Download Final Decision Document

Permit (Application) Number: PPC/ A/ 1142722
Applicant: Logangate Farm Eggs Limited
DD -02
Logangate Farm Eggs Limited
Commondyke Farm Poultry Unit
Permit Application
PPC/A/ 1142722
CONTENTS
1
2
3
4
4. 1
4.2
4. 3
4.4
5
5. 1
5.2
5.3
5. 4
NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION................................................................
EXTERNAL CONSULTATION AND SEPA' S RESPONSE..........................................................
2
2
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS......................................................................................
4
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND....................................................................................... 4
Historical Background to the activity and application.............................................................
4
Description of activity................................................................................................................
4
Guidance( directions issued to SEPA by the Scottish Ministers under Reg. 60 or 61 ............. 4
Identification of important and sensitive receptors.................................................................4
KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES................................................................................................
5
Summary of significant environmental impacts.......................................................................5
5. 5
5. 6
Point Sources to Air...................................................................................................................
5
Point Source Emissions to Surface Water and Sewer.............................................................7
Point Source Emissions to Groundwater.................................................................................7
Fugitive Emissions to Air...........................................................................................................
8
Fugitive Emissions to Water......................................................................................................
8
5.7
Odour..........................................................................................................................................
8
5.8
Management............................................................................................................................... 9
5. 9
Raw Materials..............................................................................................................................9
Raw Materials Selection...........................................................................................................
10
5. 10
5. 11
Waste Minimisation Requirements..........................................................................................
10
5. 12
Water Use..................................................................................................................................
5. 13
5. 14
5. 15
Waste
Handling.........................................................................................................................10
Waste Recovery or Disposal....................................................................................................
11
11
Energy.......................................................................................................................................
10
their Consequences........................................................................................
11
5. 16
Accidents
5. 17
Noise.........................................................................................................................................
5. 18
12
Monitoring.................................................................................................................................
5. 19
Closure......................................................................................................................................
12
Site Condition Report ( and where relevant the baseline report)...........................................12
5. 20
5.21
and
12
9
Consideration of BAT...............................................................................................................
OTHER LEGISLATION CONSIDERED......................................................................................
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND COMAH......................................................
DETAILS OF PERMIT................................................................................................................
EMISSION LIMIT VALUES OR EQUIVALENT TECHNICAL PARAMETERS( MEASURES .....
10
PEER REVIEW...........................................................................................................................
15
16
11
FINAL DETERMINATION..........................................................................................................
16
12
REFERENCES AND GUIDANCE...............................................................................................
17
6
7
8
13
13
15
15
I
NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION
Determination is to issue a Permit for a PPC Part A Intensive Agriculture installation at Commondyke
Farm, Auchinleck, East Ayrshire. The site will consist of two poultry sheds, each housing 35000 birds,
giving a total of 70000 places for poultry over the entire site. The birds reared will be pullets ( a young
hen) destined for egg production.
The application submitted complies with PPC requirements and Standard Farming Installation Rules.
For example, the installation of a Sustainable Drainage System to treat surface and yard runoff; the
adoption of BAT in building design and construction; and the introduction of procedures and systems for
the control of odour and noise as required by the legislation,
SCAIL Agriculture modelling of airborne ammonia emissions from the proposed site was carried out as
part of the application process. Initial modelling by SEPA showed no adverse effects on the integrity of
surrounding Designated Sites. SNH were then consulted and they also found that an appropriate
assessment could conclude no adverse effect on site integrity. No further screening work was deemed
necessary.
Glossary of acronyms and terms
BAT - Best Available Technique
CO - Coordinating Officer
ELV - Emission Limit Value
SCAIL - Simple Calculation of Ammonia Impacts Limits
SNH - Scottish Natural Heritage
SFIR - Standard Farming Installation Rules
PEPFAA - Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity
SSSI - Site of Special Scientific Interest
SAC - Special Area of Conservation
I SPA - Special Protection Area
PPC - Pollution Prevention and Control
PC - process contribution
PEC - predicted environmental concentrations
Cle - critical level
CL- critical load
CL( 5) - critical load ( 5kg N/ ha/ yr)
CL(9) - critical load ( 9kg N/ ha/ yr)
2
EXTERNAL CONSULTATION AND SEPA' S RESPONSE
Is Public Consultation Required - Yes
Advertisements Check:
Date
Compliance with advertising requirements
Edinburgh Gazette
13/ 01/ 16
Yes
Cumnock Chronicle
24/ 02/ 16
Yes
Officer checking advert: CO
No. of responses received:
None
Summary of responses and how they were taken into account during the determination:
None
Is PPC Statutory Consultation Required —Yes
Food Standards Agency. Response received on 22/ 0/ 16. No objections.
Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust. No response
East Ayrshire Local Auth: No response
Scottish Natural Heritage PPC Re s consultation): Not a statutory consultee, though were
consulted and liaised with during SCAIL modelling.
Enhanced SEPA public consultation" No
Off-site' Consultation —No
Transboundary Consultation —No
Public Participation Consultation , Yes
STATEMENT ON THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
The Pollution Prevention and Control ( Public participation)( Scotland) Regulations 2005 requires
that SEPA's draft determination of this application be placed on SEPA' s website and public
register and be subject to 28 days' public consultation. The dates between which this
consultation took place, the number of representations received and SEPA' s response to these
are outlined below.
Date SEPA notified applicant of draft determination
23/ 03/ 16
Date draft determination placed on SEPA' s Website
23/ 03/ 16
Details of any other `appropriate means' used to advertise
None
the draft
Date public consultation on draft permit opened
23/ 03/ 16
Date public consultation on draft permit consultation closed
20/ 04/ 16
Number of representations received to the consultation
Date final determination
placed on
the SEPA'
s
Website
Summary of responses and how they were taken into account during the determination:
3
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS
Determination of the Schedule 1 activity
As detailed in the application
Determination of the stationary technical unit to be permitted.
As detailed in the application
Determination of directly associated activities:
As detailed in the application
Determination of 'site boundary'
As detailed in the application
Officer: CO -- ---
4
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
4. 1
Historical Background to the activity and application
The application is for a PPC Part A Intensive Agriculture Permit to rear poultry at Logangate
Farm Eggs Limited' s premises at Commondyke Farm, Auchinleck, East Ayrshire. The site will
consist of two poultry sheds housing a total of 70000 birds in two separate flocks ( 35000 places
per shed). The site covers 0. 4ha and is located 2. 5km ENE of Auchinleck, in a landscape of
permanent pasture. Day old chicks will be introduced into the two poultry sheds and reared to 16
weeks of age, when they will leave the site and be transferred to laying farms as ' point of lay'
pullets.
4. 2
Description of activity
Intensive poultry production, with more than 40000 places for poultry.
4. 3
Guidance/directions issued to SEPA by the Scottish Ministers under Reg.60 or 61.
None
4. 4
Identification of important and sensitive receptors
Commondyke Farm lies 2. 5km ENE of the town of Auchinleck and approximately 2km north of
Cumnock. The Auchinleck Burn lies about 100 metres to the north east of the site. The area
around the farm is an open landscape of permanent pasture land with scrub, punctuated by
farmsteads. Under the Macaulay Institute classification system, the area is Land Class 4.2
grassland
with
limited
potential
for
other
crops).
The
proposed
PPC
site
is in
a
relatively
secluded location, 190m above sea level, on a site that has been used for rough grazing for a
number of years.
The nearest Statutory Designated Sites around Commondyke Farm, to a radius of 5km, are:
Airds Moss SAC.
1. 29km to the NE of the proposed Installation, at the same location as part of Muirkirk
Uplands SSSI and Muirkirk and North Lowther SPA.
Muirkirk Uplands SSSI.
Nearest point located 1. 29km to the NE of the Installation.
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA.
Located 1. 29km to the NE of the Installation.
Lugar Sill SSSI.
Located 2. 28km to the NE of the Installation. A geological site.
5
KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
5. 1
Summary of significant environmental impacts
The most significant environmental impacts from the site will be:
Releases and subsequent deposition of ammonia on surrounding area and at Designated Sites
within a 10km radius.
Odour and Noise emissions impacting on nearby residents.
Shed washings and yard runoff enriched with organic matter leading to nutrient enrichment of the
local water environment.
Airborne particulate matter from roof vents being washed into local water environment.
Storage and use of chemicals.
Disposal of carcasses.
Point source emission from a diesel generator.
5. 2
Point Sources to Air
SCAIL screening was done by the applicant as part of the application, using an emission factor of
0. 025kg NH3 bird " y'. This found that emissions from the birds did not exceed the relevant critical loads
and
levels
at
the
closest
SAC
and
SSSI
sites.
To
establish what,
if any, impact the
proposal
may have
on Airds Moss SAC, appropriate assessment was also carried out by SEPA Terrestrial Ecology, who
concluded thus:
7n summary, it can be concluded that it is beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the proposal will not
adversely affect the integrity of the Airds Moss SAC, given that.
the area of the site where 10% of the ammonia concentration benchmark is exceeded is small, in
absolute terms and also in the context of the size of the Airds Moss SAC;
the majority of this area is a grassland on which has developed on a mine spoil tip, which is not a
designated feature, and is not considered sensitive to nitrogen;
the adjacent fragments of bog and wet heath appear to be robust to historic disturbance;
the existing high background significantly exceeds the relevant critical load and critical level;
therefore habitats on site are likely to be less sensitive to a small additional contribution
compared to sites with where the background does not exceed these benchmarks.
In the view of SEPA, it is beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the proposal will not adversely affect
the integrity of the Airds Moss SAC."
The nearest properties/ dwellings/ other buildings to Commondyke Farm are:
Commondyke Farmhouse, 211 metres to the northeast of the Installation.
Private house at Birnieknowe (' Lochnoran') 260 metres to the west of the Installation.
Private house at Birnieknowe (' Laurienne') 281 metres to the west of the Installation.
Barglachan, 621 metres to the northwest of the Installation.
Birnieknowe Farm, 657 metres to the west of the Installation.
Common, 817 metres to the northeast of the Installation.
Dykes Farm, 836 metres to the south west of the Installation.
Roadinghead Cottage, 882 metres to the south of the Installation.
There are no other properties/ dwellings/ other buildings within a 1 km radius of the Installation.
SCAIL screening to assess human health impacts was carried out by SEPA Chemistry. it was noted by
Chemistry that there were modelled exceedances of the SCAIL and H1 screening criteria when the
Scottish objectives for PM10 were used. However, the modelled predicted environmental concentrations
PEC) at the receptors did not exceed the European limits for PM10 which are a 24 hour mean of 50pg/ m3
not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year and an annual mean of 40pg/ m3.
SEPA also assessed the need for SCAIL screening to include Chalmerston Farm in the in -combination
screening for Commondyke Farm. The conclusion reached was that there was no requirement to do this
as ' in -combination assessments' are only required for nature conservation sites which have failed
screening for the ' original' single farm ( PC > 4%). In this case, screening failed for Chalmerston Farm
alone at Airds Moss SAC, Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA and Muirkirk Uplands SSSI ( the
nearest point on the protected site boundary to Chalmerston Farm is at the same place for all three
designations). For in -combination assessments, the receptor is at the protected site boundary closest to
the farm that is the subject of the permit under consideration. This point is more than 10km from
Chalmerston Farm so that farm would not be considered in the in -combination assessment on the basis
of distance from the receptor.
Barlosh Moss SSSI is the only site which is within 10km of both farms but as ' in -combination
assessments' are only done for nature conservation sites which have failed screening for the single farm
PC > 4%),
again this would not apply in this case, at this site.
However, for completeness, SEPA assessed the likely combined impact and found that, even at the
worst case,
for
the
sum of
ammonia, 1. 5%
for
the process
nitrogen
contributions would
deposition):
be less than the screening threshold of 2.0% ( 2%
Chalmerston Farm process contribution ( at nearest point to Chalmerston Farm, i. e. maximum
dose) was 1% of ammonia critical level, and 0. 5% of nitrogen deposition critical load, and
therefore passes screening.
Commondyke Farm process contribution ( at nearest point to Commondyke Farm, i. e.
maximum dose) was 1% of ammonia critical level, and 1% of nitrogen deposition critical load,
and therefore passes screening.
Other point sources to air are:
Emission from a diesel generator.
Particulate matter and ammonia from roof fans.
Particulates from side fans mounted on gable ends of sheds.
The applicant has stated in section 31 of the application form and section 3 of the Supporting
Documentation to the application that they intend to comply fully with section 2.6 of the SFIRs that
addresses the issue of point source emissions from the installation to air, water or land.
Emissions from the diesel generator will be regulated by Condition 3. 3. 1 and 3. 3. 2 in the Permit.
Table 3. 2 of the Permit summarises conditions placed on individual source emissions to air, to
ensure compliance with Permit conditions.
Particulate matter and ammonia from the roof fans will be minimised by the use of high -velocity fans,
which are considered BAT. Furthermore, the site will be served by a SLID system, giving a level of
treatment to any localised airborne particulate matter deposited and allowed to enter the local
environment.
There will be no other point source emissions to air
5. 3
Point Source Emissions to Surface Water and Sewer
The applicant has stated in section 31 of the application form and section 3 of the Supporting
Documentation to the application that they intend to comply fully with section 2. 6 of the SFIRs
that addresses the issue of point source emissions from the installation to air, water or land.
None to sewer.
Working areas at the ends of each shed will be concreted and maintained in a clean condition.
Lightly contaminated runoff from roofs and hard -standing areas will be conveyed to a Swale
located at the south end of the site. If the surface runoff becomes more heavily contaminated
e. g. due to vehicle movements during washout), it will be diverted and subsequently conveyed to
the washwater tank and dealt with as wastewater. This will then be emptied by slurry tanker and
spread to land, in compliance with the PEPFFA Code. This emission will be regulated by
conditions 3. 3. 3 to 3. 3. 4 and Table 3. 3 in the Permit to ensure compliance.
5. 4
Point Source Emissions to Groundwater
The applicant has stated in section 31 of the application form and section 3 of the Supporting
Documentation to the application form that they intend to comply with section 2. 6 of the SFIRs
that
addresses
the issue of point source emissions from the installation to
air, water or
land.
There will be no direct disposal or discharge of List I or II substances to groundwater. The SUD
system will be comprised of a suitably designed and sized swale, in accordance with SFIRs
guidance and accepted BAT, to avoid source releases to groundwater.
5. 5
Fugitive Emissions to Air
The applicant has stated in section 33 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section 2. 7 of the SFIRs that addresses diffuse emissions from the installation.
The site will be a small, newly -built pullet rearing unit and as a consequence fugitive emissions
from it are expected to be low when compared with other Intensive Agriculture poultry units. Total
bird numbers will be comparatively low at 70000, and pullet rearing is a less intensive operation
than broiler rearing, with slower -growing birds and fewer cycles per annum ( 2. 5 cycles on
average with the sheds empty for six weeks in between cycles, giving 12 weeks empty per
annum). Pullets will be reared to a weight of approximately 1. 4 kg in 16 weeks, compared to
broilers that are reared to 2. 5kg in six or seven weeks. A less -intensive rearing regime, with
reduced occupancy and smaller birds will give lower ammonia emissions than for a broiler site
and on this basis, a factor of 0. 025kg NH3 bird '' y" is considered accurate for pullets and, given
this, the applicant predicts that the Installation would emit 1750kg of ammonia per annum. ( In the
Supporting Information' document, a total ammonia figure per annum of 1750kg was given, but
in the application form, a Total Ammonia Emissions from Housing ( kg/ Yr) figure of 17, 500 was
given. The applicant was asked by email on 10/ 02/ 16 to provide an explanation for this
discrepancy and confirmed that the correct figure for the Commondyke unit is 1, 750 kg NH3 per
year, based on 70,000 birds x 0.025 kg NH3 per bird place per year = 1, 750 kg NH3 per year. This
is a relatively low figure when compared with other PPC Intensive Agriculture sites.
In section 8 of the Supporting Documentation to the application form, the applicant has also used
the emission factor of 0.025kg NH3 bird -' y' to undertake SCAIL modelling. The results, included
with the application, show that predicted emissions from the Installation will not exceed relevant
critical loads and levels at the nearest Designated Site, Airds Moss ( results on page 18 of
Supporting Documentation to Application). The Installation therefore will not exceed the relevant
assessment criteria.
5. 6
Fugitive Emissions to Water
The applicant has stated in section 27 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section 2. 4 of the SFIRs that addresses fugitive emissions from Livestock Manure ( Slurry and
manure storage) at the installation.
No fugitive emissions to surface or ground water are expected as all potential releases to these
will be controlled and contained. All surface and roof run- off will be conveyed through the SUDS.
During the washing -out of sheds, the contaminated waste washwater will be collected in the
waste washwater tank and spread to land in a controlled manner, as recommended by SFIRs.
The applicant has stated that they do not intend to spread to land any washwater from the poultry
units that may contain List 1 or List 2 substances, as given in The Water Environment ( Controlled
Activities) ( Scotland) Regulations 2011 ( as amended). Provided it is applied to land as a fertiliser,
washwater is not classed as a waste under the PPC Regulations.
The regulation and control of fugitive emissions to water will be carried out through Conditions
2. 7. 2 and 3. 4 of the Pormit' Diffuse source emissions of substances excluding odour and noise.'
5. 7
Odour
The applicant has stated in section 35 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section 2. 8 of the SFIRs that addresses the issue of odour emissions from the installation
The applicant has addressed the issue of odour in section 4 of the Supporting Documentation
Submitted with the application. In it they have: identified the key sources of odour; identified the
nearest potential receptors; listed a series of ' good practices' that will be adopted during the
operation of the Installation in order to eliminate or control odour releases; and stated that the
requirements of the PEPFAA code will be adhered to when spreading litter to land to control
odour.
The applicant has also developed and submitted an Odour Management Plan for the proposed
Installation that complies with BAT and SFIR. The Odour Management Plan identifies typical
odour sources related to the process, and actions that will be taken to minimise odours. A pro
forma has also been developed and submitted showing how odour complaints will be recorded,
investigated and resolved.
Odour from the poultry unit will be regulated through Condition 2. 8 of the Permit, requiring the
Operator to implement and maintain an Odour Management Plan within two months of receiving
the Permit. The Operator shall then be required to review this Plan every four years thereafter.
Condition 2. 8. 1 of the Permit requires that all emissions to air from the Permitted Installation shall
be free from offensive odour outside the Site Boundary.
5. 8
Management
The applicant has stated in section 19 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section 2. 1 of the SFIRs that addresses Management Techniques at the installation.
Conditions 2. 1. 1 to 2. 1. 6 of the Permit relate to General Management. These require the
Operator to have an Appropriate Person and Deputy in place and identified to SEPA within four
weeks of receipt of the Permit; make a copy of the Permit available to all staff on site; make all
staff familiar with all relevant conditions of the Permit; operate and manage the Permitted
activities in such a way that identifies and minimises the risk of pollution or environmental harm;
and keep and make available to SEPA records to demonstrate compliance with these
management conditions.
Supporting information in the application suggests that SFIRs, PEPFAA and good management
practice will be employed across the Installation, for example in relation to bird welfare and diet;
noise and odour management; livestock housing design and operation; waste management;
particulate emissions; and manure/ litter utilisation as either a fertiliser or renewable energy
source.
5. 9
Raw Materials
In section 20 of the application form, the applicant has listed the types and quantities of raw
materials such as biocides, pesticides, fuels and oils, feedstuffs, bedding and water, to be used in
the Permitted Installation. In section 21 of the application form the applicant has stated his
intention to comply with section 2.2 of the SFIRs that addresses the issue of raw materials at the
installation. The applicant has stated in section 39 of the application form that they intend to
comply
with section
2. 10
of
the SFIRs that
addresses
the issue
of
livestock diet.
Condition 2. 2 of the Permit, ' Efficient Use of Raw Materials', requires the Operator to maintain an
inventory detailing typical quantities and associated pollution hazards of raw materials used in the
Permitted Installation, and to make this inventory available to SEPA.
Raw materials inputs are listed in the application as: day-old birds, water, feed, chick paper and
wood shavings, electricity, lighting, motors to power the feed system, diesel, disinfectant
concentrate, veterinary medicines, rodenticides, biocides and pesticides. The applicant has
stated that they do not intend to spread to land any washwater from the poultry units that may
contain List 1 or List 2 substances, as given in The Water Environment ( Controlled Activities)
Scotland) Regulations 2011 ( as amended).
Raw material outputs are listed in the application as: 16 -week-old pullets, litter and washwater.
Dead birds will be removed immediately from both sheds and taken from the site to be disposed
of. Dead birds will not be stored on site and will instead be removed twice daily from the site and
taken to an off-site secure, locked container and then disposed of by licensed contractors in small
50kg per hour) approved incinerators. Litter and washwater are valuable by-products of the
process and will be utilised as organic fertiliser spread to land. Excess litter will be used as a fuel
for renewable energy generation at Westfield Power Station, Fife.
5. 10
Raw Materials Selection
Raw Materials as described in the Permit application all appear to be standard for the industry
and are therefore considered BAT.
5. 11
Waste Minimisation Requirements
The applicant has stated in section 29 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section 2. 5 of the SFIRs that addresses the issue of Waste Management at the installation.
Condition 2. 5 of the Permit requires the Operator to comply with a Waste Management condition
for the avoidance, recovery and disposal of wastes produced at the Permitted Installation.
Section 28 of the application form has been used to list and quantify waste types produced at the
Installation. This can be used as a baseline to set future waste minimisation targets.
5. 12
Water Use
The applicant has stated in section 41 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section 2. 11 of the SFIRs that addresses housing design and water usage. ' Water usage' refers
to both cleaning the units and providing the birds with drinking water. Condition 2. 11 of the Permit
requires the Operator to install drinkers that have been designed and will be operated to prevent
leakage. Nipple drinkers will be used to reduce wastage of water and to maintain dry litter, which
is considered BAT for reducing ammonia emissions. Water consumption will be monitored and
recorded daily. Mains water will be used.
5. 13
Waste Handling
The applicant has stated in section 29 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section
2. 5
of the
SFIRs that
addresses
Waste Management
at the
installation.
Condition 2. 5. 2 of the Permit requires the Operator to carry out a systematic assessment and
review of the management of all wastes generated within the Permitted Installation within 12
months of the date of the Permit and at least every 4 years thereafter. The purpose of this
assessment is to identify methods of preventing waste generation, and where waste is produced,
to ensure that it is it re -used, recycled, recovered or, where that is technically and economically
impossible, disposed of, while avoiding or reducing the impact on the environment of the handling
and disposal of wastes generated by the process.
5. 14
Waste Recovery or Disposal
Empty containers (for disinfectant, cleaning products, etc) will, where possible, be returned to the
supplier. If that is not possible, they will be thoroughly rinsed and flattened prior to collection and
disposal by a licences contractor.
Condition 3. 2 of the Permit will regulate the avoidance, recovery and disposal of all wastes
produced at the Permitted Installation.
Waste litter will be manually gathered at the end of each cycle of birds and stored in compliance
with SFIRs. During litter removal, trailers will be loaded close to shed doors and all loads will be
covered and hard -standing areas swept clean after loading.
Washwater will be collected and stored in underground tanks serving the sheds.
Waste litter and washwater will both be spread to land as fertiliser, which is accepted practice.
When doing so, weather conditions and the location of sensitive receptors will be considered.
The requirements of the PEPFAA code of good practice will be complied with. All litter will be
taken off-site and spread on ' third party' land in the local area. In the application, the applicant
states that there is ' currently a high demand for litter'. The applicant has stated that they do not
intend to spread to land any washwater from the poultry units that may contain List I or List II
substances from the Dangerous Substances Directive ( 761464/ EEC).
Dead birds will be removed from the sheds twice daily and then removed from the site
immediately, in compliance with the SFIRs. They will be taken to an off-site secure, locked
container and then disposed of by licensed contractors in small (< 50kg per hour) approved
incinerators. The Applicant has stated that all disposal operations of carcasses will be undertaken
in accordance with the Animal By -Products (Scotland) Regulations 2003.
5. 15
Energy
The applicant has stated in section 24 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section 2. 3 of the SFIRs that addresses Energy Efficiency at the installation.
The applicant has also listed the proposed energy use for the Permitted Installation in section 22
of the application form. This gives proposed annual consumption figures for electricity of
175, 000kW; LPG (for the shed heaters) of 80, 000 litres; and diesel for emergency use only plus
weekly tests.
The site will not be subject to a Climate Change Levy Agreement.
5. 16
Accidents and their Consequences
The applicant has stated in section 42 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section
2. 13
of
the SFIRs that deals
with
incidents
at
the installation. The applicant
will
be
required to prepare an Incident Prevention and Mitigation Plan within six months of the Permit
issue date, as required by Condition 2. 12 of the Permit.
In the event of an incident which poses an immediate danger to human health or threatens to
cause an immediate significant adverse effect on the environment, the operator will be required,
under the terms of the Permit, to suspend operation of the permitted installation or relevant part
thereof until such time as it can be operated in compliance with the permit.
5. 17
Noise
The applicant has stated in section 37 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section 2. 9 of the SFIRs that deals with noise and vibration emissions from the Installation.
The applicant has submitted an assessment of noise sources at the farm, in relation to the
Installation, such as vehicles, machinery, fans, heat and power units, and birds. Noise will be
kept to a minimum by shed design and modern ventilation systems which are BAT. The applicant
foresees that' the highest noise levels are likely to be when feed is being blown into bins' which is
intermittent and not loud. The applicant intends to adopt various designs and practices to
minimise noise, such as: insulated walls and roofs; staff monitoring of machinery to identify
broken or faulty mechanisms that may be producing excessive levels of noise; catchers
minimising disturbance to birds during shed emptying; synchronised lorry movements to minimise
noise; and trailers parking as close to shed exits as possible during mucking out to minimise
distance travelled.
The applicant also intends to implement a Noise Management Plan for the site, which is a
requirement of condition 2. 9 of the Permit. This will be used to control, minimise or prevent noise
from fans, the feed conveyor system, vehicles, and ancillary equipment.
5.18
Monitoring
The Permit requires the operator to carry out self-monitoring and regular maintenance checks to
identify any non -compliances.
5. 19
Closure
The applicant has stated in section 44 of the application form that they intend to comply with
section 2. 14 of the SFIRs that deals with closure aftercare and decommissioning of the site. The
applicant will be required to prepare a Decommissioning Plan. in compliance with Condition
2. 15. 1 of the Permit.
5.20
Site Condition Report (and where relevant the baseline report)
The applicant has submitted a Site Report, in compliance with Appendix 3 of the SFIRs. This
addressed various aspects of the site, as listed below:
o
o
Stage 1. Substances used at the Installation
Stage 2. Assessment of site- specific pollution potential. This discusses potential pollution
pathways and site reconnaissance.
o
o
Stage 3. Site History
Stage 4. Site environmental setting. Includes land
watercourse and groundwater vulnerability.
o
Stage 5. Baseline report soil sampling.
capability
class,
soil
types,
and
o
Stage 6. Conditional statement of site condition.
Supplementary information has also been provided, in the form of: coal tip results for metals; an
aerial photograph of Commondyke Farm; a map of designated sites around Commondyke Farm;
site photographs showing shed design and structure; a mine shaft survey of the proposed site;
and a Coal Authority report relating to Commondyke Farm.
The baseline report concludes that the site is currently in a suitable condition for the Installation
to be built. To assess the impact of the Installation on the site, Permit condition 2. 13 will require
regular soil and groundwater monitoring to be undertaken, at a duration of 10 years for soil
monitoring and 5 years for groundwater monitoring. Condition 2. 13. 7 of the Permit requires a
detailed methodology to be submitted to SEPA 6 months prior to monitoring taking place, for
which the operator will be required to discuss with SEPA the location of sample points and the
parameters to be analysed which will be informed by the baseline report submitted as part of this
application.
5. 21
Consideration of BAT
In answer to all questions in the PPC Intensive Agriculture application form, the applicant has
stated that the Installation will be built, operated and decommissioned in full compliance with the
SFIRs and therefore BAT will be fully adopted and applied.
6
OTHER LEGISLATION CONSIDERED
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 & Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994
Is there any possibility that the proposal will have any impact on site designated under the above
legislation?
Yes
Screening distance(s) used —10km
Are there any SSSIs within the area screened?
Yes. Airds Bog SAC incorporates Muirkirk Uplands SSSI, Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA and
Lugar Sill SSSI. For the purposes of SCAIL screening, these designations were treated together.
Has SNH been consulted under section 15( 5) of the 2004 Act?
Yes
Date consultation letter sent —
12/ 02/ 16
Summary of response received including date —
12/ 02/ 16
SNH made the observations that the site boundary of Airds Moss SAC is not defined by natural or seminatural features. Instead, the boundary is defined by highly -modified habitats, or by artificial features,
such as conifer plantation, degraded bog, agricultural land, and mineral workings. The distribution of the
blanket bog qualifying feature within the site is also affected by these factors. Peripheral areas of the site
are particularly disturbed and in some areas intensively drained. Although there are areas with typical
bog vegetation with expected typical bog species, there are other areas where indicator species are
limited in number and cover, and where tussocky grass ( Molina spp) is dominant.
The area of the site closest to the proposed unit has a mixture of old mineral extraction workings now
supporting grassland, Blanket bog, and wet heath, with some wetland communities. Some of the areas
of Blanket bog have occasional ditches, and some are more intensively drained, with networks of drains
15 - 30m apart. The nearest to the emission source of these more intensively drained areas is directly to
the north-east of the grassland area. In such areas some lowering of the. water table can be expected,
although effects on the vegetation, as viewed in Infra -red aerial imagery, appear to be limited to narrow
strips either side of the drain. These more intensively drained areas are outwith the 1500m zone and
thus the PC limits of 10% CLe and 10% CL(5) are not exceeded in these more vulnerable areas.
The area of the site within the zone where the PC limits of 10% CLe and 10% CL( 5) ( but not CL( 9)) is
exceeded is largely occupied by non -qualifying, former mineral working grassland habitat. There are
fragments of bog and wet heath largely adjacent to grassland or road but which retain a hydrological
connection to the greater extent of bog to the north-east of the grassland, and which have a very similar
appearance to the larger area, and which therefore appear to have been fairly robust to the disturbance
which they have undergone in the past.
In a situation where background levels are already high and only a small fragment of Blanket bog is
potentially affected on a site where such fragments appear to be reasonably robust, the risk of a PC of
11% of the CLe causing an adverse effect when a PC of 10% is considered not to produce such an
effect is extremely small.
SNH therefore commented that ' an Appropriate Assessment could conclude no Adverse Effect on Site
Integrity.'
Actions taken including justification —
Action: SCAIL screening of likely ammonia impacts on all designated sites within a 10km radius of the
site, carried out by SEPA Terrestrial Ecology.
Justification: Procedural requirement to quantify ammonia loading and impacts of proposed Installation
Has SEPA reached agreement with SNH on protection of the SACS/ SSSIs?
Yes
Are there any SPA or SAC designated areas within the area screened?
Yes
Have you carried out an appropriate assessment?
Yes. See above.
Date appropriate assessment consultation letter sent —
See
above
Summary of responses received from SNH including date See above
Other legislation
The Water Environment ( Controlled Activities) ( Scotland) Regulations 2011
The Water Environment (Oil Storage) ( Scotland) Regulations 2006
The Control of Pollution ( Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) ( Scotland) Regulations 2003
Officer: CO
7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND COMAH
How has any relevant information obtained or conclusion arrived at pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and
7 of Council Directive 85/ 337/ EEC on the assessment of the effects certain public and private
projects on the environment been taken into account?
N/ A
How has any information contained within a safety report within the meaning of Regulation 7
safety report) of the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 been taken into
account?
N/ A
Officer: CO
8
DETAILS OF PERMIT
Do you propose placing any non standard conditions in the Permit?
10
9
EMISSION LIMIT VALUES OR EQUIVALENT TECHNICAL PARAMETERS/ MEASURES
Are you are dealing with either a permit application, or a permit variation which would involve a
review of existing ELVs or equivalent technical parameters?
mve
Justification: New application, so review of existing ELVs not required.
10 ',
PEER REVIEW
Has the determination and draft permit been Peer Reviewed?
Yes
Name of Peer Reviewer and comments made:
Alison Long, PPC Intensive Agriculture Spec II
Comments:
5. 6 Has the operator demonstrated that there will be no List I &
II substances in biocides, pesticides,
disinfectants, cleaning agents to be able to spread wash water to land?
5.6 The regulation and control of fugitive emissions to water is covered by Condition 2.7. 2
5. 9 Concerned that we haven' t identified the site where fallen stock will be stored. 3. 5 miles is too much
to identify it as part of this installation and DAA. Considered the implications of taking ABP waste to a
transfer facility —would this need WML, confirmation that ABP is not covered by the WFD. CO
confirmed that the site is covered by a PPC permit? The site is at Thomarston Poultry Farm owned by
Glenrath PPC/A/ 1082048.
5. 18 The permit requires the operator to carry out self-monitoring and regular maintenance checks to
identify any non- compliance
DD -01 Thomarston not Thormaston
11
FINAL DETERMINATION
Issue of a Permit - Based on the information available at the time
Issue a Permit —Based on the information available at the time of the determination SEPA is satisfied that
The applicant will be the person who will have control over the operation of the installation/ mobile plant,
The applicant will ensure that the installation/ mobile plant is operated so as to comply with the conditions of
the Permit,
The applicant is a fit and proper person ( specified waste management activities only),
Planning permission for the activity is in force ( specified waste management activities only),
That the operator is in a position to use all appropriate preventative measures against pollution, in particular
through the application of best available techniques.
That no significant pollution should be caused.
Officer. CO
12
REFERENCES AND GUIDANCE
Pollution Prevention and Control ( Scotland) Regulations 2012
Sector Guidance Note IPPC S611b Guidance for the Poultry Processing Sector October 2003
Standard Farming Installation Rules April 2013
SCAIL
website