SR Technics - Environmental Protection Agency · Sean Lawlor Environment Manager Environmental...
Transcript of SR Technics - Environmental Protection Agency · Sean Lawlor Environment Manager Environmental...
SR Technics
IPPC Licence Application No: Subject:
Office of Licensing and Guidance Environmental Protection Agency PO Box 3000 Johnstown Castle Estate Co. Wexford
766
Re: Response to Request for Information
Date: 12.06.2006
SR Technics Ireland Limited Facilities Services Facilities Building MD I98
Ref: ENVLic0206.epa
Telephone: 00353-1 -81 2-691 8 Telefax: 00353-1 -81 2-6847 E-Mail: [email protected]
Dear Sir/Madam,
In response to your request for information regarding IPPC Licence Application No.766 (EPA Letter dated 09.05.2006) please find attached answers to questions posed and a revised non-technical summary. Also included are two CD’s in searchable PDF format.
I trust the above is to your satisfaction, but if you require further information, please contact
me.
Yours sincerely,
c-. U e G - - L. Sean Lawlor
Environment Manager
Environmental Protection Agency
SR Technics Ireland Limited Dublin Airport, Ireland
Tel: + 353 1 81 2 6000, Fax +353 1 886 8492 Directors: Dr. Hans Ulrich Beyeler, Chairman (Swiss), Paddy Finnegan, Frank Keoghan, Alex Kugler (Swiss), Tom
McDermott, Noel Murray, Declan OShea, Peter Quigley, Richard Steiblin (French) www.srtechnics.com
Registered in Ireland 268659
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:02
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:02
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:02
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:02
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:02
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:02
Non technical Summary_rev3.doc Page 2 – (1) of 60
IPPC Licence Application
- Revised Non Technical Summary
IPPC Register No. 766
Issue No 3 45078448
9th June 2006
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:02
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (2) of 60
CONTENTS
Section Page No
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... Page 2 (4)
2. FACILITY OPERATIONS ................................................................................. Page 2 (4)
3. RAW MATERIALS............................................................................................ Page 2 (6)
4. EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE...................................................................... Page 2 (7)
4.1. Point Source Emissions .................................................................................... Page 2 (7) 4.2. Fugitive Emissions ............................................................................................ Page 2 (8) 4.3. Control & Abatement Technology ..................................................................... Page 2 (9) 4.4. Assessment of the Solvent Emissions Directive (1999/13/EC) ...................... Page 2 (10) 4.5. Assessment of Impact of Atmospheric Emissions .......................................... Page 2 (11)
5. EMISSIONS TO SURFACE WATER.............................................................. Page 2 (14)
6. EMISSIONS TO SEWER ................................................................................ Page 2 (14)
6.1. Sources of Emissions To Sewer ..................................................................... Page 2 (14) 6.2. Emissions of Cadmium to Sewer .................................................................... Page 2 (16) 6.3. Arrangements for Discharges to Sewer .......................................................... Page 2 (16) 6.4. Abatement of Emissions to Sewer .................................................................. Page 2 (16) 6.5. Assessment of Impact of Emissions to Sewer/Waters.................................... Page 2 (17)
7. EMISSIONS TO GROUND ............................................................................. Page 2 (17)
8. SITE CONDITION ........................................................................................... Page 2 (18)
8.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING......................................................................... Page 2 (18) 8.2. Historical Incidents .......................................................................................... Page 2 (18) 8.3. Current Groundwater Monitoring..................................................................... Page 2 (19) 8.4. Trichloroethylene (TCE) And TCE Breakdown Product Monitoring................ Page 2 (19) 8.5. Ongoing Groundwater Monitoring For Chlorinated Solvents .............................Page 220)
9. NOISE EMISSIONS ........................................................................................ Page 2 (21)
10. WASTE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................ Page 2 (22)
11. SAMPLING AND MONITORING.................................................................... Page 2 (22)
12. ENERGY EFFICIENCY................................................................................... Page 2 (25)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (3) of 60
CONTENTS
Section Page No
13. CONTAINMENT OF ACCIDENTAL SPILLAGES.......................................... Page 2 (26)
14. EMERGENCY RESPONSE ............................................................................ Page 2 (27)
15. APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES AT SR TECHNICS . Page 2 (28)
16. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.............................................................. Page 2 (31)
17. DECOMMISSIONING ..................................................................................... Page 2 (31)
)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (4) of 60
1. INTRODUCTION
SR Technics Ireland (SR Technics) is an aircraft and airport motive equipment
maintenance facility situated at Dublin Airport. A Site Map is presented in Section B.2
(drawing reference IPPCboundary).
Dublin Airport was first developed as an airfield in 1917. Prior to this development the
lands were used for agriculture purposes. In 1937 construction of a Civil Airport to service
Dublin commenced with the original terminal brought into service in 1941.
Hangar development commenced in 1941 with the construction of Hangar 1.
Development continued with the construction of Hangars 2, 4 and 5 through the fifties
and sixties. The Garage was constructed in 1972. Hangar 6 was constructed in 1990 and
Hangar 3 in 1992.
The Auxiliary Power Unit test cell was recently developed and upgraded to cater for
larger type units.
The site is bounded by the airport to the west, north and south and by the main N1
motorway to Belfast on the east.
1,274 people are employed at the SR Technics Dublin Airport site. The facility operates
Monday to Friday over two shifts: 8.a.m to 4.p.m and 7.a.m to 11.p.m. The facility is
manned by airport police at each entry point with restricted access only.
SR Technics was granted an Integrated Pollution Control Licence (Register Number 480)
0n 31st August, 1999.
This application for an Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) licence,
Register number 766, has been prepared in response to a letter from the EPA dated 19th
September, 2005 and in response to an EPA request for further information in a letter
dated 10th February 2006. SR Technics published a notice of intent to submit an
application in the Irish Independent on 7th
December 2005.
2. FACILITY OPERATIONS
SR Technics carries out operations briefly summarised as follows:
1. Operations support, part of the Facilities Services Department, is responsible for
aircraft docking, scaffolding, hangar equipment maintenance and hangar
cleaning;
2. Aircraft maintenance: - both small and very large maintenance checks are carried
out in 6 hangars on the site. All aspects of maintenance is carried out, including
engine maintenance, airframe repair and electrical checks. A range of aircraft
size can be accommodated and the hangars are appropriately sized and
equipped.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (5) of 60
3. Aircraft washing: - this is carried out, as required, on aircraft when docked in the
hangars. Power washing is utilised along with specialised organic detergents.
Washings that arise are diverted to sewer.
4. Workshops: - there are a number of workshops on the site that compliments the
main aircraft maintenance operation. All have specialised functions. The
workshops include:
a. Landing Gear workshop;
b. APU Service Centre workshops;
c. Safety Equipment Workshop;
d. Avionic Workshop;
e. Components Cleaning Workshop;
f. Airframe Components Workshop;
g. Engine Workshop (limited engine servicing);
h. Aircraft Maintenance Overhaul Support Shop (AMOSS) – this is a
general task workshop to support the aircraft maintenance operation;
i. Hydraulic components workshop;
j. Pneumatic components workshop;
k. Carpentry Workshop;
l. Mechanical/Electrical workshop;
5. Plating Shop: - a sub-section of the Landing Gear workshop, the plating shop
facilitates the plating of cadmium, nickel and chromium onto landing gear parts
using a process known as electrolysis. The process involves component cleaning
(mainly grit blasting), plating in baths of plating solution, rinsing and heat
treatment. The cadmium plating process is fitted with an abatement system that
ensures that no cadmium containing wastewater is diverted to sewer from the
plating shop.
6. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Service Centre: - APU’s are small engines that are
installed in aircraft to run essential parts of the aircraft, such as electrical items,
but that play no part in the movement of the plane itself. Approximately 100 of
these units per annum are stripped down, cleaned, inspected, maintained, rebuilt
and tested. Testing involves many advanced techniques.
7. Sheet metal fabrication: here, fabrication and repair of aircraft structural metal
parts is carried. Welding, cutting and heat treatment of metal is carried out here;
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (6) of 60
8. Painting: - Large Airframe painting is carried out in Hangar 3. However, since
September 11th, 2001, there has only been limited, aircraft painting (in 2002).
Currently, most painting is carried out on specific aircraft parts and on Dublin
Airport motive equipment (e.g., luggage cars). Painting of parts is carried out in a
number of enclosed spray painting booths dedicated for this task. Parts are
cleaned, primed and painted. Hangar 3 is equipped with extraction to facilitate
airframe painting. SR Technics has made considerable progress towards
reducing the organic solvent consumption during painting operations, notably the
move to using high solids content (and therefore low organic solvent content)
paints on all exterior surface painting operations.
9. Materials Services Department: - this department analyses, plans, sources,
receives, controls, stores and issues aeronautical and commercial materials to
the maintenance departments and also to external customers;
10. Ground Support Equipment Maintenance: - located in the Garage Building, this
division provides maintenance and repair services for powered vehicles and
towed units operated by Dublin Airport and SR Technics. Work here comprises
all operations commonly associated with vehicle garages, including washing and
component spray painting. Outside the garage, there is also a vehicle re-fuelling
station, providing petrol and diesel to SR Technics and Dublin Airport powered
vehicles.
11. Line Maintenance Division: - located primarily on the ramp at Dublin Airport, this
division provides aircraft turnaround and aircraft maintenance support to
contracted customers. This operation also includes aircraft de-icing, towing and
pushback services.
3. RAW MATERIALS
In summary, there are a number of groups of potentially polluting compounds (relative to
soil and groundwater) that may be categorised as follows:
� Paints: - containing organic solvents and, in some cases, trace quantities of
chromic pigments;
� Thinners;
� Paint strippers: - containing organic solvents with only very small quantities
containing dichloromethane;
� Fuel oils: - mainly kerosene, petrol and diesel;
� Lubricating and hydraulic oils;
� Plating solutions: - largely acid type solutions containing copper, cadmium and
nickel ions and associated metals;
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (7) of 60
� Degreasing solutions: - non-halogenated organic solvent based; these have
replaced trichloroethylene (TCE).
� Other cleaning solutions: - inorganic acids and bases;
� Silver solutions: - noting that these are contained in specialised close loop
systems;
� Fibreglass repair chemicals (e.g., epoxy resins);
� Sealants.
The material services department maintains strict control over material purchase and issue.
A ‘Just-In-Time’ protocol is used to ensure the minimum of storage needs and consumption
of raw materials.
Mostly small quantities of a large number of raw materials are used. Some materials used
are contract specific and may be used only once for that contract.
Other raw materials used, that are not generally potentially polluting, include:
� Sheet metal;
� Welding gases;
� Wood;
� Fibreglass;
� Plastics;
� Composite materials;
� Electrical equipment;
� Component parts.
4. EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE
4.1. Point Source Emissions
A summary list of main emissions points to atmosphere is provided in Table A.1.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (8) of 60
Table A.1 – Details of Main Emission Points.
Point Emission Source Diameter mm Height
Above GL m
A1 H3 - EXTRACT SYSTEM 2500 20.00
A2 H3 - EXTRACT SYSTEM 2500 20.00
A9 H1 PLATING SHOP CHROME SCRUBBER 450 9.55
A18 H1 PLATING SHOP DEGREASER 180 7.09
A31 H1 APU CLEANING SHOP DEGREASER 150 4.73
A35 H3 WET PAINT SPRAY BOOTH 640 8.76
A36 H3 WET PAINT SPRAY BOOTH 640 8.76
A37 H3 WET PAINT SPRAY BOOTH 640 8.76
A42 H5 MAIN PAINT SPRAY BOOTH 900 5.54
A44 GA PAINT SHOP 800x800 5.00
A45 GA PAINT SHOP 800x800 5.00
A46 H6 PAINT SPRAY BOOTH 600x500 26.60
There are many minor emissions to atmosphere, broadly categorised as follows:
� Workshop emissions from, e.g., test areas, carpentry, garages;
� Boilers;
� Space heating;
� Other plating shop emissions.
The minor emissions are considered to have emissions to atmosphere of pollutants
significantly less than that of the main emissions.
4.2. Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions are largely generated in the following operations on the site:
� Aircraft maintenance;
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (9) of 60
� Aircraft and component painting; and to a lesser extent
� Degreasing.
The requirements of the Solvent Directive regarding fugitive emissions for the above
activities are emission limit values for fugitive emissions expressed as a percentage of
solvent input.
An exemption from the Activity 8 emission limit values for aircraft painting is noted in the
next section to this non-technical summary This exemption includes both point source
emission limit values and fugitive emission limit values. Notwithstanding this exemption,
details pertaining to BAT for aircraft painting have been presented with the aim to reduce
overall VOC emissions and therefore the mass emissions of VOC’s as fugitive emissions
from aircraft painting.
Regarding other activities on site, an estimate of fugitive emissions of 60% of solvent
input (i.e., the amount of solvent used) has been made based on 2004 data. The relevant
activities include component painting, degreasing and general aircraft maintenance.
It is important to note that the above estimate of fugitive emissions has been presented
on a site-wide basis, rather than on an activity basis. Further, more detailed, work is
required to more accurately determine fugitive emissions. For example, it is likely that
fugitive emissions in individual component spray paint booths, as a percentage of solvent
consumed in the booths, is substantially less than 60% given the enclosed area and
extraction presented. A similar situation is anticipated for solvent degreasing. The largest
contributor to fugitive emissions is likely to be general aircraft maintenance.
Once a more detailed fugitive emissions estimate is completed, then a programme of
specific action to reduce the percentage of fugitive emissions can be developed and
implemented.
4.3. Control & Abatement Technology
The following abatement technology is applied at SR Technics:
� Water curtains: - These are used in spray paint booths to remove paint dust from
sanding operations and also to remove paint from cleaning and painting. They
operate by pumping water in a loop. The water comes in contact with air that is
extracted from the paint booths and which then absorbs the pollutants;
� Dust Collectors: - These unit operations used filters inside a metal box to remove
dust from the air that is extracted from the process served by the filter. The filter
then empties to a holding pot underneath. The clean air is discharged to
atmosphere. These units are used for a variety of operations where dust may be
generated, for example, sanding, wood cutting, etc
� One of the main emissions, that from the chrome plating operation, has a water
scrubber attached to the extraction system. Water is pumped through the
scrubber where it contacts air that may have small quantities of chrome
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (10) of 60
containing dust or fumes. The chrome dust or fume is then absorbed by the
water. This water is then periodically removed and disposed of separately.
The above abatement unit operations are on a preventative maintenance
programme.
4.4. Assessment of the Solvent Emissions Directive (1999/13/EC)
An assessment was carried out as to the applicability of the provisions contained in the
Solvents Directive relating to emissions from aircraft painting. The Directive,
implemented in Ireland through S.I. No.543 of 2002, Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Organic Solvents Regulations 2002, allows companies with coating
activities to comply with the Solvents Regulations by complying either with emission limit
values (on waste gas emissions and fugitive emissions) or electing to apply what is
known as a ‘Reduction Scheme’. The Reduction Scheme effectively allows a company to
set targets relating to overall reduction of organic solvent emissions to air over time and
in a specific manner.
There is an exemption to the above requirements applied to certain coating activities,
which includes aircraft painting. At SR Technics, aircraft painting is carried out in Hangar
3. The key exemption provisions are:
1. Exemption from the emission limit values and therefore the consideration of a
Reduction Scheme;
2. Exemption from the Reduction Scheme if it can be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the EPA that Best Available Techniques (BAT) is being used and
that the Reduction Scheme is not technically and economically feasible.
The Reduction Scheme cannot technically or economically be applied for aircraft painting
at SR Technics. There are two main reasons:
1. Inconsistency in solids deposition on an airframe (i.e., painting), given the various
client specific requirements.
2. The need to include all VOC containing materials in the Reduction Scheme
calculation. Unlike vehicle refinishing, there is a significant variation in the ‘recipe’
for airframe painting. For example, there are times when only high solids painting
is required with minimal surface preparation and in this case a Reduction
Scheme calculation will produce low values or VOC emissions emitted relative to
solids used. However, in many cases, and perhaps for contracts for an extended
period of time, there is the need only to apply relatively small amounts of high
solids paint but the need for significant surface preparation (containing high VOC
content but no solids content), resulting in Reduction Scheme indices far greater
than the target values. The flexibility to have either situation is important for the
viability of the aircraft painting business at SR Technics.
A BAT assessment specific to aircraft painting was then prepared as required. One
aspect of BAT is abatement. The conclusion from that assessment is abatement is
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (11) of 60
technically and economically unfeasible in order to meet emission limit values due to the
very large air flows to be treated, coupled with low organic solvent emissions.
SR Technics has extensively implemented BAT in its aircraft painting operation. The main
application file lists in detail the BAT implemented. Among the more important BAT
measures introduced to aircraft painting at SR Technics include:
� A move completely to high solids, and therefore low organic solvent, containing
paint;
� Using equipment that minimizes paint application and over-spray;
� Improved procedures for painting;
� Enclosed spraying equipment cleaning;
� Careful raw material purchasing control.
4.5. Assessment of Impact of Atmospheric Emissions
URS Ireland completed a conservative dispersion modelling assessment of the main
emissions from the SR Technics Plant (listed above in Table A.1), comprising an original
dispersion model report in December 2005, followed by additional dispersion modelling
detailed in a second (addendum) report in April 2006. Both dispersion modelling reports
are included in Attachment No. I.1 to the main IPPC application. The addendum report
was in turn followed by a clarification letter dated 26th May 2006 clarifying the derivation
of suitable criteria against which to compare predicted ground level concentrations of
volatile organic compounds.
The modelling excluded emission point A9. This exclusion was made considering that the
emissions monitoring indicated that the relevant parameter, inorganic matter containing
chrome, has not been detected in the discharge for the past two years.
Both particulate and organic solvent emissions, the latter expressed as Total Organic
Carbon (TOC), were modelled.
Emission points to atmosphere were modelled based on maximum emission gas flow
rates, resulting in conservative emission mass flow rates of carbon. The relevant input
concentration data is summarised as follows:
1. Hangar 1 operations include short duration repair work and deep cleaning. There
are two vapour degreasers labelled A 18 (Electroplating Shop) and A 31 (APU
Cleaning Shop). VOC emissions from A18 and A31 have been modelled at the
relevant BAT Emission Limit Values1 of 75mgC/m
3.
1 BAT Guidance Note on Best Available Techniques for Solvent Use in Coating, Cleaning and
Degreasing (Draft, December 2004)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (12) of 60
2. Hangar 3 contains the potentially most significant emissions to atmosphere, A1
and A2, where painting and related activities are carried out. Emissions from A1
and A2 have been modelled at a VOC concentration of 300mgC/m3 based on
limit values issued by the EPA to other licensed facilities, namely Shannon
Aerospace Ltd. and Lufthansa Technik Painting Shannon Limited. Particulates
emissions from A1 and A2 have been modelled at 20mg/m3 based also on limit
values issued by the EPA to Shannon Aerospace Ltd. and Lufthansa Technik
Painting Shannon Limited.
Hangar 3 also contains a paint shop which consists of two spray gun machines
which are vented to atmosphere via emission points A35, A36 and A37. VOC
emissions from A35, A36 and A37 have been modelled at the relevant BAT
Emission Limit Values of 100 mgC/m3 for VOCs. Particulate emissions from A35,
A36 and A37 were modelled at 20mg/m3.
3. Hangar 5 operations include aircraft strip-down, various structural repairs and
painting. Emissions from self-contained paint spray facility in this hangar are
emitted through A42. Emission point A42 has been modelled at the relevant BAT
Emission Limit Value of 100 mgC/m3 for VOCs and at an Emission Limit Value of
20mg/m3 for particulates.
4. Hangar 6 operations include aircraft strip-down, various structural repairs and
painting. Emissions from the paint shop in Hangar 6 are emitted through A46.
A46 has been modelled at the relevant BAT Emission Limit Values of 100
mgC/m3 for VOCs and at an Emission Limit Value of 20mg/m
3 for particulates.
Emissions from the Paint and Body Shop in the Garage are emitted through A44 and
A45. A44 and A45 have been modelled at the relevant BAT Emission Limit Values of 100
mgC/m3 for VOCs and 20mg/m
3 for particulates.
The model allowed for surrounding buildings and utilised three years of Meteorological
data. The model input also utilised expected maximum flow rates from the emission
points.
The key model output is detailed in the second (addendum) report dated April 2006 and
key data from that report is repeated in the external consultants (URS) letter dated 26
May 2006. The main emissions modelled were split into a number of areas as follows:
Area Stacks Included
Main aircraft painting area A1 and A2
Degreasing area A18 and A31
Smaller paint shop areas A35, A36, A37, A42, A46
Garage paint shops A44 and A45
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (13) of 60
For each of the above group of stacks, the output, expressed as maximum predicted
ground level concentration at certain distances from the emission sources, was then
compared with relevant guideline limits (further detail below). Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDS’s) for the base / thinner / hardener products used in the different areas, serviced
by the four stack groups, provide the percentage, by weight, of the various organic
substances contained in the products. This information was multiplied by the total annual
usage figures for these products, to get the total estimated usage for each of the organic
substances per annum and then apportioned out to each group of stacks knowing what
products are used in each case. This facilitated the comparison of the predicted ground
level concentrations to identified substance OEL derived guideline values, with reference
to the relative quantities of each substance in the waste gas.
The model was considered very conservative as it was assumed that all main emissions
occurred at the above concentrations all of the time. In reality, this is not the case with
emissions occurring over certain times per day and at measured concentrations on
average significantly less than the above.
The resultant relative ground level concentrations were compared to the Occupational
Exposure Limit (OEL) derived guideline value (i.e. the OEL/10) for each substance.
Where available, the UK Environment Agency Limits (EALs) were also included for
comparison. Short term EALs are taken from Appendix D of UK Environment Agency
IPPC Guidance Note H1.
The results in show that, in all cases, the predicted ground level concentration of the
various organics are lower than the respective OEL/10 for each of the organics. It is also
noted that the predicted ground level contributions are also below the Short Term EAL
criteria. The EAL values, used as air quality assessment criteria in the UK, are also
derived from Occupational Exposure Limits however a different factor is used to derive
the criteria.
It is also noted that the OEL/40 criteria are all significantly lower than the EAL criteria.
Should the OEL/40 criteria be employed rather than the OEL/10 then exceedences would
be noted for formic acid and benzyl alcohol from A1/A2. All the other stack groups would
be within the OEL/40 values. Assuming continuous maximum emissions from A35, A36,
A37, A42 and A46 the more stringent guideline value, i.e. the OEL/40 value, may be
exceeded for a limited area in the vicinity of the site, however given the conservative
assumptions employed in the modelling assessment, it is considered that in practice off-
site concentrations are likely to be below the guideline value. It is understood that there
are no sensitive receptors (e.g. schools, residential areas) in the vicinity of the site, hence
the use of the OEL/40 value may be considered overly conservative given that no
persons will be continually exposed to any releases (e.g. residents) and there are no
reported highly sensitive receptors (school children, elderly or sick people).
For particulate emissions, the predicted maximum ground level concentration from the
relevant emission points were above the relevant guideline limit for all three years met
data. However, the model was considered ultra-conservative in respect of emissions of
particulate matter (dust). The key reasons being:
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (14) of 60
1. The actual measured particulate concentration is an order of magnitude lower
than the input concentration to the model for the majority of the emission points;
2. Particulate emissions will occur only some of the time, largely during surface
preparation for later painting, whereas the dispersion model assumed discharge
of particulate from all emission points modelled for particulate, all of the time;
3. A tight guideline value was assumed, i.e., a total inhaleable dust limit value,
against which the model output for particulate matter was compared. In reality,
much of the particulate matter expected from the emissions from SR Technics
will be larger, non-inhaleable particulate matter.
4. Finally, a 100th
percentile maximum concentration value was calculated. This
means the absolute worst concentration which is predicted to occur in any one
year. This is highly dependent on a number of factors occurring together, e.g, full
discharge at the maximum input concentrations and, at the same time, the worst
weather conditions relating to dispersion (i.e., poor dispersion). Such an event is
highly improbable at SR Technics given the nature of operations at the site.
Therefore, it was concluded overall that the main emissions from SR Technics do not
have a significant impact on the surrounding air quality at the concentrations modelled.
5. EMISSIONS TO SURFACE WATER
Uncontaminated storm water is discharged from the SR Technics site to the nearby
Sluice River (via tributary streams) from three surface discharge points, SW1, SW2 and
SW3. Each of these emission points is associated with an area of the SR Technics site.
The emissions to surface water are monitored according to Schedule 5 of the IPC
licence, register number 480 for organic matter and pH.
The main potential area for contamination is in the vicinity of the Garage operation and
vehicle fuelling area. The fuelling area and part of the Garage forecourt discharge to
sewer (SW3) through an oil interceptor.
SR Technics, in the main application file for the IPPC licence, has requested that weekly
visual inspections of storm water be carried out instead of daily inspections. This arises
from a contradiction in the current IPC licence.
6. EMISSIONS TO SEWER
6.1. Sources of Emissions To Sewer
Emissions to sewer from the site includes:
� sanitary waste water;
� final rinse water from chrome and nickel plating lines;
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (15) of 60
� rinse water from fluorescent penetrate testing;
� x-ray film processing, wheel and brake cleaning;
� aircraft wash wastewater from all Hangars and the Garage wash bay plus the
fuelling area.
There are 3 emission points namely SE1, SE2 and SE3 as shown on Drawing Reference
‘IPPCSewer’ in Section E.3 of this IPPC Application.
SE1 contains emissions from
� Hangar 1
� APU shop
� Wheel and Brake shop
� Undercarriage shop, Plating shop
� Composite shop
� Non-destructive Testing operations
SE2 contains emissions from Hangar 2, 3, 4 and 5
� Cleaning shop
� Hydraulic shop
� Pneumatic shop
� Avionic shop
� Stores operation
SE3 contains emissions from
� Garage
� Vehicle Fuelling Area
� Hangar 6
� Full details of emissions from each process are contained in Section D, Process
Description, of the main IPPC application. The main pollutants in the emissions to
sewer will be:
� Organic matter from sanitary wastewater;
� Suspended solids, both inorganic and organic;
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (16) of 60
� Trace concentrations of heavy metals, largely nickel, chrome, cadmium and
copper;
� Detergents used to wash aircraft;
� Trace concentrations of solvents from painting operations and general aircraft
maintenance;
� Trace concentrations of jet fuels and oils.
Currently, wastewater is monitored according to Schedule 2 of the IPC licence, register
number 480.
6.2. Emissions of Cadmium to Sewer
The EPA requested SR Technics to assess the occurrence and frequency of emissions of
cadmium to sewer. Cadmium is released to sewer at all three emission points SE1, SE2
and SE3 mainly from aircraft washing operations and this cannot be avoided. An
assessment of the actual concentrations of cadmium in the discharges to sewer indicates
only occasional excursions above the emission limit value of 0.5 mg/l set for SE1.
Nonetheless, SR Technics continues to progress the opportunity to reduce the quantity of
cadmium getting into the aircraft washings as part of its Environmental Management
Programme.
6.3. Arrangements for Discharges to Sewer
The effluent from SE1, SE2 and SE3 is discharged to the sewer system vested by the
Dublin Airport Authority. This sewer system in turn discharges ultimately to the Greater
Dublin Area drainage system and on to the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Following receipt of the sewer report for year 2000 the Agency requested a report
outlining the feasibility of separating the trade effluent from the sanitary effluent to ensure
that sampling and monitoring at each discharge point to sewer consisted of trade effluent
only. Following a detailed site survey of the sewer system it became clear that the task
would be enormous given the mix of trade and sanitary effluent streams in so much of the
system and all discharging at the selected emission points.
There was further correspondence on the above matter between SR Technics and the
EPA in 2001 and in 2002, but with no firm conclusion on the EPA assessment of
information provided.
6.4. Abatement of Emissions to Sewer
The following unit operations are provided as abatement of emissions to sewer:
� 3-chamber oil interceptors are placed at specific locations in the facility drainage
system. These are designed to remove oil from wastewater but will also remove
suspended solids;
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (17) of 60
� In the Plating shop, there are two technologies used to remove cadmium from the
wastewater generated in the cadmium plating process. An electrolysis unit does
most of the work, followed by ion exchange to take out trace cadmium from rinse
waters. The net effect is effectively zero discharge of effluent from the cadmium
plating operation;
� A small filtration system is used to remove silver metal from effluent generated
from a film processing unit located in the Non-destructive testing area;
� There are grease traps fitted into main food areas on the site (canteen, break,
room).
Maintenance of the above unit operations is provided through the sites Preventative
Maintenance Programme.
6.5. Assessment of Impact of Emissions to Sewer/Waters
The impact of emissions to sewer is considered insignificant. There are no discharges of
materials to sewer that will cause significant difficulty to receiving sewer maintenance
operations or sewer integrity. Pollutants in the sewer discharges are not likely to cause
any significant operational difficulty to the receiving wastewater treatment plant at
Ringsend by virtue both of the properties of the pollutants and the dilution ultimately
experienced in the Greater Dublin Area drainage system.
SR Technics did examine the impact of cadmium discharges on foot of the EPA request
to assess cadmium discharges generally. Cadmium is not being received at the Ringsend
plant in concentrations great enough to cause harm to the microbial population carrying
out the bulk of wastewater treatment at Ringsend. Further, it was conservatively assumed
that all of the cadmium in the SR Technics effluent is precipitated out in the waste
activated sludge at Ringsend, and also conservatively assumed that all of this cadmium
will be present in the Biofert product from waste sludge treatment at Ringsend. In that
case, on average less than 4% of the Biofert cadmium mass content would derive from
SR Technics. Furthermore, cadmium concentration is not a limiting factor for the land
application of Biofert.
7. EMISSIONS TO GROUND
There are no intended emissions to ground from the SR Technics facility. The company is
monitoring site groundwater on an annual basis in accordance with IPC licence
requirements (refer to Section 8 for more detail).
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (18) of 60
8. SITE CONDITION
8.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The topographic elevation of the site is approximately 65 metres above Ordnance Datum.
The topography of the surrounding area slopes down gently to the north and northeast.
The made ground at the site consists of a concrete slab with an average thickness of 0.2-
0.3 metres underlain by fill material to an average depth of four metres below ground.
Underlying the fill material are glacial till deposits with an average thickness of ten to
eleven metres. The glacial till deposits were underlain by a limestone formation identified
by the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) as Carboniferous Limestone. Signs of
weathering were observed within the top metre of the encountered limestone formation.
Surface water drainage from the site is reported to be north and northwest towards the
Forrest Little (Cuckoo) Stream and Wad Stream, via storm water drains. Both streams
join approximately three kilometres west of the site and are shown to flow into the Irish
Sea at Portmarnock Bridge. At this point the stream is know as the Sluice River.
Data from the Irish Environmental Protection Agency indicated that the surface water
quality in the area is poor. Dublin Airport Authority regularly monitors the water quality of
the Forrest Little Stream for key inorganic parameters. No surface water is abstracted
from the above streams on a regular basis. The fill material overlaying the glacial till has
been shown to be partially saturated
Previous investigations reported a general
north/northeastward groundwater flow direction within the fill material.
The low permeability and the considerable thickness of the glacial till can be anticipated
to greatly retard any vertical downward movement of water from the shallow soils to the
limestone aquifer. However, preferential pathways of higher permeability may exist due
to sand and gravel lenses within the glacial till unit.
Most of the surface area at the site is sealed by road surfacing, concrete slabs or
buildings. Local groundwater recharge can therefore generally be expected to be minor.
8.2. Historical Incidents
There were a number of incidents on the site which were all reported to the Agency. Most
incidents related to fuelling of aircraft outside the hangars but emergency procedures in
place prevented contamination of sewer and surface water drains.
There were two incidents which had the potential to cause pollution since the IPC
process started:
1. A fuel spill from a parked aircraft on 30th March 1998 when approximately 4
tonnes of fuel spilled onto the ramp area and entered the surface water drainage
system.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (19) of 60
2. A leak from a cleaning tank, containing an Ardrox solution 188, went undetected
and an estimated 200 litres of solution entered the sewer system. A pH probe
was fitted in the bund in the cleaning shop and prevents the sump pump from
operating if the pH goes outside limits.
8.3. Current Groundwater Monitoring
Shallow groundwater monitoring is carried out as required by the site’s current IPC
Licence. The related requirements are contained in Condition 10.3 and Schedule 5(ii) of
the licence.
The location of the shallow groundwater monitoring wells on site are presented in
Drawing Reference ‘IPPCBoreholes’ in Section I.5 of this IPPC Application.
Based on data collected by URS during 2004 and 2005 (up to September 2005) observed
environmental quality of shallow groundwater was generally good with contaminant
concentrations remaining below or close to individual method detection limits.
8.4. Trichloroethylene (TCE) And TCE Breakdown Product Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring carried out by URS in January 2003 revealed the presence of
TCE in the limestone bedrock aquifer at monitoring well GW003D. Additional wells were
installed subsequently, and a quantitative risk assessment was carried out. This work
was aimed at quantifying the risk posed by TCE and related breakdown products for
identified receptors at the site and off site. This latter work was split into two phases: Part
A: Site Investigation and Part B: Quantitative Risk Assessment.
The main findings from this work were as follows:
� The observed levels of TCE, and breakdown products 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)
and cis-1,2-DCE, in the bedrock aquifer at GW003D exceeded the respective Dutch
Intervention Values and EQS guideline values.
� It is thought that the source of the TCE impact is located at the site, most likely in the
vicinity of GW003D/GW004. TCE was used as a degreaser in workshops in this area.
Potential spillages/leakages could have entered the fill material in the past and
migrated northward towards the well locations following the general groundwater
gradient.
� At the time of reporting on the investigation work, it was considered that the presence
of 1,1 DCE and cis-1,2-DCE in soil and groundwater underlined that TCE is
biodegrading at the site. Further it was considered that the absence of these
compounds in groundwater samples collected downstream of GW003D indicated that
the TCE impact was relatively localised. However, the hazardous nature of these
compounds warranted a more detailed assessment, taking into account the exposure
risk to potential receptors at the site and off site.
� Due to the observed increasing trend in TCE concentrations in the bedrock aquifer at
GW003D, ongoing regular groundwater monitoring was recommended.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (20) of 60
In order to assess the aforementioned exposure risk to potential receptors at the site and
off site, a quantitative risk assessment was prepared on the basis of a conceptual model
delineating sources, potential pathways and potential receptors for observed
contaminants (Part B of the 2003 study).
The model results indicated that, at the time of the study, the observed contaminant
concentrations in soil and groundwater at the site did not pose a risk to the identified
receptors at the site (site users) or to off-site (controlled waters).
With regard to the parameter set used in the modelling exercise it should be noted that a
range of parameters had to be estimated based on the geology at the site or literature
values. The spatial extent of the source zones were conservatively estimated. The
assessment of model sensitivity, by increasing modelled source areas and hydraulic
conductivity of the bedrock aquifer, underlined the absence of any significant risk for
identified receptors from soil and groundwater contamination observed at the site.
The risk assessment work again concluded that the observed increasing trend in
contaminant concentrations in the bedrock aquifer should be addressed in the interim by
ongoing regular groundwater monitoring. Remedial action was not considered
necessary.
8.5. Ongoing Groundwater Monitoring For Chlorinated Solvents
Groundwater monitoring specific to the observed TCE issue was carried out by URS in
January 2003, March 2003, September 2003, January 2004, September 2004, February
2005 and September 2005.
The latest monitoring carried out, in September 2005, confirmed the presence of TCE
and other chlorinated solvents in groundwater collected from the limestone aquifer at
GW003D, as documented in previous reports. Compared to the previous monitoring
round in February 2005, observed levels of TCE increased from 3.22 mg/l to 3.84 mg/l.
This concentration of TCE is the highest observed at GW003D since URS commenced
monitoring in 2003. Concentrations of TCE breakdown products have all decreased from
peaks observed in February 2005, to similar levels observed during monitoring in
September 2004.
Chlorinated solvents were furthermore detected in groundwater samples collected in
September 2005 at the shallow monitoring well GW004. The TCE concentration observed
at GW004 in September 2005 was the lowest observed since monitoring commenced in
2003.
With regard to observed chlorinated solvents in shallow groundwater at GW004, these
are known degradation products of 1,1,1-TCA and TCE. The presence of these
breakdown products in shallow groundwater indicates that reductive dehalogenation of
1,1,1-TCA and TCE is occurring in the low permeability glacial till deposits close to the
suspected historic source zone of solvent impact upgradient of GW004.
The presence of degradation products in groundwater collected from the limestone
aquifer at GW003D furthermore indicates that natural biodegradation of observed TCE
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (21) of 60
levels is occurring at the site. The reported low hydraulic gradient, low permeabilities of
the individual geological units and limited direct groundwater recharge at the site are
likely to yield low net groundwater flow rates across the site. While this would tend to
decrease the dilution potential for any contaminant impact on groundwater it may also
increase the potential for abiotic decay and biodegradation, due to increased residence
times. It is noted that concentration trends of one of the degradation products appears to
lag behind temporal fluctuations in TCE concentrations.
The observed increase in TCE levels in groundwater collected from the limestone aquifer
over recent monitoring rounds may be associated with retarded vertical migration of
historic residual pockets of shallow TCE impact. At the same time, declining trends of
TCE in shallow groundwater impact may indicate the overall depletion and degradation of
the historic source zone of solvent impact.
In view of the increasing levels of TCE at GW003D, the limited nature of TCE impact in
the bedrock aquifer should be confirmed by including additional deep monitoring wells
down-gradient of GW003D in the next regular groundwater monitoring round. GW006
should also remain in the next groundwater monitoring round to assess shallow
groundwater quality down-gradient of GW004.
9. NOISE EMISSIONS
There are a number of noise sources on the site that SR Technics are required to monitor
annually as per Schedule 4 of the licence. Table A.2 is a summary of the noise sources.
SR Technics also carries out noise monitoring at boundary locations, both at day and at
night in 6 locations around the boundary and at one sensitive receptor, a residential home
located approximately ¼ of a mile north east of SR Technics.
Noise monitoring results has shown that SR Technics is generally compliant with noise
monitoring emission limit values. Significant expenditure was invested in reduction of
noise from some sources, especially the APU test cell.
It is important to note that SR Technics operations occur within the main airport area and
therefore there is substantially more noise impact from the airport activities (aircraft
operation) than would be expected at SR Technics.
Table A.2. Noise Emission Sources
Reference Location
NS1 Exhaust - Hangar 3 (East side)
NS2 Extract - Hangar 5
NS3 south APU South side (at full load)
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (22) of 60
Reference Location
NS1 Exhaust - Hangar 3 (East side)
NS3 north APU North side (at full load)
NS4 Air Intake - Hangar 5
NS5 Compressor Louver - Hangar 5
NS6 Exhaust - Hangar 3 (West side)
10. WASTE MANAGEMENT
Solid and liquid waste, both hazardous and non-hazardous, is generated from the various
operations summarised in Section 2 of this document. Section H of the main IPPC
application details the quantities and types of wastes generated and provides details of
disposal and recovery of waste generated.
In summary, the types of waste produced at SR Technics include:
Hazardous wastes:
� Acid and base solutions;
� Spent adhesives and
resins;
� Spent paints
� Chrome waste;
� Contaminated sump
water;
� Plating solution solutions;
� Contaminated solid
packaging;
� Degreaser wastes;
� Sludge from aircraft
stripping;
� Fluorescent tubes;
� Batteries;
� Mineral and lubricating
oils,
� Waste cleaning solvents;
� Waste fluxes;
� Waste coolants;
� Plating tank sludges;
� Magnetic particle
contaminated oil;
� Water contaminated with
oil.
Non-hazardous waste:
� Crushed metal cans; � Non-hazardous sediment
from drains;
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (22) of 60
� Canteen waste;
� Scrap metal;
� Timber;
� Soft drink bottles;
� Paper & cardboard;
� Electrical & electronic
waste
SR Technics has implemented a programme of waste segregation on site in order to
maximise the recovery of waste rather than disposal. Each department on site has a
number of clearly marked bins for waste disposal.
11. SAMPLING AND MONITORING
Monitoring of emissions to the environment will be conducted to ensure all
control/treatment systems continue to operate to specification and in compliance with
emission limit values and the requirements of the IPPC licence.
The table below contains a list of all current monitoring points, the parameter measured
at each point, the method of measurement and the frequency of measurement
Table A.3 Monitoring Points
Monitoring
Points
Parameter Monitoring Method Frequency
Emissions to Atmosphere
Flow Pitot Tube Quarterly
Class B
Compounds
Adsorption Quarterly
Class III Inorganic
Dust Particles
Isokinetic Quarterly
A1, A2
Total Organics (as
C)
Adsorption Quarterly
Flow Pitot Tube Annually A9
Class III Inorganic
Dust Particles
Isokinetic Annually
Flow Pitot Tube Quarterly A18, A31
Class B
Compounds
Adsorption Quarterly
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (23) of 60
Monitoring
Points
Parameter Monitoring Method Frequency
Total Organics (as
C)
Adsorption Quarterly
Flow Quarterly Pitot Tube
Particulates Quarterly Isokinetic
A35, A36,
A37, A42,
A44, A45,
A46 Total Organics (as
C) Quarterly
Adsorption
Emissions to Sewer
SE1, SE2, SE3
Flow
Continuous (30 min)
sampling via automatic
sampler
Continuous
SE1, SE2, SE3
Temperature
Continuous (30 min)
sampling via automatic
sampler
Continuous
SE1, SE2, SE3 pH Composite 24Hr sample Continuous
SE1, SE2, SE3 BOD Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1, SE2, SE3 COD Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1, SE2, SE3 Suspended Solids Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1 Sulphates Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1, SE2, SE3 Detergents
(as MBAS) Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1, SE2, SE3 Oils, Fats, Grease Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1 Chromium (as Cr) Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1 Copper (as Cu) Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1 Nickel (as Ni) Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1 Silver (as Ag) Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1 Tin (as Sn) Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
SE1 Cyanide (as Cn) Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (24) of 60
Monitoring
Points
Parameter Monitoring Method Frequency
SE1, SE2, SE3 Cadmium (as Cd) Composite 24Hr sample Monthly
Emissions to Surface Water
Visual Inspection Grab sample Weekly1
pH Grab sample Weekly
SE1, SE2, SE3
COD Grab sample Monthly
Groundwater Monitoring
Arsenic Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
Cadmium Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
Chromium Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
Copper Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
Lead Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
Mercury Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
Nickel Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
Silver Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
Zinc Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
GW012, GW013,
GW014, GW016,
GW008, GW011
Mineral Oil Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (25) of 60
Monitoring
Points
Parameter Monitoring Method Frequency
Diesel Range
Organics
Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
Volatile Organic
Carbons
Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
GW004, GW003D Volatile Organic
Carbons
Standard technique in
accordance with BS6068-
6.11:1993
Biannually
Noise Monitoring
Noise Sources:
NS1, NS2, NS3
(south), NS3
(north), NS4,
NS5, NS6
Sound Pressure
Limit – dB(A)
In accordance with ISO
1996:1982: Acoustics –
description and measurement of
Environmental Noise and EPA
Environmental Noise Survey
Guidance Document
Annually
Boundary Locations:
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5. B6
LAeq, LA10, LA90
In accordance with ISO
1996:1982: Acoustics –
description and measurement of
Environmental Noise and EPA
Environmental Noise Survey
Guidance Document
Annually
Noise Sensitive Location:
S1 LAeq, LA10, LA90
In accordance with ISO
1996:1982: Acoustics –
description and measurement of
Environmental Noise and EPA
Environmental Noise Survey
Guidance Document
Annually
12. ENERGY EFFICIENCY
The total energy consumed on the entire site in 2004 was 37,392 MWh’s consisting of
electricity (33.8%), gas (35.5%), high temperature hot water from the Dublin Airport
Authority (DAA) central boiler house (29.4%) and heating oil (1.3%).
Electrical energy is used for lighting, general services, motive power, process heating
including heat treatment ovens and electroplating, plus heavy plant including frequency
converters, air compressors and hydraulic rigs.
Gas is used for space heating in hangars 3, 4, 5, 6 and the Garage building. The paint
spraying and drying process in hangar 3 is operated by gas. Water heating in hangar 6
and the Garage plus a high pressure hot wash plant, for aircraft washing in hangar 6, also
uses gas.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (26) of 60
High temperature hot water, from a central DAA boiler house, is used to space heat
hangars 1 and 2 plus workshops, logistic centre and offices. The primary energy source
for this boiler is gas.
Heating oil is used to space heat the APU test cell, a boiler for heating the cleaning shop
vats, a paint spray booth in hangar 5 and a high pressure hot wash plant for aircraft
washing in hangar 3.
There is no energy generated on site.
A full energy audit was carried out in 1999 and a detailed Energy Management Master
Plan was drawn up. This master plan outlined clear objectives for the 2000 – 2005
periods and set an aggressive reduction target of 12.5% in total energy consumption.
Yearly targets were set based on review of previous year and success towards overall 5
year target.
In 2001 an electrical monitoring and recording system (Energy Focus) was installed.
In all new developments energy efficiencies measures are taken into consideration. The
preventative maintenance programme includes repairs to leaking taps, repairs to air lines,
repairs to insulation and lagging etc. General awareness of energy efficiencies are
promoted throughout the organisation with newsletters, notice boards, e-mails and a
focus TV system.
The cumulative effect of the energy master plan, managed as part of the Environmental
Management Programme, is an overall energy usage reduction of 17.7% (45,423 to
41,805 mWh’s) between 2000 and 2004 which was ahead of initial target.
13. CONTAINMENT OF ACCIDENTAL SPILLAGES
The drainage system, consisting of the trade effluent and foul sewage system discharging
to the Greater Dublin Area sewer network and the surface water system discharging, via
the Sluice River, to Dublin Bay , is protected in the following manner:
� Installation of 3-chamber interceptors at strategic locations;
� Installation of pump sumps in areas where trade effluent is generated that can
only discharge, via pumping, to the sewer system when the pumps and level
control is active. In an emergency, such as a spillage, these pump sumps can be
isolated.
� Installation of a large emergency holding tank in Hangar 6, designed to hold a
large spill of potentially polluting material, e.g., aviation fuel or contaminated
firewater.
The storage and containment of all materials at SR Technics conform to existing IPC
licence requirements and best practice. Bund capacities incorporate the required 110%
of the volume of the largest tank or 25% of the volume of the total tankage within the
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (27) of 60
bund, whatever is the greater. In addition a 3-year rolling bund and drain programme
ensures that any deficiencies in available secondary containment are rectified in a timely
manner.
14. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SR Technics does not carry out an activity scheduled identified in the Major Accidents
Directive 96/082/EEC as amended (the Seveso Directive).
SR Technics has in place an Emergency Reaction Plan covering a wide variety of potential
safety and health risks, including:
� Ire/explosion;
� Gas leak;
� Chemical spill;
� Major damage;
� Bomb warning;
� Multiple persons injury;
� Traffic accident;
� Anthrax.
One of the important contributions to the emergency measures at SR Technics is the
Airport Fire Services which can be on site in less than 5 minutes in the event of an
emergency situation requiring their services.
SR Technics also maintains a separate Environmental Management Emergency
Reaction Plan. This document contains emergency contact details for the EPA, Fingal
County Council and the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board. The plan also documents
detailed actions and procedures in the event of:
� A fire in any area of the site (and therefore control of firewater run-off);
� A significant spillage of potentially polluting material;
The plan also contains:
� Details of persons responsible and to contact with full contact details;
� A list of first aiders and contact details;
� Template forms, e.g., the Environmental incident Investigation Report.
� Details on classification of spills and other emergency events.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (28) of 60
15. APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES AT SR TECHNICS
A number of Best Available Technique (BAT) measures have been implemented at SR
Technics and the company continues to look for further BAT opportunities. Notable BAT
measure include:
� The implementation of an Environmental Management System which includes:
o A schedule of significant environmental aspects which assesses all
operations with a view to reviewing cleaner production methods and the
reduction and minimisation of waste.
o A schedule of Objectives and Targets drawn up and implemented as part
of the Environmental Management Programme. The schedule
incorporates all environmental concerns, e.g., emissions to air, waste,
water management, energy management, etc.
A report on the progress of this programme is prepared and submitted as part of
the Annual Environment Report (AER). A planned programme of further
improvements is drawn up for the following year and also included in the AER for
approval.
� Training is extensively carried out on site and includes:
o Foundation course in Environment Management
o Environmental Management training for the environment committee
o Environment Auditing
o Maintaining an pollution control licence
o Spill control
o Waste Management and Minimisation
SR Technics has an in-house training school where technical and staff
development training is carried out. All courses have an environment module
included as does induction training for all new entrants
� Emissions to Air: refer to Section 4.4 above.
� Emissions to Sewer:
o Cadmium abatement system that now results in the cessation of
cadmium contaminated rinse water to sewer;
o A silver recovery unit was installed on the film processing unit in the Non
Destructive Test section to eliminate silver discharges to sewer (SE2).
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (29) of 60
o Use of interceptors to reduce significantly the risk of unplanned
emissions to sewer and surface water.
o Revised washing procedures to reduce the quantity of pollutants
discharged to sewer, notably heavy metals;
o Implementation of an Environmental Reaction Plan in the event of a
significant spill or similar.
� Non-hazardous waste management:
o Creation of a non-hazardous waste segregation/ storage compound;
o Increased waste diversion from landfill
o Reuse of waste packaging material from customers
o Reduction from two compactors going to landfill to one compactor
� Hazardous Waste Management:
o Waste segregation units upgraded and extended to other areas
o Diversion of targeted waste streams away from landfill (i.e. aerosol cans,
oil contaminated waste)
o Introduction of the Halon 1301 Recycler (HAL). To ensure safe removal
of Halon 1301 from aircraft fire extinguishers during service
o Introduction of non-flow drag out tanks in the plating shop to replace the
free flowing rinse water system. The drag-out tanks incorporate plate out
& ion exchange filters to remove metals from solutions
o Introduction of a mobile vacuum waste oil unit to remove the waste oil
from the oil drip trays in the garage
o Creation of chemical database
o Reuse of waste Aviation Fuel as a fuel substitute
o Analysis of structural sealant (PR1436) usage showed a large amount of
waste. Sealant now provided in smaller tubes.
� Water Management:
o Implementation of a water management plan
o Installing chiller units on the degreasing tanks to form a closed loop and
eliminate free flow of fresh water to drain
o Fitting automatic valves to hydraulic rigs to switch off water when the rig
is switched off
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (30) of 60
o Installing food operated or detector on wash hand basins
o Planned maintenance programme of inspections and leak repairs
Water usage has decreased from 44,000 cubic meters in 2001 to 26,000 cubic
meters in 2004 a reduction of 41%.
� Energy Management: Refer to Section 12 above
� Process Improvements:
o Triklone N (TCE) was phased out and replaced by an alternative product
o Degreasers in plating and APU shops fitted with a range of opening
options to reduce emissions
o Defined and implemented the Tech Washings procedure to give improved
process and monitoring results
o Upgrade/Replace Wax Tank to a more efficient unit in the Plating Shop,
Hangar 1
o Introduction of pre-impregnated sealant wipes (Diestone DLS) to reduce
fugitive emissions
o Improved techniques to reduce aircraft painting overspray by shielding
spray area from drafts
o Improved techniques to capture stripper waste more quickly through
better preparation
� Noise Management:
o Installation of double acoustic air intake louver in Test Cell
o Installation of new Test Cell door with higher acoustic rating
o Sealing all openings in compressor room and closing outside for
emergency exit only
o Repairs to louvers at compressor cooling tower.
� Groundwater Protection:
o Upgraded bunding across the site with a 3-year rolling bund and drain
programme.
o Implementation of a groundwater monitoring programme.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (31) of 60
16. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Specific elements of environmental management at SR Technics include:
� An Environmental Policy (IPPC Application Attachment number C.1a) has been
created for the facility and it is this policy that acts as a foundation for the EMS.
The Environmental Policy is communicated to the workforce via environmental
notice boards.
� The organisational chart (IPPC Application Attachment number C.1b) shows the
overall organisational structure along with the full environment management
team. Environmental responsibilities are defined in the individual job
descriptions.
� The Environmental Committee: - The Environmental Management System (EMS)
is structured as a decentralised body within the organisation. As part of the EMS
an Environmental Committee has been established which is comprised of key
management, specialists and representatives from each section in the
Organisation. The Committee is headed by the Facilities Maintenance Manager
and is supported by the Environment Officer. The Committee meets on the last
Tuesday of each month with minutes taken and distributed to the attendees and
copied to key managers in areas of potentially high environmental impact.
� SR Technics’s quality system is registered under BS EN 9001:2000, EASA 145
and FAR 145. The Safety and Quality policy is given in the Maintenance
Organisation Exposition (MOE).
� SR Technics also operates a Safety Management System (SMS). This is tasked
with identifying any adverse trends in relation to safety related events or potential
events and with addressing identified deficiencies in the interests of safety.
� Environmental Performance Review: - The overall performance of the facility is
determined based on the monitoring of results, preventive maintenance checks,
waste figures and the progression of the EMP. An Environment and Safety Audit
Checksheet is completed monthly in each area to identify areas of improvement.
� The environmental performance is further analysed by unannounced audits,
visits, sampling and analyses from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and also from Fingal County Council. The EMS is also supported by the
ISO9001-2000 Internal audit schedule.
17. DECOMMISSIONING
In the unlikely event of cessation of activities on site, SR Technics will complete a
planned programme of decommissioning and incorporating any EPA requirements in this
regard.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03
Revised Non technical Summary_rev3.doc
9th June 2006
Page 2 – (32) of 60
SR Technics expects that the financial provisions for any decommissioning not related to
soil and groundwater will be considered as a normal trading cost.
Regarding known groundwater contamination by the chlorinated solvent TCE and its
breakdown products, it is currently recommended to continue monitoring. Given that SR
Technics is a large multi-national organisation, it is expected that sufficient funds and
resources will be set aside in a manner agreed with the Agency for any future monitoring
that may be required at the time of cessation of activities. Regarding any potentially
unknown soil and groundwater contamination, no such significant contamination has
been detected and this follows two due diligence excercises. However, in the event that
cessation of activities occurs, then SR Technics may consider additional soil and/or
groundwater investigation as part of a closure audit.
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:19:18:03