (Nos. 20830036 and 20830035) and the Jameson Experience complex (Nos. 20830050, 20830052 – 20830065) are both included. A total of fifteen structures within the complex are included these are;

No. 20830050 Gate lodge

No. 20830052 Former distillery

No. 20830053 Former distillery

No. 20830054 Former distillery office

No. 20830055 Former warehouse

No. 20830056 Distillery manager’s house

No. 20830057 Former granary

No. 20830058 Former maltings

No. 20830059 Former mill having mill race, culverts and cast iron waterwheel to front (north) elevation

No. 20830060 Warehouse

No. 20830061 Maltings

No. 20830062 Former wash still

No. 20830063 Chimney

No. 20830064 Outbuilding

No. 20830065 Manager’s house

16.5 Impacts on the Cultural Heritage Environment

Identified Archaeological Sites The archaeological assessment identified twenty recorded archaeological sites within a 1km radius of the proposed development. Of these twenty sites, one, the mill race associated with the historic distillery complex (CO076-025), lies within the proposed development and will be impacted by it. The mill race runs for several hundred metres through both the modern IDL complex and the historic distillery complex. The proposed development will impact on approximately 60m of the earth cut mill race which runs through the IDL complex. It is proposed to insert a concrete box culvert within the limits of the existing channel designed to accommodate the flow of the mill race. The culvert will have two barrels measuring 2.5m wide by 1.5m high by 32m long. No other element of the historic distillery site (CO076-025) will be impacted by the proposed works nor will any other recorded archaeological sites. All other recorded archaeological sites are located some distance from the proposed development and neither the construction nor operational phase of the proposed development will result in any disturbance to them. No new features of archaeological potential were identified during the site inspection in the five proposed development areas.

The Irish Distillers Limited site is of an industrial nature and the proposed elements of the development are of a similar character and nature to those already standing on the site. Therefore the visual impact on the recorded archaeological sites will be minimal.

Structures of Architectural / Cultural Significance The properties adjoining the development site to the south, the historic mills Jameson Distillery, and to the north and west, Midleton College, were listed in Midleton Development Plan (2003) as protected structures. It is assumed for the purpose of this chapter that the architectural heritage objectives of the 2003 Plan will transfer into the forthcoming draft Development Plan. The mill race associated with the historic mills Jameson Distillery runs through the proposed development site and approximately 60m of it will be impacted by the proposed development. This portion of mill race lies outside the boundary of Midleton Town Council and within Cork County Councils remit and is not listed as a protected structure in the 2009 Cork County Development Plan. A portion of the former southern boundary wall of Midleton College, which is also the townland boundary between School-Land and Townparks, lies within the IDL property following a recent land purchase. The wall will not be impacted by the proposed development works.

The protected structures within the town of Midleton and its environs will not be directly impacted by the proposed development. As many of these lie on the existing route to Irish Distillers Limited they will be impacted by passing construction and operational traffic.

It is considered that the level of construction and operational traffic is not of a magnitude to have an impact on any of the identified structures of architectural / cultural significance.

Construction Impact Construction on the development site will comprise the removal of some existing buildings, existing areas of hard standing, existing green spaces and standing trees and the associated reduction of ground level. Construction work will involve ground preparation including the removal of topsoil, where it survives. This construction work will impact on any potential archaeological material that may survive below the ground surface. Where extensive earthmoving is involved there is always the possibility that archaeological material will be uncovered.

16.6 Mitigation

The portion of earth cut mill race which is to be impacted by the proposed development will be photographically recorded and a written description compiled in advance of any works.

A programme of licensed archaeological testing will be carried out on areas of the proposed development site which appear not to have been previously disturbed in advance of construction to ascertain if any archaeological remains exist below ground level. This programme of testing will be agreed with the NMS of the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht, in consultation with the National Museum of Ireland and the Cork County Archaeologist. Testing will focus on the western end of Area 4 and the north end of Area 6 which may not have been previously disturbed and are currently both green field in nature.

In the event of archaeological material being uncovered such material will be preserved by record. Preservation by record will require the excavation of the archaeological material identified during testing; such material will be fully resolved to professional standards of archaeological practice (Policy Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation – Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands). This work will be funded by the developer.



References

Archaeological Survey of Ireland Database (in progress), Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) for County Cork (www.archaeology,ie).

Aalen, F.H.A. & Whelan, K. 1997 ‘Fields’, in Aalen, F.H.A. et al (eds) The Atlas of Rural Ireland. Cork University Press.

Brady, W.M. 1863 Clerical and Parochial records of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, Vol 2. Privately published

Cork County Council. 2009. Cork County Development Plan 2009

Cadogan, T. 1998 Lewis’ Cork: A topographical dictionary of the Parishes, towns and villages of Cork City and County. (First published in 1837.) Cork. The Collins Press.

Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & the Islands, 1999. Framework & Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage

Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & the Islands, 1999. Policy & Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2004. Architectural Heritage Protection, Guidelines for Planning Authorities.

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2004, National Inventory of Architectural Heritage

Dúchas National Monuments and Historic Properties Service, 1998. Record of Monuments and Places, County Cork, Volumes 1 and 2.

EPA 2002 Guidelines on Information to be Contained in an Environmental Impact Statement EPA March 2002.

EPA 2003 Advice Notes on Current Practice (in preparation of Environmental Impact Statements) EPA, September 2003.

Feehan, J. 2003. Farming in Ireland, Walsh Printers, Ireland.

Falvey, J. 1998 The Chronicles of Midleton. Sira Publications

General Alphabetical Index to The Townlands and Town, Parishes and Baronies of Ireland, 2000, (original 1861), Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc.

MacCotter, P 1998 A ‘Brief History of Midleton and its hinterland before 1700’ in Falvey, J 1998 The Chronicles of Midleton. Sira Publications

Ní Loingsigh, M. 2008 Archaeological Excavation at Townparks, Midleton, Co. Cork Midleton Northern Relief Road. Unpublished report by Sheila Lane & Associates

Power, D. with Byrne, E., Egan U., Lane, S., Sleeman, M., 1994. Archaeological Inventory of County Cork, Volume 2, East Cork. Dublin.

Ronan, S., Egan, U., Byrne, E., et al. 2009. Archaeological Inventory of County Cork, Volume 5. Dublin

Shine, M. 2006 Archaeological Monitoring: Irish Distillers Ltd., Park North, Midleton, Co. Cork. Unpublished report by Sheila Lane & Associates.

Sleeman, M. and Verling, E., 1987 ‘List of all features recorded during construction’ in Cleary, R. M. et al., Excavations on the Cork-Dublin Gas Pipeline (1981-2), 5-8. Cork:UCC

Sutton, D. 2002 Archaeological Assessment: Irish Distillers Ltd., Park North, Midleton, Co. Cork. Unpublished report by Sheila Lane & Associates

Sutton, D. 2007 Archaeological Test Trenching, Park North, Midleton, Co. Cork. Unpublished report by Sheila Lane & Associates

Zajac, S. Cronin, J. and Kiely, J. 1995 Urban Archaeological Survey of County Cork. Archaeological Survey of Ireland Office of Public Works

www.excavations.ie

West, T. 1996 Midleton College 1696-1996. Midleton College

Wrenne, N. and Duggan, J. 1977 Souvenir of Midleton.

Human Beings 17


17.1 Introduction and Methodology

This chapter assesses the potential impacts of the proposed development on human beings and details the mitigation measures proposed. The methodology for the Human Beings’ Chapter consists of site visits, inspection of transport routes, visual assessment of the proposed site and a desk study of the following relevant policy documents:

2009 Cork County Development Plan;

2011 Midleton Electoral Area Local Area Plan;

2003 Midleton Town Development Plan and 2009 Draft Town Plan

(which was not formally adopted).

Information on the current socio-economic status of the area was taken from an analysis of 2006 and 2011 Census data. Information was also gathered through direct contact with potential receptors and feedback from an open public consultation meeting held on November 10th, 2011.

17.2 Context of Site

The site forms part the western portion of Midleton Distillery complex which occupies a 45 hectare site on the outskirts of Midleton town. The site lies outside the Midleton Urban fringe to the east of the town, mainly in a semi rural area. To the east and south of the site the landscape is dominated by extensive farmlands. Midleton College is located immediately west of the site. The north of the site is primarily bound by the R627. A small area north west of the site is bound by residential development.

On the northern side of the R627, there is some residential development, a small established industrial / business estate and the grounds of Midleton Rugby Club. Midleton Educate Together School, with a school roll in 2009 / 2010 of 52 pupils, is currently located in the Rugby Club grounds. The school has a temporary permission, as it was envisaged that a permanent school would be constructed in the near future (planning reference: 08/7609). Accordingly, in June 2011, the school lodged a planning application for a permanent school at Knockgriffen (north east Midleton). The application received a final grant of permission from Cork County Council on 2nd September 2011 (planning reference: 11/5234). It is assumed that the school will be vacating its location in the Rugby Club grounds within the short term.

The south of the site is bound by open space, the Mill Stream and the Dungourney River. The lands to the north east of the site are currently undeveloped and zoned ‘Industry’, with the specific objective to provide

for the future extension of the distillery. Planning permission has been granted on these lands for the development of distillery warehousing.

The lands to the south east are also currently undeveloped and zoned for industry and non-retail commercial development. The zoning objective specifies that any future proposed development must have regard to the line of the proposed Northern Relief Road, the proximity of the Seveso site, the flood risk guidelines and adjacent residential, archaeological and sports uses.

Adjacent to the site to the west are the grounds of Midleton College (which has a school roll of circa 340 pupils); St John the Baptist School (with a school roll of circa 211 pupils) and ‘Singing in the Rain’ childcare facility, which caters for 20 children at any one time. Midleton College’s hockey pitch bounds the western edge of the site boundary.

The 2009 draft Midleton Town Development Plan identifies a 300 metre Seveso consultation zone around the existing site, where any proposals for the development within the zone must be referred to the Health & Safety Executive for review. There is no history of development proposals with the Seveso consultation zone being refused or amended as a consequence of the existing distillery activities.

17.3 Identification of Principal Potential Receptors

In identifying potential impacts and receptors detailed consideration has been given to the routes to the site from distillery entrances. Figure 17.1 illustrates the site and the routes from the national road network to the distillery. Figure 17.1 also identifies the sensitive receptors located along the access route. Principle potential receptors in close proximity to the site are indicated on Figure 17.2. The potential receptors identified from analysis are as follows:

Householders:

Residential Properties Adjacent to the Distillery There are approximately 20 dwellings adjacent to the north west of the site in ‘The Park’, Park North. We estimate that there is in the region of 150 additional dwellings within the current ‘Seveso Consultation Zone’. There will be no change to this zone, either in terms of area or risk assessment.

Residential Properties adjacent to the Transport Routes During the construction phase of the development, the route for delivery of supplies will be from the national road network, along the Broomfield Link Road as illustrated in figure 17.1.

Some construction employees may chose to access the site from the Main Street and onto Connolly Street. Chapter 8 (Traffic & Transport) provides a projection of the peak hours distribution of construction traffic on the local road network in Table 8.11.

During the operational phase the transport routes consist of:

Supplies: supplies will be delivered to the site from the national road network at the N25 via the Broomfield Link Road. The capacity of the Broomfield Link Road is described in Chapter 8 ‘Traffic & Transport’. This road was designed as an inner relief road for Midleton and consequently the layout of the Broomfield residential area was designed to turn its back to the road. There is a high quality pedestrian and cycle path on both sides of the road and traffic calming along the route. There is no community centre, community facilities or retail facilities with the residential area; therefore the amount of pedestrian crossing of the Link Road is limited.

Product: the distilled whiskey will be stored either on site, or in the new satellite maturation warehousing facility at Ballynona North, Dungourney, Co. Cork (recently permitted under planning reference 10/8418).

Access to the satellite warehousing facility is via the R627, a regional road with an estimate of 18 one-off houses on the stretch of road to Dungourney village and then along the L3800, a local road with an estimate of 23 one-off houses on the route to Ballynona North. Both routes are relatively attractive with a rural character but neither is classified as a scenic route. The provision of the satellite warehousing facility was subject of a separate EIS which considered the impact of increased traffic to and from the Distillery.

The existing traffic on the L3800 from the site to Dungourney village is relatively light and consists predominately of private cars and occasional farm and forestry vehicles. The traffic on the R627 regional road is predominately private car but includes some HGV traffic.

It is estimated that, at full production level, on average 2 trucks per hour will enter and leave the distillery site to access the storage facility in Dungourney.

Following maturation the whiskey will be transported from the Distillery site to the primary bottling plant at Fox & Geese, Clondalkin, Dublin, and also to Waterford, Clonmel

H u m a n B e i n g s 17


and Bushmills via the Broomfield Link Road and onto the national road network at the N25.

By-product: by-products will be delivered from the site via the Broomfield Link Road onto the national road network at the N25. The by-product is distributed to various customers in the animal feeds’ market.

Employees: employees may choose to access the distillery, either from the Broomfield Village Road, or from the Main Street onto Connolly Street, depending on the origin of their journey.

Tables 8.5 and 8.6 in Chapter 8 (Traffic & Transport) provide projections of the changes in peak hours traffic flows for operational traffic.

Community Facilities:

Midleton College Midleton College has a school roll of approximately 340 pupils and the main Midleton College building is located circa 110 metres from the site boundary. Planning permissions were granted for 2 additional buildings in the grounds of the College: a Sports Hall (planning ref. 08/56022) and an office / classroom block (planning ref. 10/56012). Both buildings are located to the rear of the existing Midleton College and are circa 70 metres from the site boundary of the distillery. Construction works on the classroom block are due to be complete shortly. Development on the sports hall has not commenced but it is hoped to start development within 12 to 18 months.

Midleton College Pre-school & After School Club – ‘Singing in the Rain’ The Singing in the Rain childcare facility is located in the grounds of Midleton College and provides for 20 pre-school children at any one time, aged 3 to 5 from the hours of 8.30 am to 12pm. It also provides after school care for 20 primary school children at any one time, from the hours of 1.10pm to 5.30pm.

St John the Baptist National School St John the Baptist National School has a school roll of approximately 211 pupils in 2010/2011. The school is located adjacent to Midleton College and is circa 160 metres from the site boundary of the distillery.

Midleton Educate Together National School Midleton Educate Together National School had a school roll of 52 pupils in 2009 / 2010. Midleton ET National School is temporarily located in the grounds of Midleton Rugby Club. It has a temporary permission to 2013. In September 2011 the school was granted planning permission for a permanent facility at Knockgriffen, (to the north east of Midleton town).

Recreational Facilities (Midleton College) The grounds of Midleton College are immediately adjacent to the proposed development and include the college’s hockey pitch, which is located on the boundary between the distillery and college. The pitch is used by the school for hockey and physical education during weekdays and weekends. The pitch is also used by the national school and in the evenings by local clubs for soccer, Gaelic football, hurling and hockey.

Midleton Rugby Club Midleton Rugby Club is sited north of the R627, circa 400 metres from the location of the nearest proposed development. The rugby club is well established and frequently used for training and matches in the evenings and weekends. The club has 120 members and the facilities are used on:

Tuesday and Thursday evenings 6.30pm to 9 pm for training;

Saturday morning for training from 10am;

Saturday and Sunday afternoon for matches.

Cope Foundation, Broomfield The Cope Foundation, Broomfield is set back from Avoncore Place, which is on the primary access route from the N25 to the distillery. It provides support for people with a mental disability. The facility has 20 residential clients and an additional 22 day clients. It is open 5 days a week and the residential clients transfer to Fermoy for the weekend. The catchment area for the facility is Midleton, Little Island, Cobh and Youghal.

Jack & Jill Crèche, Avoncore The Jack and Jill Crèche is a temporary structure located on the north west corner of the Cope Foundation site. It provides mainstream crèche facilities for up to 40 pre-school children. Access to the crèche is directly from Avoncore Road and it has no on-site parking or set-down facilities.

No other community facility receptors were identified in the vicinity of the site, or on the primary access routes to the site.

Economic Impacts The proposed development will increase the output capacity of the distillery to 64 MLA per annum. It is anticipated that an output capacity of 60 MLA per annum will be reached by 2025; with ultimate output capacity reached sometime after this.

Direct Economic Impacts: Employment

There 111 people employed directly on the Midleton Distillery site. It is anticipated that the proposed development will ultimately require the employment of an additional 24 employees, giving a total of 135 distillery employees.

Construction

It is anticipated that the proposed development will result in the employment of 250 contractors.

Businesses

There is a small industrial estate located immediately north of the entrance to the Distillery on the R627. This estate currently consists of 4 businesses (an agricultural supply company; car-valet service; carpet company and fitness centre). There are also some additional vacant units within the estate.

Indirect Economic Impacts: The identified indirect economic impacts are:

Suppliers of Construction Materials

The construction process will require a range of building materials for the additional plant and buildings required for the proposed development.

Suppliers of Raw Materials.

The raw materials for making whiskey are cereals and water. Approximately 88,400 tonnes of cereals are currently used in the production process. It is anticipated that this will rise to 156,200 tonnes by 2025 and ultimately rise to approximately 168,844 tonnes when the full capacity of 64 MLA per annum is reached. This will result in increase demand for grain product, impacting on farmers, grain merchants and local transport services.

Suppliers of Related Products

There are a number of supplies related to the proposed increased production, such as maturation casks; and raw materials for the bottling plants. Demand for these supplies will rise in line with increased output.

Tourism

When the Jameson Heritage Centre first opened in 1992 the eastern end of Main Street Midleton and Distillery Walk were in need of investment. The area is now busy with restaurants, shops, a shopping mall and apartments. Approximately 100,000 tourists visit the Jameson Experience Midleton annually. From June 2010 to June 2011 there was a 13% growth in tourism on the previous year. As worldwide sales of Jameson Irish Whiskey grow it is expected that the tourism numbers



visiting the Jameson Experience Midleton and the locality will also increase.

Users of By-Products

The distillation process results in the production of grain and syrup ‘by-product’, which is used as animal feed. The current production of grain and syrup co-products are approximately:

o Dry Grain: 17,500 tonnes;

o Moist Grain: 20,000 tonnes

o Syrup: 9,500 tonnes.

The production of these by-products will increase in-line with increased output.

The animal feed co-products are distributed from the site to various local animal feed merchants and customers.

Figure 17.1 - Distillery Access Routes and Sensitive Receptors along Route



Figure 17.2

Primary Receptors

in the Vicinity of

Distillery site.



Figure 17.3

DED Boundaries

17.4 Description of Receiving Environment

Demographics The majority of the demographics data is taken from the 2006 Small Area Statistics, Census Reports. Preliminary population data from the 2011 Census is also included. The preliminary 2011 Census results indicate that population growth in County Cork and the Midleton area is somewhat stronger than the national figure.

The site is located on the eastern edge of Midleton town and is on the boundary of Midleton Rural District Electoral Division (DED) and Midleton Urban District. The route from the national road network to the Distillery passes through both DEDs. Figure 17.3 shows the boundary of the Midleton Rural District DED and Midleton Urban District (the subject DEDs) within the context of the wider area.

Figure 17.3

Electoral

Divisions

Table 17.1 - Population & Household Growth 2002-2006

Population The total population for the subject DEDs in 2011 is 12,051, Table 17.1 shows the population growth to 2011 and household growth rates for the subject DEDs from 2002 to 2006 (2011 Census data on households is not yet available).

Table 17.1 indicates that there has been a population growth in County Cork of 10% during the inter-censual period 2006-2011, compared with a national growth of 8%. Growth in Midleton Electoral Area and Midleton Environs has been stronger again, reflective of the spatial strategy to direct population growth in the Metropolitan Cork to settlements on the rail-line. There was a population drop of 5% in Midleton Urban DED (Midleton Town Council area), which was more than compensated by a very strong growth in the Midleton Rural (the environs of Midleton town). Household growth was strong up to 2006, reflecting the trend toward smaller households, with a household growth of 679, a 45% increase on 2002. These growth rates are substantially higher than the average for County Cork1 or the state2. Household data for the 2011 census was not available at the time of drafting this EIS. In-line with European and national trends and projections it is anticipated that the household size at a national and county level will be somewhat smaller than at 20063 – which would result in a slightly larger percentage growth in households than population.

Demographic change in Midleton Urban DED, at a population decrease of 5% from 2006 to 2011 and a relatively small growth in households of 6% from 2002 to 2006, was well below comparable averages in the Midleton Electoral Area, Cork County or the State. This is reflective of the fact that the town boundary of Midleton Urban is tightly drawn and there is limited development land available within the town.

1 County Cork Population growth 2002 to 2006 = 11%; Household growth 2002 to 2006 = 17% 2 State Population growth 2002 to 2006 = 8%; Household growth 2002 to 2006 = 14% 3 In 2006 national household size was 2.88 and Cork County household size was 2.9.

Population Households

DED 2002 2006 2011*

2002 - 06 % Change

2006 - 11 % Change

2002 2006 Change % Change

Midleton Rural 4,675 6,381 8,308 36% 30% 1,510 2,189 679 45%

Midleton Urban 3,798 3,934 3,743 4% -5% 1,373 1,452 79 6%

Total Midleton 8,473 10,315 12,051 22% 17% 2,883 3,641 758 26%

Midleton Electoral Area 47,103 55,151 64,145 17% 16% 15,556 19,225 3,669 24%

Cork County 324,767 361,877 399,216 11% 10% 105,248 123,295 18,047 17%

State 3,917,203 4,239,848 4,581,269 8% 8% 1,287,958 1,469,521 181,563 14%

Source: CSO - 2006 Census Reports

* Preliminary figures



Table 17.2 - 2006 Age Profile

Table 17.3 - Persons aged 15+ by principle Economic Status

Table 17.4 - Live Register Figures April 2006 – April 2011

Table 17.2 provides details of the age profile for the subject DEDs based on the 2006 Census, as this data from the 2011 Census data is not yet available. It shows that Midleton Rural DED has a larger proportion of people aged 20-39 years of age (41%) than the county average (31%). This age profile is consistent with the pattern of strong growth of new households in the DED between 2002 and 2006.

Midleton Urban has a higher proportion of older people than the Rural DED with 14% of the population aged 60-79 and 4% of the population aged 80+, indicative of a more established community. These proportions are broadly in line with the averages for Cork County4 and the State5.

The CSO Population & Migration Estimates for April 2011 (published in September 2011) indicate that there has been a significant shift in migration patterns in recent years, with a return to net out-migration at a national level. The estimates projected a net outward migration from April 2010 to 2011 of 34,100 people, with a strong increase in natural population growth. The data on the impact of these changes on the local level will not be available until late in 2012. It is anticipated, however, that the impact of strong outward migration, combined with strong natural growth rates, will have resulted in a slight shift in the age profile since 2006 – with a possible reduction in the proportion of people in the 20-39 age group and increase in the proportion of people in the 0-19 age group.

Economic Activity Table 17.3 highlights the principle economic status of people aged over 15 years of age in the subject DEDs. The table shows that in 2006 there were a relatively high proportion of people at work in the Midleton Rural DED (65%) compared with the county average of 59% and state average of 57%.

In Midleton Urban the population at work (56%) was broadly in line with the state average and slightly below the average for Cork County. There was slightly higher proportion of people in the categories of ‘unemployed’; ‘unable to work’ and ‘retired’ within Midleton Urban, than the county or state averages.

Analysis of economic status at 2006 indicated a relatively strong employment market in and around Midleton at the time, both in absolute terms and relatively compared with county and state proportions. However, analysis of live register unemployment figures since April 2006 indicates that there has been a sharp increase in the proportion of people unemployed. The live register figures are not directly comparable with census data as information is not collected on DED boundaries. The live register figures for the Midleton office cover Midleton, Carrigtwohill, Castlemartyr, Ballycotton & Cloyne. The figures for the Midleton office are shown in Table 17.4, although not directly comparable, do give an

4 County Cork population aged 60-79 = 12%; population aged 80+ = 3% 5 State Population aged 60-79 = 13%; population aged 80+ = 3%

0-19 Years 20 - 39 Years 40-59 Years 60-79 Years 80+ Years Total Population

DED % % % % %

Midleton Rural 1,734 27% 2,621 41% 1,328 21% 611 10% 87 1% 6,381

Midleton Urban DED 967 25% 1,367 35% 881 22% 563 14% 156 4% 3,934

Total Midleton 2,701 26% 3,988 39% 2,209 21% 1,174 11% 243 2% 10,315

Midleton Electoral Area 15,583 28% 18,778 34% 13,130 24% 6,390 12% 1,270 2% 55,151

Cork County 103,109 28% 112,852 31% 92,655 26% 44,062 12% 9,199 3% 361,877

State 1,154,706 27% 1,387,019 33% 1,048,470 25% 536,741 13% 112,912 3% 4,239,848

Source: CSO - 2006 Census Reports

April 2006 April 2007

% Change 2006-07

April 2008 %

Change 2007-08

April 2009 %

Change 2008-09

April 2010 %

Change 2009-10

April 2011 % Change 2010-11

Midleton Office 1,095 956 -13% 1,340 40% 2,785 108% 3,298 18% 3,380 2%

Cork County 15,463 14,859 -4% 18,951 28% 37,530 98% 44,359 18% 44,558 0%

State 154,566 154,319 0% 195,598 27% 381,876 95% 432,657 13% 439,571 2%

At Work Umemployed Student

Looking after Home

Unable to Work Retired Other Total 15+

Midleton Rural DED 3,282 65% 200 4% 440 9% 558 11% 148 3% 378 8% 15 0.3% 5,021

Midleton Urban DED 1,814 56% 195 6% 228 7% 354 11% 216 7% 398 12% 12 0.4% 3,217

Total Midleton 5,096 62% 395 5% 668 8% 912 11% 364 4% 776 9% 27 0.3% 8,238

Midleton Electoral Area

25,956 60% 1,870 4% 3,713 9% 5,300 12% 1,596 4% 4,423 10% 162 0.4% 43,020

Cork County 167,092 59% 10,485 4% 28,032 10% 35,846 13% 10,361 4% 30,244 11% 954 0.3% 283,014

State 1,930,042 57% 179,456 5% 349,596 10% 387,014 11% 138,382 4% 377,927 11% 12,982 0.4% 3,375,399

CSO 2006 Census Data -SAPS by Electoral Division, County & Province - Theme 8



indication of significant changes in the data on economic status in the Midleton Rural and Urban DEDs since the 2006 census.

Analysis of Table 17.4 indicates that from 2006 to 2007 there was continued strong growth in employment in the wider Midleton area, as the number of people on the Live Register fell by 13% (compared with a 4% fall in Cork County and no changes at state level). Since 2007 there has, however been a dramatic increase in the number of people on the Live Register, with proportions for the wider Midleton area running above state and county averages. In the Midleton office, from 2007 to 2008 there was a 40% increase in people signing on the live register; from 2008 to 2009 there was a dramatic increase of 108%; while from 2009 to 2010 the increase was 18% and for the final period of data available (2010 to 2011) there was a small increase of 2% of the number of people on the live register in the Midleton office.

It has been noted that these statistics are not directly comparable with the CSO economic data for the Midleton DEDs. Nonetheless, there has been a sharp increase of people unemployed in the area, although the rate of increase has dropped significantly from 2010 to 2011.

Table 17.5 provides details of the types of occupations of people at work and unemployed in 20066. At a county level the occupation categories of ‘Farming / Fishing / Forestry and other Agriculture7’ is relatively strong at 7% compared with the State average of 4%. There were, however, low proportions of people in the ‘Farming etc.’ category in the Midleton Rural DED (2%) and Midleton Urban DED (1%).

In Midleton Rural DED the occupation categories for other groups were broadly in line with the averages for County Cork, while a slightly higher proportion of people in the manufacturing (15%) and professional (19%) categories than the average for the state, which were 12% and 16%

6 There is a small difference between the total for all categories of occupation and the totals of people at work and unemployed given in table 17.5. This is probably related to census respondents not providing information on their occupation, or unemployed respondents not having a previous occupation to report. 7 This is a combination of two census categories: 1) Farming, fishing and forestry and 2) other agriculture.

respectively.

In Midleton Urban DED, there were higher proportions of people employed in ‘Manufacturing’ (18%) and ‘Building and Construction’ (13%) than the average for Cork County: (14% and 9% respectively); while there was a lower proportion of people employed in the ‘Clerical / Admin’ (12%) and ‘Professional’ (13%) categories compared with the average for the Cork County (16% and 18% respectively).

Broadly speaking the analysis indicates that farming and forestry are comparatively insignificant industries in both of the Midleton DEDs. Sales and Services is the most significant employment category in both DEDs, reflective of the nature of the market town and of the national employment structure.

The 2005 Special Local Area Plan for Midleton noted that historically Midleton held a strong agriculture and food processing presence with the Mart site, the Dawn Meats’ factory, the distillery and grain drying facility. The Mart site is now redeveloped as a general commercial and retail centre, while the Dawn Meats’ factory closed in 2009, with the loss of over 100 jobs. Midleton’s employment structure is now more focused on general retail and services associated with a market town, as well as a growing focus on tourism, linked to the distillery and to an emphasis on quality food and drink marketing / festivals.

Midleton Distillery remains one of the primary employers within the town, employing circa 111 people and operating 7 days a week. The Jameson Experience Midleton, which adjoins the distillery complex attracts approximately 100,000 visitors every year and employs more than 37 people at peak season. IDL’s annual spend on cereals, energy, capital projects and payroll exceeds €60 million and the proposed expansion in distillation capacity is required to allow for the continued international

growth of the Jameson brand and other Irish Whiskeys distilled in Midleton.

Land Use The landscape of the subject DEDs is categorised in Cork County Development Plan 2009 (2009 CDP) as being ‘City Harbour and Estuary’. There are no scenic landscape designations, or scenic routes within the vicinity of the site, or within the vicinity of the primary access route from the N25, via the Broomfield Link Road.

The proposed development site straddles the development boundary of Midleton Town Council and Cork County Council. The land within the County Council area is currently zoned as existing built up area within Midleton Local Area Plan 2011 to 2017. The use of the site is divided between distillation production and maturation storage (see figure 17.4).

Within the Midleton Town Council boundary the majority of the lands owned by IDL consist of the heritage centre and is used as a visitor and marketing centre. The heritage lands are not part of the production facility and will not be affected by the current development proposals. They were proposed to be zoned for ‘Town Centre / Mixed Use’ in the 2009 Draft Midleton Town Plan.

The lands to the north of the heritage centre are currently described as the ‘Garden’ of the Distillery. This area offers some storage for the distillery and consists of low quality landscaping, incorporating a small number of mature and semi-mature trees. The area does not offer any amenity to either the general public, or distillery employees. The ‘Garden’ area does not offer any significant landscape buffering, or context setting for the distillery. The area was also proposed to be zoned for ‘Town Centre / Mixed Use’ in the 2009 Draft Midleton Town Plan. It is proposed that the new still-house will be developed within this area.

Table 17.5 - Persons at work or unemployed by Occupation in 2006

Farming Fishing, Forestry & Other

Agric. Manufacturing

Building & Construction

Clerical, Office, Admin & Govn Transport Sales & Services Professional Other All Categories

% % % % % % % %

Midleton Rural DED 72 2% 516 15% 338 10% 580 17% 178 5% 856 25% 649 19% 238 7% 3,427

Midleton Urban DED 10 1% 353 18% 264 13% 233 12% 111 6% 493 25% 248 13% 261 13% 1,973

Total Midleton 82 2% 869 16% 602 11% 813 15% 289 5% 1,349 25% 897 17% 499 9% 5,400

Midleton Electoral Area 1,030 4% 4,077 15% 2,567 9% 4,347 16% 1,637 6% 6,693 24% 4,344 16% 2,814 10% 27,509

Co Cork 11,754 7% 24,086 14% 16,336 9% 27,953 16% 9,428 5% 40,485 23% 30,844 18% 14,852 8% 175,738

State 88,414 4% 245,234 12% 183,429 9% 365,670 18% 114,919 6% 509,128 24% 342,414 16% 230,918 11% 2,080,126



Figure 17.4 - Existing Land Use Areas of Midleton Distillery.

Local Amenity The site itself does not provide for any local amenity and there is no public access to the site, except to the heritage area which does not form part of the proposed development.

The hockey pitch of Midleton College is contiguous to the site on the western boundary. This pitch is regularly used by pupils of the college and St John the Baptist National School, the wider community also accesses the hockey pitch in the evenings.

Midleton Rugby Grounds are located approximately 150m north of the entrance to the distillery and approximately 400m from the nearest proposed development. The rugby grounds are well used and offer training sessions and competitive matches on a regular basis. Use of the grounds is predominately at weekends and on Tuesday and Thursday evenings.

Traffic Chapter 8 provides in-depth analysis of traffic and transport issues related to the capacity of the road network. This chapter concentrates on the impact of traffic on human beings.

Current traffic to and from the site is related to:

The delivery of cereals from various grain stores around the country, including Cork, West Waterford and Athy, via the national road network.

The transport of bulk mature whiskey to the primary bottling plant in Fox & Geese, Clondalkin, Dublin; and also Waterford, Clonmel and Bushmills.

The transport of by-products to various local animal feed merchants and customers.

Employees travelling to and from the site.

Chapter 8 provides a summary of the current traffic to and from the site, in a series of tables. The chapter notes that roadways in the vicinity of the existing facility are generally lightly trafficked and no significant queuing or delays are experienced in the area.

Visual, Noise and Air Chapter 7 provides details on the landscape and visual assessment; Chapter 14 an assessment of noise and vibration and Chapter 15 an assessment of air quality and climate. This chapter summarises the key issues related to visual, noise, vibration and air impact on human beings.

Existing views into the site are detailed in chapter 7. The proposed development site does not form part of a designated scenic landscape but is visible from the protected structure of Midleton College.

The existing noise climate is mostly controlled by noise emissions from the distillery facility. The most critical noise sensitive locations are the residences located along the northern property boundary; the Midleton College, primary school and crèche buildings located immediately to the west. A few additional private dwellings are located remote to the south and west. These areas are sufficient distance away from the facility to not experience any real noise or vibration impact from the existing facility.

Emissions from the current production process consist of a number of minor emissions in addition to boiler and feed recovery emissions both of which are subject to IPPC emission limit values.

Health & Safety The existing site is designated as a top tier Seveso site with a 300m consultation zone for any proposed development, due to the storage of alcohol. The current Health and Safety risks identified for the site are identified in the Safety Report as recently approved by the HSA. The site is also accredited to OHSAS 18001 and maintains a comprehensive risk assessment system.

17.5 Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures

The potential impacts of the proposed development on human beings are assessed under the following headings:

Amenity of Dwellings & Community Facilities

Population and Economic Activity

Land Use

Local Amenity

Health and Safety

Amenity of Dwellings & Community Facilities The potential impact of the proposed development on human beings and in particular dwellings and community facilities by virtue of visual intrusion, traffic, noise & vibration, and air quality & climate have been assessed in detail in Chapters 7, 8, 14 and 15 of the EIS. Therefore, this chapter will seek to summarise these impacts and assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of dwellings and community facilities adjacent to the site and on those located on the transport route from the national road network to the site. The community facilities adjacent to the site are Midleton College, St John the Baptist National School and Singing in the Rain Crèche. Those located on the transport route are Midleton Rugby Club; Midleton Educate Together School; the Cope Foundation facility and Jack and Jill Crèche.

Do Nothing Scenario The existing distillery site is operating at close to capacity and would continue to operate at current levels, with no, or minimal increase in traffic to or from the site if the proposed development was not to proceed. Accordingly, in a do nothing scenario, there would be no additional impact on the amenity of dwellings or community facilities in the immediate area of the site, or along the proposed construction and haulage route.

The do nothing scenario impacts on dwellings and community facilities are considered to be neutral.

Construction Impacts It is estimated that the majority of the development works will take approximately 18 months to complete, with some works scheduled for later in the lifetime of the 10 year planning permission. Chapter 6 of the EIS outlines the construction activities and phasing associated with the proposed development.

The construction impacts of the proposed development will be most pronounced during the primary development period currently programmed to begin in spring 2012 (subject to planning) and running to autumn 2013.

Chapter 7 of the EIS assesses the impact of the proposed development on the visual amenities of the surrounding area. Visual impact associated with construction activities will be related to the removal of some mature and semi-mature trees, which are visible from Midleton College grounds.



Construction activity will be contained within the existing boundary of the established production facility. The sight of machinery and industrial activities is the norm in this location and the visual impact of construction activity is not alien to the environment.

As the construction process progresses, the development of plant and buildings will alter the Midleton skyline. Chapter 7 concludes that, with mitigation measures in place, close range impact will be slightly negative. The changes to the skyline will be visible from some long distances and some people may regard the changes as a negative impact. However, the development consolidates the industrial portion of the skyline, without detracting from the church spires and is not out of character with the image of the town. There will be enhanced screening of warehousing views from the north east, due to a landscaping feature to be created by depositing of excavated soil from the site works.

The impacts of the construction phase of the proposed development on nearby dwellings in terms of noise & vibration, and air quality are assessed in Chapters 14 and 15. The Chapter 14 ‘Noise & Vibration’ concludes that construction noise and vibration will not cause any significant problems. Mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 14 will ensure that noise and vibration from construction activities will have only a slight negative impact on nearby residences and the sensitive receptors of the schools and crèche.

Chapter 15 Air Quality & Climate indicates that a Dust Minimisation Plan will be implemented and the key measures of this plan are outlined within the chapter. Chapter 15 concludes that with the Dust Minimisation Plan in place the impact on air quality during the construction phase will be imperceptible, subject to adherence to the proposed mitigation measures.

The construction impacts on residences along the route from the N25 to the site via the Broomfield Link Road are related to increased traffic and the noise and vibration from the traffic. Chapter 8 (Traffic & Transport) concludes that this route has adequate capacity to accommodate the increased traffic associated with the construction process. It is concluded that there will be some impact on the Main Street / Connolly Street Junction, but this is to be mitigated by redirecting HGV traffic via the Broomfield Link Road.

During the construction phase it is envisaged that there will be a maximum of 250 construction workers required on a daily basis – with a projected maximum traffic generation of 208 cars each way per day. In addition to construction workers it is anticipated that there will be an average of 25 HGV deliveries per day, and it has been assumed that there will be a further 25 car or van delivery vehicles per day.

Chapter 14 indicates that based on the predicted increase in traffic flows associated with the development that all noise increases in respect of traffic increases would be inaudible and the resultant impact imperceptible.

The construction impacts on the adjacent community facilities of Midleton College, St John the Baptist School and the crèche also relate to increased traffic and noise from the building works. Construction traffic will access the site to the north of the entrances for the schools and crèche and therefore will not interfere with flow of traffic to and from these community facilities. Pedestrian access routes to the schools and crèche are separated from the HGV construction traffic route, so again there will be no impact in terms of the safety or amenity of pupils, staff or parents walking to these facilities.

Construction noise levels are to be kept within acceptable day-time noise limits. Construction noise will be audible at times from the school and crèche facilities however, given the fact that construction noise is not continuous; it is considered that the impact of this noise will be only slightly negative.

Midleton Rugby Club is most active outside normal construction hours and therefore it is considered that the construction process will have no impact on the club.

Midleton Educate Together School is too distant from the construction works to be impacted by any noise or dust from the construction process. The school is located on the main transport route for construction traffic. The traffic chapter has, however, determined that the levels of traffic on this route during the construction phase will be relatively low – consisting of approximately 25 HGV deliveries and 25 car or van delivery vehicles spread throughout the day. These are well within the capacity of the road and it is considered that there will be no impact on the school.

The Cope Foundation Facility is located on the construction transport route. It is, however, set well back from Avoncore Road and the noise and air quality impact from any increase in traffic will be imperceptible.

Jack and Jill crèche is located on Avoncore Road and construction traffic will pass the facility. The existing access; parking and open space arrangements for the crèche are poor. The construction process will result in slight increase of HGVs on the Avoncore Road, although this traffic will be distributed throughout the day and only a small portion will coincide with the normal peak hours of drop-off (8am-9am) and pick-up for the crèche (4.30 pm – 6pm). Table 8.11 of Chapter 8 estimates that, the peak flow of construction traffic on Broomfield Village Road (and by association Avoncore Road) will be 15 vph in the morning and 14 vph in the evening. While this is a low increase in traffic volume, given the existing poor access arrangements for the crèche, the construction process may result in a slight negative impact on the facility in terms of minor delays to traffic at peak hours.

Overall the impact of construction activities on residential amenities and community facilities is considered to range from neutral to slight negative.

Operational Impacts When operational the proposed development will involve the continuation of existing distillation activities on an increased scale; the filling and emptying of warehousing on site; the transport of filled casks to and from the new maturation warehousing facility permitted at Ballynona North; the transport of bulk whiskey to the bottling plants in Dublin, Clonmel, Waterford and Bushmills, the transport of by-products from the site and a proportionate increase in the removal of waste and an increase in miscellaneous material deliveries. The maximum distillation capacity as a result of the proposed development will be 64 MLA per annum, almost double the current output. It is anticipated that this maximum output will not be achieved until some time after 2025.

The impacts of the operational phase of the proposed development on nearby residences in terms of noise & vibration, dust and air quality are assessed in Chapters 14 and 15. In terms of noise and vibration Chapter 14 concludes that there are no significant sources of vibration associated with the operational phase. Potential noise impact relates to additional plant and vehicular traffic. It is concluded that resultant noise impact from both the increased traffic and plant will be imperceptible.

Chapter 15 concludes that there will be no impact on air quality as a result of the operational phase of the proposed development.

There will be no change to the Seveso consultation distance of 300 metres as a result of the proposed development. There will, therefore, be no increase on planning restrictions on the adjacent lands. It should be noted that the proposed development involves the provision of enhanced firewater retention capability. This would serve to reduce the potential offsite impact in the unlikely event of there being a major fire in a whiskey maturation warehouse.

Overall is considered that the operational impacts on residential amenities and community facilities will be neutral to imperceptible, with a positive impact related to the enhanced firewater retention capability.

Proposed Mitigation Measures A number of mitigation measures have been integrated into the design, or are proposed in the relevant chapters to reduce or negate any negative impact of the proposed development may have on residential amenity and community facilities. These are:

The implementation of a Construction Management Plan, to include several key elements, including: construction safety arrangements; construction logistics and a traffic management plan.

The implementation of a dust minimisation plan during the construction phase of the development.

The traffic management plan to divert HGV traffic from the Main Street / Connolly Road junction.



Building design and plant specifications have taken into account the necessity to limit noise emissions from the distillery processes.

Building design of the still house has ensured a high quality building, which will enhance the setting of the existing distillery.

Building design and siting of additional plant has reduced the visual impact of the proposed development.

Landscaping proposals to screen plant & buildings from close range views.

Worst Case Scenario In terms of the amenities of dwelling and community facilities adjacent to the proposed development site and the construction and haulage routes the worst case scenario, assuming all mitigation measures fail, of the proposed development would be:

A slight negative impact on the capacity of the Main Street / Connolly Road junction if the traffic management plan is not adhered to.

A slight negative impact of noise pollution on nearby residences & community facilities if building and plant specifications are not adhered to.

Population and Economic Activity

Do Nothing Scenario If the development was not to proceed there would be a neutral impact on the population and economic activity for the residents and businesses in the immediate area of the site and along the route from Midleton to Dungourney.

The impact of a Do Nothing Scenario on Midleton Distillery, its employees, suppliers and the wider economy is, however, potentially significantly negative. If the proposed development does not proceed IDL will be unable to expand its distillation activities, which would present a major obstacle to their plans for the continued growth of Irish Whiskey. This could ultimately threaten IDL’s presence in East Cork. Such an event could lead to the loss of €60m spend on cereals, energy, labour and capital projects, of which €36m is spent locally in Midleton and its environs, which would have a significant negative impact.

Construction Impacts The description of the proposed development is outlined in Chapter 4 and the construction works are detailed in Chapter 6. It is anticipated that the construction process will support the employment of 250 workers directly on site. The construction phase of the proposed development

will therefore have a moderate positive economic impact on the local construction industry in the short term.

It is considered that the construction phase will have a neutral impact on the economic activity of the adjacent businesses in the industrial estate to the north of the site, as the construction process, or associated traffic, will not interfere with the day to day operation of the businesses.

The construction phase has the potential to cause a slight negative impact to the existing population in terms of increased traffic in the short term but it is unlikely that this impact would be of a scale to either encourage people to move from the area, or discourage people moving into the area. It is therefore considered that the construction phase will have a neutral impact on the existing population.

Operational Impacts It is anticipated that during the operational phase of the proposed development, employment in the distillery will increase by circa 24 to a total workforce of 135. People may move to the area to take up such jobs but it is more likely that the jobs would be filled by people already in the local community. Also the proposed development will secure and consolidate existing employment in the distillery. The economic impact of the operational phase on the immediate area would therefore be moderately positive and the impact on the population would most likely be neutral.

The proposed development will lead to the creation of additional direct employment in Midleton but there will also be a significant increase in the demand for raw materials and related products to support the increased output. This will have a moderate positive economic impact on suppliers and producers of the raw materials and related products.

At a national and international level IDL have ambitions for the Jameson brand to grow from its current position of selling 3.4 million cases to become a top five global spirit brand selling 10 million cases per annum. Chapter 3 highlights that within the agri-food sector alcoholic beverage exports are viewed as one of the strongest growth potential areas. Irish Whiskey is recognised as the key driver within this sector as it continues to gain market share and penetrate new markets. Given IDL’s dominance of the Irish Whiskey market and the Jameson brand’s potential the continued growth and expansion of the Irish alcoholic beverages sector may be closely linked to the future expansion of Midleton Distillery. Therefore, the proposed development will have a moderate positive impact on the Irish alcoholic beverage sector and agri-food exports.

In terms of the operational phase it is considered that the impact on the economic activity of the adjacent businesses located within the industrial estate will be neutral, as:

The operational traffic will not interfere with the day to day operation of the businesses;

There will be no omissions from the process which will interfere with the day to day operation of the businesses;

The proposed development is not in competition with any of the businesses within the estate.

Proposed Mitigation Measures As outlined in Chapter 6 the proposed construction management plan will place restrictions on the hours of operation of construction, and of construction traffic accessing the site, to minimise any disturbance to the population and local businesses in the area. It is considered that no further mitigation measures are required as impacts on the population and economic activity will either be neutral or positive.

Worst Case Scenario In terms of population and economic activity the worst case scenario, assuming all mitigation measures fail would be:

An imperceptible negative impact on population growth if people were discouraged from moving to the area due to construction or operational issues.

Land Use

Do Nothing Scenario If the development was not to proceed, the land use would most likely remain undeveloped. It is possible that there would be some development of plant or storage under exempted development provisions of the Planning Acts, but these would be of a small scale. The proposed development lands are currently in the ownership of IDL and are not accessible to the general public; they therefore offer no amenity value. The lands in the ‘Garden’ area are low lying with limited vegetation and offer very little screening to the existing distillery complex. There are a number of semi-mature and mature trees present on the site, in a do nothing scenario these would continue to mature, but given the scale of existing distillery site they would not offer any increased screening value.

The do nothing scenario is therefore likely to result in a neutral impact on the existing and surrounding land use activities.

Construction & Operational Impacts Much of the proposed development is within the boundary of the existing production facility and will result in the extension of buildings or the reuse / redevelopment of brownfield land.

The construction process and subsequent operational phase would result in a permanent change in the land use of the area within the ‘Garden’ area of the existing distillery boundary from ancillary grounds to active manufacturing use, with the provision of a signature building which will be enhanced by appropriate landscaping, in keeping with the building.



These lands are currently zoned as existing town centre / mixed use and offer no amenity value to the general public, employees of the distillery or tourists. The provision of a signature building on the ‘Garden’ site will enhance the landscape of this area of the site and provide the opportunity for targeted marketing of the Jamieson Brand to industry professionals. The land is currently underutilised and its development as a production facility would result in the efficient use of land.

The change of land use in the ‘Garden’ area from ancillary use to active production facility is considered to be of a moderate positive impact.

Proposed Mitigation Measures The design of the signature building and associated landscaping will ensure that that the visual amenity of the existing ‘Garden’ area is enhanced.

Worst Case Scenario In terms of land use the worst case scenario, assuming all mitigation measure fail would be a neutral impact on the visual amenity of the ‘Garden’ area.

Local Amenity

Do Nothing Scenario If the proposed development was not to proceed there would be no impact on the use of the hockey pitch or rugby club. The impact of a do-nothing scenario on local amenity would therefore be neutral.

Predicted Construction Impacts During the construction phase, HGV construction vehicles will access the site from the N25, via the Broomfield Link Road and ultimately pass the entrance to Midleton Rugby Club. The majority of the traffic will pass the entrance to the club outside its hours of operation and it is considered that the traffic will not interfere with the use of the facility. Similarly construction activity will take place outside the normal hours of operation of the rugby club and it is considered that there will be no impact on the club’s amenity as a result of the construction activity.

The hockey pitch is the only other amenity in the vicinity of the proposed development. Construction traffic will not interfere with access to the hockey pitch. Construction noise and dust omissions will be mitigated by a Construction Management Plan and Dust Management Plan and it is not considered that they will impact on the use of the hockey pitch.

It is considered therefore that during the construction phase the proposed development will result in a neutral impact on local amenity.

Predicted Operational Impacts The operational phase of the proposed development will result in some increase in traffic passing Midleton Rugby Club but this will

predominately be outside the normal hours of operation of the club and well within capacity limits for the road. There will be no or an imperceptible increase in noise and omissions for the site as a result of the increase in capacity.

The amenity of Midleton College’s hockey pitch will be unaffected by any increase in operational traffic and again the impact from increased operational noise or omissions will be neutral or imperceptible.

Accordingly it is considered that the operational impacts of the proposed development on local amenity will be neutral or imperceptible.

Proposed Mitigation Measures The Construction Management Plan and Dust Management Plan will ensure that negative impacts on local amenity during the construction period are mitigated. It is considered that there will be no impact on local amenity during the operational phase, therefore no mitigation measures are proposed.

Worst Case Scenario In terms of local amenity the worst case scenario, assuming all mitigation measures fail would be an imperceptible impact related to increased traffic and operational noise and possible dust nuisance.

Health and Safety

Do Nothing Impacts If the development was not to proceed the Health and Safety issues related to the site would remain as identified in the Safety Report recently approved by the Health Safety Authority (HSA).

The do nothing scenario would, therefore, result in a neutral impact on health and safety.

Predicted Construction Impacts During the construction phase health and safety risks will arise from construction activities and their risks and mitigation measures are outlined in Chapter 6 Construction Activities.

Accordingly is considered that the construction impacts of the proposed development on health and safety will be neutral.

Predicted Operational Impacts During the operational phase the principal risk to public health and safety will be from risk of fire.

The proposed development will involve the distillation of greater volumes of alcohol. On-site storage of whiskey in wooden casks in purpose-built maturation warehouses will be in line with current levels, as additional storage capacity is to be provided at a satellite warehousing facility at Dungourney. Due to the volume of flammable material stored within the

existing site it will continue to fall within the scope of S.I. 74 of 20068, as a so-called “top tier” Seveso establishment. There will be no increase to the boundary of the Seveso site as a consequence of the proposed development.

Once operational the facility will have the benefit of enhanced fire water retention capability provided by means of the new fire water retention pond. This would serve to reduce the potential offsite impact in the unlikely event of there being a major fire in a whiskey maturation warehouse.

Accordingly is considered that the operational impacts of the proposed development on health and safety will be moderate positive.

Proposed Construction Mitigation Measures As outlined in Chapter 6 - Construction Activities, in accordance with current legislation and in order to prevent and minimise construction activities accidents, a Project Supervisor Design Process (PSDP) will be appointed by IDL to co-ordinate the design effort and to address and minimise construction risks during the design period. Notification of this appointment will be sent to the HSA by means of their Approved Form 1 (AF1). As design advances, and before tender stage, a Preliminary Health and Safety Plan will be drawn up by the PSDP and reviewed by the project team.

During construction all areas will be delineated and will be under the control of the Project Supervisor Construction Stage (PSCS) who will co-ordinate and supervise all safety aspects of the project. A Safety File will be compiled and maintained on site for the duration of the project and the implementation of the Plan will be subject to regular audits.

Strict security procedures are already in place on site to deal with all access on a 24 hour basis. These procedures require all vehicles and personnel visiting the site to be logged in using the electronic access control system.

In addition to the statutory procedures IDL will appoint a public liaison officer for the duration of the construction project to address any unforeseen circumstances that may arise.

Proposed Operational Mitigation Measures As a result of the site’s Seveso designation, IDL will revise a Safety Report currently approved by the HSA to demonstrate that all major accident hazards have been identified and assessed and that appropriate measures are in place to prevent / respond to such incidents.

In parallel with the planning process, a Pre-Construction Safety Report will be submitted to the HSA; this will require formal approval before any construction can commence on site.

8 European Communities (Control of Major Accident Hazards involving Dangerous Substances) Regulations 2006.



Emergency response arrangements are established on the site and these will be reviewed to take account of the proposed development to ensure that IDL and/or Cork County emergency services (Fire Service / Garda Síochána / Ambulance Service) will respond in a co-ordinated, pre-planned manner. These arrangements are tested on a regular basis.

The effects of a major fire on the site have been evaluated within the Safety Report. The mitigation measures to be included to counteract fire hazards are discussed in more detail below.

Separation distances have been provided between new and existing buildings in accordance with FM Global requirements.

Structural fireproofing will be installed as per relevant building codes and also to enhance the fire protection by the FM Global requirements. All cladding will be approved by FM Global.

Fixed on site fire protection and prevention procedures and infrastructure on site as contained in the Safety Report approved by the HSA.

A Firewater Retention pond of 7,800 m3 will be provided will also serve as a secondary containment for the Spirit Store, Vat House, Tanker Station and Warehouses.

Security is provided permanently on the site on a 24 hour basis.

Compliance with HSA approved Safety Report will ensure mitigation of any Health & Safety operational impacts.

Codes, Standards & Technical Guidance Documents The overall design of the above features will be in accordance with the provisions of the following non-exhaustive list of technical documents:

Building Regulations 2006: Technical Guidance Document B – Fire Safety, including Reference Standards listed in Appendix F, as applicable.

BS 5306: Fire extinguishing installations and equipment on premises. Part 1: 1976: Hydrant systems, hose reels and foam inlets, and Part 2: 1990: Specification for sprinkler systems.

I.S. 3217: 2008 Code Of Practice For Emergency Lighting

I.S. 3218: 2009, Code of Practice for Fire Detection and Alarm Systems for Buildings.

National Rules for Electrical Installations (ET101)

IS EN 62305-2: 2006: Protection against Lightning

FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheet 1-19: Fire Walls, Subdivisions and Draft Curtains.

FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheet 1-21: Fire Resistance of Building Assemblies.

FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheet 1-22: Maximum Foreseeable Loss.

FM Global Operating Standards Data Sheet 8-8: Distilled Spirits Storage.

EPA (Draft) Guidance Note to Industry on the Requirements for Fire-Water Retention Facilities, 1995.

ATEX

EPA Guidance note on transport and storage of materials

Note that all elements of design are subject to review and approval by FM Global, IDL’s insurance underwriters. The overall design will be put through FM Global’s ‘Plan Review’ procedure before construction commences.

Worst Case Scenario As highlighted above the effects of a major fire on the site have been evaluated and it has been established that the level of radiant heat would be such that persons or animals beyond the site boundary would not be endangered. Therefore, the worst case scenario of a fire on the site would be the loss of production facilities, but no direct threat or impact beyond the boundary of the site.

Cumulative Impacts & Interaction of Impacts 18


18.1 Introduction

This chapter considers cumulative impacts and the significant interaction of impacts between different disciplines reviewed within the EIS. It also considers indirect impacts.

A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated together with other projects causing related impacts. The assessment considers past, present and probable future projects producing related to cumulative impacts. For the purposes of this EIS probable future projects have been defined as:

Projects for which an application has been submitted to the relevant Planning Authority;

Projects which are included as a specific targeted objective in national, regional or local planning policy;

Projects anticipated as a later phase of the proposed development.

An indirect impact is one which is not directly related to the proposed development but may occur as a consequence of the proposed development. For example, a significant increase in employment as a result of a particular development may result in the development of residential development to accommodate new workers.

In terms of interaction of impacts, in practice many impacts have slight or subtle interactions with other disciplines. This chapter highlights those interactions which we consider to potentially be of a significant nature. Discussion of the nature and effect of the impact is primarily undertaken within relevant chapters – this section aims to highlight important interactions and to ensure that interactions have been appropriately considered elsewhere within the EIS.

18.2 Cumulative Impacts

In identifying potential cumulative impacts the following list of relevant past, present and probable future projects has been identified:

Past Projects

IDL, Midleton Distillery Recent past projects at the distillery include

the construction of an extension to the VAT House to facilitate a new motor control centre (09/7565)

completion of erection of 4 no. fermenters and 2 hot water tanks (10/8126, originally permitted under 05/5032)

No other relevant past projects were identified that may impact cumulatively with the current proposed project.

Present Projects

Midleton College Extension Midleton College received permission for the development of a 2 storey extension in its ground, to the north of the proposed new still house (10/56012). Construction work on this extension was underway at the time of drafting this EIS.

IDL, Midleton Distillery IDL have received a Section 5 Declaration confirming that the proposed relocation of the Water Treatment Plant is exempted development and does not require planning permission. This was required to allow alternative development on the site of the existing Water Treatment Plan and development work is to commence shortly.

Probable Future Projects

Spatial Strategy for Midleton The following documents establish the spatial development strategy for Midleton and its environs: the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020; Regional Planning Guidelines 2010; Cork County Development Plan 2009 and Midleton Electoral Area Local Area Plan 2011. The spatial strategy for Midleton town and its environs envisages significant population and employment growth by 2020. Given the downturn in the economy the timeline for these targets may be pushed out, but in the long term there will probably be substantial additional residential and employment related development in the area.

Dungourney Satellite Warehousing In May 2011 IDL were granted permission for the development of 40 maturation warehouses at Dungourney.

Midleton College Extension Midleton College received permission in 2008 to provide a sports hall (planning ref. 08/56022). Work on this building is due to commence in 12 to 18 months.

Midleton Educate Together School Midleton ET School recently received permission to relocate its temporary school to a new site at Knockgriffen, Midleton (planning ref. 11/5234).

IDL, Midleton Distillery Probable future development proposals at the Distillery include:

An extension to the existing brew house (planning reference 11/06248)

Chapter 4 of the EIS highlights that there may be future requirements to upgrade and extend the grains intake area, feeds recovery plant and VAT House in the medium to long term.

Additional office accommodation.

Impacts Following a review of past, present and future projects, the Cumulative Impacts of the proposed development with other developments are considered to be:

Increased Demand on Rathcoursey Holding Tank: As highlighted in Chapter 10 (Water & Aqueous Emissions), Rathcoursey Holding Tank has sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected increase in output from the distillery and a population equivalent (PE) of 15,000 for Midleton. The long term spatial strategy for Midleton will require this tank to be upgraded to accommodate future population and employment growth. This requirement is identified in the 2011 Midleton Electoral Area LAP and prioritised for investment by Cork County Council. The development contributions from the proposed development will assist in financing a future upgrade.

Increased traffic on the R627 Dungourney Road: The permitted development of satellite warehousing facility at Dungourney, in conjunction with this proposed development, will result in some increase in traffic on the R627 Dungourney Road. The impact of this increase has been addressed in Chapter 8 (Traffic & Transport). It is concluded that the road has sufficient capacity to accommodate any increased traffic. The cumulative impact of the developments is therefore negligible.

Visual Impact from Midleton College: Chapter 17 (Landscape & Visual Impact) concludes that the visual impact of the proposed development of plant within the distillery will be slight, given the existing industrial nature of the site. The proposed development of the still house is considered to have a positive impact given the high quality design and inherent aesthetic of the pot stills, which will be visible.

In terms of cumulative impacts, the two permitted extensions to Midleton College will change the visual context from the protected structure of

C u m u l a t i v e I m p a c t s & I n t e r a c t i o n o f I m p a c t s 18


Midleton College. The structures will restrict some of the views from the College into the site - providing some screening of the distillery plant. The cumulative impact of the developments is therefore considered to be slight positive in terms of views from the College – as the primary views will be the extended college buildings and the high quality designed still house.

Distillery Capacity There are a number of other past, present and probable future developments related directly to the distillery site. These developments are linked to improving logistics; operational procedures and the employee environment. Cumulatively, the other developments will support the proposed expansion of output at the distillery but they will not increase capacity beyond 64 MLA per annum. The proposed development of the brew house will have a positive impact on the environment, as it will provide some screening of noise from existing and proposed plant.

None of the other specific past, present or future developments identified were considered to have a cumulative impact in combination with the proposed expansion of the distillery. In general terms, Midleton Town and Environs is projected for substantial population and employment growth within the national, regional and local planning policy context. This growth requires additional infrastructure, which is to be programmed within the Council’s investment plans and funded through the adopted General and Special Development Contribution Schemes.

The impacts of the population and employment projections for Midleton have been the subject of a Strategic Environmental Assessment undertaken for both the County Development Plan and Midleton Electoral Area Local Area Plan (Midleton EA LAP). The proposed expansion of Midleton Distillery was identified within the Midleton Electoral Area Local Area Plan and the proposed expansion of employment is consistent with the objectives of the plan, and provides a contribution to the overall target of employment growth.

The cumulative impacts of the proposed development with other general development objectives in the Midleton area are therefore considered to be positive in the context of contributing toward the strategic planning objectives for the town and its environs.

18.3 Indirect Impacts

A number of potential indirect impacts have been identified during the preparation of this EIS, particularly within the Human Beings Chapter 17. Indirect impacts are considered to be:

Increase in the demand for raw materials. The consequence of this will be a moderate positive impact for grain merchants delivering supplies to IDL and by association, farmers who provide raw materials to grain merchants.

Some increase in tourism; marketing and retail related to IDL’s products. The consequence of this will be a slight positive economic impact on these sectors.

Creation or supporting of employment for the suppliers of building materials for the proposed development works. The consequence of this will be a slight positive economic impact for relevant building suppliers.

No other indirect impacts of the proposed development were identified.

18.4 Significant Interaction of Impacts

Table 18.1 provides a matrix of each discipline considered within the EIS and identifies where there is a potential for significant interaction with other disciplines. Potential interaction during construction stage is identified by a ‘C’, while potential interaction during the operational phase is identified by an ‘O’.

A summary narrative of the significant impacts is provided for each chapter

Waste Management & Sustainability Waste Management impacts and sustainability measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 (Project Description). The primary interactions with other disciplines are considered to be:

Construction Activities Construction activities will result in the generation of excavated material and other construction wastes. Chapter 4 details how this material is to be recycled, reused and disposed off in line with the site construction Waste Management Plan to mitigate any impact.

Soils & Geology There is a potential interaction with Soils & Geology if construction or operational waste is not disposed of appropriately. Chapter 4 details the Waste Management Plan, which will mitigate any impact on soils and geology.

Hydrogeology & Hydrology There is a potential significant interaction between waste management and both Hydrogeology & Hydrology if construction and operational waste is not disposed of appropriately. The construction waste management plan and operational waste strategy detailed in Chapter 4 will ensure that negative impacts on Hydrogeology & Hydrology are avoided.

Ecology and Human Beings There is a potential significant interaction between waste management and both ecology and human beings, if construction and operational

waste is not disposed of appropriately. The construction waste management plan and operational waste strategy detailed in Chapter 4 will ensure that negative impacts on Ecology and Human Beings are avoided.

Construction Activities Construction Activities has interaction with almost all the disciplines and the impact of the construction process is considered in detail in Chapter 6, as well as within each of the chapters on the individual disciplines. The most significant interactions of the construction activities are outlined below.

Waste Management & Sustainability Interaction with construction activities has already been discussed.

Landscape & Visual During the construction process the felling of trees will increase the visual impact of the distillery site to receptors sited north west of the site (Midleton College; St John the Baptist School; and the crèche facility). The construction activity will heighten awareness of the industrial site from a number of the identified views. These impacts are considered to be temporary, moderate negative.

Traffic & Transport Construction activities will result in short term increase in traffic related to contractors; delivery of building materials and removal of building waste materials. The transport chapter has concluded that the access roads and junctions to the distillery all have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional construction traffic. There will be a slight negative impact on the junction of Main Street with Connolly Road, but this will be mitigated by a traffic management plan, which will divert HGV traffic to Broomfield Link Road.

Soils & Geology Construction activities will result in excavation of circa 25,000 m3 of overburden and rock and depositing of much of this material elsewhere within the distillery site to construct embankments and berms. The depositing of overburden & rock within the site will have a positive impact in terms of landscaping and also reduce the need to dispose of material off-site.

Hydrogeology There is a potential interaction with hydrogeology if any accidental spillages during the construction phase contaminate the groundwater. Measures are proposed in Chapter 11 to mitigate any risk, including the implementation of an environmental operating plan and safe storage of contaminates.



Ecology Construction activities could result in significant interactions with Ecology if construction waste is not disposed of appropriately. As discussed in the above section, the construction waste management plan will ensure that negative impacts on Ecology are avoided.

Noise & Vibration Construction activities will result in slight noise and vibration impacts on nearby receptors. Mitigation measure outlined in Chapter 14 will ensure that noise and vibration from construction activities will have only a slight negative impact on nearby residences and the sensitive receptors of the schools and crèche.

Air Quality & Climate There is a potential interaction with air quality if construction dust is not appropriately mitigated. Chapter 15 indicates that a Dust Minimisation Plan will be put in place to ensure that the impact on air quality during the construction phase will be imperceptible.

Material Assets There is a potential interaction with material assets if the construction process uncovers any archaeological heritage. Mitigations measures detailed within the Material Assets Chapter 16 will ensure that any archaeological heritage found is appropriately recorded.

Human Beings There is a potential interaction with human beings if construction activities results in increased noise, vibration or dust; and if construction traffic interferes with residential amenity. Chapter 14 details measures to mitigate any noise and vibration from construction activities. Chapter 15 indicates that a Dust Minimisation Plan will be put in place, to mitigate any dust nuisance to nearby residents. Chapter 8 concludes that the access roads and junctions to the distillery have adequate capacity and that there will be no negative traffic impact on residential amenity. There may be a slight negative traffic impact on the Jack & Jill crèche facility, due to the existing poor quality environment & access provisions of the crèche.

Landscape & Visual Chapter 7 assesses the likely landscape and visual impacts arising from the proposed development. Three significant interactions with other disciplines have been identified as.

Construction Activities Interaction with landscape & visual impacts has already been discussed.

Human Beings The long term views from a number of locations will be altered; in many cases the impact will be neutral or positive. A slight negative impact is identified for the view from Bromley Court residential area (looking south east).

Material Assets Close consideration was given to the impact of views from historic structures, the S43 Scenic Route, protected structures and the proposed natural heritage area south of the N25. The proposed development was considered to have no impact on the majority of these views, with a slight neutral impact on the view from Cahermone Castle (looking west); and a slight negative impact on the view from Distillery Lane (looking north east). The view from Distillery Lane impacts on the Jameson Heritage Centre. Nonetheless, given the industrial heritage of the site, the context of a modern and successful distillery as a backdrop to the heritage centre adds value to the material asset.

Traffic & Transport Chapter 8 assesses the likely traffic and transport impacts arising from the proposed development. The significant interactions with other disciplines have been identified below.

Construction Activities Interaction with traffic & transport has already been discussed.

Human Beings The increase in traffic on the Avoncore Road may have a slight negative impact on the Jack and Jill crèche facility, due to the existing poor quality environment & access provisions of the crèche.

Soils & Geology Soils and Geology impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 9. The significant interactions with other disciplines are considered to be:

Waste Management & Sustainability & Construction Activities The interactions of impacts of these disciplines with Soils & Geology have already been discussed.

Hydrogeology Any contamination of the soil (through poor waste management, or fire outbreak) could result in contamination of ground water. Mitigation measures to ensure that soil contamination is avoided are:

Development and implementation of construction and operational waste management plans.

Revision to existing HSA approved Safety Report.

Ecology There is a potential interaction with the local ecology if there was any accidental contamination of the soil. Mitigation measures are detailed in Chapter 4 (Project Description) and Chapter 9 (Soils & Geology) to avoid any risk of soil contamination and associated risk to the local ecology.

Human Beings A fire at the distillery site could result in an interaction with Soils & Geology, if there was any contamination of the soil. Mitigation measures include safety measures to avoid a fire and appropriate response procedures in the highly unlikely event of a fire on-site.

Hydrogeology Hydrogeology impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 11. The significant interactions with other disciplines are considered to be:

Waste Management & Sustainability Interaction with Waste Management & Sustainability has already been discussed.

Construction Activities Interaction with Construction Activities has already been discussed.

Soils & Geology Interaction with Soils & Geology has already been discussed.

Hydrology There is a significant interaction between the water abstraction for use in the distillation process and the discharge of used water, either into the Dungourney River or the sewer network. The detailed interactions, impacts and proposed mitigation are outlined in chapters 10 (Water & Aqueous Emissions); 11 (Hydrogeology) and 12 (Hydrology).

Ecology There is a significant interaction between water abstraction and the potential impact on ecology due to associated changes in Dungourney River. The detailed interactions, impacts and proposed mitigation are outlined in Chapters 10 (Water & Aqueous Emissions); 11 (Hydrogeology) 12 (Hydrology) and 13 (Ecology). In addition a separate Natura Impact Statement accompanies the planning application.

Hydrology Hydrology impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 12. The significant interactions with other disciplines are considered to be:

Waste Management & Sustainability Interaction with Waste Management & Sustainability has already been discussed.



Hydrogeology Interaction with Hydrogeology has already been discussed.

Ecology There is a significant interaction between Hydrology and the Ecology of the Dungourney River. Changes in the level of abstraction from and discharge to the river have the potential to impact on the ecology, particularly fish. The detailed interactions, impacts and proposed mitigation are outlined in Chapters 12 (Hydrology) and 13 (Ecology). Mitigation measures have been discussed with the Inland Fisheries Board and the water management plan will ensure that there will be no negative impact on the ecology of Dungourney River.

Human Beings There is a potential interaction with Human Beings if the discharge of water to Dungourney River increased the flood risk. Chapter 12 considered the potential impacts and concluded that the additional discharge would have negligible impact on flood levels.

Ecology Ecology impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 13. The significant interactions with other disciplines are considered to be Waste Management & Sustainability, Construction Activities, Soils & Ecology, Hydrogeology and Hydrology, all of which have been discussed in the preceding sections.

Noise & Vibration Noise & Vibration impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 14. The significant interactions with other disciplines are considered to be:


Traffic and Transport Interaction with Traffic and Transport has already been discussed.

Human Beings The noise and vibration from the construction and operational phases of the development has the potential for significant interaction with Human Beings. Potential noise and vibration impacts were identified in terms of construction process; increased traffic and increase plant related to the increase in distillation output. The following measures are proposed to avoid, or mitigate any negative impacts:

Implementation of a Construction Management Plan, to ensure construction noise levels are kept within reasonable limits and appropriate construction hours.

Specification of plant and buildings to mitigate any noise from plant and machinery during the operational phase.

Air Quality & Climate Air Quality & Climate impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 15. The significant interactions with other disciplines are considered to be:


Human Beings There is a potential interaction with Human Beings if any dust from the construction process is not appropriately mitigated. A Dust Management Plan is proposed with the Construction Activities chapter to ensure that there is no negative impact on the air quality of Human Beings as a consequence of the proposed development. There are no perceptible additional emissions related to the operational phase of the proposed development.

Material Assets Material Assets impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 16. The significant interactions with other disciplines are considered to be Construction Activities and Landscape & Visual, both of which have been discussed.

Human Beings Human Beings impacts are discussed in Chapter 17. The significant interactions with other disciplines are considered to be Waste Management & Sustainability, Construction Activities, Landscape & Visual Impacts, Traffic & Transport, Soils & Geology, Hydrology, Noise & Vibration, and Air Quality & Climate, all of which have all been discussed in preceding sections.

Table 18.1 - Potential Significant Interaction of Impacts1

(C = Construction Impact, O = Operational Impact)

1 There are a number of chapters not included in this matrix, as they are related to setting the development context, or providing an overview of other chapters. Chapters not referred to in the matrix are: Introduction; Need for the Scheme; Planning & Development Context; Alternatives Considered and Water & Aqueous Emissions (as relevant impacts are detailed in either Hydrogeology or Hydrology). Waste Management & Sustainability is referred to in the project description and considered here in term of interaction of impacts.

Waste Management

& Sustainability

Construction

Activities

Landscape & Visual

Impact

Traffic & Transport

Soils & Geology

Hydro-geology

Hydrology Ecology Noise &

Vibration Air Quality & Climate

Material Assets

Human Beings

Waste Management & Sustainability

- C - - C / O C / O C / O O - - - C / O

Construction Activities

C - C C C C - C C C C C

Landscape & Visual Impact

- C - - - - - - - - C / O C / O

Traffic & Transport - C - - - - - - C / O - - C / O

Soils & Geology C / O C - - - C / O - C / O - - - O

Hydrogeology C / O C - - C / O - O O - - - -

Hydrology C / O - - - - C / O - O - - - O

Ecology C / O C - - C / O O O - - - - -

Noise & Vibration - C - - - - - - - - - C / O

Air Quality & Climate

- C - - - - - - - - - C

Material Assets - C C / O - - - - - - - - -

Human Beings C/ O C C / O C / O O - O - C / O C - -

Noise & Vibration 14

Documents

Transcript of Noise & Vibration 14